Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Mock Turtle]

Again, who's living in the best of times? You gonna tell that to a hurting child in Sudan, Yemen, Syria, or CAR?

You don't have to do a thing about it, just recognize that it's not the best of times for quite a chunk of the population.

People are more selfish than ever before! And I see that trend increasing as atheism grows.....contributing to social issues becoming even more polemic, Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer

What is this supposed to mean? Of course there are problems all around the world, but overall most are better off than we and they were ever before. Pointing out the huge problems around the world is a fruitless task since it will probably always be the case that there will be a spectrum of richer and poorer countries - perhaps blame religion for some of this, in keeping them in the past. And people are not more selfish than before actually - from a 72-year-old standpoint - since I have noticed how much better off we are than previously - and in many ways. Most of us don't have to feel responsible for the misfortunes of others, since as I pointed out, there is usually little we can do - unless one wants to devote one's life to such things.

 

[cladking]

Hold right there. I live in India. What's wrong here? People here are hopeful and optimistic about the future.

India has a rapidly growing economy and every reason to be optimistic.

The US has borrowed from the future so long we may be almost out of future.

 

[sayak83]

India has a rapidly growing economy and every reason to be optimistic.

The US has borrowed from the future so long we may be almost out of future.

US can save trillions if it cuts down on its millitary. Further its a large resource rich land. Any blip in its prosperity will always be temporary. That's the advantage all large countries have, Russia, Australia, US, Canada especially.

 

[gnostic]

Creation is only for a moment, existence is a singular eternity.

Which are vague and meaningless.

Can you elaborate further, please?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The branch that has no real evidence for its claims.

Nice dodge.

You do know that evolution draws from many different branches of science including chemistry, biology, paleontology, botany, paleobotany, physics, biochemistry, genomics, genetics, paleobiology, taxonomy, physiology, phylogenetics, paleovirology, biogeography, systematics, and more.

Of course, I've pointed this out several times before, so you already know this. So, the question is, which of those branches of science are the ones that have "no real evidence for its claims?"

No collusion of course. Scientists belong to the same club, a bit like doctors....they won't disparage other doctors because they might just disparage themselves and their own practices in the process.

When scientist back up other scientists, how is that more convincing than creationists backing up other creationists?

Unless there is proof for what scientists claim, it is all unverifiable assumption.....what you accuse us of having.

Uh no. We're talking about multiple thousands of scientists independently collecting data over more than a century, all over the world. When all of the data points to the same conclusion, there's only one conclusion to make.

When all evidence backs up all previous evidence without any evidence refuting any previously discovered evidence - THAT should be the most convincing thing.



P.S. Scientists criticize and challenge each other's work all the time. Try picking up a science journal some time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

the fossil record is even more full of abrupt appearances, gaps and stasis than 150 years ago, DNA is uncannily computer like and we have only one proven origin for such information systems, evolution can't be modeled mathematically, and nobody can get it to work in the lab either.

They sure do all seem to point to the same thing..

Why respond to my question if you're not going to answer it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You obviously believe this. I don't have faith in people who postulate unverifiable ideas and pass them off as facts. Peer review is meaningless.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals



You parrot off this stuff as if it should be believed without question.
I challenge the "scientific method" as flawed and riddled with errors. The real evidence is missing.....but the suggestions are without logical or verifiable limits.



There is no way to conduct any experiment for macro-evolution.
All science has are experiments with adaptation. This creates variety within a species....but it does not create any creature outside of its taxonomic family.

There are no facts in this branch of science.....so all you have are baseless assumptions that can no more be proven than our assumptions about an Intelligent Creator.

Science does not have the high ground on this topic. It just thinks it does and disparages anyone who dares to question the "science".

Perhaps you could outline what you think the scientific method entails.

 

[SkepticThinker]

When you have been educated by a system with strong beliefs, those beliefs become ingrained in your thinking, affecting your attitude towards anything that conflicts with it....whether science or religion, the process is the same. It's called indoctrination for a reason......science "beliefs" can be indoctrinated just as much as religious beliefs because it is basically the same process. Minds are being fed a constant, reinforced series of ideas that are accepted and acted upon. The subject matter isn't important...it's the process.



