But only YECs like you think the "documents" produced by Hebrew Priests about 2,700 years ago should be interpreted to mean the universe has been in existence for only 6,100 years.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But only YECs like you think the "documents" produced by Hebrew Priests about 2,700 years ago should be interpreted to mean the universe has been in existence for only 6,100 years.This is why He documented it --- so we wouldn't be deceived about the length of time the universe has existed.
But only YECs like you think the "documents" produced by Hebrew Priests about 2,700 years ago should be interpreted to mean the universe has been in existence for only 6,100 years.
It is but so is your YEC interpretation of the Bible. I will end this here for my part.QV Post 35, please --- and I thought you said this was "off topic"?
Why have embedded age at all then?This is why He documented it --- so we wouldn't be deceived about the length of time the universe has existed.
I find it odd that Creationists who insist God would never be responsible for the deaths of animals in evolution have no problem claiming he wiped out almost every creature on the face of the planet in a global flood.This is one of the reasons why the Bible is against evolution --- qv points 2 & 3.Originally Posted by Chalnoth
Possible? Well, sure, but who would want to worship that kind of a deity? One who knows so little about biology that he has to use a trial and error process to find the "right" organism? One who is content to kill off nearly all species that ever live on a regular basis? One that is just fine with letting organisms perish, sometimes in horribly painful ways, simply because they were born with the wrong combinations of genes?
Why have embedded age at all then?
I find it odd that Creationists who insist God would never be responsible for the deaths of animals in evolution have no problem claiming he wiped out almost every creature on the face of the planet in a global flood.
Sorry, this still doesn't make sense to me. If God were a real super-natural omnipotent being life could be sustained without any of the above criteria. No need for evidence beyond 6,000 years. Adam and Eve would have been able to exist. Actually, it's interesting that you put limitations on to your god. I haven't come across such a position so far on the board until now.So we can live in a mature universe --- one that can sustain life.
Without it:
And I haven't even mentioned the plants and animals.
- Adam and Eve couldn't have gotten married.
- Adam and Eve couldn't have been able to converse with God.
- Adam couldn't have been able to name the animals.
- In short --- Adam and Eve wouldn't have been able to exist.
Which leads me to wonder if you can understand the consruct of a sentence, much less the nature of the theory of evolution. If you accept that all life on earth arouse from a "common ancestor," then all life on earth can trace its heritage back along the evolutionary tree to that common ancestor. What you probably meant to say was that the whales are not 'direct' ancestors of man, but you either accept the notion that we all came from the same place or you dont.
It's blatantly obvious that you know nothing about what you're talking about because of what you say about the subject. Here, I'll show you an example. You state:Why don't you guys learn a new debate tactic? You have no idea of my qualificaitons, you simply read a statement you disagree with and evoke Knee Jerk Response Number Five, attack the poster by stating he isn't "enlightened" enough to understand.
No ancestor of ours did this. Evolution works on populations, and changes occur slowly over multiple generations. But you are talking here as if evolution works by the choice of individuals. Nothing could be farther from the truth. And besides, we have multiple fossils spanning the very changes you're talking about here (which took place over ~400-500 million years).Speciation is another term which has at least 12 different meanings, but we all know what we are talking about here. Macro-evolution is the process which attempts to explain how some 'ancestor' of ours crawled out of the sea, became a land mammal, and then for some reason crawled back into the sea and became whales.
For the same reason I gave the last time you QVed that old thread of yours. I gave a detailed reply which you weren't able to answer. Why bring it up again? http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=46317370&postcount=110Death is portrayed as an enemy of God ---
[bible]1 Corinthians 15:26[/bible]
So why would there be death in Genesis 1?
For the same reason we see the snake in Gen 3:1So why would there be death in Genesis 1?
Sorry, this still doesn't make sense to me. If God were a real super-natural omnipotent being life could be sustained without any of the above criteria. No need for evidence beyond 6,000 years. Adam and Eve would have been able to exist. Actually, it's interesting that you put limitations on to your god. I haven't come across such a position so far on the board until now.
I don't see what it has to do with making the earth seem billions of years old as criteria for creating Adam and Eve, from dirt, at the age of 30. I like to think I have a pretty creative imagination but I can't grasp where your coming from.Let me ask you a question, Braunwyn --- which statement makes more sense to you:
- 30-year-old man weds 30-year-old woman.
- 1-day-old man weds 1-day-old woman.
For the same reason I gave the last time you QVed that old thread of yours. I gave a detailed reply which you weren't able to answer.
Why bring it up again?
Is Satan an enemy of God?
Why do we see him in the Garden before the fall?
I pointed out that God had created Satan before he became God's enemy. All you were able to say was that he had a different name back then. So what?
Just because death is described as God's enemy now does not mean it was always God's enemy.
For the same reason we see the snake in Gen 3:1
Which leads me to wonder if you can understand the consruct of a sentence, much less the nature of the theory of evolution. If you accept that all life on earth arouse from a "common ancestor," then all life on earth can trace its heritage back along the evolutionary tree to that common ancestor. What you probably meant to say was that the whales are not 'direct' ancestors of man, but you either accept the notion that we all came from the same place or you dont.
Why don't you guys learn a new debate tactic? You have no idea of my qualificaitons, you simply read a statement you disagree with and evoke Knee Jerk Response Number Five, attack the poster by stating he isn't "enlightened" enough to understand.
Nope. The primary rationale for evolution through random mutations and natural selection is evidence. We see it happening all the time. We understand how different mutations occur. We are able to show that those mutations are random with respect to fitness. We can produce predictions of expected genetic divergence between species and, lo and behold, the predictions match observation to within the experimental errors.Again, this is the typical response of the opposition to anyone who questions any tenant of evolutionary theory. The problem is that the primary rationale for neo-Darwinist evolution through random mutations and genetic drift...is the lack of conclusive evidence of non-randomness, intentionality or design.
No, because we don't put untested, unevidenced theories into the classroom. We teach students tested, valid science, not unsubstantiated guesses.If evolution is driven by an external (or innate) intelligence...and that intelligence happens to be God...Then the banishment of the subject from the classroom is a War on Science.
Sure we do. It's the exact same thing that drives evolution within species.We don't know what drives evolution of species. We pretty well know what drives evolution within species.
If ID advocates had any valid arguments to present, you might have a point. They don't, so you don't.I don't have any problem at all with teaching that the neo-Darwinist hypothesis is the most widely accepted version of evolutionary theory. I do have a problem with the dogmatic defense of neo-Darwinism as the only acceptable theory.
"Punctuated equilibrium" isn't sudden. It's still a gradual process. It's just a gradual process that is faster at some times than at others. Oh, and by the way, we now understand fully why there is this "punctuated equilibrium" apparent: it comes from the mathematical principle of self-ordered criticality. Basically, a system that has the property of self-ordered criticality has the property that it approaches metastable states where one a significant change to the state occurs, the resultant change to the system is not proportional to the change in the state.If it's random mutation and genetic drift...the fossil record shouldn't constitute clear evidence of punctuated equilibrium.
The communication error wasn't on your part. Her post read the same way for me as well.Perhaps I misunderstood you. If you are aware that the theory doesn't state that early whales are our ancestors or that individuals evolve, I'm happy. Of course it would have made communication clearer, had you not over simplified, and stuck several hundred million years of evolution into a single sentence, in an attempt to mock the theory.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?