This is a little weird, but if Evolution is true,, shouldn't it be evolving simultaneously?

[Anguspure]

See, and you may not like this answer but it was also part of the article linked on the age of the universe and it supposes the first 5 days of creation aren't the same 24 hour periods that we perceive in our time, I see the first few chapters of Genesis as explanations for children in a way they understand, and really the semantics and time are just not important for us to know. A day, a billion years? All the same to someone who exists independent of time and lives forever.
There is 3 ways you can go about looking at the dilemma.
1. Literal Genesis, young earth creation, 6 24 hour periods, poofing things into existence, which presents problems where you find evidence contrary that you have to just pretend doesn't exist or think that it was created to deceive us, but creating evidence specifically to deceive (and I don't think God gave Satan the power to create) would be lying, and God cannot lie. So God creating light coming from stars billions of light years away reaching us now to deceive us into disbelieving in him? No no no. God does not deceive, trick, or lie. It also differs from the fact that God used men over many many generations to write the bible rather than just speaking it into existence. It's his Word, the most important thing, and he trusts the hands of men to write it down to pass on? Two things slow processes (the second being the creation of the new heaven and earth), everything else instantaneously?
2. Genesis is parable/not meant to be a literal step by step explanation, it's simplified for children just to get us to the more important stuff. This allows everything we discover about God's creation to hold true to our own observations, while still giving the universe an ultimate causation, and God doing things through slower processes is consistent in how the bible was made, is consistent for why didn't he just speak a perfect creation into being, and why God is revealed through nature, because he is a natural God that does things through natural laws. He could do things instantly, but some things he certainly hasn't done instantly, which leads me to believe that instant isn't his plan.
3. Genesis isn't real and you don't believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at all. Obviously the worst way to go. The first two are just differing interpretations of the Word and having different opinions on the semantics of it, but we both believe the most important things, that God is the root of all creation, that he created us, that we failed him, and that he loves us anyway and offers us a route to salvation. The third.. there's no faith at all there, or it's faith in a lie. You'd either believe the Universe has no cause, that it just spontaneously happened for no reason, or you believe in some other religion like an eastern religion or paganism or whatever

The 4th option is the one that Nachmanides put forward in the 12 century: That when we consider space/time expansion, a person creating our universe would only need to labor for 6 days in order to carry out work that would appear to have taken 15 billion years to have happened when observed from within the universe. Age of the Universe
In this way we can see that both long and short age perspectives are true depending on the perspective we take.
But God is no deceiver, it is true that He created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days of time equivalent to our solar day.
The question is whether we are prepared to trust Him on the subject or not.

 

[Gottservant]

Thanks guys for your replies.

I realized what it was I was struggling with: inheritance, conditionality, and preference are all re-encountered with the same power.

It may be said that 're-encountering' may mutate, but it can't be argued that the integrity of these values changes depending on the mutation.

This is "Disavolution", there is no reason for a creature to mutate the difference, if it knows the same difference these values make.

In other words, Evolution only creates the illusion that suits, and without suiting, it doesn't create.

Not that you cannot contextualize the illusion usefully or start to create ahead of your time - just that Creation is already underway, before the moment of realisation can disidentify with Creation, in favour of Evolution - Evolution creates the illusion that suits and can never be initiated before Creation is strong.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Not that you cannot contextualize the illusion usefully or start to create ahead of your time - just that Creation is already underway, before the moment of realisation can disidentify with Creation, in favour of Evolution - Evolution creates the illusion that suits and can never be initiated before Creation is strong.

If that does not get you Nobel I do not know what will unless someone comes up with square wheel you can already prerent your tuxedo.

 

[Brightmoon]

And why should we take the claim of rationalism and truth in a domesticated chimp seriously?

. Because we share most of those behaviors with undomesticated chimps and bonobos

 

[Brightmoon]

Thanks guys for your replies.

I realized what it was I was struggling with: inheritance, conditionality, and preference are all re-encountered with the same power.

