Evidence for macro-evolution

[NxNW]

Yes.

A net zero.

Not a gross zero.

What's the difference?

God took gross zero and changed it to net zero.

In six days.

Why did it take so long?

 

[Astrid]

No. Geophysics is the mechanics of rocks, mantel convection, etc. It is not "impacted" by the specific details of what critters got trapped in a rock layer during formation. It certainly would have no impact outside the "geo" part of physics. No impact on astronomy, cosmology, solid state physics, particle physics, fluid mechanics, quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, etc.

Different verse, same as the first. Chemistry is not affected by what critters got trapped in a rock layer during formation. Not any branch of chemistry would be invalidated.

eyeroll

Roll away as it suits you, but
I dont believe youve thought it
through.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Roll away as it suits you, but
I dont believe youve thought it
through.

Thought what through? How this mythical problem with biology affects all other sciences, especially the ones that aren't dependent on biology? Don't think so.

 

[AV1611VET]

What's the difference?

A gross zero is just that ... nothing.

A net zero requires matter, with antimatter to offset it.

Why did it take so long?

Creator's choice.

 

[partinobodycular]

I was asked why God took six days, and I responded that He could have done it in the wink of an eye, but chose six days as a template for the work week.

Anything wrong with that?

Well, yes actually. Because it provides absolutely no credible evidence that said work week was the handiwork of a supreme being, or the precursor thereof. It could just as easily have been the handiwork of an ancient middle eastern historian, documenting the prevailing creation myth. Which unfortunately can be said of the entire creation narrative. Which leaves a supposedly divinely inspired work with no evidence of its divinity.

Now if I was a divine creator, narrating a book meant specifically for the enlightenment of the creation, then I might want to stick a few verifiable details into the text. If you could please point one of them out to me, then I'd be very appreciative.

Garden of Eden ... stars arranged as a pictogram of the Plan of Salvation ... no death, decay, or disorder ... pure gene pool.

Great!!! These are exactly what I'm looking for. Now if you could just provide me with some extra-Biblical evidence for them, we'll be off to the races. If not, then it's just another example of blowing smoke.

Because of the Fall.

Just out of curiosity, how long was it between the creation and the Fall?

Looks like someone needs a time machine, doesn't he?

Indeed, and that someone would be you.

Be thankful He didn't feel like a ten-day week with one day off.

So why didn't He? And again out of curiosity, what else did God do simply out of whimsy? In fact, was the entire act of creation an act of whimsy? Is the whole idea of an "Intelligent design" nothing more than a bored Tuesday.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, yes actually. Because it provides absolutely no credible evidence that said work week was the handiwork of a supreme being, or the precursor thereof. It could just as easily have been the handiwork of an ancient middle eastern historian, documenting the prevailing creation myth.

For the sake of arguing, then said historian documented a six day creation as a template for a six day work week.

That should satisfy anyone asking why said historian choose six days.

Which unfortunately can be said of the entire creation narrative. Which leaves a supposedly divinely inspired work with no evidence of its divinity.

We're talking apples and oranges now.

I'm going to assume your curiosity has been sufficiently satisfied.

Now if I was a divine creator, narrating a book meant specifically for the enlightenment of the creation, then I might want to stick a few verifiable details into the text. If you could please point one of them out to me, then I'd be very appreciative.

But you don't know what you want.

You want an ion trail? time quartz? plasma cloud?

What exactly?

Great!!! These are exactly what I'm looking for. Now if you could just provide me with some extra-Biblical evidence for them, we'll be off to the races. If not, then it's just another example of blowing smoke.

Well before the room gets too foggy, let's take care of first things first.

God created the universe in six days on purpose, and used it as a template for the work week.

Just out of curiosity, how long was it between the creation and the Fall?

That's a good question.

Some think a year.

Personally I don't know.

So why didn't He?

I'm sure if He would have, you'd be asking why He didn't take six days.

And again out of curiosity, what else did God do simply out of whimsy?

Nothing.

In fact, was the entire act of creation an act of whimsy?

