What if evolution was part of creationism?

[THE LIGHT]

That is something evolution has to answer for.

Genetics has already shown that has not been the case, as changes have happened over millions of years. We can even track back common human ancestry to Africa - it wasn't a few thousand years ago from Noah - sorry.

Is that all?

See now you're not even in the conversation. We ask you for proof, you provide none, demanding *we* can provide *you* with what might be a valid marker. Then when we do, you insinuate it's not enough? You can support your claim from any *one* of those, and yet you want *more*?!

It sounds like I could have given you a list of 100 qualifiers and you would have made the exact same remark. Your turn - where's the proof? I just pointed to several large markers, while claiming one such marker directly contradicts that conclusion. Do you have any evidence that would support your conclusion?

I want to know up front so the goal posts don't go shifting.

 

[gcomeau]

Just curious. What would you expect as evidence for a world wide flood?

How about sufficient water existing on the planet to flood it in the first place? You know, just as a starting point.

What else?

How about you deal with the starting point first. Hence why it was called the starting point.

 

[THE LIGHT]

How about sufficient water existing on the planet to flood it in the first place? You know, just as a starting point.

What else?

How about you deal with the starting point first. Hence why it was called the starting point.

Because If I prove that to you then you will say that isn't proof something else is.... and on and on and on and on.. in the duck and run game.

 

[gcomeau]

What else?

How about you deal with the starting point first. Hence why it was called the starting point.

Because If I prove that to you then you will say that isn't proof something else is.... and on and on and on and on.. in the duck and run game.

If you can't come up with the water TO flood the earth, then you are unable to support your contention the earth flooded and there is no point exploring any of the other evidence we would expect to see.

If you CAN come up with that water, then we can continue.

Can you, or can you not, show us where this water is/went? If you can't, you lose, and we're done.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I want to know up front so the goal posts don't go shifting

That's not how logic works. You're trying to prove something. Your need support to do so. I pointed out several areas in which you can muster support. That listing is not the end all exclusive list - it is suggestion. You can support your point using any one of those categories, or others if you'd like (so long as they are valid). But if you can't provide support in *any* category, then you have no claim. As of yet, you've provided no support whatsoever.

Because If I prove that to you then you will say that isn't proof something else is.... and on and on and on and on.. in the duck and run game.

Oh so you're afraid we might point out that your "proof" is illogical and unsubstantiated? There's no ONE thing that definitely proves it at the exclusion of all other things. Logic uses evidence, hopefully from multiple sources, to support one another and create a definitive conclusion. This is precisely how evolution has come to be known as fact in the educated world: evidence from geology, genetics, anatomy, and physiology (to name a few) have all supported one another.

So again I ask: do you have evidence of your claim or not?

 

[THE LIGHT]

How about you deal with the starting point first. Hence why it was called the starting point.

Because If I prove that to you then you will say that isn't proof something else is.... and on and on and on and on.. in the duck and run game.

If you can't come up with the water TO flood the earth, then you are unable to support your contention the earth flooded and there is no point exploring any of the other evidence we would expect to see.

If you CAN come up with that water, then we can continue.

Can you, or can you not, show us where this water is/went? If you can't, you lose, and we're done.

It is either evidence or it isn't. So is it?

 

[KittenKoder]

Because If I prove that to you then you will say that isn't proof something else is.... and on and on and on and on.. in the duck and run game.

If you can't come up with the water TO flood the earth, then you are unable to support your contention the earth flooded and there is no point exploring any of the other evidence we would expect to see.

If you CAN come up with that water, then we can continue.

Can you, or can you not, show us where this water is/went? If you can't, you lose, and we're done.

It is either evidence or it isn't. So is it?

Semantics is the game of fools and liars used to twist the truth.

 

[gcomeau]

Because If I prove that to you then you will say that isn't proof something else is.... and on and on and on and on.. in the duck and run game.

