Evolution is Not Atheistic

[Butterfly99]

I used adam as a starting point as compared to the creation of the earth because the "length" of the days between those two events can be almost anything.

Bishop Ussher, and others did the math..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

1. Early times (Creation to Solomon). Ostensibly the easiest period, as the Bible provides an unbroken male lineage from Adamthrough to Solomon complete with the ages of the individuals involved. However, not all of the versions of the Bible provide the same ages — the Septuagint gives much longer ages, adding about 1500 years to the date of Creation.[citation needed] Ussher resolved this problem by relying on the Hebrew Bible instead.
2. Early Age of Kings (Solomon to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity). The lineage breaks down at this point, with only the length of the kings' reigns being provided and a number of overlaps and ambiguities complicating the picture. Ussher had to cross-reference the Biblical records with known dates of other people and rulers to create an overall timeline.
3. Late Age of Kings (Ezra and Nehemiah to the birth of Jesus). No information at all is provided in the Bible. Ussher and his counterparts therefore had to try to link a known event from this period with a dateable event in another culture, such as the Chaldeans, Persians or Romans. For instance, the death of the Chaldean King Nebuchadnezzar II (who conquered Jerusalem in 586 BC) could be correlated with the 37th year of the exile of Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:27).

Another article is here:
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm

OK. I think saying it's very clear in the Bible is a huge stretch.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Although there was undoubtedly a first human being, the Genesis account does not portray him.

Do you think that Jesus would have known who the first human beings was, and if this first human did actually have a name, do you think that Jesus would know his or her name?

 

[Butterfly99]

Aren't Adam & Eve's names symbolic?

 

[SkyWriting]

Understand what I mean by a model. For example, we see evolution today into whole new species (meaning that the new species can no longer reproduce with the old species, and its offspring is not sterile). Given the long time that life has existed on our planet, we can extrapolate from this model that such evolution would, from a single life form, produce all the different genera and species we find today.

I love Science Fiction. All very pretty, but in no way scientific.
Please cite your sources.

Steps of the Scientific Method - Science Buddies

Images for the scientific method

Introduction to the Scientific Method

What is the "scientific method''?

 

[SkyWriting]

Aren't Adam & Eve's names symbolic?

They are that too.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Aren't Adam & Eve's names symbolic?

Please tell me which of the following presents an historical narrative.

Genesis 15:2
But Abram said, “Sovereign Lord, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?”

Genesis 4:1
Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.

 

[roasthawg]

I understand how you can be undecided on the age of the earth. But the bible is very clear on when adam was created.
From then until now, there is not enough time for evolution to have worked.


ETA: Welcome aboard.

We have no way to estimate the length of a day in relation to God is my point. Assuming that the days of creation are based upon time in relation to God then we can not accurately estimate how long that sixth day was in comparison to the way which those of us on earth experience time. Time is relative and changes based on speed or gravity. What speed is God moving at on the sixth day and what type of gravity was He experiencing?

We have no way of answering those questions and hence no way of estimating what that 24hr period for Him might have looked like for one of us. For us, gravity and velocity are all so close that the differences in our personal experiences of time are virtually equal. Can we say the same for God though? The bible tells us we can't when it says a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day to the Lord.

I don't believe that the length of time that the creation of man took nor the age of the earth according to the biblical account preclude evolution from ever having taken place. A tougher one for me when it comes to evolution and the bible is the creation of Eve and the mechanisms that took place there.

 

[Meowzltov]

I didn't require a broad statement that provided no evidence. I just wanted your strongest single evidence (fact) that invertabrates evolved into vertebrates.

While no explicit transitional forms between invertibrate and vertibrate fish have been found, we have fossils of "prevertabrate" fish. https://www.coursehero.com/file/p2c...-fish-species-are-found-in-Ordovician-marine/

Today we have fish that are transitional, who have cartilage spines rather than bone spines. Sharks come to mind.

It is very easy to imagine of the chordates, going from the invertebrate notochord and neural tube, to a cartilege spine, to a vertebrate.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

It is very easy to imagine

Today we have a huge variety of life with all of the variations which you described and more, and what it actually proves is that these exist side by side.

 

[Meowzltov]

Aren't Adam & Eve's names symbolic?

Not symbolic, but they can be translated from Hebrew, where they definitely have meaning.

