The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[AV1611VET]

Since we're making things up, I wouldn't have to. If I were Adam we'd know all the answers so there would be no need for scientists in the first place.

Interpreting "Adam" as "mankind," are we?

That's pretty good!

You almost had me on that one.

 

[Loudmouth]

If a scientist showed me a rock and said it was 50,000 years old, I would not disagree with him.

If he then told me it was formed 50,000 years ago, I would disagree with him (on principle); but I would still believe it is 50,000 years old.

Age and time of formation are the same thing with respect to radiometric dating.

 

[Smidlee]

The developmental gene regulatory network is different in each species, and guess what? It isn't catastrophic. Gene networks are obviously flexible enough to produce hundreds of thousands of vertebrate species. So again, where is the hurdle?

That's just it like Marshall you have to assume dGRN were more flexible in the past in order for evolution to be true but even Marshall agree with Eric they are not flexible today. This is another example of evolutionist using the "present as the key to the past" accept when it doesn't fit their worldview then claim it had to be different.

Googling that quotes gives almost noyhing else but creatinist sites as results.

But here is the original paper:
EVOLUTIONARY BIOSCIENCE AS REGULATORY SYSTEMS BIOLOGY

We, of course wouldn't think that Smidlee is using a quote mine, would we?

It would be quote mining if I was trying to suggest they (Davidson + Marshall) support something they don't, like ID. I made it clear they believe dGRN were more flexible in the past.
Here's a quote from your link:

" The basic control features of the initial dGRNs of the Precambrian and early Cambrian must have differed in fundamental respects from those now being unraveled in our laboratories."

The only way to prove this is to build a time machine.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's just it like Marshall you have to assume dGRN were more flexible in the past in order for evolution to be true but even Marshall agree with Eric they are not flexible today.

Based on what evidence? What studies show that gene regulation networks are not flexible?

This is another example of evolutionist using the "present as the key to the past" accept when it doesn't fit their worldview then claim it had to be different.

You don't have to change the laws of physics to have more inflexible GRN's now as compared to the past.

Modern human cities can not operate without electricity whereas in the past the requirements for electricity were much more flexible. Does that mean the laws of physics have changed over that time period?

As evolutionary pathways build on previous adaptations, those adaptations become more important. At one time, lungs were a good adaptation that helped our ancestors, but they weren't necessary for their survival. Now humans could not survive without breathing air.

 

[Smidlee]

You don't have to change the laws of physics to have more inflexible GRN's now as compared to the past.

Who said anything about changing the laws of physics?

 

[Loudmouth]

Who said anything about changing the laws of physics?

You did.

"This is another example of evolutionist using the "present as the key to the past" accept when it doesn't fit their worldview then claim it had to be different."--Smidlee

When we say that the present is the key to the past, we are referring to physical laws.

 

[Smidlee]

You did.

"This is another example of evolutionist using the "present as the key to the past" accept when it doesn't fit their worldview then claim it had to be different."--Smidlee

When we say that the present is the key to the past, we are referring to physical laws.

"present is the key to the past" simply means we take what we can observe in the present and apply it to understand the past.

 

[Loudmouth]

"present is the key to the past" simply means we take what we can observe in the present and apply it to understand the past.

Yes, and that is in reference to physical laws. Obviously, observing that modern cities use electricity does not mean that past human civilizations used electricity.

 

[Smidlee]

Yes, and that is in reference to physical laws. Obviously, observing that modern cities use electricity does not mean that past human civilizations used electricity.

Your example doesn't make sense since there are still modern humans who live without electricity. So there is no question man can live without electricity.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your example doesn't make sense since there are still modern humans who live without electricity. So there is no question man can live without electricity.

Modern New York City uses electricity. Does this mean that the City of New York as always used electricity?

 

[Smidlee]

Modern New York City uses electricity. Does this mean that the City of New York as always used electricity?

Not when we have plenty of examples of man living without electricity. Electricity is not a minimum requirement for a city to exist.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not when we have plenty of examples of man living without electricity.

We aren't talking about other examples. We are talking about NYC. If NYC uses electricity in the present, that means it always had to, correct?

 

[Smidlee]

We aren't talking about other examples. We are talking about NYC. If NYC uses electricity in the present, that means it always had to, correct?

"The present is the key to the past" would mean if it's possible for a city today can exist without electricity then a city in the past could also.
Now NYC has written history we can access.

 

[Loudmouth]

"The present is the key to the past" would mean if it's possible for a city today can exist without electricity then a city in the past could also.
Now NYC has written history we can access.

IOW, NYC having electricity is not a physical law, so the idiom does not apply.

 

[Smidlee]

Where a Billion People Still Live Without Electricity - Emily Badger - The Atlantic Cities

 

[Loudmouth]

Where a Billion People Still Live Without Electricity - Emily Badger - The Atlantic Cities

So you are saying that cities requiring electricity is not a physical law, correct?

 

[Strathos]

You know, regarding the whole "embedded age" thing, wouldn't it be equally plausible to turn it around?

As in, the Biblical patriarchs only experienced as much life as their genealogies say they did, however God altered their perceptions so that they only experienced hundreds of years, but lived through millions/billions of years?

Makes just as much sense as the other way.

 

[AV1611VET]

You know, regarding the whole "embedded age" thing, wouldn't it be equally plausible to turn it around?

As in, the Biblical patriarchs only experienced as much life as their genealogies say they did, however God altered their perceptions so that they only experienced hundreds of years, but lived through millions/billions of years?

Makes just as much sense as the other way.

1. God only embedded age in what He created during the Creation week.
2. Embedded age is not "altered perceptions."

 

[HitchSlap]

2. Embedded age is not "altered perceptions."

Right, a better word would be "deceitful."

 

[Loudmouth]

1. God only embedded age in what He created during the Creation week.
2. Embedded age is not "altered perceptions."

Me: How long until you post that the Earth is 6,000 years old with only the appearance of a 4.5 billion year age?

AV1611VET: Never. Never have and never will.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7806587-4/#post65086288