When I say I love science, I mean that I love what science studies....nature and the mechanics of living organisms. There is a lifetime of study in each creature and mechanism of their existence and their placement in their respective habitats. It is fascinating to compare and wonder at the way they live and function in completely different environments and how they reproduce (some in the most hostile environments on earth) and sustain their existence for thousands of years despite man's mismanagement of the planet in the last 100 years.

Don't confuse my "refusal to accept" your "beliefs" as not understanding science. It is because I understand science that I refuse to accept what you have been taught. You reflect the concepts of your teachers....I reflect the concepts of mine, because they make logical sense to me.

The difference between a physical person (a materialist) as opposed to a spiritual person (a believer in ID) is experience IMO. Most non-spiritual people have never experienced "God". They do not have 'spirituality' as a natural part of their personality. Having an explanation for nature and all the amazing processes that it encompasses, without the need for a Creator is like putting a round peg in a round hole. It just 'fits'. It satisfies a need. But try to fit that round peg into a square hole and there is space around it that is empty. Nothing fills that space but God. He gives us believers a square hole that fits perfectly.

There is no point arguing about who is right when we are each validating our own belief system. You don't fit in mine, and I don't fit in yours. That is not too hard to understand is it?

Only when those who support evolution, (which has no real evidence to support its validity) recognise that they do indeed only have a belief in what scientists are claiming, rather than a substantiated provable truth, will they understand why they cling to it with a 'religious' passion and why they believe that people must subscribe to it.
Why is that so important? Because it validates their own position and makes them feel less threatened about not believing in a Creator to whom they might be accountable. There is safety in numbers...or so many people think.

Believing something doesn't make it true.....but not believing in something doesn't either. It is a sobering thought.

But you don't do any of that. You post photos of animals you think are attractive in some way and then make arguments from incredulity about them having to be designed because you can't imagine how else they got here. Which of course is a logical fallacy. Then you shun and ignore the actual in-depth information scientists have carefully gleaned about them and declare that the God you worship must have made them all because they're so pleasing to the eye. You ignore the "ugly" creations out there in the world. You make logical error on top of logical error and then declare that the people who have evidence for their claims are really the ones who have got it wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again, who's living in the best of times? You gonna tell that to a hurting child in Sudan, Yemen, Syria, or CAR?

You don't have to do a thing about it, just recognize that it's not the best of times for quite a chunk of the population.

People are more selfish than ever before! And I see that trend increasing as atheism grows.....contributing to social issues becoming even more polemic, Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer

Why do you think atheism and selfishness are somehow tied together?

 

[MonkeyFire]

Which are vague and meaningless.

Can you elaborate further, please?

God and his angels existed in perfection for an eternity before and out of no where something new occurred and that was satan, and as we were, we will be for an eternity after he dies out.

 

[Deeje]

You do know that evolution draws from many different branches of science including chemistry, biology, paleontology, botany, paleobotany, physics, biochemistry, genomics, genetics, paleobiology, taxonomy, physiology, phylogenetics, paleovirology, biogeography, systematics, and more.

Of course, I've pointed this out several times before, so you already know this. So, the question is, which of those branches of science are the ones that have "no real evidence for its claims?"

If they support macro-evolution then they are all in collusion for the simple reason that science, regardless of the branch, has no conclusive evidence that macro-evolution is even possible outside of their imagination. Scientists back up other scientists.....its just the way the system works.

Passing adaptation off as "evolution" is a sly way to get their concept accepted. If a little did this...imagine what a lot could accomplish??? It is all assumption, backed up by other branches of science, because, let's face it....who could survive the ridicule if they were to oppose the basic tenet? It is a premise....a hypothesis, not a fact. It is not supported by the evidence unless it is interpreted to steer thinking in that direction. Its a classic example of the power of suggestion at work. The human mind is prone to "believe" what it wants to believe.

We're talking about multiple thousands of scientists independently collecting data over more than a century, all over the world. When all of the data points to the same conclusion, there's only one conclusion to make.

We are talking about mass delusion. You think it doesn't work? You think scientists can't be deluded by a good argument? The advertising industry thrives on suggestion. Give people a good spin and if it appeals to their thinking....they can sell you anything. Demonize the opposition and talk up your own product and voila!

