Video: Randomness vs Evolution

[Kylie]

Oh, sorry ... I misunderstood you.

I would assume you're more than welcome to exist in a universe that grew old ... assuming one existed.

I would say that you misunderstood what I was talking about, but I said it so clearly I can't imagine that is the case. So it seems to me that you misunderstood intentionally.

In any case, let me ask you again:

Show me something that can only exist in a young universe and can not exist in an old universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

Show me something that can only exist in a young universe and can not exist in an old universe.

Then I don't know what it is you want.

I don't believe we live in a young universe, so I don't know what a young universe looks like.

So how can I answer your question?

 

[Kylie]

Then I don't know what it is you want.

I don't believe we live in a young universe, so I don't know what a young universe looks like.

So how can I answer your question?

How can you have an old universe without deep time?

 

[AV1611VET]

How can you have an old universe without deep time?

By embedding age into it.

 

[Kylie]

By embedding age into it.

And it is this embedded age that allows the earth to look much older than the time it has actually existed for, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

And it is this embedded age that allows the earth to look much older than the time it has actually existed for, right?

to be

 

[Kylie]

to be

In any case, it is what allows the Earth to have the evidence of billions of years when it has only existed for a few thousand years, correct?

 

[AV1611VET]

In any case, it is what allows the Earth to have the evidence of billions of years when it has only existed for a few thousand years, correct?

Have a nice day.

Even the Inquisition had to take a break at times.

Let's see a light bulb come on.

 

[Speedwell]

to be

Did God give us any clue as to the purpose of this phenomenon?

 

[Kylie]

Have a nice day.

Even the Inquisition had to take a break at times.

Let's see a light bulb come on.

Why do you always do this when you are faced with questions you don't want to answer?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you always do this when you are faced with questions you don't want to answer?

Because I get tired of talking to an empty light socket.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did God give us any clue as to the purpose of this phenomenon?

Adam Clarke said it best:

It appears that God created every thing, not only perfect as it respects its nature, but also in a state of maturity, so that every vegetable production appeared at once in full growth; and this was necessary that man, when he came into being, might find every thing ready for his use.

 

[Kylie]

Because I get tired of talking to an empty light socket.

Do you mean people who disagree with you?

Because, you've done this twice to me recently.

The first time was when I pointed out that your boolean standards would mean that you would have to conclude that the moon is female. And now when I point out that the same process which can give the Earth billions of years of history can also allow for macroevolution (after all, it's just another indication of great age).

Both times I have pointed out how your claimed position would appear to lead you to a conclusion you have spoken against. So it seems that whatever method you use to arrive at your conclusion is flawed.

Or perhaps it's because you arrive at your conclusion and then try to find a way to justify it. The trouble with doing it that way is that it gets very difficult to find a method which works for all the conclusions you've decided on ahead of time.

Perhaps it's time to admit that your boolean standards don't form the basis of your beliefs, but rather they are an after-the-fact attempt to justify the beliefs you decided on without the use of your boolean standards. Because that's how it seems to me.

 

[Yttrium]

The first time was when I pointed out that your boolean standards would mean that you would have to conclude that the moon is female. And now when I point out that the same process which can give the Earth billions of years of history can also allow for macroevolution (after all, it's just another indication of great age).

Kylie, he's going by his interpretation of the Bible. It's not a hyper-literalist interpretation. His Boolean standards apply to his interpretation, not to an excessively literalist interpretation.

A lot of Christians look at the six "days" of creation in the Bible and concluded that a day for God could be billions of years for humans. It's a lot harder for many of them to get past the part where humans and other animals are created. It's harder to spin a poetic meaning to that part. Many Christians do, many Christians don't. AV believes God created a mature universe, not unlike creating a mature human. So the universe doesn't just look ancient, it is ancient.

You're trying to show that he has a double standard when it comes to Biblical interpretations. If he's flexible on age, he should be flexible on macroevolution. But flexibility can have its limits. You've discovered his limits. There's no point in badgering him about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Kylie, he's going by his interpretation of the Bible. It's not a hyper-literalist interpretation. His Boolean standards apply to his interpretation, not to an excessively literalist interpretation.

A lot of Christians look at the six "days" of creation in the Bible and concluded that a day for God could be billions of years for humans. It's a lot harder for many of them to get past the part where humans and other animals are created. It's harder to spin a poetic meaning to that part. Many Christians do, many Christians don't. AV believes God created a mature universe, not unlike creating a mature human. So the universe doesn't just look ancient, it is ancient.

You're trying to show that he has a double standard when it comes to Biblical interpretations. If he's flexible on age, he should be flexible on macroevolution. But flexibility can have its limits. You've discovered his limits. There's no point in badgering him about it.

You're a gentleman and a scholar!

 

[xianghua]

Citation required.

here:Construction of a minimum-size functional flagellin of Escherichia coli.

Here you can see that you can have a protein that can be encoded in several different ways.

true. so? even if you have about 10^100 different ways to code for the same protein its actually nothing compare to the whole sequence sapce (20^300 for a tipical protein).

 

[xianghua]

Would you care to tell me what process happens in macroevolution that does not happen in microevolution?

yep. complex systems. eye or other organs are too complex to evolve naturally and therefore cant evolve by microevolution.

 

[inquiring mind]

A lot of Christians look at the six "days" of creation in the Bible and concluded that a day for God could be billions of years for humans.

I lean in this direction... I guess I accept that the geological and cosmological age estimates can’t be all wrong. But, mostly I interpret it that way from the Genesis account, since there wasn’t a sun to establish the 24/hour day as we know it, for the first four days.

It's a lot harder for many of them to get past the part where humans and other animals are created.

I can see where Day 5 & 6 can become a problem with my reasoning when you consider the ages of animal and early human (and I mean human here) evidence found, especially with the 24/hour day having been established on Day 4. I believe the Bible though, and that is why I believe there was Divine intervention and maybe even gaps, which I don’t begin to understand. But, when it says God created man, I believe that’s what it means, therefore no macroevolution happens, and no gradual appearances or common descent... only variations.

It's harder to spin a poetic meaning to that part. Many Christians do, many Christians don't.

True, creatures and plants of all kinds must have come in bursts through Divine intervention and for varying periods of time. I know, that’s not scientific, and I understand evolutionists will discount it because they hold to a uniform, linear time continuum (not to mention disregard for Divine intervention).

 

[Speedwell]

But, when it says God created man, I believe that’s what it means, therefore no macroevolution happens, and no gradual appearances or common descent... only variations.

That sounds suspiciously like a false dichotomy, unless you find it necessary to believe that God created man de novo.

...not to mention disregard for Divine intervention.

It depends on which evolutionists you are talking to and what form divine intervention might take. I suspect that the issue here is not the divine authorship of our being but the Bible and how it is to be read.

 

[Yttrium]

True, creatures and plants of all kinds must have come in bursts through Divine intervention and for varying periods of time. I know, that’s not scientific, and I understand evolutionists will discount it because they hold to a uniform, linear time continuum (not to mention disregard for Divine intervention).

Well, let's not dump all evolution supporters into one basket. Not being scientific doesn't mean it couldn't have happened that way.