No.

Is the whole idea of an "Intelligent design" nothing more than a bored Tuesday.

No.

 

[partinobodycular]

For the sake of arguing, then said historian documented a six day creation as a template for a six day work week.

That should satisfy anyone asking why said historian choose six days.

Absolutely... choosing a six day week doesn't require divinity. Good to know, and good to know that you agree. So let's strike the whole six day week thing from being evidence for God.

But you don't know what you want.

You want an ion trail? time quartz? plasma cloud?

What exactly?

Actually, there are millions of ways in which God could've demonstrated His part in creation. For example, an ancient middle eastern historian could've easily fabricated the story of a six day creation week, but could he have accurately predicted that a year consists of exactly 365 1/4 days? Predicting the length of a week... easy. Predicting the length of year... impressive. And what about the length of a year on Neptune? God could've predicted that as well... but alas, He didn't. Such an obvious opportunity to demonstrate His existence, and God squandered it.

Well before the room gets too foggy, let's take care of first things first.

So you have no extra-biblical evidence for any of these:

Garden of Eden ... stars arranged as a pictogram of the Plan of Salvation ... no death, decay, or disorder ... pure gene pool.

God created the universe in six days on purpose, and used it as a template for the work week.

So says an ancient middle eastern historian, a claim which you have no way of refuting. So as far as being evidence for God... it ain't.

I'm sure if He would have, you'd be asking why He didn't take six days.

Absolutely I would... because I'm trying to ascertain the nature of your God... specifically, why He does the things that He does. Apparently He does a lot of things out of sheer whimsy. Which quite frankly, doesn't strike me as being all that re-assuring.

Nothing.

So God didn't do anything else on whimsy? So why did God make plants on day three? Or why did make the sun on day four?

No.

I'm not so sure, there seem to be a lot of things that God did simply on whimsy. So maybe He did everything on whimsy.

 

[Shemjaza]

We have a historical report of the first murder. But I think we can agree that science is irrelevant to solving the crime. You suggest this is because it is just a story. But you cannot dismiss the story on scientific grounds either because there is no evidence at all pertinent to it. The evidence is revealed and historical only.

There is no scientific reason to believe that Cain murdered Abel, true so we have a story about the event.

What you can do is use science to investigate if the source of the story is plausible as a source for literal events... and in this case it most certainly is not.

The story of Cain and Abel is linked in the text to Adam and Eve as well as Noah's Ark, both of which are literally impossible when we consider the world as we can observe it.

We can make educated guesses based on patterns. The car was traveling at 50mph when it was obscured by the traffic in between. If it carries on along the road and at the same speed then it will arrive at point x in approximately 8 seconds. But in reality, the car turned off, slowed down, skidded to a stop on the hard shoulder, crashed, blew up or whatever and so our assumptions were all wrong. Macro-evolution is just a collection of guesses at a supposed distance of hundreds of millions of years.

To extend your analogy, it's that we aren't talking about one specific car we are talking about trends of the multitude of cars we can study at different rates, different locations and different degrees observation.

Also the description "just a collection of guesses at a supposed distance of hundreds of millions of years" is simply untrue.

The point about evolution is not that we don't just have the longest time line... we have a multitude of timelines from weeks to billions of years and from fossils, to genetics to models.

We have multiple independent fields of study and methods of inquiry that support the theory.

 

[Astrid]

Thought what through? How this mythical problem with biology affects all other sciences, especially the ones that aren't dependent on biology? Don't think so.

You couldda just said you dont do mythical
or hypothetical.

 

[mindlight]

Not universally, no. But OK, if you want to poach on the traditional version of the doctrine rather than the way you are using it here, it still won't work for you. The Bible is quite explicit that God created the biosphere and man himself ex materia and in real space-time. Thus even the Bible tells us that life is a fit object of scientific investigation.

The naturalistic assumption is that science only deals with what it can detect and measure, It can do neither with the supernatural. I don't know what you mean by "allow for it."

