Evolution or Intelligent Design

[Jamison5]

I don't know what's worse, the people who just flat-out refuse to accept the evidence for evolution, or the people who go through some tortured logic to say that the Bible doesn't preclude the possibility of natural selection.

There is no real evidence for evolution; it is all either circular, falsified, or at best circumstantial. Evolution was an ancient Greek philosophy, which Charles Darwin used as a justification for rasism. You probably don't know that the actual title of his book is this: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Other people went after the idea for other reasons, primarily as an attempt to justify atheism. People like Earnst Haeckel made several hoaxes as the first generation of "evidence" for evolution. The "evidence" constantly changes as more of it is falsified and more hoaxes are made.

If you think there is real evidence, tell me about it. Otherwise, I'll stick to my Bible which has constantly been proven right time and time again and which has guided me well.

[Jamison5]

I don't know what's worse, the people who just flat-out refuse to accept the evidence for evolution, or the people who go through some tortured logic to say that the Bible doesn't preclude the possibility of natural selection.

There is no real evidence for evolution; it is all either circular, falsified, or at best circumstantial. Evolution was an ancient Greek philosophy, which Charles Darwin used as a justification for rasism. You probably don't know that the actual title of his book is this: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Other people went after the idea for other reasons, primarily as an attempt to justify atheism. People like Earnst Haeckel made several hoaxes as the first generation of "evidence" for evolution. The "evidence" constantly changes as more of it is falsified and more hoaxes are made.

If you think there is real evidence, tell me about it. Otherwise, I'll stick to my Bible which has constantly been proven right time and time again and which has guided me well.

Very little of this is true. Welcome to the forum.

Your response is exactly like what I was expecting. I shall enjoy emphasizing that you did not bring up any evidence and you just said that my claims are not true. I have done plenty of research and watched plenty of debates and speeches. I think I know what I am talking about here.

Which parts of my comment were not true? How were they not true? What evidence do you have for evolution? Have a good night.

[Jamison5]

I don't know what's worse, the people who just flat-out refuse to accept the evidence for evolution, or the people who go through some tortured logic to say that the Bible doesn't preclude the possibility of natural selection.

There is no real evidence for evolution; it is all either circular, falsified, or at best circumstantial. Evolution was an ancient Greek philosophy, which Charles Darwin used as a justification for rasism. You probably don't know that the actual title of his book is this: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Other people went after the idea for other reasons, primarily as an attempt to justify atheism. People like Earnst Haeckel made several hoaxes as the first generation of "evidence" for evolution. The "evidence" constantly changes as more of it is falsified and more hoaxes are made.

If you think there is real evidence, tell me about it. Otherwise, I'll stick to my Bible which has constantly been proven right time and time again and which has guided me well.

Very little of this is true. Welcome to the forum.

Your response is exactly like what I was expecting. I shall enjoy emphasizing that you did not bring up any evidence and you just said that my claims are not true. I have done plenty of research and watched plenty of debates and speeches. I think I know what I am talking about here.

Which parts of my comment were not true? How were they not true? What evidence do you have for evolution? Have a good night.

1. "Evolution" may have been "an Ancient Greek philosophy" but natural selection was not.
2. "Races" in the title of On the Origin of Species means "species". Darwin didn't address the question of human origins until The Descent of Man, which is a completely different book. Indeed, he specifically avoided the question in On the Origin of Species, due largely to wanting to respect the importance of human origins to certain religious doctrines. Of course, this doesn't mean that evolutionary theory wasn't used to justify racism; it very much was, and indeed still is. There's no reason that this needs to be the case, however, even if "human biodiversity" is real (which it's not), since racial equality or inequality in law and in society is a question of values, and questions of scientific fact are by definition value-neutral.
3. I've never heard of Ernst Haeckel before today and I would have been happy to keep it that way.
4. The most cursory look through the fossil record will reveal clear similarities between extinct species that are consistent with change over time.
5. Viruses and bacteria evolve so fast that vaccines eventually stop working due to being designed for inoculation against old strains of the disease; this is why people get flu shots every year rather than once in childhood. Larger organisms reproduce and thus evolve more slowly.
6. Some closely related species can reproduce together and produce fertile offspring, such as wolf-dogs or those hybrid bears that are sometimes being born now as polar bears interbreed with grizzlies in response to climate change. There are also examples of introgression where genetic material from one species is introduced gradually into another due to repeated interbreeding of hybrids with one of the parent species; this is why most modern humans have some Neanderthal DNA despite Neanderthals qua Neanderthals being extinct. This is not consistent with the idea of species as unchanging absolutes; it's not even consistent with the older evolutionary definition of a species as a group of organisms capable of reproducing with one another!
7. I have other things to be doing with myself tonight so I'll just leave you with what I've written so far.