It may be said that 're-encountering' may mutate, but it can't be argued that the integrity of these values changes depending on the mutation.

This is "Disavolution", there is no reason for a creature to mutate the difference, if it knows the same difference these values make.

In other words, Evolution only creates the illusion that suits, and without suiting, it doesn't create.

Not that you cannot contextualize the illusion usefully or start to create ahead of your time - just that Creation is already underway, before the moment of realisation can disidentify with Creation, in favour of Evolution - Evolution creates the illusion that suits and can never be initiated before Creation is strong.

. WHAT?!?!?! Didn’t understand a word!

 

[Anguspure]

. Because we share most of those behaviors with undomesticated chimps and bonobos

Not in terms of rational abstract thought, nor in terms of language capable of communicating such concepts.
The concepts being discussed and truth claims being made here are quite abstract in nature and involve abstract reasoning, neither of which have any value if the discussion is being held with one who is incapable of achieving such things.

 

[Brightmoon]

Not in terms of rational abstract thought, nor in terms of language capable of communicating such concepts.
The concepts being discussed and truth claims being made here are quite abstract in nature and involve abstract reasoning, neither of which have any value if the discussion is being held with one who is incapable of achieving such things.

yeah well , cheetahs run better than we do too. Doesn’t mean we can’t run. This doesn’t mean that chimps can’t think or reason . In fact in sometimes they think more rationally than we do. Chimps and kids given a box to open we’re shown extra unnecessary steps to open the box . The kids continued to do the extra steps even when they realized the steps weren’t necessary. the chimps didn’t . Who was being more logical then? This was filmed but I don’t remember the documentary sorry

 

[Anguspure]

yeah well , cheetahs run better than we do too. Doesn’t mean we can’t run. This doesn’t mean that chimps can’t think or reason . In fact in sometimes they think more rationally than we do. Chimps and kids given a box to open we’re shown extra unnecessary steps to open the box . The kids continued to do the extra steps even when they realized the steps weren’t necessary. the chimps didn’t . Who was being more logical then? This was filmed but I don’t remember the documentary sorry

I was claiming abstract reasoning and language capable of conveying such things as being unique, not practical logic or physical ability.
Certainly animals have been created with remarkeable specific abilities that in many cases far exceed our own (the navigatiinal abilities of many fish and birds for example) but this does not mean that they entertain any abstract thoughts about these things, they do not study them, meditate on them or discuss them to understand them or find out how they occur.

 

[Brightmoon]

I was claiming abstract reasoning and language capable of conveying such things as being unique, not practical logic or physical ability.
Certainly animals have been created with remarkeable specific abilities that in many cases far exceed our own (the navigatiinal abilities of many fish and birds for example) but this does not mean that they entertain any abstract thoughts about these things, they do not study them, meditate on them or discuss them to understand them or find out how they occur.

and you’re trying to make the silly argument That because we can do some things better than our closest relatives that this means we’re not related to them .thats like me saying that my younger sister can’t do some ballet steps that I can, so she’s not a relative . Is that the argument you’re making ? I’d rethink that because it is ridiculous

 

[Anguspure]

and you’re trying to make the silly argument That because we can do some things better than our closest relatives that this means we’re not related to them .thats like me saying that my younger sister can’t do some ballet steps that I can, so she’s not a relative . Is that the argument you’re making ? I’d rethink that because it is ridiculous

Of course we are related. The designer is in common, and we come from the same factory. There is no evidence of developing traits due to descent, despite the inferences made by evolutionary devotees.
I am arguing that Human traits of abstract thought and language are unique and not found in other kinds of creatures.

 

[Gottservant]

yeah well , cheetahs run better than we do too. Doesn’t mean we can’t run.

Brilliant logic!

Thankyou!

 

[loveofourlord]

Yes, and they ended up looking more like dogs than foxes:
* shorter tail carried high
* tendency to floppy ears
* piebald colouring of coat

actually I think what they got was, and it's something that has been noticed with dogs, is that when they became domseticated they kept more of their puppy features, along with being more friendly, so it's suggested that they are breed in fact for puppy features to be kept into adulthood.