You are partially right because while creation as a whole was created ex nihilo as you say life was created ex materia and inside time. The current theory of abiogenesis is unsupported by anything like scientific evidence. But once life began and man was formed from the dust of the earth the processes by which God guided the development of life were in part ex materia and in part ex nihilo. Micro-evolutionary theory has a legitimate subject matter in the change and diversity that can be seen in humanity.

Man can be distinguished from the animals and plants because made in God's image. The act of creating Adam was in part a forming ex materia and in part a breathing of God's life into a creature designed for eternity that therefore transcends any space-time boundaries set by the final judgment.

Naturalistic science is only looking for stuff it can measure and detect as you say, 95 % of the universe is excluded by that definition and the supernatural realm also. You are merely affirming the limited scope of science here.

 

[BCP1928]

You are partially right because while creation as a whole was created ex nihilo as you say life was created ex materia and inside time. The current theory of abiogenesis is unsupported by anything like scientific evidence.

I don't quite follow that. Are you saying that abiogenesis took place outside of space time so there can be no evidence of it for science to investigate? Or that just that you believe there has been no evidence discovered yet?

But once life began and man was formed from the dust of the earth the processes by which God guided the development of life were in part ex materia and in part ex nihilo. Micro-evolutionary theory has a legitimate subject matter in the change and diversity that can be seen in humanity.

Man can be distinguished from the animals and plants because made in God's image. The act of creating Adam was in part a forming ex materia and in part a breathing of God's life into a creature designed for eternity that therefore transcends any space-time boundaries set by the final judgment.

And?

Naturalistic science is only looking for stuff it can measure and detect as you say, 95 % of the universe is excluded by that definition and the supernatural realm also. You are merely affirming the limited scope of science here.

You want 95% of the natural universe to be off limits to science? Too late--you should never have let Galileo build that telescope.

 

[mindlight]

There is no scientific reason to believe that Cain murdered Abel, true so we have a story about the event.

What you can do is use science to investigate if the source of the story is plausible as a source for literal events... and in this case it most certainly is not.

The story of Cain and Abel is linked in the text to Adam and Eve as well as Noah's Ark, both of which are literally impossible when we consider the world as we can observe it.



To extend your analogy, it's that we aren't talking about one specific car we are talking about trends of the multitude of cars we can study at different rates, different locations and different degrees observation.

Also the description "just a collection of guesses at a supposed distance of hundreds of millions of years" is simply untrue.

The point about evolution is not that we don't just have the longest time line... we have a multitude of timelines from weeks to billions of years and from fossils, to genetics to models.

We have multiple independent fields of study and methods of inquiry that support the theory.

The world as we can observe it is not the world that Cain and Abel inhabited because there was a massive supernatural event that pretty much wiped the place clean and fundamentally degraded its life supporting capacity. Uniformitarianism is your assumption here. The view that evidences we can observe now can be generalised from back through the millennia. It is an assumption held to by faith not one that can be evidentially justified.

I understand when you speak about a broader database than just one incident reveals. Models describe broad trends and collate major trends. The assumption that the standard outweighs the exception is the big one here. Miracles are rare and wonderful outliers, whatever your scientific discipline and filter set, not normal expectations. If one miracle occurs then the whole database is questionable. If one car behaves in a random way we cannot suggest that the database has a full mastery of the flows nor that is foolproof. The calculations here are probabilistic and shaped by the assumptions that are generally shown to be correct. But the margin of error always overthrows the certainty that can be ascribed to them and too much weight is given to the assumptions. The biggest assumption of all is the exclusion of the supernatural as a possible explanation for non-standard events. This was helpful in demythologising a lot of nonsence from centuries back but now it has gone too far.

 

[mindlight]

I don't quite follow that. Are you saying that abiogenesis took place outside of space time so there can be no evidence of it for science to investigate? Or that just that you believe there has been no evidence developed yet?



And?

You want 95% of the natural universe to be off limits to science? Too late--you should never have let Galileo build that telescope.