1. Selection doesn't make new genetic information or even change genes at all. Nature cannot select, nature eliminates.
2.There isn't really anything important to add to that at this point
3.Earnst Haeckel was a German scientist who read Charles Darwin's book and became an activist for evolution. He made 4 hoaxes to support it: in 1869 he made purposefully inaccurate drawings of embryos to make it look like they are very similar when they actually are not (he admitted they were fake in 1875); he made up the "monera," a supposed single-celled creature; he made up "pithecanthropus alalus" (speechless apeman) to try to fill the gap between speaking and not speaking; in 1890 he sent Eugene Dubois to Indonesia to "find" a "missing link." He found a femur, skullcap, and a tooth, which were all found separately over the course of a few years. It was given the name "Java Man" and is now called "homo erectus." In 1923, Dubois admitted that he also found 2 normal human skulls, which he had hidden in his home to cover up the hoax.
4. The fossil record shows many organisms looking exactly the same as they do now. It shows a great variety, but no order can be proven. The fossils are generally in order of the elevation of their habitats, with the higher up organisms being buried later in the global flood. Many rock layers are folded without breaking, which can only happen if it was all folded at once when it was still mud. The coelacanth is supposed to be an "index fossil" for ~400 million years ago, but they are still alive today in the Indian Ocean. Many organisms are much larger than today, contradicting evolution and instead corroborating the Bible, which describes how the organisms were cursed to mutate after Adam sinned. Mutations have never been observed to create new genetic information, they only degrade the existing genetic information. In South Carolina, the Ashley Phosphate beds contain fossils of mammals and reptiles, and constain human artifacts, all together. In West Virginia, a bell was found in a lump of coal which supposedly was ~300 million years old. Petrified trees are found going through multiple layers, proving that they layers cannot be millions of years apart.
5. Viruses and bacteria become "resistant" when they have a mutation that deletes or degrades the part of their body that the vaccine or antibiotic targets. They are weaker overall and have less genetic information than the previous viruses and bacteria. Humans have been mutating negatively also, causing higher rates of cancers, Alzheimer's, autism, and other genetic diseases and disorders. Human females pass down mitochondrial DNA. There are 3 main haplogroups of this, corresponding to the wives of Noah's 3 sons. The differences in mitochondrial DNA indicate a common ancestor only thousands of years ago. Y-chromosomes are only passed down my males obviously. The differences in the Y-chromosome indicate a common ancestor only thousands of years ago.
6. Your claim of the idea of "species as unchanging absolutes" is a strawman. Based on the definition of "kind" given in the Bible, the absolutes are at the family level, not species. Members of the same family can interbreed. Members of different ones cannot. The separate species are the result of different location and genetic bottleneck. Neanderthals have bigger brains than modern humans, and have long brow ridges. Neanderthals were stronger also, think about how the Great Pyramid could have been made without modern equipment. The brow ridges indicate longer lifespan, as described in the Bible. Their bigger brains show that we are geneticly inferior to them as we have devolved just as all organisms devolve. Neanderthals are likely post-flood, post-Babel humans that were living to 100-200.
7. Think about finding some debates or speeches on Youtube. Maybe take a look at creationist sites. The truth is that the Bible is coherent and accurate. The Bible even contains many scientific statements that predate many scientists' discoveries. Have a good day.

[Jamison5]

Evolution was an ancient Greek philosophy, which Charles Darwin used as a justification for rasism. You probably don't know that the actual title of his book is this: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Yes because the biblical explanation for the origin of man has never been used to justify racism. Cough "curse of Ham".

The "curse of Ham" has nothing to do with race. Don't make stuff up like that. The Bible never mentions race at all and instead describes that all humans are one race. The Africans are descended from Ham, but that is entirely irrelevent to what you brought up.

[Jamison5]

There are plenty of reputable scientists who believe in a first cause "Creator" of sorts, which can practically be called God ... but I have never heard a good argument for "Intelligent Design."  Most scientists who believe in a God reject Intelligent Design, mostly because it's simply overkill ... you can accept evolution in full and very easily reconcile it with a belief in a higher power without bending science to fit a pro-religion narrative.