Adam means man, red, or earth. This is because the earth in that place had a reddish tint to it, and the color of skin when Genesis was written also had a reddish tint.

Eve is really supposed to be CHAVA. It's just transliterated very badly.
"The man called his wife's name Chava, because she had become the mother of all the living" (Genesis 3:20). The root of this name is connected with the word Chaya which means living, and the word "Chai" which means life. "Chava" is in causative form – i.e. she caused all the people in the future to live. (source: "Rashi" Genesis 3:20 with "Siftei Chachamim")

 

[SkyWriting]

According to everything science knows about evolution, the first human beings were male and female. Human beings were never androgynous. Androgynous species were millions of years back down the evolutionary chain.

How would you define the first male and female humans?
What made them different?
Were they blonde and the dark haired people refused to mate with them?

 

[Meowzltov]

SCIENCE: worm >>> fish

Ever heard of an eel?

 

[Meowzltov]

Do you think that Jesus would have known who the first human beings was, and if this first human did actually have a name, do you think that Jesus would know his or her name?

Jesus did what I do all the time. Talked about Adam. So what.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Jesus did what I do all the time. Talked about Adam. So what.

So what?
.
You talk about evolution all the time.
So what?

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

SCIENCE: worm >>> fish

Ever heard of an eel?

You believe that an eel is half worm/half fish.

 

[Meowzltov]

I love Science Fiction. All very pretty, but in no way scientific.
Please cite your sources.

the online sources only give brief couple of paragraph desriptions of the steps. I'm going by what I was taught when I myself was taught how to teach science to elementary school students.

The example I gave you works as part of the scientific method, don't you agree? The same type of model is used for all sorts of things. We can measure the time it takes for sound to travel a mile, and then use that model to extrapolate a constant, and can figure how much time it would take for sound to travel from Earth to Mars without measuring it directly. So in my example we can design a test to answer the question, "If evolution is true, we should be able to see it on a much, much smaller scale in our lifetimes," and then look for it. Finally we extrapolate this model back through time, and voila! we get evolution as we now know it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Ever heard of an eel?

It seems they are surprisingly hard to evolve by random mutation.

"You have to simultaneously co-evolve genes that do very many different things in some kind of directed manner. It [can't just] be random," says Maler. "And that's hard to understand. They've raised the problem beautifully in this paper."

Nonhuman genetics. Genomic basis
for the convergent evolution of
electric organs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24970089

 

[Meowzltov]

How would you define the first male and female humans?
What made them different?
Were they blonde and the dark haired people refused to mate with them?

They were not different than you and I. Homo Sapiens Sapiens (our species) is different from Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis and Homo Erectus (more primitive human species that existed when the first modern humans came into being) in stature, cranial capacity, facial structure, an ability to adjust better to climate changes, and the ability to create art.

The first Homo Sapiens Sapiens were dark Africans. There were no blondes at that time. Modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years. The genetic mutation that produced European blonde hair has been isolated to only about 11,000 years ago.

 

[SkyWriting]

the online sources only give brief couple of paragraph desriptions of the steps. I'm going by what I was taught when I myself was taught how to teach science to elementary school students.

The example I gave you works as part of the scientific method, don't you agree? The same type of model is used for all sorts of things. We can measure the time it takes for sound to travel a mile, and then use that model to extrapolate a constant, and can figure how much time it would take for sound to travel from Earth to Mars without measuring it directly. So in my example we can design a test to answer the question, "If evolution is true, we should be able to see it on a much, much smaller scale in our lifetimes," and then look for it. Finally we extrapolate this model back through time, and voila! we get evolution as we now know it.

Bologna. Please cite your sources.
Models provide the framework for creating experiments
and collecting test data. They do not provide any supporting
data themselves. When you create a model, you follow with testing.

 

[As I was saying]

Evolution doesn't take faith. It is evidence based. Either the evidence convinces you or it doesn't. Nothing to do with faith. So the first thing you have to do is familiarize yourself with the evidence. This will take time and study. You can't approach it with your mind already made up.

To quote David Berlinski, philosopher and mathematician, "To hold such a view [evolution] is an act of faith far beyond anything expected by Christians or Jews. It demands a complete suspension of belief better suited to readers of fairy tales."