If you can't come up with the water TO flood the earth, then you are unable to support your contention the earth flooded and there is no point exploring any of the other evidence we would expect to see.

If you CAN come up with that water, then we can continue.

Can you, or can you not, show us where this water is/went? If you can't, you lose, and we're done.

It is either evidence or it isn't. So is it?

Stop stalling. You asked what evidence I wanted to see, I told you the first and most essential piece. Now you can either present it or you can acknowledge you have no evidential support for your claim.

 

[JD_2B]

Nice try, dumbass. We believe Jesus died on the cross because we were told that it happened by people we trust who witnessed it, much the same way we know anything else in history happened. What eyewitnesses to evolution do you have?

As for observing antibiotics killing bacteria and cells dividing, that actually CAN be observed if you have a powerful enough microscope. And could you tell me, please, what specific piece of equipment one requires to personally witness evolution from one species to another taking place?

Epic fail. As usual.

You believe Jesus died on the cross. Do you know it though? The evidence is hearsay, it's not able to be tested. Having said that I'm quite able to accept that a historical figure called Jesus (apparently a common name) existed in the time and place alleged and that He was crucified. I'll accept that because there does seem to be a preponderance of circumstantial evidence to suggest those claims are true. As to Jesus being the Son of God, that's a different matter. But then that's not the topic being discussed.

Way to cherrypick the words in a post so that you don't have to respond to any concepts you know you don't have an answer for. Sure, the evidence of Christ's crucifixion is hearsay. Most eyewitness testimony is. The evidence for the Peloponnesian War is also hearsay, but I don't see anyone accusing me of being superstitious and gullible for believing THAT happened. Which brings us back to the huge difference between believing something based on eyewitness testimony - history and religion - and something with no eyewitnesses - evolution. I guess I'm still going to wait for you to comment on THAT.

I think that the conversation has moved from creation vs evolution to the existence of God/ Jesus vs the existence of natural change..
Now, I agree- The bible does have plenty of historic significance- but it is not a history book, and has changed as much as our youth's current history books have, complete with all of the inaccuracies. That must be expected, being that "to err is human" and all.. Also believing and having faith in God's word- who tells US that so many are deceived on such a grand level...
Just finding bits and pieces of dead sea scrolls and incorporating them into the bible seems an evolutionary practice- that is NOT practiced. People just want to think that the truth is as they have always known it, and ignore the word of God- even if the Word of God is the real truth... It is important to humble ourselves and at least admit that some of those ancient documents have important information in them that would greatly change one's understanding of the world, and God, and possibly everything they previously stood for..
To do any else is pride and vain - and God hates the proud and the vain.

No, the important difference is that they're BOTH belief, and I just don't happen to trust the people vouching for evolution as much as I do the ones vouching for the crucifixion.

But the ones vouching for crucifixion are not sharing all of their confirmed information with you..because they dont add it to the bible- and evolutionists share everything, even the stuff they havent yet confirmed.
Yet your loyalties stay with the ones who wish to withhold potentially life changing truths with you??

Amazingly enough, telling me it's been proven and the evidence can be produced isn't the same as showing me the proof and evidence. I don't trust YOUR word for it any more than I do any of the other people testifying on evolution's behalf.

What kinds of proof do you need? There are millions of ways to prove evolution, not only on our planet, but on others.. The center of the milky way is, in fact, a black hole, of all things. Oh and please don't get me wrong here- I belive in God. I am an agnostic, but I do believe in God- and that evolution was a part of his master plan. Adam was not just popped into the world out of nothing- he was "formed" from the "dirt". The bible says so! The fact is, the eye sees what the mind wants it to see.. Open your mind.. The bible is telling you everything we are. Even God said that the Earth was round and spherical- which was not "proven" by science until WAY long after Moses walked on this planet.. Everything that science proves is in the bible, already.. Or in those scrolls that haven't been added yet, I am sure.

A belief that evolution between species really happens and that there's proof of it isn't knowledge, either.

Species is just a subclassification of the common element we all share- Carbon..