You have that backwards. Atheists jumped on evolution as a natural explanation for the diversity of life, then they tried to use that idea to disregard the supernatural. Many "believers" of God compromise themselves by assuming that the "scientists" are right. Christians do not bend science to support the Bible, instead, fake or ignorant Christians bend the Bible try to fit evolution. The Bible gives the much better explanation for the diversity of life, the origin of life, the fossils, etc. The Law of Biogenesis proves that nature cannot produce life. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe could not have formed naturally. There is overwhelming proof for God, specifically the God of the Bible. There are also many evidences for a young earth: the small amount of mud at river deltas; the weakening of the magnetic field; Saturn's unstable rings; Carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, and dinosaur fossils; etc. The truth is that atheists bend science to try to justify atheism.

[Jamison5]

Petrified trees are found going through multiple layers, proving that they layers cannot be millions of years apart.

Obviously you've never heard of pudding stones, or you'd easily realize that this example disproves nothing.

I have never heard an evolutionist mention that before. Please explain what you are talking about. Perhaps you could also entertain me by attempting to rebut all of the other evidences for a young earth and against evolution.

[Jamison5]

Petrified trees are found going through multiple layers, proving that they layers cannot be millions of years apart.

Obviously you've never heard of pudding stones, or you'd easily realize that this example disproves nothing.

I have never heard an evolutionist mention that before. Please explain what you are talking about. Perhaps you could also entertain me by attempting to rebut all of the other evidences for a young earth and against evolution.

A pudding stone is a fairly common sedimentary rock that has a mixture of other rocks embedded in a finer grained sedimentary stone. Given a large object such as a petrified tree, it's perfectly reasonable that it would take multiple layers of sediment to cover it.

As for the others, there's absolutely no need to rebut the bell that was supposedly entombed in coal as its "discoverer" supposedly fully extracted it from its coal matrix, thus making it impossible to distinguish it from a complete fabrication.

I've read more than enuf pseudoscientific mischararacterizations of what science entails presented by YEC Biblical literalists over the years that I'm not going to bother trying to dissolve your preconceived notions by rebutting all your assertions because based on my past experience, my rebuttals, even if accepted by you, will only yield a "but what about ..." from you. The only way to prevent that would be for you to be willing to learn the difference between science and pseudoscience from someone who knows how to teach the difference to someone who has been previously been exposed to pseudoscience presented as if it were science. That's not a skill I have, nor do I have any particular reason to learn it.

Calling it pseudoscience does not make it pseudoscience. The fact that you only criticised me and made excuses rather than accepting the facts or trying to make a serious rebuttal only shows how wrong you are. I would hope you know that you are using an ad hominem fallacy. I could easily do that to you and I would at least be right about you.

You claim that the bell in coal was a fabrication and you did not provide evidence to substantiate that claim of yours. Meanwhile, it is very easy to prove that all of the "evidence" for evolution is fabricated based on facts, confessions, contradictions, etc. I will elaborate on that if you want me to.

You only brought up one little rescue device for the polystrate trees that you didn't go into any detail about. How about you try to prove that's what happened to the trees? Trees do not last for millions of years, they decompose much more quickly than that. The Mt. St. Helens eruption has already made polystrate trees that are getting petrified. A canyon just like Grand Canyon but 1/40th the size was made in less than 9 hours. These are observed scientific and historical facts, not just an obscure rescue device like you had. Try again.

At this point I will not waste any more of my time with you unless you start trying to have an honest debate.

[Jamison5]

There’s not enough time in 6,000 years for all the meteorological, geological, and biological events that we know happened. That’s just an empirical fact - unless you have some massive Grand Conspiracy Theory to explain why the extinction rate alone is so high, ignoring even, say, the evidence for tectonic shift or past volcanic activity which contradict it even further - your argument’s premise just makes zero sense.

All you did was make assertions. Several scientific laws prove the existence of God, such as the Law of Biogenesis. The Bible gives a great explanation for starlight: God makes the starlight in Gen 1:14 and makes the actual stars in Gen 1:16, remarkably distinguishing stars and starlight, and describing how the distant starlight can be seen. Chapters 38-41 of the Book of Job are a transcript of God talking to Job, and that is backed up by the fact that those chapters contain some of the most amazing scientific statements including light being in motion and deep sea springs, written thousands of years before the human discovery of those facts. The Bible mentioned "paths of the sea," which directly led to the discovery of ocean currents.

