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.
The vast majority of geologists did not think about this question. Some do (by a variety of reasons, most of them are related to the Bible). Those people are studying the mountain building process and the magma process in the mantle of the earth. Confused? Not a surprise.
Not at all. The Global Flood is more likely to be true than not. Scientifically, you are absolutely in no position to argue with me on this issue.
The vast majority of geologists did not think about this question.
Not at all. The Global Flood is more likely to be true than not. Scientifically, you are absolutely in no position to argue with me on this issue.
The vast majority of geologists did not think about this question.
I'm dubious that you can take an unbroken line of living species from house cats to tigers... but I guess since Puma to Jaguar is possible, why not. (Manx is just a weird tailless breed of house cat, can you give me an example of one breeding with a Jaguar?)
I don't get why you are cool with [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] cats and Tigers "micro evolving" in only one or two thousand years at most (we have mummies of both house cats and lions), why is chimp and human diverging in several million years a problem?
Evolution didn't need to develop everything at once, and traits and attributes could change their purpose through a process or scaffolding.
Trace it yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felid_hybrid
There's your start. See domestic cat and hybridization.
Because had cats and dogs been left to the natural course - the divergence you see would barely have begun. Even at an accelerated rate caused by us, they all remain easily recognizable as to what they are. Sorry, we don't see that occurring in nature. Even at an accelerated rate above that of nature we brought about, the divergence is not as pronounced as you want to claim between man and monkey.
So now your giving free will to the process of evolution? Conscious knowledge of a plan needed to be built piece by piece until once all the parts are assembled over millions of years it becomes functional? Are you seriously proposing this and then going to deny God as being supernatural?
Care to address any of my previous questions, along with these ones?
When prolonged flooding occurs, it typically leaves a single distinct layer in the sediment. Why do we not observe such a sedimentary layer in the geologic column? At a mere 4000 years ago, such a layer should be trivially easy to find, and yet we don't find anything like it.
We can observe low genetic diversity in some species; this can be traced back to a genetic bottleneck. For example, Cheetahs underwent a near-extinction event some 10,000 years ago. Why can we observe such a dearth of genetic variance in the cheetah population, but nothing comparable in most species?
How did Koalas get from Australia to the Middle East and back? What did they eat during the journey each way?
How did Noah keep the tons of meat necessary to feed the carnivorous animals from spoiling for a year?
How did Noah survive the high altitude, low oxygen content, and frigid temperatures "above the highest mountains" implies?
Let me know when you get to any of that.
Actually, given that the flood model is usually offered part and parcel with creation models, it's hardly off topic. If you think the flood is an integral part of the model of our history, then defending it is absolutely on topic in this thread. So with that in mind, why don't you start with the Koalas. How'd they make the trip from Australia to the Middle East, how did they make the return journey, and why haven't we found any Koala skeletons anywhere in between the two places?One at a time. Your pick.
But I warn you, the content would be off topic.
Actually, given that the flood model is usually offered part and parcel with creation models, it's hardly off topic. If you think the flood is an integral part of the model of our history, then defending it is absolutely on topic in this thread. So with that in mind, why don't you start with the Koalas. How'd they make the trip from Australia to the Middle East, how did they make the return journey, and why haven't we found any Koala skeletons anywhere in between the two places?
It's a skull of a hominid we call Homo habilis, "Handy Man" thought to be the first tool crafter.Tell me who (or what) he is, and I'll let you know.
Skull recognition isn't one of my stronger points.
Because had cats and dogs been left to the natural course - the divergence you see would barely have begun. Even at an accelerated rate caused by us, they all remain easily recognizable as to what they are. Sorry, we don't see that occurring in nature. Even at an accelerated rate above that of nature we brought about, the divergence is not as pronounced as you want to claim between man and monkey.
So now your giving free will to the process of evolution? Conscious knowledge of a plan needed to be built piece by piece until once all the parts are assembled over millions of years it becomes functional? Are you seriously proposing this and then going to deny God as being supernatural?
It really does. Global flood implies all terrestrial animals migrated across the planet from a single location in the recent history.I don't know. This has nothing to do with the Global Flood.