The knowledge of evolution as a biological process is developed from empirical studies of physical evidence. It is a posteriori,

Telling me that it's a fact and that there are "empirical studies of physical evidence" is ALSO not knowledge, nor is it credible. In fact, it's damned suspicious that all I ever get is assertions that the evidence exists instead of the evidence itself. If it really exists, you'd just show it to me, instead of telling me four times in one post that it's out there . . . somewhere.

As for evolution by one species into another. I'm not sure that happens, but then I'm not a scientist.

THAT'S for damned sure. You're also not an historian, apparently, but I'm sure they'll all be happy to know that you've declared their field to be all belief and no knowledge.

Well, there are plenty of points of evidence showing that we did evolve from primates, such as the tailbone, and the opposing thumbs- The skeletal similarities alone are a big indicator.. but I agree- there needs to be more evidence to prove this..

 

[gcomeau]

Well, there are plenty of points of evidence showing that we did evolve from primates, such as the tailbone, and the opposing thumbs- The skeletal similarities alone are a big indicator.. but I agree- there needs to be more evidence to prove this..

Try browsing through this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/89647-the-damnable-doctrine-of-charles-darwin.html

I've made a series of posts in it that should cover what you're looking for. First one is at post 19, then they continue in a series over the course of the rest of the thread. There have been 6 so far, a seventh will be on it's way in the next day or so.

 

[JD_2B]

Well, there are plenty of points of evidence showing that we did evolve from primates, such as the tailbone, and the opposing thumbs- The skeletal similarities alone are a big indicator.. but I agree- there needs to be more evidence to prove this..

Try browsing through this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/89647-the-damnable-doctrine-of-charles-darwin.html

I've made a series of posts in it that should cover what you're looking for. First one is at post 19, then they continue in a series over the course of the rest of the thread. There have been 6 so far, a seventh will be on it's way in the next day or so.

Excellent chimp to homo sapien posts those are- But highly dependent on visual aides to help the layman to somehow see a constant in change and growth. However- some of the skulls pictured do not look at all similar to the last one, even to a layman.. For example- the "cheekbones" are far wider in some instances, then get suddenly narrower, and the eye sockets grow and shrink.. The nasal cavity seems to differ too much in shape and size in many of the images also..
Look between H, I, and J- for instance- I realise that there is a massive time gap in between these, but I is VERY different from both H and J- in so many ways. The "cheekbones" do not slant down towards the frontal dental area- they just go straight across. The eye sockets are gigantic, and and shape of the upper portions of the skull itself is far wider than H and J is. Thus- using this picture may not be the best tool to convince someone like myself that "I" even belongs in that grouping.

Also, my point was that Evolution is not the study of the origins of life, but the study of change from one thing to another. The universe was surely not formed by Evolution.. And a big bang is a fine explanation for the origin of life- but not the universe itself, simply because you cant get something from nothing. What banged?

Please do not insult my intelligence by assuming that I do not have a solid understanding of evolution, radiometric dating (using the half lives of isotopes- yeah I know how it works, lol) or anything like that. I do understand it, and I do believe in it. I just dont believe that nothing can evolve into something, that a bang can come from nothingness (to which *nothingness* itself is conceptually impossible, anyways- because to have a conceptual understanding of nothing, there must at the same time be a something)
But I digress, because all this talk about nothing and something can get utterly confusing, lol..

I also believe that the OP's intent with this thread was to try and see how many of us were open minded enough to see that something can be created and then evolve. To that effect, I am also fairly interested in learning how many people are open minded to an alternate truth than one they have been previously committed.

 

[Ralph]

Just throwing this out there to see what you guys think.

What if evolution and creationism were one in the same. What if god really did create life on earth and his plan was for that life to evolve over time.

Is it an interesting idea or am I just treading water here?