The geology is all explained by the global flood; even the fossil record shows how the organisms from the lowest elevation of habitats are buried at the bottom and the higher elevation animals buried at the top. Sediment layers and geological features form very quickly in catasrophes, such as the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, which made many layers of sediment, and caused a flood that carved out a canyon in 9 hours. The faultlines are all connected, and it starts at an important biblical location: Caesarea Philippi.

The evolutionists' explanation of geology has serious contradictions, including the presence of Carbon-14 in coal and diamonds. The coelacanth is the "index fossil" supposedly representing a layer that is ~400 million years old, but they are still alive in the Indian Ocean today. Radiometric dating has serious flaws due to false assumptions. Radiometric dating has had many contradictions and drastic inaccuracy.

You mentioned extinction rates and tectonic shift, but you didn't go into any detail at all. Please elaborate.

[Jamison5]

All you did was make assertions. Several scientific laws prove the existence of God, such as the Law of Biogenesis. The Bible gives a great explanation for starlight: God makes the starlight in Gen 1:14 and makes the actual stars in Gen 1:16, remarkably distinguishing stars and starlight, and describing how the distant starlight can be seen. Chapters 38-41 of the Book of Job are a transcript of God talking to Job, and that is backed up by the fact that those chapters contain some of the most amazing scientific statements including light being in motion and deep sea springs, written thousands of years before the human discovery of those facts. The Bible mentioned "paths of the sea," which directly led to the discovery of ocean currents.

I don't think you understand just how wacky from a modern perspective the Biblical concept of the natural universe is. And this isn't me blaming the authors, because to be fair they were writing 2,500 years ago when only the most rudimentary cosmological facts were known, mostly thanks to Babylonian astronomers (and much of Genesis is borrowed/reworked Mesopotamian mythology).


Genesis tells us that above the sky there is a cosmic ocean separated from the earth by a solid dome (Genesis 1:7: "So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome"). To be a Biblical literalist you have to believe this picture over the most basic and obvious natural facts, like how space is actually a vacuum and not filled with water, and the Earth's atmosphere does not contain a solid vault separating us from the heavens.

Now, maybe you can argue the author of Genesis is being metaphorical here, but then there is no reason not to accept e.g. the story of Adam and Eve as metaphorical either.

First of all you misquoted the Bible. It actually says this: "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

Genesis 1:20 says this: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

According to the Bible, the firmament is heaven, which is split into 3 parts: Earth's atmosphere, space, and the third heaven where God lives. The waters between the atmosphere and space fell during the flood as rain, while most of the floodwater came from the water below the earth's crust. Part of the reason for the long lifespans before the flood, which are documented by ancient civilizations all over the world, was the obstruction of radiation due to the water, and the increased air pressure. There was also more oxygen.

If you are going to criticise the Bible, don't do it my lying about what it says.

[Jamison5]

The geology is all explained by the global flood; even the fossil record shows how the organisms from the lowest elevation of habitats are buried at the bottom and the higher elevation animals buried at the top. Sediment layers and geological features form very quickly in catasrophes, such as the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, which made many layers of sediment, and caused a flood that carved out a canyon in 9 hours. The faultlines are all connected, and it starts at an important biblical location: Caesarea Philippi.

The evolutionists' explanation of geology has serious contradictions, including the presence of Carbon-14 in coal and diamonds. The coelacanth is the "index fossil" supposedly representing a layer that is ~400 million years old, but they are still alive in the Indian Ocean today. Radiometric dating has serious flaws due to false assumptions. Radiometric dating has had many contradictions and drastic inaccuracy.

Uh, no - the Bible spells out how Noah prevents a mass extinction event. It doesn’t make sense to claim that the Flood wiped out certain species and not others - for no apparent reason - when the Bible does not mention any such detail.

The coelacanth’s hard shell, like the horse shoe crab, makes it an unsurprising candidate for longest lasting species - and its interior primitive organs/body structure kind of contradict your point.

As for the extinction rate? And tectonic plates? It’s broadly undisputed that the world used to be one supercontinent, and Africa and South America used to touch. No broad geological event like the “Rising of the Waters” would explain the seemingly sudden split between the two continents, or why literally no species are in common between the two given only 6,000 years of history. Surely an elephant, a rhino, a lion, or a cheetah would do pretty well in South America - we know hippos would dominate. Why do none exist, then?