Right out of the gate we run into some problems.
What is God? Is god a natural entity? Is he in any way understandable or predictable? If God is supernatural, then we're kinda stuck for all the reasons I describe in this thread - we cannot even in theory provide evidence for or against this answer, and as a result it is untestable and unsupportable. Whether the universe had a beginning or not is unrelated; however, the big bang model does not imply that the universe necessarily had a beginning. It merely implies that the universe was, at some point, collapsed into a hot, dense point. There are various concepts in cosmology which do seem to imply some sort of beginning, but there is not a significant amount of evidence for them as far as I can tell.
Okay, so thus far, as far as I can tell, the model you've described is, "God created the big bang, and then the solar system and earth coalesced from there"?
So basically your standard cosmological model, plus a little more clarity around the singularity? Was there any significant amount of time between the big bang and the formation of earth? I'll pass on asking for the evidence, as if you're just going to describe standard cosmological models, then we can just refer to the evidence for those.
Fair enough. The evolutionary model would imply very heavily that land plants did not predate algae (or, indeed, multicellular life), but as you say the evidence here is weak, I won't press you further on it. The beginnings of life on this planet are very, very difficult to examine, as soft single-celled organisms don't tend to preserve very well.
Whole bunch of stuff in here that I disagree very little with. My main quibble is with the postulation that the earth predates the sun, or that the moon was formed near the same time as the sun. There is simply no model in modern cosmology in which a solar system such as ours does not form out of a Protoplanetary disk, formed well after the sun has started nuclear fusion. The idea that the earth was there before the sun requires some pretty stellar evidence (although the earth predating the moon is entirely accurate).
It seems to me that what you're putting forward, at least in terms of cosmology, a model which is very, very similar to the leading models of the day. You replace the big unknown behind the big bang with "God did it" (which I find problematic for numerous stated reasons), you disagree about the order of sun vs. earth, which, while not the leading hypothesis, is not completely unreasonable, and you accept the cosmological age of the universe. So far, really can't disagree with most of this.
And this is where the problems really start.
You are, as far as I can tell, asserting that god essentially created each of these creatures at the respective times. This is, to put it bluntly, phenomenally unscientific. Science only examines natural causes, as supernatural causes are unfalsifiable and indeterminable. If some supernatural entity poofs a cake into existence in front of me, how am I to know which supernatural entity that is? God? Satan? Magical Cake Faeries? How could I possibly distinguish a supernatural cause from merely an extremely advanced naturalistic cause? I strongly recommend looking into my thread on miracles and magic, as if we're trying to build a model of the universe, "God did it" is not helpful. It offers us no useful information and allows us to make no predictions about reality ("Why did god do X?" "Because god works in mysterious ways"). It's not even really a satisfactory explanation, because "God did it" could answer literally any question, and throwing it in there with no evidence (because, again, there can be no evidence for a supernatural cause even in theory).
It is a mechanism, not a definition.
They are processes. I do not know if it is a root mechanism of anything. If you apply it to evolution (definition?) it won't work.
So far, you have zero.
I have many many. But you should be the one to raise question. If you don't have a question, then either quit, or try to find one.
The vast majority of geologists did not think about this question.
Some do (by a variety of reasons, most of them are related to the Bible). Those people are studying the mountain building process and the magma process in the mantle of the earth. Confused? Not a surprise.
Which interpretation? Straight reading? Usher's chronology? Gap theory? The version @Oncedeceived supports? Each one has some non-trivial problems and many are straight-up refuted by the evidence we find in the world.Genesis covers it pretty well.
You disagree that the root mechanism of evolution is survive, reproduce with variation, repeat?
Which interpretation? Straight reading? Usher's chronology? Gap theory? The version @Oncedeceived supports? Each one has some non-trivial problems and many are straight-up refuted by the evidence we find in the world.
I don't know. This has nothing to do with the Global Flood.
No. Because those three won't give you the necessary product of evolution. For example, they won't change a ??? to whale.
Which interpretation? Straight reading? Usher's chronology? Gap theory? The version @Oncedeceived supports? Each one has some non-trivial problems and many are straight-up refuted by the evidence we find in the world.
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?