Is evolution a fact or theory?

[The Barbarian]

Micro evolution does happen its how we got blue eyes, red hair, frekles ect all the minute differences between ourselves and other groups of people.

As you just learned, evolution is also the way that mammals evolved from reptiles (see above for some of the evidence) Would you like to learn more about that?

Macro evolution or ape-man theory is a completly unsubstantiated theory

It's directly observed. Even many creationist organizations admit speciation is a fact. YE creationist Kurt Wise says that transitional forms are "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory." The difference between you and Wise is that he actually knows the evidence.

Learn about it and you'll do much better here.

 

[Cement]

As you just learned, evolution is also the way that mammals evolved from reptiles (see above for some of the evidence) Would you like to learn more about that?



It's directly observed. Even many creationist organizations admit speciation is a fact. YE creationist Kurt Wise says that transitional forms are "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory." The difference between you and Wise is that he actually knows the evidence.

Learn about it and you'll do much better here.

Lets hear your take on Genesis.

 

[The Barbarian]

Lets hear your take on Genesis.

Actually, Genesis is a very large book, with many, many, different themes and messages for us. I would suggest as the first, St. Augustine's De Genesi ad Litteram. There's an English translation available on Amazon, and it's condensed to only two volumes.

It would do you a great deal of good. As you might know, Augustine is revered as a theologian by all three major branches of Christianity.

 

[Cement]

Actually, Genesis is a very large book, with many, many, different themes and messages for us. I would suggest as the first, St. Augustine's De Genesi ad Litteram. There's an English translation available on Amazon, and it's condensed to only two volumes.

It would do you a great deal of good. As you might know, Augustine is revered as a theologian by all three major branches of Christianity.

Faith comes from hearing and believing the word of God.
Augustine on the Days of Creation

 

[The Barbarian]

dd

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes;
Actually, Genesis is a very large book, with many, many, different themes and messages for us. I would suggest as the first, St. Augustine's De Genesi ad Litteram. There's an English translation available on Amazon, and it's condensed to only two volumes.

It would do you a great deal of good. As you might know, Augustine is revered as a theologian by all three major branches of Christianity.

The key to understanding is to avoid adding doctrines, as YE creationists do. As you know, the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is denied by the Bible. And yes, I'm aware that some YE creationists have now dropped that doctrine accordingly. But not all or even most of them.

St. Augustine on the days of creation:
In the book, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. Augustine also doesn’t envisage original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up.
Allegorical interpretations of Genesis - Wikipedia


And some warnings from Augustine, which we should all heed:
In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.
St. Augustine, De Genesi Literam

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."
ibid

Augustine did accept a young Earth, as the science of the time did not have evidence to the contrary. His warning applies here:
In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.

He was quite willing to change, if the evidence might show his interpretation was wrong. Have you decided what about Genesis you'd like me to discuss?

 

[NobleMouse]

Barbarian observes:
He's not. Nothing in scripture supports YE creationism, and some parts of YE are directly contradicted by scripture.

It's quite correct. The YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo", for example, is directly contradicted by Genesis. And yes, I'm aware that your personal re-interpretation of scripture convinces you otherwise. It's just wrong, demonstrably so. No way to dodge that.

No need to dodge: The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth... so by this we know there was a time when the heavens and the earth were not yet created --> thus, it is possible for something to not exist, before it exists... only if one who is uncreated, is timeless, and has infinite power has always existed, who can create it. Genesis demonstrates that God created the universe when at that time, the universe did not previously exist, so God did create it from where nothing previously existed (ex nihilo). You are just playing with semantics to develop your argument that this is false.

Remember when I told you that ignorance can hurt you? Here's an example. We can test the idea in various ways, but most directly:

Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years
Berkeley -- A powerful geologic dating technique called argon-argon dating has pegged the 79 A.D. eruption of Vesuvius so precisely that it establishes one of the most solid and reliable anchors for any dating method.

With such validation, the radioactive argon dating technique now can reliably establish the age of rocks as old as the solar system or as young as 2,000 years, say researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the Berkeley Geochronology Center.

"Argon-argon dating is by far the most important technique in documenting the history of human evolution, and this new result is an important validation of the technique," says Paul Renne, adjunct associate professor of geology and geophysics at UC Berkeley and director of the privately funded Berkeley Geochronology Center.
08.28.97 - Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years

No way to dodge reality. Try to make an accommodation to it.