Your post is one of the most dishonest misrepresentations of the Bible I have ever seen. Any mention of species is a total misrepresentation. Noah brought at least one pair of every FAMILY of land animal and bird. The word "kind" in the Bible is defined the same way as a family, not a species. Certain different populations from the same family/kind may have gone extinct, but not the family/kind as a whole. The reason different animals are in different places is because they migrated differently after they left the ark, it's so obvious. Why do you think the distant and relatively isolated Australia has some of the more passive and unique animals?

You also claimed that the flood is described as a simple "rising of the waters." This is not true at all and shows that you obviously haven't read the Bible or at least didn't pay attention to what it said. Genesis 7:11 very clearly describes seismic activity. As I mentioned, the faultlines all connect and it starts at Caesarea Philippi, which is an important location in the Bible.

The coelacanth don't show up in every layer; there are many layers above where thay are found that don't have them, but they are alive today; your reasoning on that is incoherent. The coelacanth are better described as having some members being buried at the beginning of the flood, thus being buried at the bottom like how their habitat was at the bottom, with some members surviving and reproducing still today.

You also completely ignored my other points. Think about it. Be open-minded. Have a good night.

[Jamison5]

All you did was make assertions. Several scientific laws prove the existence of God, such as the Law of Biogenesis. The Bible gives a great explanation for starlight: God makes the starlight in Gen 1:14 and makes the actual stars in Gen 1:16, remarkably distinguishing stars and starlight, and describing how the distant starlight can be seen. Chapters 38-41 of the Book of Job are a transcript of God talking to Job, and that is backed up by the fact that those chapters contain some of the most amazing scientific statements including light being in motion and deep sea springs, written thousands of years before the human discovery of those facts. The Bible mentioned "paths of the sea," which directly led to the discovery of ocean currents.

I don't think you understand just how wacky from a modern perspective the Biblical concept of the natural universe is. And this isn't me blaming the authors, because to be fair they were writing 2,500 years ago when only the most rudimentary cosmological facts were known, mostly thanks to Babylonian astronomers (and much of Genesis is borrowed/reworked Mesopotamian mythology).


Genesis tells us that above the sky there is a cosmic ocean separated from the earth by a solid dome (Genesis 1:7: "So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome"). To be a Biblical literalist you have to believe this picture over the most basic and obvious natural facts, like how space is actually a vacuum and not filled with water, and the Earth's atmosphere does not contain a solid vault separating us from the heavens.

Now, maybe you can argue the author of Genesis is being metaphorical here, but then there is no reason not to accept e.g. the story of Adam and Eve as metaphorical either.

First of all you misquoted the Bible. It actually says this: "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

Genesis 1:20 says this: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

According to the Bible, the firmament is heaven, which is split into 3 parts: Earth's atmosphere, space, and the third heaven where God lives. The waters between the atmosphere and space fell during the flood as rain, while most of the floodwater came from the water below the earth's crust. Part of the reason for the long lifespans before the flood, which are documented by ancient civilizations all over the world, was the obstruction of radiation due to the water, and the increased air pressure. There was also more oxygen.

If you are going to criticise the Bible, don't do it my lying about what it says.

I recognize both the translation of Genesis 1:7 that Statilius was citing and the version that you're citing. They're different translations of the same concept, which at the time that the Hebrew Bible was written was, yes, understood to refer to a solid dome of sky over a flat and stationary earth (see the Jewish Encyclopedia's article "Cosmogony"). By the Middle Ages this had been interpreted as the Ptolemaic cosmos we're all vaguely familiar with today, but that required a synthesis of the Biblical cosmos and the Neoplatonic cosmos that occurred over the course of the first millennium. Here is Aquinas's take on the subject.

Your post is one of the most dishonest misrepresentations of the Bible I have ever seen. Any mention of species is a total misrepresentation. Noah brought at least one pair of every FAMILY of land animal and bird. The word "kind" in the Bible is defined the same way as a family, not a species. Certain different populations from the same family/kind may have gone extinct, but not the family/kind as a whole. The reason different animals are in different places is because they migrated differently after they left the ark, it's so obvious. Why do you think the distant and relatively isolated Australia has some of the more passive and unique animals?

If you know where I can find a living scelidosaurid, hallucigeniid, or mylagaulid species, I'd love to hear it.

You are trying to use extrabiblical sources try to change the meaning of the Bible, very dishonest of you. The Bible never describes the earth as flat, it describes it as round. The water is not there anymore because it fell at the beginning of the flood, as it is clearly stated in Genesis 7.