I'll include a poll for fun

Another...WHAT IF....in response to the 1st WHAT IF.......What if God did use evolution, would He not reveal that information in the Holy Scriptures? Evolution is not to be found in the Holy Scriptures in the form of propagated (transmitted) DIVINE TRUTH.....BUT biogenesis and the PHYSICAL LAW thereof is found within the very first book of God's revealed knowledge to mankind. And such was confirmed as a FACT of SCIENCE via the Scientific Method of Observed, Reproducible Experimentation many generations ago. Louis Pasteur first formulated the hypothesis in 1860...and Rudolph Virchow presented the ground work for such by documenting the fact that CELLS do not arise from amorphous (non-living structure) in 1858...the rest is HISTORY.

 

[Care4all]

How about you deal with the starting point first. Hence why it was called the starting point.

Because If I prove that to you then you will say that isn't proof something else is.... and on and on and on and on.. in the duck and run game.

If you can't come up with the water TO flood the earth, then you are unable to support your contention the earth flooded and there is no point exploring any of the other evidence we would expect to see.

If you CAN come up with that water, then we can continue.

Can you, or can you not, show us where this water is/went? If you can't, you lose, and we're done.

SCIENCE does NOT even know where all of our water on earth came from...they can only speculate....

originally they thought all the water that covered the earth came up from steam inside our earth, which formed clouds, then rain....but then, the figures that they came up with, just did not calculate to the amount of water that covered the entire earth at one time....

so their next theory was that we got a great deal of our water during the bombardment period from asteroids with ice hitting us....

but then that did not explain why other planets who were also bombarded did not have as much water as us....

so then scientists thought that it was perhaps the great impact planet that hit us and spun off to be our moon....

the truth of the matter is that the earth, fairly early on was covered with water....long before the earth rose up from volcanoes or plate tectonics and dry ground where eventually continents formed....

Science does not have an explanation, only hypothesis....

so by neither, can water covering the entire earth be explained...

 

[KittenKoder]

God was my co-pilot - but then we crashed on a mountain and I had to eat him.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Excellent chimp to homo sapien posts those are-

Evolution does not outline a transformation from chimps to humans. We share a common ancestor, and are not direct descendants.

However- some of the skulls pictured do not look at all similar to the last one, even to a layman.. For example- the "cheekbones" are far wider in some instances, then get suddenly narrower, and the eye sockets grow and shrink.. The nasal cavity seems to differ too much in shape and size in many of the images also..
Look between H, I, and J- for instance-

And this is your expert layman opinion, is it?

Also, my point was that Evolution is not the study of the origins of life, but the study of change from one thing to another.

Truth - evolution has little to do with how life (or matter) was first formed.

I just dont believe that nothing can evolve into something, that a bang can come from nothingness (to which *nothingness* itself is conceptually impossible, anyways- because to have a conceptual understanding of nothing, there must at the same time be a something)

Actually that can happen and does all the time. In space, fluctuations in energy can create small bits of matter - two equal but oppositely charged particles which, soon after their creation, collide back with each other, obliterating one another to return to energy.

Evolution is not to be found in the Holy Scriptures in the form of propagated (transmitted) DIVINE TRUTH

neither is the internet. nor antibiotics. and yet these things exist, and are true.

SCIENCE does NOT even know where all of our water on earth came from...they can only speculate....

originally they thought all the water that covered the earth came up from steam inside our earth, which formed clouds, then rain....but then, the figures that they came up with, just did not calculate to the amount of water that covered the entire earth at one time....

so their next theory was that we got a great deal of our water during the bombardment period from asteroids with ice hitting us....

but then that did not explain why other planets who were also bombarded did not have as much water as us....

so then scientists thought that it was perhaps the great impact planet that hit us and spun off to be our moon....

the truth of the matter is that the earth, fairly early on was covered with water....long before the earth rose up from volcanoes or plate tectonics and dry ground where eventually continents formed....

Science does not have an explanation, only hypothesis....

so by neither, can water covering the entire earth be explained...

Do you just imagine this stuff up on your own or are you parrotting this from someone else?

