Why can not religious beliefs and theory of evolution go hand in hand?

[Ella S.]

Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are incredibly complex—so complex that claims they have evolved are absurd. Furthermore, those claims lack experimental support. [“There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems.” Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 179.]

“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.” Behe, pp. 186–187.

There wasn't a lot of evidence in 1996. Now we have so many models of abiogenesis and demonstrated that pretty much all of them work step-by-step that this isn't true anymore.

The hard part isn't figuring out how simple life could have evolved from naturally occurring chemicals, but which of the many ways lead to life on earth.

If you wish, I could DM you a long list of scientific papers that demonstrate this over the past two decades, but I don't want to spam this thread.

 

[Ella S.]

Without genetic ‘instructions’ nothing can evolve. At conception the genetic coding is already encoded to evolve into a human. It goes through many changes physically then is born as a human and continues to manifest ‘potentials’ until it reaches maturity.

Biological evolution describes how evolution applies to organisms with DNA and RNA. There's more to it than that, but I'll grant you this loose definition for the sake of argument. However, this is only one form of evolution.

Chemical evolution can, and has, demonstrated how these molecules can form from naturally occurring materials as a consequence of physics without any instruction required.

And DNA doesn't instruct evolution, anyway. DNA replicates. It creates organisms and is responsible for reproduction. You might say that DNA is responsible for mutation. I'd disagree with that, because DNA is generally not encoded to mutate, but mutation isn't evolution.

Evolution is a process of natural selection. It's been called "survival of the fittest" but it could be more accurately called "survival of the survivors." It simply states that the organisms with mutations who manage to live and reproduce will pass on those mutations and the organisms with mutations who die before they reproduce do not pass on their mutations to the next generation.

That's all it is. There are no instructions there.

 

[Ella S.]

I've never gotten a straight answer from anyone who says they accept NOMA about how they think the existing overlap between science and religion should be dealt with.

Should religion be constrained so that it doesn't make claims within the scope of science (i.e. any falsifiable claim)?

Should science be constrained so that it doesn't investigate claims that touch on people's religious beliefs?

That's because NOMA is constantly abused.

Originally, NOMA recognized the Is-Ought Problem. That is, you can never derive what should be done based on how the world works.

Knowledge about the world can inform you about how to better pursue your "oughts." For instance, game theory is all about how to best achieve particular goals. However, the goals themselves cannot be given to you by what exists.

NOMA says that science should deal with what "is." What exists, how do they operate, etc. It can approach social norms and ethics from a descriptivist standpoint. Religion should be prescriptivist; it tells us what norms to follow and what's ethical.

As such, somebody who seriously adheres to NOMA would never say something like "God exists" or "after we die, the saved go to Heaven." Those are descriptivist. Likewise, a scientist who adheres to NOMA would condemn something like "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris as pseudoscience.

NOMA was never supposed to be a way for people with unfalsifiable beliefs to have their cake and eat it, too. Actually, it was more of a redefinition of what "religion" means to better expose false or untestable claims and to continue speaking intelligently about religion and its importance to the human experience.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

The components of life -- fatty acids, lipids, amino acids, &c will form spontaneously, through simple chemistry. Lifelike, self-reproducing structures are known to form, even nucleic acids. These have all been observed in the lab. The first "life" was not the complex, DNA programmed life we see today.

The alternative, magic poofing? That's outright magic, and a great deal less likely than the self-generation of lifelike structures we can observe in the lab.

A worldwide flood? This absolutely did not happen, and half a dozen disciplines will confirm it.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=aron+ra.+noah's+flood

Hi Valijean. Good morning. You mention these are lifelike structures observable in the lab, yet spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. Neither has macroevolution. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis.

"The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life."

"So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.” J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1933), p. 94.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

Nope. Even though we find sedimentary rock almost everywhere, you can't conclude that the landmasses have been under water at the same time.

The Cliffs of Dover are prime evidence that the earth is old.