As for the extinctions, of course some families might have gone extinct since the flood, but not from it. You are using another misrepresentation.  Also, thay can't be classified as accurately if they aren't alive.

If you can't have an honest debate and won't be open-minded then I'm not going to waste my time with you at this point. Have a good night.

[Jamison5]

First of all you misquoted the Bible. It actually says this: "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

Well, if we're going to dispute translations then the Bible actually says "וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הָרָקִיעַ, וַיַּבְדֵּל בֵּין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מִתַּחַת לָרָקִיעַ, וּבֵין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מֵעַל לָרָקִיעַ; וַיְהִי-כֵן". The word translated in English as 'valut' or 'dome' or 'firmament' in the KJV (and translated as 'στερέωμα/stereoma' in Greek, from 'stereos' i.e. solid, and 'firmamentum' from 'firmus' in Latin) is רקיע 'raqia', which comes fom the root 'raqa', meaning "to beat out a metal sheet thinly". See Job 37:18 ("Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?") and Ezekiel 1:22 ("Over the heads of the living creatures there was something like a dome (רקיע), shining like crystal, spread out above their heads."). There's really no other way to read Genesis in context other than the structure is solid.

Genesis 1:20 says this: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

A more proper translation is something like "fly across the surface of the firmament". The word 'פְּנֵ֖י' is Hebrew for 'face', and is the same word used in Genesis 1:2 in the context of God hovering over the water, not in it.

According to the Bible, the firmament is heaven, which is split into 3 parts: Earth's atmosphere, space, and the third heaven where God lives.

The cosmology of Genesis obviously differs from other parts of the Bible, as they were written centuries apart by different authors writing in different languages in completely different social and theological contexts. So "third heaven" is a reference to one of Paul's letters, but there he is speaking in context of the common Platonic view that there were multiple, perhaps 7 or more levels of heaven to get through before one's soul arrived at God. In contrast the writers of the early Old Testament believed that one went down to the underworld Sheol after death, like a shade in Greek mythology.

Another interesting thing to note is how in Genesis the primordial waters exist before God's creation. In ancient Near East mythology the waters of chaos are tamed by the creator god who slays a sea monster: see the Enuma Elish, where Marduk kills the serpent Tiamat and creates the firmament which separates the waters from her body. It might even be that Genesis is referencing this story as a demythologised critique of Babylonian creation myth ("Yahweh is so powerful he doesn't need to battle any serpent to create the world" kind of thing). Of course there are also oblique references in other parts of the Bible to Yahweh's slaying of the sea monster Leviathan (Psalm 74), so this is a common theme of water/chaos tamed.

The waters between the atmosphere and space fell during the flood as rain, while most of the floodwater came from the water below the earth's crust.

Yet in Psalm 148:4 these waters still exist: "Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!". The post-Flood Psalmist's cosmic geography still includes the primordial waters above the heavens as separated by the firmament. And of course, without a solid structure to keep the above waters out, what physical force was preventing the water from flooding the earth at the instant of creation? And why didn't the water freeze solid in space?

Anyway, with reference to the Flood, something else we can look at is Genesis 7:11 ("on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.") where the "windows of the heavens" are literal windows in the solid vault in the sky which God opens to bring water down through.

You are still continuing to try to change what the Bible says. You also continue to misrepresent what it says. Psalms 148:4 is describing water between space and the third heaven, not between the earth and space. You also continue to lie about what the firmament is and make strawmen based on that.

At this point I have no interest in this one against four debate where you have no interest in having an honest debate. Have a good night.

[Jamison5]

As opposed to doing what?? Textbooks for learning Biblical Hebrew are "extrabiblical sources", dude. It's literally impossible for a native speaker of any modern language not to use "extrabiblical sources" at some point in the process of reading and interpreting the Book of Genesis. If you can't understand a point this basic then there's no reason to think that you understand any other aspect of Biblical exegesis either.

The irony is that Jamison is using modern science to reinterpret the Bible: "science tells us that there is no such thing as a solid sky, so the Biblical author really must have meant this".

You are contnuing to lie of course. The firmament is described as being the sky. You are the one reinterpreting words to fit your narrative.

[Jamison5]

Part of the reason for the long lifespans before the flood, which are documented by ancient civilizations all over the world, was the obstruction of radiation due to the water, and the increased air pressure. There was also more oxygen.