Man is part natural and part supernatural because made in Gods image. So there are ex materia and ex nihilo aspects to his special creation. You have a soul basically.

Abiogenesis is rubbish and not even a proper scientific theory.

95% of the universe is dark matter/energy and you cannot read it // then there is also the supernatural.

 

[mindlight]

Please summarize what the theory of macro evolution states.

Macroevolution usually means the evolution of large-scale structures and traits that go significantly beyond the intraspecific variation found in microevolution (including speciation). In other words, macroevolution is the evolution of taxa above the species level (genera, families, orders, etc.)

Macroevolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[BCP1928]

Man is part natural and part supernatural because made in Gods image. So there are ex materia and ex nihilo aspects to his special creation. You have a soul basically.

OK, and that disproves the theory of evolution exactly how? (if that's still what you are trying to disprove--I'm having trouble keeping track)

Abiogenesis is rubbish and not even a proper scientific theory.

Yes, abiogenesis occurred but the material aspects of how it occurred is not yet a proper scientific theory at this point. Even you agree that it occurred and the Bible backs it up,

95% of the universe is dark matter/energy and you cannot read it // then there is also the supernatural.

So what? If it exists in the material universe then it is, in principle, subject to scientific investigation.

 

[BCP1928]

Macroevolution usually means the evolution of large-scale structures and traits that go significantly beyond the intraspecific variation found in microevolution (including speciation). In other words, macroevolution is the evolution of taxa above the species level (genera, families, orders, etc.)

Macroevolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you agree that speciation occurs then the argument is over. The "higher taxa" as you call them are arbitrary man-made categories into which the results of repeated speciation can be sorted.

 

[Astrid]

You are partially right because while creation as a whole was created ex nihilo as you say life was created ex materia and inside time. The current theory of abiogenesis is unsupported by anything like scientific evidence. But once life began and man was formed from the dust of the earth the processes by which God guided the development of life were in part ex materia and in part ex nihilo. Micro-evolutionary theory has a legitimate subject matter in the change and diversity that can be seen in humanity.

Man can be distinguished from the animals and plants because made in God's image. The act of creating Adam was in part a forming ex materia and in part a breathing of God's life into a creature designed for eternity that therefore transcends any space-time boundaries set by the final judgment.

Naturalistic science is only looking for stuff it can measure and detect as you say, 95 % of the universe is excluded by that definition and the supernatural realm also. You are merely affirming the limited scope of science here.

You are partly correct in that there are no
spelling errors in "current abiogenesis theory"
and "micro evolutionary theory".

You are incorrect, though, in stating that either of these theories actually exist.
They do not. You made them up.

You are partly right is saying that "abiogenesis theory"
has no evidence, but are wrong suggesting that there could
be a scientific theory with no evidence. It's a contradiction.
Its nonsense.

There is much evidence that yec are constitutionally incapable of ever admitting the slightest error.

Maybe you can show an exception, before the data
adds up to a theory.

 

[NxNW]

Macroevolution usually means the evolution of large-scale structures and traits that go significantly beyond the intraspecific variation found in microevolution (including speciation). In other words, macroevolution is the evolution of taxa above the species level (genera, families, orders, etc.)

Macroevolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I didn't ask for a wiki definition of the term. I asked you what the "theory" states. What does it predict?

Or better yet, provide an example.

 

[AV1611VET]

So why did God make plants on day three? Or why did make the sun on day four?

I've speculated that the reason He did that, is because He new that in the latter days evolution would become a dominant belief among the lost, and so He -- as I put it -- "jumbled up" the order of events vis-a-vis the order of events of the Big Bang theory so as to make Genesis 1 stand out more as a series of miracles -- not a series of natural events.

Putting the earth before the sun, angiosperms before the sun, whales before land animals, was a master stroke of genius, if you ask me.

POST 103

POST 187

POST 107

POST 71

POST 692

POST 15

 

[Hans Blaster]

You couldda just said you dont do mythical
or hypothetical.

I have no idea what you are talking about now. (But, no I am not interested in myths.)