Statistically insignificant. There are many instances where rocks of known age do not line up with the radiometric age and the radiometric age almost always yields a drastically older date.... even a blind squirrel will occasionally stumble across a nut (the Pompeii case).

You keep forgetting. Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. This is why your fellow YE creationist,Kurt Wise, admits that transitional fossil series are "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

In the whales you illustrated, there was a continuous change over time. The earliest whales, as you learned, had unique structures of the skull that so identified them. They were only partially adapted for water.

Not surprisingly, you see gradual changes over the series that show slow evolutionary change.

At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon[or the similar-aged
Basilosaurus]) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes, and on the other hand by the
family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes. That same series is also a morphological series:
Ambulocetus with the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one-third smaller; Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales; the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth; and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.

This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or
even throughout Flood sediments. At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.
YE creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

No life form evolves - individuals do not evolve and populations do not evolve. In a presentation back in 2001 (a year before he died), Gould pointed out that the fossil record is incomplete and he likened it to a book, saying something to the effect of, "If the fossil record is a book, it is missing many pages, and when a page is found, it is missing many paragraphs, and if a paragraph is found, it is missing many words, and if a word is found, it is missing many letters." As an ardent proponent of evolution, this was his view. The creationist view in general is that the fossil record is not as incomplete as portrayed by proponents of evolution, and is why when new fossils are found, they generally fit into an already known taxonomy from life forms alive today, rather than being some completely unrecognizable and new species.

And you don't even know what 1 Corinthians 2:14 is talking about. Paul is speaking to you here:
1 Corinthians 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

You've attempted to insert man's understanding into God's word. It's a mistake for you to have done so. Instead of using your wishes and the new doctrines of modern man, you should let the spirit guide you.

Instead of valuing your own, modern revision of scripture, let God be God and accept it His way. Worth a try.

God's word says 6 days, God's word also says he was sorry he made life and would blot out man from the face of the earth, man and animals and creeping things and the birds of the air and God said he would make and end to all flesh, except for Noah and his family for Noah found favor with God. Your interpretation of these events is like me telling you my avatar name is "NobleMouse", that I am a male, that I am 42 years old, and have posted approximately 420 times in Christian Forums and you turn around and say that my avatar is not NoubleMouse, that it cannot be positively affirmed that I am male or female, my age is actually thousands of years (and this is based upon some indirect method of measurement) rather than what I've said. Your arguments and line of reasoning have become an emblem for non sequitur.

The good news is that I will continue to be posting less in these threads over time. To my error, my initial perspective here was that all I had to do was present good scientific evidence in support of God's word. This approach is inherently flawed as I have come to understand with time that science is a flawed instrument in discerning past events (involves unfalsifiable axioms, assumptions, and philosophical views of events in the past) and can neither unequivocally prove or disprove God's word and so to continue in these debates is an endeavor that will bear little to no fruit, mostly resulting in the folly of wasted time. As I previously indicated, history does not require scientific conclusions to support its authenticity or accuracy. We don't question whether Caesar crossed the Rubicon or that Washington crossed the Delaware because scientific research reveals evidence as a proponent/opponent of these historic events. Likewise, God said he created life in 6 days and that he blotted out all life on the face of the earth.

You may wish to spend the remainder of your days spinning your wheels on this topic, but to paraphrase Joshua; as for me and my house, we shall continue to believe God's word on creation.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Barbarian observes:
He's not. Nothing in scripture supports YE creationism, and some parts of YE are directly contradicted by scripture.

It's quite correct. The YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo", for example, is directly contradicted by Genesis. And yes, I'm aware that your personal re-interpretation of scripture convinces you otherwise. It's just wrong, demonstrably so. No way to dodge that.

(mouse attempts to dodge)

No need to dodge: The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth...

But it specifically says the He did not create life ex nihilo:
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Your equivocation is trying to substitute the creation of the universe ex nihilo with the creation of life, which was brought forth by existing creation, not ex nihilo.

Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years
Berkeley -- A powerful geologic dating technique called argon-argon dating has pegged the 79 A.D. eruption of Vesuvius so precisely that it establishes one of the most solid and reliable anchors for any dating method.