 

[Care4all]

Do you just imagine this stuff up on your own or are you parrotting this from someone else?

For you to even ask the question shows that you need to do some more reading on the subject.

 

[JD_2B]

However- some of the skulls pictured do not look at all similar to the last one, even to a layman.. For example- the "cheekbones" are far wider in some instances, then get suddenly narrower, and the eye sockets grow and shrink.. The nasal cavity seems to differ too much in shape and size in many of the images also..
Look between H, I, and J- for instance-

And this is your expert layman opinion, is it?

Clearly, if even a layman with no educational background in anthropology can discern the differences in skulls propped on some evolution website, that would wash out any evolutionary theory for them whatsoever- then yes, it is a logical lay-conclusion..

Truth - evolution has little to do with how life (or matter) was first formed.

Actually that can happen and does all the time. In space, fluctuations in energy can create small bits of matter - two equal but oppositely charged particles which, soon after their creation, collide back with each other, obliterating one another to return to energy.

I am well aware of that, but newsflash, hotshot- That's not evolutionary. That's actually the study of physics. And plus, I have heard the argument concerning two negatives making a positive, however those two negatives are actually negatively charged ions, and are SOMETHINGS because they are in fact in EXISTENCE. So again, just because you can add -1 and -1 and make a positive 1, does not mean that you got something from nothing, or that this was the result of evolution even. Try again. Evolutionary theory is not a theory involving origins of life and universal matter, at all. It is about change.. Just change. Big change or small change- it still is just change.

Evolution is not to be found in the Holy Scriptures in the form of propagated (transmitted) DIVINE TRUTH

neither is the internet. nor antibiotics. and yet these things exist, and are true.

I have to say- Evolution is in fact in the scriptures (not the evangelized ones but thr written word) in Genesis creation of man (the forming of Adam from dust) and woman (taking a rib could easily be equated as a non literal description of a means of taking one from Adam's XY chromosome and making a female with XX chromosomes) the time line of creating everything we know of (not 6 days, but a more arbitrary time frame, since Adam and Eve "died within the day" and yet lived over 800 years apiece) and the references to how the Earth was shaped, (the earth is a sphere, it says) written long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue..

SCIENCE does NOT even know where all of our water on earth came from...they can only speculate....

originally they thought all the water that covered the earth came up from steam inside our earth, which formed clouds, then rain....but then, the figures that they came up with, just did not calculate to the amount of water that covered the entire earth at one time....

so their next theory was that we got a great deal of our water during the bombardment period from asteroids with ice hitting us....

but then that did not explain why other planets who were also bombarded did not have as much water as us....

so then scientists thought that it was perhaps the great impact planet that hit us and spun off to be our moon....

the truth of the matter is that the earth, fairly early on was covered with water....long before the earth rose up from volcanoes or plate tectonics and dry ground where eventually continents formed....

Science does not have an explanation, only hypothesis....

so by neither, can water covering the entire earth be explained...

I thought it was an excellent post, Care..

But also, do want to explain some of the mysteries of the bible, like water covering the earth. Many of the things written in there are simply a perception of whatever God was trying to tell the person at the time. Some things are perceived differently than others, and it is not uncommon for people to perceive a vision of everything *in sight* being covered with water- and writing in the scripture that the whole world would be covered. For that single person, their whole world (their geographical location as far as the eye can see) would be flooded- if not the entire Earth, and if it is possible that the lack of seeing mountains at all, could be from fog or heavy rain, smoke, volcanic ash, etc.. rather than being literally meant that the mountains were truly covered with water...

Also, 40 days is not long to have a flood- I wonder if that 40 days is literal, or if it is meant in the same way "die within the day" was meant towards Adam and Eve.. who both lived for a length of time that is little shy of thousand years. I also am curious about how long a year was back then- how the calendars were made up, anyways.. if there were such things.

These are all logical questions one must ask ones self when it comes to translating and understanding another person's perception of events..

