Would Evolutionists accept evidence for Creation?

But nwr, it's easy to say that the scribes of old were idiots.
They wrote, and they're not here to defend themselves. Tell me, when did writers become intelligent.What about the book of Enoch or Gilgamesh. Are the authors dreaming or are they writing about real things or is there blur in the interpretation?.

Much of the problem is that one must put himself in the mindset of the writer. By using current idealogy one seems to assume that the writer had the same knowledge that we have today. If one puts himself in the mindset of the writer that was prevalent at the time of the writing or compilation, then one can see that the story may have been seemingly true at the time but now considered false. The authors weren't dreaming or in a blur, just uninformed, whether it was Genesis, The Illiad, Gigamesh or any other ancient writings.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

Writers haven't become more intelligent, just more knowledgeable. A writer in the middle east could write about the continent of Australia now, for example, and mention its very interesting marsupial fauna, but at that time they knew nothing of it, which is why, unsurprisingly, you will find no mention in the Bible of any flora and fauna particular to Australia (for the Americas and Antarctica, ditto).However, we do have ancient creation stories for Australia, yet you reject these, even though the aboriginal stories do actually relate to the environment you live in.So why is this, we can ask ourselves?And as we're talking history, we know the answer, which is that Europeans imported Jewish mythology with Christianity, and when some of them took over the continent of Australia, they brought their irrelevant mythology with them. It was already irrelevant to Europe, and belonged very much in the middle-east, so the end result is that European Australians who are inclined to believe in ancient mythologies believe in a garden of Eden in which there were never any Kangaroos, Wallabies or Koalas.What I suggest you do, if you want a magical start to the world, is convert to the aboriginal dreamtime view. It "explains" the environment you're in, and is more accurate than Jewish mythology in at least one respect, in that it regards the world as being very, very old.I think I'm right in saying that the Australian mythology doesn't have a world wide flood in it, as well, so there's the advantage that you won't have to desperately try and find evidence for something that didn't happen.As for the O.P. question of whether we would look for flood evidence if the Bible were historically accurate, the Bible excludes your continent, and the aborigines were not drowned 4,300 years ago, so it isn't accurate. It's the very parochial history/mythology of one tribe and their near neighbours, fairly obviously. Edited by bluegenes, : minor clarificationEdited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

Hi Vacate, I think I said there would not be a layer as in a uniform layer.It would not have erased it. It would have modified where you would find the evidence of a flood, or floods as they are called.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Paulk, Lets see what the Bible says: Language got changed. People scattered all over the face of the earth. (land mass) Peleg was alive after the division. Earth was divided. The land mass was separated. The people had already been scattered.Conclusions:People scattered all over the face of the earth.
I am sure the animals were roaming where ever they chose.
The earth was divided. Continents separated which caused oceans to form and mountains.That would account for people and animals to be found in different places all over the world.I am not presenting a scenario. I am just pointing out what the Bible says.I am presenting no timeline as the Bible gives none.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

See, here's another problem, ICANT. IF the world was actually divided up in a short period of time like you're saying here, there would be evidence of that rapid motion - continents don't shift thousands of miles in a period of a few scant years without leaving truckloads of evidence to support that model.So again - if I saw evidence that the supercontinent was divided up in a short period of time, and that all of the tectonic plate movement we see evidence of actually happened in a period of even a few thousand years (being generous), I would give credence to your belief.The problem is that this evidence doesn't exist. More specifically, we have directly contradicting evidence - the Earth would look very different if, even over a period of 1000 years, all of the continents split apart and collided like they're doing now. The slow buildup in geological layers (and we know it's slow becasue we can measure the rate it's happening today) would look completely different - like a smaller number of very large layers as opposed to many very small layers. Volcanoes leave a sort of "trail" as the continents move, because the magma comes up in the same place (this is why the Hawaiian islands look the way they do - the tectonic plate has moved, so the volcano keeps re-creating more of them). If the plates had moved rapidly over a few thousand years, we would see a very different picture, where such "trails" are far more spread out.You can, of course, handwave it all away by saying "god usd his power to make it all look this way and prevent the patterns you say we'd see." That's fine, but if you're going that deep into the "goddidit" explanation, you may as well stop trying to explain anything at all. And there won't be any evidence of anything, and so no reason for me to believe you.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Hi Rahvin, I don't remember asking you to believe me.I pointed out what the Bible says.Science does confirm that the land mass was in one place at one time.
Science does confirm that the land mass was divided at one time.
Science does confirm that that is when oceans were created.
Science does confirm that mountains were formed in the division.Does Science confirm these things?If so that part of the Bible is True.There is no timeline given and I gave none.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

The Bible expects me to believe it. And the topic of this thread concerns what would convince an evolutionist - not ICANT's place to preach. Yes. Not "at one time." It's a continuous process still going on today, and it's been happening for a very, very long time. No. The oceans were already here - otherwise you couldn't very well say that the land was all in one place, unles you mean that the whole Earth was land - which is completely false. The only difference in terms of the oceans of Pangea vs today is simply that the continents now provide convenient borders for us to name the water in different location as seperate oceans. That's a human construct based on incomplete understandings when the oceans were named, and kept because it aids in navigation. Kind of. They have been forming and still are forming due to the drifting of tectonic plates. You're taking extreme generalities and calling them "true" when the specifics are compeltely inaccurate. Laughably inaccurate, in fact. There has to be a timeline - I said "thousands of years" becasue it had to have happened after the Earth was "created" in your model, yes? Isn't that less than 10,000 years ago? It also needs to have happened before our best history records, so it had to have happened before 3000 years ago or so at the minimum. We'll ignore the fact that there are many cultures still existing today who have existed for over 10,000 years and yet have no recorded history in terms of records or even legends regarding an ancient Flood or the movement of the continents or Babel (the Australian Aborigines come to mind).