I think that you, or rather whoever you're cribbing your notes from, has been confused by the use of water for neutron shielding. Water is an effective, cheap, shield for baryonic radiation (protons and neutrons) which is one reason it's used to cover nuclear reactor fuel elements held in storage. But as a shield for leptonic and bosonic radiation, it's effectively useless, and those are the radiations which are of primary concern for those who travel outside Earth's atmosphere. (Water is effective at absorbing a few particular frequencies of photons, which we take advantage of to produce microwave ovens.)

I suppose you mentioned the fact that at some times of Earth's existence, there was much more oxygen in the atmosphere, such as the Carboniferous period, which was used as a possible explanation of why dragonflies were so much larger then, but there's several problems with using that as an explanation of gigantism as posited by some Biblical literalists.

First off, let me use something from the Bible itself. If those high oxygen levels were necessary for giants, then what about Goliath?

Second, over geologic history, there have been wide differences in oxygen levels, from much higher than today to much lower. That's really odd if all those layers were supposedly laid down at the same time, and you're going to use the oxygen levels as estimated by mainstream science to advance your theories. This exemplifies what I despise most about usual Biblical literalist attempts to misuse science. They cherry-pick those facts that are useful to the narrative they wish to construct and ignore everything else.

Third, it's generally accepted by mainstream scientists these days that the primary reason we once had gigantic dragonflies but no longer do, is that we now have flying vertebrates that would happily chow down on large lumbering dragonflies if they hadn't already gone extinct.

Whenever you resort to using an argument from majority opinion, and you resort to using attacks and rescue devices, you just show how wrong and desperate you are. I no longer have any interest in this debate with you as a result.

[Jamison5]

Your post is one of the most dishonest misrepresentations of the Bible I have ever seen. Any mention of species is a total misrepresentation. Noah brought at least one pair of every FAMILY of land animal and bird. The word "kind" in the Bible is defined the same way as a family, not a species. Certain different populations from the same family/kind may have gone extinct, but not the family/kind as a whole. The reason different animals are in different places is because they migrated differently after they left the ark, it's so obvious. Why do you think the distant and relatively isolated Australia has some of the more passive and unique animals?

Migrated differently? Sure, I guess. But if South America and Africa were connected - which nobody has ever denied - why do they share 0.0% of species in common? Every other continents that touch share many species in common; Siberia/Alaska have plenty of people and animals in common. Elephants, rhinos, hippos, gorillas, lions, cheetahs, gazelle. Not a one of them naturally live in South America. Jaguars, anacondas, toucans, piranhas. None live in Africa. How do you explain this and the thousands of other examples?

You also claimed that the flood is described as a simple "rising of the waters." This is not true at all and shows that you obviously haven't read the Bible or at least didn't pay attention to what it said. Genesis 7:11 very clearly describes seismic activity. As I mentioned, the faultlines all connect and it starts at Caesarea Philippi, which is an important location in the Bible.

Nope. A flood is literally when water falls from the sky and the current waters RISE. Do you not know what a flood is?

The coelacanth don't show up in every layer; there are many layers above where thay are found that don't have them, but they are alive today; your reasoning on that is incoherent. The coelacanth are better described as having some members being buried at the beginning of the flood, thus being buried at the bottom like how their habitat was at the bottom, with some members surviving and reproducing still today.

You also completely ignored my other points. Think about it. Be open-minded. Have a good night.

Then why aren’t all water dwelling species found at low levels? Aquatic animals have been found in the Rocky Mountains, which are pretty high elevation in my opinion.

The Rocky Mountains are high elevation but that doesn't describe the geologic column. I never said that higher levels of oxygen are needed for giantism. Goliath was genetically larger, at a time when the genome was less mutated and degraded compared to now. Genesis 7:11 describes how the faultlines were made and moved, so you are lying when you say it was simply water rising. Africa and South America don't have the same animals because all of the land animals outside of the ark were killed in the flood, and then they migrated to different parts of the world afterward.

All you have done is repeated your assertions and misrepresentations. The Bible mentions the fact that light is in motion and that there are deep sea springs; it was way ahead of its time with science and is scientifically accurate. Mitochondrial DNA goes back to a common female ancestor about 6,500 year ago, very close to the beginning of the biblical timeline. Carbon-14 is in coal and diamonds, proving them to be only thousands of years old. Think about it.

I have no interest in this debate at this point. I am not going to waste my time responding to four people who have no interest in having an honest debate. Have a good night.