If a person gets attacked, and there were a bunch of eyewitnesses, the perception between them will vary immensely- Assume that the attacker was male, about 5'8", 160 pounds, white, and wearing a polo shirt and slacks.. and had a moustache that extended to the edges of his lips, and was trimmed down to about 1/4".. and did not have a goatee. Lets also say the guy had an almost normal hairline that was receded about 2" back, but the rest of his hair was about 2" long on top, and tapered around the sides and back.

The short guy wearing tattered clothes will say:
He was a professional looking tall guy..

The fat guy with a shaved face will say-
The dude was skinny and had a lot of facial hair

The tall guy with the bald head will say-
He was short with a full head of hair

The guy with a full head of long hair, wearing a suit will say-
He was dressed very casually, and was bald on top.


Anyways- perception is different for everyone, so it is a matter of trying to determine what was going through that person's mind at the time, as well. That is part of how I view the bible, anyways, and I am very agnostic, BTW.. and also very pro-evolution..

 

[gcomeau]

Excellent chimp to homo sapien posts those are

It is not chimp to homo sapiens. The chimp skull is present only as a reference, not as a point on the progression.

- But highly dependent on visual aides to help the layman to somehow see a constant in change and growth. However- some of the skulls pictured do not look at all similar to the last one, even to a layman.. For example- the "cheekbones" are far wider in some instances, then get suddenly narrower, and the eye sockets grow and shrink..

As they would if you took two modern day humans and compared their skulls side by side.

The point is the overall progression of traits, not that each and every step is a perfect linear transition between the one directly before and the one directly after. Evolution doesn't work that way and neither does the fossilization process. We work with whatever representative individual of the time period happened to get fossilized. Maybe the guy had a big head. Maybe he had a small nose. That's not the point.

The nasal cavity seems to differ too much in shape and size in many of the images also..
Look between H, I, and J- for instance- I realise that there is a massive time gap in between these, but I is VERY different from both H and J- in so many ways. The "cheekbones" do not slant down towards the frontal dental area- they just go straight across. The eye sockets are gigantic, and and shape of the upper portions of the skull itself is far wider than H and J is. Thus- using this picture may not be the best tool to convince someone like myself that "I" even belongs in that grouping.

I was hardly relying only on one picture. There were six posts there. They were somewhat lengthy. There's a section in one of them on the lack of vitamin C synthesis in primates you may have missed. And the next post I make will be expanding more on the genetic links. There is effectively ZERO question we share common ancestry with primates (and everything else) scientifically speaking. It's as close to proven as science ever gets to proving anything.

Also, my point was that Evolution is not the study of the origins of life, but the study of change from one thing to another.

I thought your point was we needed more evidence to establish human common ancestry with primates. But maybe that's because you said:

"Well, there are plenty of points of evidence showing that we did evolve from primates, such as the tailbone, and the opposing thumbs- The skeletal similarities alone are a big indicator.. but I agree- there needs to be more evidence to prove this.. "

The universe was surely not formed by Evolution.. And a big bang is a fine explanation for the origin of life- but not the universe itself, simply because you cant get something from nothing. What banged?

Of course it wasnt formed "by evolution". Evolution is a biological process, how the hell would the universe be formed by evolution and who in the world has ever argued it was?

As for what went "bang"... depends which theory is right. There's some argument over it right now. If Steinhardt and his faction are correct then it was a couple extra-spatial dimensional membranes coliding with quantum fluctuations in their flatness at collision being responsible for the non-uniform distribution of matter that resulted. If Linde and his faction are right it was some kind of quantum singularity going 'boom'.

Or new evidence could send them all off in a third direction. Who knows. They're still waiting on more evidence to come in to show which one is closer and arguing over it in the meantime. At least last I checked, which was admittedly a few years ago. At that time I was personally of the opinion that Steinhardt's theory had more promise but we need way more data.