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

quote:

---

Lets see what the Bible says:

---

Indeed we will.

quote:

---

Language got changed. People scattered all over the face of the earth. (land mass)

---

So, no mention of the land-mass dividing or volcanoes.

quote:

---

Peleg was alive after the division.

---

They wouldn't name a dead person after something that happened after he died, so of course he was. Not that the verse you quote actually says any such thing.

quote:

---

Earth was divided. The land mass was separated. The people had already been scattered.

---

So even you admit that there was no mention of volcanoes. And there's no suggestion that the scattering had already happened - nor is there an explicit reference to the land mass dividing. You should ask yourself why, if this event is so important you believe that it was only mentioned vaguely in passing.On the other hand Genesis 10:32 says: Why should this separation not be the division mentioned in 10:25 ?

quote:

---

People scattered all over the face of the earth.
I am sure the animals were roaming where ever they chose.
The earth was divided. Continents separated which caused oceans to form and mountains.

---

The Bible does not say that the division took the form of the land physically moving. It does not say that the continents formed at that time. It does not say that mountains formed at that time. That is a scenario of your invention.

quote:

---

I am not presenting a scenario. I am just pointing out what the Bible says.

---

Then why did you not produce the verse which says that mountains were built by this division ? Or the verse which says that it caused volcanoes to erupt ? Or the verse which says that it caused continents to form ? I'll tell you why. It is because you are presenting a scenario of your own invention - not simply pointing out what the Bible says.

quote:

---

I am presenting no timeline as the Bible gives none.

---

Then how can you say that the scattering at the Tower of Babel happened before the division of the lands ? It seems that that, too, is part of your scenario - and not something the Bible says.

Hi Rahvin, You are the one putting time lines in. I am not YEC, ID'st but a loaner in what I believe.I am not convinced the flood and dividing of the land took place after Gen. 1:2. but that is another can of worms.I was just pointing out that the Bible did make statements concerning these things which would affect what you see as far as evidence of a flood. You are the one limiting the time not the Bible it said it was divided it did not give a time frame it was done in. Well there was a big body of water that got divided up and the atlantic was completly formed.But none of this has any effect on what the Bible said just on what I said in explanation.The Bible said the land mass was gathered together in one place.
The Bible said the sand is divided. That means dispersed or moved around to where it is today.The Bible gives no time frame for any of these events.We are straying far from the Op.God BlessEdited by ICANT, : spelling

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I feel that the parts that have people the most realistic (although they wouldn't make long speeches while fighting, like they do in the book).However, the Iliad is never said to be true, and we found out that it was. With the Bible, however, either it is true or it isn't. You can't take only part of the Bible as divine and the other parts human. If you did that, you might as well take the entire Bible only the work of humans, not inspired by God.So, theoretically, if you prove one part of the Bible is true (the Exodus, for example), you thereby prove the entire Bible... technically.So your way of grading different parts of the Bible as plausible or fake is wrong, because the Bible is simply either plausible or fake. You can't say 'Well, Genesis 1 and 2 is wrong because they have God directly interacting with humans. Then, until Genesis 5, it is correct, or plausible. But then, you have the Flood, which is God directly affecting the earth, so that's fake, then you get to...'The Bible has to be 'graded' as a whole.P.S. The version of the Iliad you've quoted from is from way after the Iliad is actually written. That version uses the Roman names, like Neptune, Jupiter, Venus, and Mars (Apollo is the same in both Greek and Roman religion) This isn't bad, but I prefer the actual Greek version with their gods names, such as Poseidon, Zeus, Aphrodite, and Ares.

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
SoterJesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

Your kidding right? I mean, I suspect your not, but if you thought for half a second you would not have written that. What would cause you to write that when it is so ridiculously childish... unless it was a joke.Good one!

Hi Paulk, You the only one mentioning volcanoes.The Bible says:Gen. 1:10 Land in one place.
Gen. 10:25 Earth divided in Peleg's lifetime.
Gen. ll:9 people scattered abroad on the face of the earth.
Gen. ll:17 Peleg still around.God Bless,Omega, or 30 whichever you prefer.Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

Gen. 1:10 Land in one place.
Gen. 10:25 Earth divided in Peleg's lifetime.
Gen. ll:9 people scattered abroad on the face of the earth.
Gen. ll:17 Peleg still around.

---

So no mention of continents or mountains forming.And what makes you think that Genesis 11:17 comes chronologically after Genesis 11:9 ?(And here's what Genesis 1:10 really says: So no, it doesn't say that the land was just in one place)Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Unfortunately Jar is no longer here to raise this, but I have to ask, which bible are you referring to? There are dozens of different bibles and canons used by different Christian churches around the world.In your mind, which one is the only one that is all divine?