With such validation, the radioactive argon dating technique now can reliably establish the age of rocks as old as the solar system or as young as 2,000 years, say researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the Berkeley Geochronology Center.

"Argon-argon dating is by far the most important technique in documenting the history of human evolution, and this new result is an important validation of the technique," says Paul Renne, adjunct associate professor of geology and geophysics at UC Berkeley and director of the privately funded Berkeley Geochronology Center.
08.28.97 - Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years

Statistically insignificant.

Nice try, but here we have an accurate measurement of rock age from a known source. As you see, it confirms the accuracy of the method. Would you like to see some other examples?

No life form evolves - individuals do not evolve and populations do not evolve.

I know you want to believe that, but as you know, even honest creationists admit the evidence for it is very strong.

Kurt Wise listed many series of transitionals, admitting that they were "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

As an ardent proponent of YE creationism, this was his view.

The creationist view in general is that the fossil record is not as incomplete as portrayed by proponents of evolution

That would be easy to refute. When Darwin wrote his book, there were no known transitionals. When I was a young biology student, there were many, but we were missing them for whales, hominids, ants, frogs, mammals, tetrapods, whales... (long list). Now we have all of those, and important new fossils turn up almost monthly. So your belief has been falsified.

and is why when new fossils are found, they generally fit into an already known taxonomy from life forms alive today, rather than being some completely unrecognizable and new species.

See above. And the important thing is that all these new species are transitional only where they are predicted to be, never where evolutionary theory says they should not be.

God's word says 6 days,

Except where it doesn't:
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

The good news, as I pointed out to you before, is that denying the way God created things will not cost you your salvation, unless you make an idol of YE creationism, and deny the faith of Christians who do not accept your new doctrine.

 

[2tim_215]

Barbarian observes:
Barbarian observes:
He's not. Nothing in scripture supports YE creationism, and some parts of YE are directly contradicted by scripture.

It's quite correct. The YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo", for example, is directly contradicted by Genesis. And yes, I'm aware that your personal re-interpretation of scripture convinces you otherwise. It's just wrong, demonstrably so. No way to dodge that.

(mouse attempts to dodge)



But it specifically says the He did not create life ex nihilo:
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
Don't see how that refutes life "ex nihilo"

Your equivocation is trying to substitute the creation of the universe ex nihilo with the creation of life, which was brought forth by existing creation, not ex nihilo.

This may be true, but what's the explanation? It's not evolution.

Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years
Berkeley -- A powerful geologic dating technique called argon-argon dating has pegged the 79 A.D. eruption of Vesuvius so precisely that it establishes one of the most solid and reliable anchors for any dating method.

The problem with this is that it may have worked for a few thousand years but that doesn't mean it will work for "billions" considering that a number of major catastrophes that likely occurred during those billions and billions of years some of which science believes.

With such validation, the radioactive argon dating technique now can reliably establish the age of rocks as old as the solar system or as young as 2,000 years, say researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the Berkeley Geochronology Center.

2000 years is merely a drop in bucket if you believe in an OE which is what most science claims. We're talking about plenty of recorded history to give us all the dating we need (we don't need any kind of scientific testing to support this). I do not think that this kind of extrapolation can be used reliably to tell us exact dating way back in time. There is no problem determining these things 6000-10000 years ago. There's plenty of documented evidence which gives this to us.

"Argon-argon dating is by far the most important technique in documenting the history of human evolution, and this new result is an important validation of the technique," says Paul Renne, adjunct associate professor of geology and geophysics at UC Berkeley and director of the privately funded Berkeley Geochronology Center.

08.28.97 - Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years

Again, 6000-10000 years, no problem. What about 10 billion (or perhaps more)?

Nice try, but here we have an accurate measurement of rock age from a known source. As you see, it confirms the accuracy of the method. Would you like to see some other examples?

You can't equate something that happened 2000 years ago with no major catastrophes all occurring at the same time globally on perhaps more than one occasion. There's no way to extrapolate.

I know you want to believe that, but as you know, even honest creationists admit the evidence for it is very strong.

For what? Earth Age? Not for evolution. Or not for proof that Man descended from chimps.

Kurt Wise listed many series of transitionals, admitting that they were "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

As an ardent proponent of YE creationism, this was his view.