I also believe that the OP's intent with this thread was to try and see how many of us were open minded enough to see that something can be created and then evolve. To that effect, I am also fairly interested in learning how many people are open minded to an alternate truth than one they have been previously committed.

As long as the alternative "truth" has evidence it's true, entirely openminded.

 

[gcomeau]

SCIENCE does NOT even know where all of our water on earth came from...they can only speculate....

Even were that true, which it isn't exactly, what would be your point?

What we do know is Roughly How Much Water We Have.

And it isn't enough to flood the entire Earth. It isn't even close. Which is why The Light is dodging the question. To have a flood, you need the water. And he can't come up with it.

 

[Care4all]

I have to say- Evolution is in fact in the scriptures (not the evangelized ones but thr written word) in Genesis creation of man (the forming of Adam from dust) and woman (taking a rib could easily be equated as a non literal description of a means of taking one from Adam's XY chromosome and making a female with XX chromosomes) the time line of creating everything we know of (not 6 days, but a more arbitrary time frame, since Adam and Eve "died within the day" and yet lived over 800 years apiece) and the references to how the Earth was shaped, (the earth is a sphere, it says) written long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue..

SCIENCE does NOT even know where all of our water on earth came from...they can only speculate....

originally they thought all the water that covered the earth came up from steam inside our earth, which formed clouds, then rain....but then, the figures that they came up with, just did not calculate to the amount of water that covered the entire earth at one time....

so their next theory was that we got a great deal of our water during the bombardment period from asteroids with ice hitting us....

but then that did not explain why other planets who were also bombarded did not have as much water as us....

so then scientists thought that it was perhaps the great impact planet that hit us and spun off to be our moon....

the truth of the matter is that the earth, fairly early on was covered with water....long before the earth rose up from volcanoes or plate tectonics and dry ground where eventually continents formed....

Science does not have an explanation, only hypothesis....

so by neither, can water covering the entire earth be explained...

I thought it was an excellent post, Care..

But also, do want to explain some of the mysteries of the bible, like water covering the earth. Many of the things written in there are simply a perception of whatever God was trying to tell the person at the time. Some things are perceived differently than others, and it is not uncommon for people to perceive a vision of everything *in sight* being covered with water- and writing in the scripture that the whole world would be covered. For that single person, their whole world (their geographical location as far as the eye can see) would be flooded- if not the entire Earth, and if it is possible that the lack of seeing mountains at all, could be from fog or heavy rain, smoke, volcanic ash, etc.. rather than being literally meant that the mountains were truly covered with water...

Also, 40 days is not long to have a flood- I wonder if that 40 days is literal, or if it is meant in the same way "die within the day" was meant towards Adam and Eve.. who both lived for a length of time that is little shy of thousand years. I also am curious about how long a year was back then- how the calendars were made up, anyways.. if there were such things.

These are all logical questions one must ask ones self when it comes to translating and understanding another person's perception of events..

If a person gets attacked, and there were a bunch of eyewitnesses, the perception between them will vary immensely- Assume that the attacker was male, about 5'8", 160 pounds, white, and wearing a polo shirt and slacks.. and had a moustache that extended to the edges of his lips, and was trimmed down to about 1/4".. and did not have a goatee. Lets also say the guy had an almost normal hairline that was receded about 2" back, but the rest of his hair was about 2" long on top, and tapered around the sides and back.

The short guy wearing tattered clothes will say:
He was a professional looking tall guy..
I agree that evolution is in the Bible, specifically Genesis 1, where the story is not told as God creating everything at once....the story is given in progression of how it happened, only in very simple terms....this happened-day 1, then this happened-day 2, then this happened-day 3 etc....

....


Anyways- perception is different for everyone, so it is a matter of trying to determine what was going through that person's mind at the time, as well. That is part of how I view the bible, anyways, and I am very agnostic, BTW.. and also very pro-evolution..

as you, i have NEVER taken this literally....what a ''day'' is, but i do take note of the progression of events of which some, if not all....generally match up with science....