"During the Late Cretaceous, between 100 and 66 million years ago, Great Britain and much of Europe were submerged under a great sea. The sea bottom was covered with white mud formed from fragments of coccoliths, the skeletons of tiny algae that floated in the surface waters and sank to the bottom and, together with the remains of bottom-living creatures, formed muddy sediments. It is thought that the sediments were deposited very slowly, probably half a millimetre a year, equivalent to about 180 coccoliths piled one on top of another. Up to 500 metres of sediments were deposited in some areas.[6] The weight of overlying sediments caused the deposits to become consolidated into chalk.[7] British chalk deposits are considered stratigraphically to belong in the Chalk Group." - White Cliffs of Dover - Wikipedia

You can't find an explanation how the Cliffs could have formed in less than 100,000 years without resorting to magic.

Hi Heyo. Good morning. The catastrophic processes during and soon after the Flood would have drastically rearranged the earth’s land distribution. Then the retreating waters would have also eroded and moved sediments to create today’s varying landforms. If Noah's flood happened, we would expect to find the presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and lying in twisted and contorted positions, suggesting violent and rapid burials over large areas. This is what we find.

Fossilization can happen much quicker than you think, that has been proven by science. What fossilization is just the addition of minerals into an object so it just depends on fast these are added. Given perfect conditions it can happen in a couple of hours if not minutes like in the case of fossilized fish found in the Santana Formation in Brazil. These are believed by some experts to have been killed by fossilization process that is they were fossilized alive.

In terms of the Cliffs of Dover, Wikipedia states "The cliffs' chalk face shows horizontal bands of dark-coloured flint which is composed of the remains of sea sponges and siliceous planktonic micro-organisms that hardened into the microscopic quartz crystals. Quartz silica filled cavities left by dead marine creatures which are found as flint fossils, especially the internal moulds of Micraster echinoids. Several different ocean floor species such as brachiopods, bivalves, crinoids, and sponges can be found in the chalk deposits, as can sharks' teeth". I would suggest the cliffs of Dover was an accumulation of dead sea creatures that resulted from the flood.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hi Heyo. Good morning. The catastrophic processes during and soon after the Flood would have drastically rearranged the earth’s land distribution. Then the retreating waters would have also eroded and moved sediments to create today’s varying landforms. If Noah's flood happened, we would expect to find the presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and lying in twisted and contorted positions, suggesting violent and rapid burials over large areas. This is what we find.

How about the Ice Age? Do you think that major glaciation of North America happened before or after the flood (or not at all)?

 

[rational experiences]

The science of man said O God the planet owned it's son. The ice reborn end of each year ice. S...on...infinite half holding.

Space conditions.

Sion earth holdings fused fusion.

Stating cold owned earth pressures by gas cooling pressures amassing and waters presence as mass.

As dinosaurs owned a heated gas water held atmosphere in droplets that changed.

So did all pressures.

Ice said science was important to small life cells.

They taught flooding of rain meant earths heavens gases were overheated. As water cooled the gases also.

So they knew nuclear temple pyramid science changed the heavens spirit.

Stating its body mass was sacrificed CH.

To own flooding it means water shifts it's body mass. It is held on the ground. It is held in ice. Mass positions.

We have seen the UFO effect sucking up water.

Amassed unnatural heavens. A condition.

We know ice is melting we also know iced positions are becoming colder.

So where is the ground heat going?

We see it leaving.

We survive in a balanced natural light. Our own teaching.

If humans knew a UFO landed on a mountain. They were living. They lived on the ground. The UFO and flooding was above their head.

We know floods are instant.

The stories not falsified only the reader misinterprets.

If a human theories thinking said God created by ark two by two.

What was the story detailing genesis already owned DNA by life living or its exodus?

Why placate two differences in one study?

Stated by a deserts size increasing by loss of the garden body. Eviction.

As two bodies pairs in nature is two of every kind. And DNA two babies entwined parents as created life.

The ark one body only.