When all evidence backs up all previous evidence without any evidence refuting any previously discovered evidence - THAT should be the most convincing thing.

LOL....what "evidence" would be permitted to enter the inner sanctum without character assassination closely following? You must be joking. What scientist could survive in that environment? Best to shut up if you want to keep your job.

P.S. Scientists criticize and challenge each other's work all the time. Try picking up a scientific journal some time.

Scientific journals....written by those who believe in evolution and who will publish "evidence" to back up their pet theory. They might challenge each other's research and findings, but NEVER will they challenge the first premise. Like peer review....what a joke. Would you take one Bible's scholar's word over an equally qualified scholar when they differ on interpretation? Same problem.

Perhaps you could outline what you think the scientific method entails.

The "scientific method" is the level by which science measures the accuracy of its findings. That method is dictated by scientists, carried out by scientists and interpreted by scientists who all want to promote evolution.
Can you tell me why any person who supports ID would take notice of any of them when it comes to claims about macro-evolution?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And I have quoted countless articles linked to by the evolutionists here to show exactly why the basic "facts" of evolution are not "facts" at all. You seem to think supposition is a substitute for proof. There is no proof in science so why push it like it's fact? Beliefs are not facts as evolutionist are quick to tell creationists.

You have beliefs based on faith just like we do.

So, you won't acknowledge that you don't understand what evolutionary theory actually says?

That is not true. Science uses adaptation, which has limits, to prove macro-evolution, which apparently has no limits. Amoebas to dinosaurs is possible in your macro-evolutionary scenario, bit adaptation does not allow for that. The limits are clear in adaptive change, but science pretends that they don't exist.

So what you're ACTUALLY trying to say is that adaptation is not MACRO-evolution. Evolution literally means "change in allele frequency over time", so "adaptation" is literally a form of evolutionary change. Even if you don't believe in macro-evolution or common descent - you DO still believe in a form of "evolution". Do you understand?

If you can believe that amoebas can transform over time to become dinosaurs, then that is exactly what science is implying.

If you can believe that dinosaurs are the ancestors of today's chickens, then I rest my case. Who has the unprovable fairy tale?

Why have you completely changed the subject I was addressing? Do you to do you not understand that evolutionary theory has never said that organisms evolve outside of their taxa?

Please show us all this macro-evolution. I eagerly await your examples. Please don't bother posting anything that relies on faith or belief though.....OK? You said it was observed, so let us observe it too.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Are you serious? If science is so sure that what they suggest is true, then the language would reflect that certainty....but we know that the language of fact is missing because there simply are no facts. You have an unprovable theory that frankly, upon examination makes me laugh. All the uncertainty is there hidden in plain sight in every article I have read, but it is glossed over like it isn't even there. I want the readers here to see it for themselves and understand when they are victims of a snow job. It is as @cladking said...."a mass delusion", sold to an unsuspecting public by a bunch of ego driven scientists, who can't be told and can't be wrong.

So you're saying that you would absolutely believe the scientists if they replaced all their qualifiers with statements of certainty?

Honestly, Deeje, why are you debating this subject if you don't know what evolution is or says?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Honestly, Deeje, why are you debating this subject if you don't know what evolution is or says?

Because she feels she has to - defend her (irrational) religious beliefs?

 

[gnostic]

God and his angels existed in perfection for an eternity before and out of no where something new occurred and that was satan, and as we were, we will be for an eternity after he dies out.

Only according to Christian and Islamic teachings.

We both know Christian’s position. That a 3rd of heaven rebelled and joined Satan aka Lucifer aka the Devil and other colourful epithets and titles.

The Muslims believed that Satan - Shaitan aka Iblis - believe that angels don’t have free-will (like Judaism), threfore they cannot oppose God, but like the Christian Devil, Satan did rebel because he was never an angel. According to Islam and their folklore, Satan was a jinn, not an angel.

According to Judaism, Satan is still an angel of God - and agent of God, still doing God’s bidding, which is to test individual’s faith.

The Book of Job is that Satan is working for God, not opposing God.

And again, according Judaism there were no war or rebellion in heaven, because no angels have free-will.

This is not to say that I accept Judaism, nor that I am Jewish. All I am saying there are 3 main versions to Satan’s characters.