That would be easy to refute. When Darwin wrote his book, there were no known transitionals. When I was a young biology student, there were many, but we were missing them for whales, hominids, ants, frogs, mammals, tetrapods, whales... (long list). Now we have all of those, and important new fossils turn up almost monthly. So your belief has been falsified.

What about men?

See above. And the important thing is that all these new species are transitional only where they are predicted to be, never where evolutionary theory says they should not be.

This to me is even questionable, but what is important to me is human beings as they exist today.

Except where it doesn't:
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

What does this verse prove? The problem is that science will not accept an all Powerful, Almighty God who is capable of performing miracles and is capable of doing anything He wants, even if if it is defying the laws of physics which He created and has the ability to eliminate should He so desire. No reason why He couldn't create (or recreate) the earth and man in a matter of 6 days, that is however, unless you wish to limit God.

The good news, as I pointed out to you before, is that denying the way God created things will not cost you your salavation, unless you make an idol of YE creationism, and deny the faith of Christians who do not accept your new doctrine.

Yes it is and neither should you make evolution or earth age your idol.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Your equivocation is trying to substitute the creation of the universe ex nihilo with the creation of life, which was brought forth by existing creation, not ex nihilo.

This may be true, but what's the explanation?

Life being produced by previously created matter, as God intended. Scientists call it "abiogeneis." If they happen to be theists, they also call it "creation."

It's not evolution.

Right. Evolution is not about the orgin of life.

Barbarian, regarding the huge number of transitional forms:
I know you want to believe that, but as you know, even honest creationists admit the evidence for it is very strong.

For what? Earth Age? Not for evolution.

Creationist Kurt Wise says it's "strong evidence" for macroevolutionary theory."

Or not for proof that Man descended from chimps.

Humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Chimps are far too evolved in a different direction to have given rise to humans. As Wise says, the hominid series (which documents human evolution) is part of that strong evidence.

Barbarian observes:
See above. And the important thing is that all these new species are transitional only where they are predicted to be, never where evolutionary theory says they should not be.

This to me is even questionable,

It's true. No mammals with feathers. No arthropods with bones. Stuff like that. The absence of transitionals where they shouldn't be is even more convincing than all the transitionals were they were predicted to be.

but what is important to me is human beings as they exist today.

Most of our anatomy was pretty well complete long before modern humans. Most of the evolution of modern humans has to do with reducing the size of our teeth and faces, and increasing the size of our brains.

H. sapiens once consisted of three subspecies; anatomically modern humans, Neandertals, and Denisovans. Although genes from all three races still exist, they are found only in anatomically modern humans.

Previous species of humans were almost identical to H. sapiens below the neck. Skulls have changed significantly from early H. erectus to late H. erectus. It's difficult to impossible to separate late H. erectus from early H. sapiens.

 

[Job 33:6]

@2tim_215

Radioactive dating is performed via the measurement of up to 10 half lives of a particular element.

You said something like "well if it's accurate a few thousand years, that's not the same as saying it's accurate for billions", however, at it's maximum length of time, carbon dating is accurate up to 60,000 years after all 10 half lives. So if you recognize it's current validity, you can't assume that it is inaccurate at longer dates without some form of justification.

 

[2tim_215]

@2tim_215

Radioactive dating is performed via the measurement of up to 10 half lives of a particular element.

You said something like "well if it's accurate a few thousand years, that's not the same as saying it's accurate for billions", however, at it's maximum length of time, carbon dating is accurate up to 60,000 years after all 10 half lives. So if you recognize it's current validity, you can't assume that it is inaccurate at longer dates without some form of justification.

It may be but it may not be as well. There's no way to test that. It's based on certain assumptions being made and I'm not going to go on those assumptions if it directly contradicts the Word of God. And 60,000 is a lot less than 60 billion which are the kind of numbers being thrown about by evolutionists

 

[2tim_215]

Barbarian observes:
Your equivocation is trying to substitute the creation of the universe ex nihilo with the creation of life, which was brought forth by existing creation, not ex nihilo.

Your opinion, not mine.

Life being produced by previously created matter, as God intended. Scientists call it "abiogeneis." If they happen to be theists, they also call it "creation."

Not when it comes to humans.

Right. Evolution is not about the orgin of life.