Of gods would mean from O the earth's stone.

A human has to be present to view two of every kind is living. We say sex created two of every kind continuing.

Every status a story was said in human presence.

The theist scientist just one thinker.

We know we are human life body compared close to apes.

Yet there is no other advice. As close next body of the ape.

So we preach evolution is atmospheric cooling which allows cells to change.

Discussing ourselves. Healing. Losing mutations of our human body.

Therefore if we write a document that stated no man is God. Don't name God in earth as products. And if you change names of God which science says are the first earth bodies constantly the book of life DNA will be eradicated.

Dusts. Named.

If we claim we use consciousness of a human then we should agree with it.

We already knew.

Religion was human science. Meaning and teaching mis represented.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

How about the Ice Age? Do you think that major glaciation of North America happened before or after the flood (or not at all)?

Hi 9-10ths_Penguin. Good afternoon. I believe the ice age occurred post-flood. The energy that is held at the Earth by the increased carbon dioxide does more than heat the air. It melts ice; it heats the ocean. If most of the planet's life-forms were destroyed in Noah's flood, then it would be reasonable to assume that the carbon dioxide in the air would be reduced, therefore, especially at some regions of the earth, they would experience cold temperatures and ice would form. We know from the woolly mammoths and other similar animals discovered that temperatures plummeted. It's a question of thermal equilibrium. We need to ask ourselves how much heat from the sun is being trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than is escaping back to space.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hi 9-10ths_Penguin. Good afternoon. I believe the ice age occurred post-flood.

And all post-flood history is recorded history, right?

So do you have accounts of people encountering glaciers that aren't there any more? Stories of settlement on glacial till as the glaciers receded?

How about accounts from northern Pagans attributing the retreat of the glaciers to their gods?

 

[Messianic Israelite]

And all post-flood history is recorded history, right?

So do you have accounts of people encountering glaciers that aren't there any more? Stories of settlement on glacial till as the glaciers receded?

How about accounts from northern Pagans attributing the retreat of the glaciers to their gods?

Hi 9-10ths_Penguin. Good afternoon. Good point. I do not know of any accounts describing glaciers, perhaps because they accepted this as normal after the flood but we do have accounts of a flood in many civilizations, even if the accounts do not match entirely, it goes to suppose that one of the accounts regarding the flood that occurred was true.

“It has long been known that legends of a great flood, in which almost all men perished, are widely diffused over the world ...” James George Frazer, Folk-Lore in the Old Testament, Vol. 1, (London: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1919), p. 105.

Furthermore, why did the descendants of Noah want to choose to create a building project of Babel? Is it because of the quickly changing environments of their world? Perhaps they wanted a landmark in the ever changing environment of their world.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So do you have accounts of people encountering glaciers that aren't there any more? Stories of settlement on glacial till as the glaciers receded?
How about accounts from northern Pagans attributing the retreat of the glaciers to their gods?

Tell me something about that. I am interested in the subject. Zoroastrians (Yasna) talk of a flood by ice, though we do not have that in Vedas.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Due to an other OP about ToE i wanted to ask this.

Why is it so difficult to be an believer in God (or other deities) and still say.
Theory of evolution may have a lot of truth in It?

Belief is a belief/ Theory of Evolution just a Theory about how life started in our universe.

Non of them give a 100% clear answer.

Or what do you think?

My belief is, First Mover created all that we see exactly how He meant it to be. He does not interact with it per se, He infused the solutions into the mixture so why interact? This includes the many myriads of paths genetic evolution could have landed us instead of here and of course including this one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hi 9-10ths_Penguin. Good afternoon. Good point. I do not know of any accounts describing glaciers, perhaps because they accepted this as normal after the flood but we do have accounts of a flood in many civilizations, even if the accounts do not match entirely, it goes to suppose that one of the accounts regarding the flood that occurred was true.

If the glaciers were seen as normal, then their disappearance would have been seen as abnormal.