What most Christians don’t understand, that their belief in the evil Satan didn’t originate from earlier Judaism (before the Exile to Babylon, 586 BCE), but in adopting foreign Hellenistic Greek and Egyptian religions, during 3rd to 1st century BCE.

The root of Satan being God’s evil archenemy, has it root in the Hellenistic and apocryphal Book of Enoch, which were influenced by Greek and Egyptian cults. The idea of the Christian afterlife in Paradise and punished the wicked in Hell and the final judgement (with God or Jesus), all come from the Greek Elysian Fields and Tartarus, where the shades were being judged by Hades or Persephone, and from Egyptian Field of Reeds and Daut, and the ba (soul) being judges by Osiris.

Well, that’s another thing that Christians stole from the Egyptians.

Christian whole idea of salvation are based on pagan concepts, a copycat, just as Islam is a copycat of Christian, Jewish and pre-Islamic concept.

You know the concept of “Lake of Fire” in Revelation (19, 20, 21)?

The New Testament authors are nothing more than thieves, plagiarising other religions’ ideas.

 

[Deeje]

So, you won't acknowledge that you don't understand what evolutionary theory actually says?

I understand a whole lot better than a lot of other folks who take it for granted that scientists are people of integrity who have actual proof for what they assert.....it is because I understand all too well what scientists are describing that I expose their assumptions....suggestions masquerading as facts. I acknowledge that evolutionists do not know what intelligent creation actually teaches and that it is, in many people's estimations, the more logical scenario. All scientists have to do is acknowledge that there could be an intelligence higher and more powerful than themselves.

So what you're ACTUALLY trying to say is that adaptation is not MACRO-evolution. Evolution literally means "change in allele frequency over time", so "adaptation" is literally a form of evolutionary change. Even if you don't believe in macro-evolution or common descent - you DO still believe in a form of "evolution". Do you understand?

Just because scientists call adaptation "evolution" doesn't put it in the same league as macro-evolution.
Using one to prove the other is wishful thinking because there is no way to substantiate what is claimed.
The limited changes in adaptation do not explain how scientists arrive at their wild conclusions. Interpretation is everything. Without their interpretation of the "evidence", it would be no evidence at all. Fossils can't talk. Scientists put words in their bony mouths.

Why have you completely changed the subject I was addressing? Do you to do you not understand that evolutionary theory has never said that organisms evolve outside of their taxa?

Then how is it that scientists put forward the notion that....amoebas became dinosaurs and dinosaurs evolved into chickens....what do you have to substantiate that scenario offered to me by one of the 'scientists' here? How does an unintelligent, non-sentient single celled organism pop into existence (for no apparent reason) and then "evolve" itself undirected into all the lifeforms that we see on earth, both past and present? Life is clearly designed, just like the planet that supports it. They are not just an endless series of fortunate accidents.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Can you tell me who the authors of these links are? Can you describe what "speciation" is. Is it not simply the process of adaptation that produces variety within a single taxonomic family. There will never be a shift outside of it no matter how much time elapses. If changes occur, they are minor adaptations for environmental of food changes....nothing more.

So you're saying that you would absolutely believe the scientists if they replaced all their qualifiers with statements of certainty?

Absolutely NOT. The qualifiers in their statements are suggestions covered over with fake evidence. Biased interpretation ensures that the suggestions sound like facts, but you know there are no facts in this branch of science. If they replaced the qualifiers, they would be spouting out and out lies. They can't tell outright lies and maintain any credibility, so they put suggestions and assertions in their writings to cover it up. Its pure dishonesty really.

Honestly, Deeje, why are you debating this subject if you don't know what evolution is or says?

Honestly IF.....I don't believe that there is any honesty on the part of evolutionists in this subject.
Debating is about giving two sides of a story. Why are evolutionists always whining about creationists having no proof for their Intelligent Designer when they have absolutely no proof for what they believe either?

We all know what evolutionists claim....but we never see the real substantiated evidence.....why? Because it doesn't exist....MIA like the missing links. What has been offered to date is pathetic compared to the magnitude of what is claimed. The supposed "mountains" of evidence are nothing but molehills of suggestion.

 

[Deeje]

Because she feels she has to - defend her (irrational) religious beliefs?