Barbarian, regarding the huge number of transitional forms:
I know you want to believe that, but as you know, even honest creationists admit the evidence for it is very strong.

It doesn't mean that it's correct. You can be honest in your beliefs but still be wrong at times.

Creationist Kurt Wise says it's "strong evidence" for macroevolutionary theory."

Who's Kurt Wise (just being a wise guy here)? He's just another human (probably a very intelligent one) but with human frailties just like every other human being including myself.

Humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Chimps are far too evolved in a different direction to have given rise to humans. As Wise says, the hominid series (which documents human evolution) is part of that strong evidence.

OK, so you're admitting that it's not chimps or apes that we've evolved from? Well that's a start. It seems like I've heard many evolutionists who claim that we did.

Barbarian observes:
See above. And the important thing is that all these new species are transitional only where they are predicted to be, never where evolutionary theory says they should not be.

Are you then claiming that today's man is a different species?

It's true. No mammals with feathers. No arthropods with bones. Stuff like that. The absence of transitionals where they shouldn't be is even more convincing than all the transitionals were they were predicted to be.

Personally, I don't care too much about where animals came from. What I do care about is where humans today come from (the past 6000-10000 years) and I do not believe if we did come from anything, it's not from animals. I do prefer (and do believe) that men came directly from God (and not from an amoeba or garbage floating in outer space, a few other things I've heard floating around, pun intended). And I do believe (if I'm not mistaken) that these were all suggested by science.

Most of our anatomy was pretty well complete long before modern humans. Most of the evolution of modern humans has to do with reducing the size of our teeth and faces, and increasing the size of our brains.

Shared (or leveraged) design from a common creator/designer).

H. sapiens once consisted of three subspecies; anatomically modern humans, Neandertals, and Denisovans. Although genes from all three races still exist, they are found only in anatomically modern humans.

Too bad. Maybe if you had some dna from those creatures, you could prove your case (or maybe not).

Previous species of humans were almost identical to H. sapiens below the neck. Skulls have changed significantly from early H. erectus to late H. erectus. It's difficult to impossible to separate late H. erectus from early H. sapiens.

Yes. Only a difference of two genomes between man and chimps (this is what was used by some scientists to claim that were descended from them). Perhaps this proves that the same designer of those "things" used a similar design to create man today. That would make a lot more sense than some of the other things I've heard and it really wouldn't contradict the Bible in my opinion which is all I'm really concerned with. Unfortunately I think that earth age is an argument that is an argument that cannot be won but the important thing to that is that the Bible doesn't really tell us that in Genesis and it's been assumed for a long time, but that's OK. It still doesn't take away from the God of the Bible and the creator of the Universe.

 

[Job 33:6]

It may be but it may not be as well. There's no way to test that. It's based on certain assumptions being made and I'm not going to go on those assumptions if it directly contradicts the Word of God. And 60,000 is a lot less than 60 billion which are the kind of numbers being thrown about by evolutionists

Well it depends on the method. Some methods stretch back further than others.

Here's the way I think of it. Imagine that you have a bunch of blue and red legos, and they make the shape of a cube. The red Legos are on the outside of the cube like a shell. The blue cubes are on the inside. So you have this big cube of red and blue Legos.

Then you noticed something odd. Inside your cube, your blue leggos decayed at a set rate into spheres. And so you found yourself holding onto a red cube filled with blue round balls. Balls trapped inside.

If you observe the rate at which your blue Legos decat into blue balls, you can extrapolate how long the Legos have been decaying.

Some say "well maybe blue Legos were added in the middle of decay", but we know they weren't added if there is a red outer shell around what is inside, which isolates the blue Legos from the outside world. Some say, "well we don't know the initial number of blue legos", but we do know because we can see how much of the inside of the cube is no longer rectangular and we know that only so many blue Legos can fit inside the cube.

It would be like giving someone a ladder with half broken rungs and saying "well maybe it was just made that way".

The logical conclusion is that the ladder was made as a normal ladder and that the rungs simply decayed.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Your equivocation is trying to substitute the creation of the universe ex nihilo with the creation of life, which was brought forth by existing creation, not ex nihilo.

Your opinion, not mine.

It's God's opinion:
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Not when it comes to humans.

Humans were created from existing life, not directly from the earth.