At the very least, there should be archaeological evidence: north of the glacial maximum line, there would be no signs of settlement until whatever (recent) date the glaciers began to recede, then you'd see settlement creep north, with all the settlements having consistently later and later dates the further north you go.

Do you see that?

BTW: speaking of archaeology, you claimed that landforms were "drastically rearranged" and that soil was moved and eroded; if humans were living with dinosaurs, early plankton, etc., why wouldn't humans have been fossilized along with those other things.

“It has long been known that legends of a great flood, in which almost all men perished, are widely diffused over the world ...” James George Frazer, Folk-Lore in the Old Testament, Vol. 1, (London: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1919), p. 105.

The fact that large floods happen all over the world frequently enough to become a feature of local mythology is sufficient to explain any number of flood myths, including yours.

Furthermore, why did the descendants of Noah want to choose to create a building project of Babel? Is it because of the quickly changing environments of their world? Perhaps they wanted a landmark in the ever changing environment of their world.

Oh, come on. That's a stretch even for you.

 

[wellwisher]

Hi 9-10ths_Penguin. Good afternoon. Good point. I do not know of any accounts describing glaciers, perhaps because they accepted this as normal after the flood but we do have accounts of a flood in many civilizations, even if the accounts do not match entirely, it goes to suppose that one of the accounts regarding the flood that occurred was true.

“It has long been known that legends of a great flood, in which almost all men perished, are widely diffused over the world ...” James George Frazer, Folk-Lore in the Old Testament, Vol. 1, (London: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1919), p. 105.

Furthermore, why did the descendants of Noah want to choose to create a building project of Babel? Is it because of the quickly changing environments of their world? Perhaps they wanted a landmark in the ever changing environment of their world.

The legends of a great flood appear within cultures all over the world; James George Frazer, including cultures who did not have direct contact. The Aborigines for example, were not in contact with western civilizations at the expected time of the great flood, nevertheless have the same stories.

Science, however, does not find any smoking gun data, that one would expect from such a cataclysmic global event. This paradox of many documented accounts, all over the ancient world, but no external data, hits at the heart of why creation and evolution cannot meet in the middle. One way to explain how both can be true, at the same time, is that evolution and creation are each speaking of two different things and not the same thing.

The late psychologist Carl Jung; who was the star pupil of Freud, developed the theory of the collective unconscious. In modern lingo, the collective unconscious can be understood as personality firmware within the human brain, connected to the brain's operating system. These archetypes or firmware are genetic based and common to all humans and define us a species. All humans, regardless of culture have similar human nature which is connected to our species. This is why we have modern ideas like all men are created equal; same neural operating system foundation.

These firmware are genetically based but empty at birth. They develop/grow by use interacting with the environment; learning and direct experience. As the firmware grows with data input, offers a way to organize and integrate the data within the confines of our collective human propensities. In terms of genetics, the firmware are genetic based but evolve by epigenetic changes that can alter the expression of the original genes on the DNA; human will and choice become possible.

Jung went on to prove his thesis of common human firmware by showing how cultures, with no history of interaction, all through history, were able generate similar types of symbols and mythologies. In essence, people from different cultures, via the collective nature of the archetypes; brain's firmware, spontaneously created similar ideas, since these came from similar firmware integrating similar earth data via the same human nature. The great flood was less about an external event like climate change, but more about an internal creative process, from collective unconscious and the human brain's operating system. All Window's computers will organize and store input in similar ways.

Even in science, it is not uncommon for two or more remote research teams to come up with the same approach for research, even if they never collaborated. The firmware parts of the modern human are very similar and therefore would, under similar learning conditions and data exposure, generate similar creative approaches to the future. Edison, for example, is given credit for many inventions he worked on that were also developed by parallel teams. Edison often gets the credit, due to his business savvy; different aspect of the firmware were more developed.

You may not always find a trails of bread crumbs to show plagiarism between two remote science teams doing the same research. Instead the brain's firmware, by being the same in all humans, can lead both teams down similar paths of creativity, even though separated. The stories of the Great Flood story would form in many teams, all over the world.