Apart from breaking the rules here, you don't seem to be able to see that your own beliefs are as irrational to us as ours are to you. I believe that you will hold onto them for as long as God allows you to.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I understand a whole lot better than a lot of other folks who take it for granted that scientists are people of integrity who have actual proof for what they assert.....it is because I understand all too well what scientists are describing that I expose their assumptions....suggestions masquerading as facts. I acknowledge that evolutionists do not know what intelligent creation actually teaches and that it is, in many people's estimations, the more logical scenario. All scientists have to do is acknowledge that there could be an intelligence higher and more powerful than themselves.

You have repeatedly asserted erroneous things about evolution, and demonstrated a lack of understanding of even the basic definition of "evolution". You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Just because scientists call adaptation "evolution" doesn't put it in the same league as macro-evolution.

I never said it did. The point is that it's still EVOLUTION - something you still have yet to admit to misunderstanding.

Using one to prove the other is wishful thinking because there is no way to substantiate what is claimed.

Except fossils and DNA.

The limited changes in adaptation do not explain how scientists arrive at their wild conclusions. Interpretation is everything. Without their interpretation of the "evidence", it would be no evidence at all. Fossils can't talk. Scientists put words in their bony mouths.

If you say so, but you don't know anything about the subject.

Then how is it that scientists put forward the notion that....amoebas became dinosaurs and dinosaurs evolved into chickens....what do you have to substantiate that scenario offered to me by one of the 'scientists' here?

Because none of those things you just said involved evolution outside of taxa like you asserted. You're just plain wrong here.

How does an unintelligent, non-sentient single celled organism pop into existence (for no apparent reason) and then "evolve" itself undirected into all the lifeforms that we see on earth, both past and present? Life is clearly designed, just like the planet that supports it. They are not just an endless series of fortunate accidents.

You're asking questions that, if you understood evolution, you would already have the answers to.

Can you tell me who the authors of these links are? Can you describe what "speciation" is. Is it not simply the process of adaptation that produces variety within a single taxonomic family. There will never be a shift outside of it no matter how much time elapses. If changes occur, they are minor adaptations for environmental of food changes....nothing more.

Speciation is evolution at or above the level of species - i.e: one population diversifying into two populations that can no longer interbreed, thus becoming two distinct species. Also known as macro-evolution. The list of sources in the articles are exhaustive.

Absolutely NOT.

So it doesn't matter if they use qualifiers or certainties, so why are you so hung up on them?

The qualifiers in their statements are suggestions covered over with fake evidence. Biased interpretation ensures that the suggestions sound like facts, but you know there are no facts in this branch of science. If they replaced the qualifiers, they would be spouting out and out lies. They can't tell outright lies and maintain any credibility, so they put suggestions and assertions in their writings to cover it up. Its pure dishonesty really.

So, to you, it is dishonest to admit uncertainty, even if you wouldn't believe them even if they asserted certainty?

Makes total sense.

Honestly IF.....I don't believe that there is any honesty on the part of evolutionists in this subject.

Then you're wrong.

Debating is about giving two sides of a story. Why are evolutionists always whining about creationists having no proof for their Intelligent Designer when they have absolutely no proof for what they believe either?

And wrong about this too.

We all know what evolutionists claim.

Evidently, you don't. You had no idea that evolution doesn't require evolution outside of taxa, you had no idea macro-evolution had been observed, and didn't even understand the actual definition of "evolution" itself.

You have no idea about evolution despite MONTHS of being on these forums, Deeje. Why is that?

...but we never see the real substantiated evidence.....why?

I've provided you with countless links.

Because it doesn't exist....MIA like the missing links. What has been offered to date is pathetic compared to the magnitude of what is claimed. The supposed "mountains" of evidence are nothing but molehills of suggestion.

Why must you lie and say evidence hasn't been presented one post after evidence has been presented to you?

 

[cladking]

Speciation is evolution at or above the level of species - i.e: one population diversifying into two populations that can no longer interbreed, thus becoming two distinct species. Also known as macro-evolution. The list of sources in the articles are exhaustive.

It would seem as though if we understand neither the mechanism nor cause of "evolution" then we shouldn't be making pronouncements about what they are or are not.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Apart from breaking the rules here, you don't seem to be able to see that your own beliefs are as irrational to us as ours are to you. I believe that you will hold onto them for as long as God allows you to.