Barbarian, regarding the huge number of transitional forms:
I know you want to believe that, but as you know, even honest creationists admit the evidence for it is very strong.

It doesn't mean that it's correct.

It just means the evidence indicates that it's correct.

You can be honest in your beliefs but still be wrong at times.

True. But evidence generally wins the match.

Barbarian observes:
Creationist Kurt Wise says it's "strong evidence" for macroevolutionary theory."

Who's Kurt Wise (just being a wise guy here)?

An honest YE creationists.

He's just another human (probably a very intelligent one) but with human frailties just like every other human being including myself.

With a doctorate in paleontology. Which does give him some credibility as to the evidence. He doesn't deny the facts; he just prefers his personal understanding of scripture.

(Barbarian notes that humans did not evolve from chimps)

OK, so you're admitting that it's not chimps or apes that we've evolved from?

By every objective measure, we are apes. Humans and chimps are more closely related to each other than either is related to any other apes. During the middle ages, European scientists classified them as "pygmy" humans. Genetic data has since confirmed that they are our closest relatives. But of course we didn't evolve from them any more than they evolved from us.

Well that's a start. It seems like I've heard many evolutionists who claim that we did.

Nope. Each species has evolved greatly from our common ancestor. Chimps are highly evolved for a different way of life, as are we.

Are you then claiming that today's man is a different species?

Than what? Than the first humans? Yep. H. habilis, H. erectus, and H. ergaster are increasingly like anatomically modern humans, but are still sufficiently different to be regarded as different species.

Personally, I don't care too much about where animals came from. What I do care about is where humans today come from (the past 6000-10000 years)

Humans who looked essentially like us go back a lot farther than that. Archaic H. sapiens, still our own species, goes back to about half a million years ago.

I do prefer (and do believe) that men came directly from God

We did. I believe it was G. K. Chesterton who wrote:
"You are a soul. You have a body."

Barbarian observes:
H. sapiens once consisted of three subspecies; anatomically modern humans, Neandertals, and Denisovans. Although genes from all three races still exist, they are found only in anatomically modern humans.

Too bad. Maybe if you had some dna from those creatures

We do. DNA fragments can survive under the right circumstances, over a hundred thousand years. We now know that most Europeans and Northern Asians carry some Neandertal genes, and that Tibetans have evolved the ability to live at high altitudes by mutations to Denesovan genes.

you could prove your case (or maybe not).

You could be more 'Neanderthal' than you thought: Modern Europeans have TWICE as much DNA from ancient cousins than first believed

• Migrating humans interbred with Neanderthals in Europe 100,000 years ago
• Genes from our ancient ancestors can still be found in modern human DNA
• Study found the genomes of modern non-Africans is 1.8-2.6% Neanderthal
• This is far higher than previous estimates of between 1.5 and 2.1%
• The researchers found these genes play roles in our cholesterol levels, eating disorders, arthritis and other diseases today

Humans have twice as much Neanderthal DNA as first thought | Daily Mail Online

Tibetan people can survive on the roof of the world—one of the most inhospitable places that anybody calls home—thanks to a version of a gene that they inherited from a group of extinct humans called Denisovans, who were only discovered four years ago thanks to 41,000-year-old DNA recovered from a couple of bones that would fit in your palm. If any sentence can encapsulate why the study of human evolution has never been more exciting, it’s that one.


In 2010, Rasmus Nielsen from the University of California, Berkeley found that Tibetan people have a mutation in a gene called EPAS1, which helps them handle low levels of oxygen. Thanks to this mutation, they can cope with air that has 40 percent less oxygen than what most of us inhale, and they can live on a 4,000-metre-high plateau where most of us would fare poorly. To date, this is still “strongest instance of natural selection documented in a human population”—the EPAS1 mutation is found in 87 percent of Tibetans and just 9 percent of Han Chinese, even though the two groups have been separated for less than 3,000 years.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...humans-passed-high-altitude-gene-to-tibetans/

Barbarian observes:
Previous species of humans were almost identical to H. sapiens below the neck. Skulls have changed significantly from early H. erectus to late H. erectus. It's difficult to impossible to separate late H. erectus from early H. sapiens.