The great flood is like a practical example of collective output from the collective operating system of the human brain. This led to world wide collective creativity, along the lines of the same mythology. This was unique in history and appears to define the time after a major update in the firmware of the brain's operating system. It marks a turning point, based on a new modern operating system. The flood kills all but a small group. The majority get bugs during the uninstall and install processes.

The analogy is computers have even around since about 1822; Adam and Eve. But it was not until Windows 98 that computers became possible for the mass market; Great Flood. This new operating system allowed for an easier to use interface, that did not require much in the way of computer skills, that had been previous needed. The way of the old programmer approach, is now limited to software developers. They buildup the same DNA to create new software; epigenetic.

The philology of science does not include objective investigation of internally generated data by the firmware of the brain, since we do not have the tools to follow the flow of neural logic, in an external way. The philosophy remains projected onto external reality; external data. The philosophy of science needs an update to be able investigate the internal reality of our collective human firmware.

The current line in the sand is artifact of the extroverted only philosophy of science. If you include internal reality, religion makes more sense. Religions are more about human nature and how to better develop and evolve the firmware; increase the brain set point, back to paradise.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The legends of a great flood appear within cultures all over the world; James George Frazer, including cultures who did not have direct contact. The Aborigines for example, were not in contact with western civilizations at the expected time of the great flood, nevertheless have the same stories.

Why would this be surprising? Australia has floods occasionally, too.

Is there a culture on Earth that hasn't gone through at least one regional flood that was large enough to disrupt their society? That would have felt like their "whole world" was covered in water?

 

[Heyo]

Hi Heyo. Good morning. The catastrophic processes during and soon after the Flood would have drastically rearranged the earth’s land distribution. Then the retreating waters would have also eroded and moved sediments to create today’s varying landforms. If Noah's flood happened, we would expect to find the presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and lying in twisted and contorted positions, suggesting violent and rapid burials over large areas. This is what we find.

Fossilization can happen much quicker than you think, that has been proven by science. What fossilization is just the addition of minerals into an object so it just depends on fast these are added. Given perfect conditions it can happen in a couple of hours if not minutes like in the case of fossilized fish found in the Santana Formation in Brazil. These are believed by some experts to have been killed by fossilization process that is they were fossilized alive.

In terms of the Cliffs of Dover, Wikipedia states "The cliffs' chalk face shows horizontal bands of dark-coloured flint which is composed of the remains of sea sponges and siliceous planktonic micro-organisms that hardened into the microscopic quartz crystals. Quartz silica filled cavities left by dead marine creatures which are found as flint fossils, especially the internal moulds of Micraster echinoids. Several different ocean floor species such as brachiopods, bivalves, crinoids, and sponges can be found in the chalk deposits, as can sharks' teeth". I would suggest the cliffs of Dover was an accumulation of dead sea creatures that resulted from the flood.

I don't want to turn this into a "creation vs. science" thread, we have a separate forum for that. If you have questions about the ToE, I have an open invitation here: Why the Theory of Evolution is True. Part 1: What is Science?

 

[Messianic Israelite]

If the glaciers were seen as normal, then their disappearance would have been seen as abnormal.

At the very least, there should be archaeological evidence: north of the glacial maximum line, there would be no signs of settlement until whatever (recent) date the glaciers began to recede, then you'd see settlement creep north, with all the settlements having consistently later and later dates the further north you go.

Do you see that?

BTW: speaking of archaeology, you claimed that landforms were "drastically rearranged" and that soil was moved and eroded; if humans were living with dinosaurs, early plankton, etc., why wouldn't humans have been fossilized along with those other things.


The fact that large floods happen all over the world frequently enough to become a feature of local mythology is sufficient to explain any number of flood myths, including yours.


Oh, come on. That's a stretch even for you.