Oh yeah - what if I don't believe in God - will he be punishing me anytime soon - I seem to have had all the punishment I need, ta very much. The default is - no belief - it is your job, or someone with better reasoning skills, to demonstrate otherwise. And yes, I will hold on to my non-belief for as long as it makes sense to me - despite your god apparently interfering - not that I have ever noticed.

 

[gnostic]

Well that's is your first problem right there. If you accepted Christendom's version of events, no wonder nothing made sense. Pity you threw the baby out with the bathwater.

I understand both the Old Testament and New Testament in the last 18 years better than I did as from 15 to 34, when I didn’t question the New Testament and Christian interpretations of the Old Testament.

I understand that all the supposed OT “prophecies” of being fulfilled by Jesus from like that from gospel of Matthew, are false fulfilments.

For instance, when I read the bible as a teenager (I was15, when I read it), like Jesus’ birth, I had believed in the author’s claim that Jesus did fulfil Isaiah’s prophecy, as the author stated in Matthew 1:22-23:

22 All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet:

23 “Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall name him Emmanuel,”

which means, “God is with us.”

And church teachings alway agree with this gospel’s false fulfilment, including JW.

And I had believed in author’s claim, without question for nearly 20 years, without double-checking Isaiah’s original sign (Isaiah 7:14-17).

Matthew 1:22-23 was the first passage that I disagree with, when I re-read the whole chapters in 2000 (I was 34 then), Matthew 1 and cross-checking it with Isaiah 7 (not just 1 verse, but the complete chapter).

Back then, as a teenager, I apparently didn’t do much cross-checking with the bible, so I took the gospel author of Matthew at its face value.

Re-reading Matthew 1 together with Isaiah 7, in 2000, was really my first clue to as why Bible and the authors to the gospels shouldn’t be.

Matthew’s author only quoted a single verse from Isaiah (7:14), but the complete sign of Isaiah is 7:14-25, hence to the very last verse...BUT the core sign relating to the child is Isaiah 7:14-17, read as follow:

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

Matthew’s sign is missing 3 crucial verses from Isaiah, relating to Immanuel.

By reading all 4 verses - Isaiah 7:14-17, I now know that the author of Matthew was wrong regarding the sign:

1. That Isaiah’s sign (7:14-17) had nothing to do with the messiah.
2. That the woman (Isaiah 7:14 & Matthew 1:23) has nothing to do with Mary.
3. That the sign has to do with virgin birth is a false interpretation.
   
4. That Immanuel isn’t Jesus.
5. That Jesus didn’t fulfil the sign as stated Isaiah 7:14-17, because Jesus isn’t that child.

Isaiah 8:1-4 verified that the child wasn’t Jesus, because the sign of Immanuel had to with the war between Judah and the Israel-Aram alliance:

8 Then the Lord said to me, Take a large tablet and write on it in common characters, “Belonging to Maher-shalal-hash-baz,” 2 and have it attested for me by reliable witnesses, the priest Uriah and Zechariah son of Jeberechiah. 3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz; 4 for before the child knows how to call “My father” or “My mother,” the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria.

And Immanuel reappeared in 8:5-10, relating to the war, and to Assyria.

5 The Lord spoke to me again: 6 Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and melt in fear before Rezin and the son of Remaliah; 7 therefore, the Lord is bringing up against it the mighty flood waters of the River, the king of Assyria and all his glory; it will rise above all its channels and overflow all its banks; 8 it will sweep on into Judah as a flood, and, pouring over, it will reach up to the neck; and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.

9 Band together, you peoples, and be dismayed;
listen, all you far countries;
gird yourselves and be dismayed;
gird yourselves and be dismayed!
10 Take counsel together, but it shall be brought to naught;
speak a word, but it will not stand,
for God is with us.

The gospel of Matthew made me re-examine and rethink both the Old Testament New Testament, including Genesis Creation and Flood, and look at them without the Christian baggage.

Matthew 1 & 2 misuses of OT prophecies (eg massacre of Bethlehem, return from Exile in Egypt) were my first step towards agnosticism, so it had nothing to do with evolution vs creation, or with atheism.

The New Testament and Christian teachings of messiah are their own worse enemy.