Yes. Only a difference of two genomes between man and chimps

A "genome"is the sum of all the genes in one organism, or sometimes we use it as "population genome" for the distribution of genes in population of organisms. The difference between man and chimpanzees is perhaps two to five percent, depending on how you measure. This is much more than the differences between modern humans, Neandetals, and Denesovans.

(this is what was used by some scientists to claim that were descended from them).

No. Scientists never thought that was the case. Even in the middle ages, when Europeans thought that chimps were human, they thought that they, like us, descended from Adam.

None of this really has anything to do with Genesis. It doesn't give us that kind of detail, because that's not what God wanted to tell us about.

 

[2tim_215]

Well it depends on the method. Some methods stretch back further than others.

Here's the way I think of it. Imagine that you have a bunch of blue and red legos, and they make the shape of a cube. The red Legos are on the outside of the cube like a shell. The blue cubes are on the inside. So you have this big cube of red and blue Legos.

Then you noticed something odd. Inside your cube, your blue leggos decayed at a set rate into spheres. And so you found yourself holding onto a red cube filled with blue round balls. Balls trapped inside.

If you observe the rate at which your blue Legos decat into blue balls, you can extrapolate how long the Legos have been decaying.

Some say "well maybe blue Legos were added in the middle of decay", but we know they weren't added if there is a red outer shell around what is inside, which isolates the blue Legos from the outside world. Some say, "well we don't know the initial number of blue legos", but we do know because we can see how much of the inside of the cube is no longer rectangular and we know that only so many blue Legos can fit inside the cube.

It would be like giving someone a ladder with half broken rungs and saying "well maybe it was just made that way".

The logical conclusion is that the ladder was made as a normal ladder and that the rungs simply decayed.

Interesting analogy but the problem is you cannot equate legos (even with some internal decay) with a complex universe and an even more complicated creation of life. I'd say that to be somewhat of an oversimplification.

 

[2tim_215]

deleted

 

[Job 33:6]

Interesting analogy but the problem is you cannot equate legos (even with some internal decay) with a complex universe and an even more complicated creation of life. I'd say that to be somewhat of an oversimplification.

The analogy pertains to minerals, it isn't with respect to the formation of life. That's why the analogy is more simple.

 

[2tim_215]

The analogy pertains to minerals, it isn't with respect to the formation of life. That's why the analogy is more simple.

I appreciate the clarification.

 

[dcalling]

Sorry, you're wrong. As you now realize, it's a demonstrated fact.

You really love to claim something that are just your opinion as facts, even about me....

There is no "culmination." Knowledge is accelerating in the field of genetics. You've been misled about that.

knowledge is always accumulating.

Hall's bacteria showed that a new enzyme system could evolve in a few months by random mutation and natural selection. In a couple of decades, lizards evolved a new digestive organ by the same means. So the "boundaries" are already documented to be far beyond what we imagined just a few decades ago.

However, Darwin pointed out that there would be boundaries beyond which evolution would not go. For example, it would be great for humans to evolve a second set of arms, but that particular adaptation is closed to us, because the intermediate stages would be harmful to us.

So as you see, only those adaptations like a stronger jaw and better hearing have evolved in mammals, because they had transitional stages that were not harmful to the organisms having them.



See above. The transition from reptile to mammal turns out to have occurred by small increments over many generations. The transitional forms predicted by evolutionary theory have been found. No assumptions necessary.



It's true. Genetics verifies the predictions first made by the tree of living things discovered by Linnaeus. As predicted, groups closely related to each other according to phenotype, are also related genetically, to a very high precision. And we know that works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

But the discovery of many, many predicted transitionals (but never a transitional where the theory says it shouldn't be) also verifies the fact.

And occasionally, we find something else. There are conserved biological molecules like hemoglobin and cytochrome C that give us the same predicted relationships. In one remarkable case, a bit of heme was found in a T. rex bone. When tested, it was found to be more like that of birds than like that of existing reptiles. Which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.

Would you like to learn more about any of this?

Well, thing will mutate within God's design boundaries, as my article already showed. Those mutations are just pre-existing parameters that are allowed to tweak, i.e. the changes in lizards. Ever thought why lizards change so much yet e.coli, which is much simpler, can't evolve much more variants other than the ones already exists in nature? How fast can those same lizards evolve if you put them in another environment? They are not evolving beyond their limitations, we are simply doing boundry testing.