 

[loveofourlord]

Breeding explores the limits of genetic flexibility and redundancy, but at no point has any new creature been breed from another. At the outer limits of what is possible the animals are rendered infertile.
The fox is always a fox genetically irrespective of the amount of breeding.

infertility unless there is something I don't understand usually happens when two species drift apart, but they are still fertile between them. Dogs are still dogs, because were not trying for anything more, though the differences in some breeds of dog are bigger then some species people might argue are different kinds.

 

[Anguspure]

infertility unless there is something I don't understand usually happens when two species drift apart, but they are still fertile between them. Dogs are still dogs, because were not trying for anything more, though the differences in some breeds of dog are bigger then some species people might argue are different kinds.

They might argue this but there is simply no evidence that one comes from the other.
Are there any dog species that are unable to breed with a different dog species? I don't think so.
What is more obvious (both in animal breeding and the historic record) is the fixity of kind.

 

[loveofourlord]

They might argue this but there is simply no evidence that one comes from the other.
Are there any dog species that are unable to breed with a different dog species? I don't think so.
What is more obvious (both in animal breeding and the historic record) is the fixity of kind.

ahhh kind the complete and utter useless word that creationists cling to like a life preserve. You guys would do so much better without it.

 

[Anguspure]

ahhh kind the complete and utter useless word that creationists cling to like a life preserve. You guys would do so much better without it.

Better without a word that expresses the truth of the matter? We have already played that game far to often.
Science is supposed to be about increasing precise knowledge, not semantics and equivocation to further deadly ideology.

 

[loveofourlord]

Better without a word that expresses the truth of the matter? We have already played that game far to often.
Science is supposed to be about increasing precise knowledge, not semantics and equivocation to further deadly ideology.

actually it's very precise, what you guys have a word that is so UTTERLY useless I've seen creationists argue the equivalent of 'mice' turning into men isn't evolution as they are still mammals and fish turning into man isn't evolution it's still chordates, kind is what ever you want it to be to argue against evolution. Plus none of you can agree what it means or where it is because it's just a phrase, something you've given far more significance to then it deserves.

There is zero truth in the word kind, it's just a weasel word to say, "They are still bacteria kind." or, "They are still fish kind." when ever it suits you. if we could prove 100% undeniably to you humans evolved from monkeys you guys would argue, "But they are still monkey kind."

 

[Anguspure]

actually it's very precise, what you guys have a word that is so UTTERLY useless I've seen creationists argue the equivalent of 'mice' turning into men isn't evolution as they are still mammals and fish turning into man isn't evolution it's still chordates, kind is what ever you want it to be to argue against evolution. Plus none of you can agree what it means or where it is because it's just a phrase, something you've given far more significance to then it deserves.

There is zero truth in the word kind, it's just a weasel word to say, "They are still bacteria kind." or, "They are still fish kind." when ever it suits you. if we could prove 100% undeniably to you humans evolved from monkeys you guys would argue, "But they are still monkey kind."

Clearly there is a genetic distinction at a higher level than speciation.
Phylogenetic trees are a myth promoted to further the ND idea of common descent.

 

[loveofourlord]

Clearly there is a genetic distinction at a higher level than speciation.
Phylogenetic trees are a myth promoted to further the ND idea of common descent.

right...thats why they all line up so well right? :> the genetic, distribution, morphology, fossils and such all line up so well..it's all made up.

question are african and and north american vultures 1 or 2 kinds?

 

[Anguspure]

right...thats why they all line up so well right? :> the genetic, distribution, morphology, fossils and such all line up so well..it's all made up.

But they do not, and this is why the shift to cladograms. They tend to hide the fact that common descent not supported by evidence.

question are african and and north american vultures 1 or 2 kinds?

3 taxa have been recognised.