Hi 9-10ths_Penguin. Good afternoon. haha, not a stretch in my opinion. You have to remember that it's much easier for ice to form on land than it is on water. Here's a map I found of the ice extent of what is referred to as the Last Glacial Maximum (Map Viewer) As you can see, the area of the Middle East, wasn't affected by the ice age as much as was the north, north-west and south. At one point during the Ice Age, sheets of ice covered all of Antarctica, large parts of Europe, North America, and South America, and small areas in Asia. In North America they stretched over Greenland and Canada and parts of the northern United States. In the Bible it tells us that the people (descendants of Noah) moved eastward in Genesis 11:1.

"Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there." Why did they move east? Was it perhaps to get away from the cold conditions? Was Babel to serve as a type of watch-tower?

Here is a map of what is thought to be where the descendents, Shem, Ham and Japheth went: Jewish Encyclopedia - Kittim and Javan was associated with Macedonia

It really is incredible to see woolly mammoths preserved completely in ice such as the following: Flowing blood found in frozen woolly mammoth for first time Why the cold conditions in those zones affected by the ice must have been treacherous. No human would live there. They were some zones which humans clearly stayed far from.

In terms of human and other fossils being found together, well, dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistan d and Arizona.e Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock. f Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina.g Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100-million years after the coal bed was formed.h Amber, found in Illinois coal beds, contain chemical signatures showing that the amber came from flowering plants, but flowering plants supposedly evolved 170-million years after the coal formed.i In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrianj rocks—rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambriank rocks deposited before life allegedly evolved.

Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25-million years before flowers are assumed to have evolved.m Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 25. Out-of-Sequence Fossils (creationscience.com)

Further, a retreating glacier often left behind large deposits of ice in hollows between drumlins or hills. As the ice age ended, these melted to create huge lakes.

If a worldwide flood did occur, humans would probably manage to stay alive the longest. Humans can help each other, if they get stuck in mud, or try to reach higher ground, or make use of buoyant material.

 

[Heyo]

Why is it so difficult to be an believer in God (or other deities) and still say.
Theory of evolution may have a lot of truth in It?

This

(creationscience.com)

may have a lot to do with that. People can't discern belief from science when they are misinformed about what science is.

 

[metis]

If I can jump in on this.

The legends of a great flood appear within cultures all over the world; James George Frazer, including cultures who did not have direct contact. The Aborigines for example, were not in contact with western civilizations at the expected time of the great flood, nevertheless have the same stories.

About 2/3 of societies did, and they're societies that generally experience periodic flooding.

Science, however, does not find any smoking gun data, that one would expect from such a cataclysmic global event.

There is 0 evidence of a worldwide flood event, especially since geological and fossil patterns would have been very different had there been as such.

The philology of science does not include objective investigation of internally generated data by the firmware of the brain, since we do not have the tools to follow the flow of neural logic, in an external way.

Again, 0 is 0, so the above cannot and does not apply.

The current line in the sand is artifact of the extroverted only philosophy of science. If you include internal reality, religion makes more sense.

Philosophy is not science as we use a different process.

I believe that the Flood narrative is much more likely a response to refute the teachings of the earlier and much more widespread Babylonian narrative that is polytheistic. Thus, the importance of the Jewish/Christian Flood narrative is its teachings about one God and that our one God created all, thus this is His creation, and that sin has its consequences. This was and is a common form of teaching found within oral traditions especially but also most literate traditions as well. It's the use of "myth" to tell "our story", but "myth" in this context does not mean nor imply falsehood.

Sorry to be a buttinsky.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are incredibly complex—so complex that claims they have evolved are absurd. Furthermore, those claims lack experimental support. [“There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems.” Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 179.]

“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.” Behe, pp. 186–187.

As Ella S. was saying, abiogenesis is a completely different subject from evolution. Evolution has overwhelming evidence. Abiogenesis has very little. Science simply hasn't come up with a strong theory of how life came from non-life. But that has no bearing on the theory of evolution, which is very firm. You really have to be anti-science to reject the theory of evolution.