[_ Old Earth _] A thought on Human origins

[Cygnus]

You don't know that. Birds used to have teeth. Is is your argument that they lost the information to have teeth? In the case of birds, loss of teeth was caused by additional information. As is probably true in the case of the cave fish, birds still retain all the information to make teeth. They just don't activate the genes.

But as noted before, there is no such thing as "de-evolution." Nor does evolutionary change require an addition in information. In many cases, a loss of information can produce evolutionary change.

A loss of information is de-evolution.
I think a skate board is a bit more sophisticated than a snowboard....considering the wheels.....but it doesn't do well on a snow covered slope.....but remove some of the information, the wheels....and it now does much better on a snow covered slope.

One could say the board de-evolved.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You don't know that. Birds used to have teeth. Is is your argument that they lost the information to have teeth? In the case of birds, loss of teeth was caused by additional information. As is probably true in the case of the cave fish, birds still retain all the information to make teeth. They just don't activate the genes.

But as noted before, there is no such thing as "de-evolution." Nor does evolutionary change require an addition in information. In many cases, a loss of information can produce evolutionary change.

A loss of information is de-evolution.

By your measure, then loss of those feature is evolution, since it required more information, not less.

 

[Jim Parker]

Why is it that those who profess that they are Christians insist on taking God out of the equation when it comes to how life began? God created the first man and woman roughly 10,000 years ago. This is based on the extrapolation of events recorded in the Bible, which are literal accounts (not allegorical) and should be viewed above any sort of alternate explanation put forth by men.

(1) ow life began. The is no scientist who has said he/she knows how life began. Since they cannot observe God, scientists don't look for God.
(2) Dating mans creation by the bible is bogus. The Bible is not a history book. It is a theology book. Using it for anything else is misuse.
Neither are all the events in the Bible "Literal Events." The first chapter of Genesis is a genealogy of the heavens and the earth. It is a literary device which was used in all ancient middle eastern literature to introduce "the story" which, for mankind, starts at Gen. 2:4.
(3) The Theory of evolution is the standard "sort of alternate explanation put forth by men."
From Wisdom of Solomon 19:19 (Ca. 30-10 BC)
"For land animals were changed into water creatures
And creatures that swam crossed over to the land."

 

[Knotical]

Really, you are going to try to resurrect a thread that has been dead for over half a year with this tripe?

 

[Jim Parker]

Really, you are going to try to resurrect a thread that has been dead for over half a year with this tripe?

Tripe?
Speak for yourself.

 

[Knotical]

Tripe?
Speak for yourself.

I do, quite regularly actually. To quote something that is extrabiblical like "The Wisdom of Solomon" shows that you do not hold to the full council of God (The Bible) as the ultimate authority concerning everything in this world, which means there really is no point in having this kind of discussion.

The book of Genesis is literal and should be taken as such, as are the other parts that indicate time frames reference by genealogies which is sufficient to extrapolate the accurate age of this world, much less the universe. Science keeps proving itself wrong on many discoveries where the bible on the other hand has not changed since it was written.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Science keeps proving itself wrong on many discoveries where the bible on the other hand has not changed since it was written.

When you say science proves itself wrong, are you commenting that the sciences keep updating its theories and laws as more information is found or demonstrated?

 

[Knotical]

When you say science proves itself wrong, are you commenting that the sciences keep updating its theories and laws as more information is found or demonstrated?

I guess that is one way to spin it.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I guess that is one way to spin it.

How is it spin? What exactly are you trying to infer?

 

[Jim Parker]

To quote something that is extrabiblical like "The Wisdom of Solomon" shows that you do not hold to the full council of God (The Bible) as the ultimate authority concerning everything in this world, which means there really is no point in having this kind of discussion.

The wisdom of Solomon is in the Bible, maybe not in your abridged version, but it was in the original KJV and is in my translation of the Septuagint. (The scriptures most commonly used by the Jews at the time of Jesus)
And to accuse someone of not holding to the full council of God is a no-no in this forum.

The book of Genesis is literal and should be taken as such,

The book of Genesis is literature, not history.
Gen 1:1 through 2:3 is a genealogy which was the standard literary device used in the ancient middle east to introduce a story which, in this case, begins at Gen 2:4.
That same literary device is used by Matthew who began his Gospel with a selective genealogy of Jesus which is presented as three sets of 14 generations. In the numerology of Jewish religious literature, the number 14 is the number of David's name. Matthew arranged his genealogy to communicate the Jesus was the son of David which was a necessary lineage for the messiah.

the other parts that indicate time frames reference by genealogies which is sufficient to extrapolate the accurate age of this world,

IMO, that is a misuse of scripture. There are many who take the simplistic view that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. I reject that notion. It seems to me an excuse to avoid thinking about the meaning of what was written.
Scripture is the self revelation of God and His gracious, loving will for mankind, not a calendar.

Science keeps proving itself wrong on many discoveries where the bible on the other hand has not changed since it was written.

That's a pretty sweeping generality that affords absolutely nothing of substance to your view.
To support your claim, you'll need to explain exactly what is wrong with the calculations of astrophysicists who conclude that the universe is about 13.4 billion years old. (And please don't cut and paste from some so-called "creation science" website. Please tell me in your own words.)

Thanks

 

[Jim Parker]

I guess that is one way to spin it.

Spin???
Here's an example of what you might call "spin." Thomas Edison tried about 1000 different materials to be used as a filament in a light bulb before finding that tungsten worked well. In his view, he successfully identified about 1000 materials which would not work.
There are parts of science which are settled. (Newton's laws of motion, for example) There are areas of science in which research is still being done.
Your sweeping generalization attempt to paint science as unreliable is disingenuous.
We didn't put people on the moon and get them back without knowing a thing or two about how the universe works.
Jonah Salk did not come up with a cure for polio without knowing a thing or two about diseases and the human body.
The integrated circuits in the computer you are using to post in this forum were invented by scientists who knew a bit about electronics, physics, and chemistry.
Our modern society is based on scientific discovery.
So when someone (like you) attempts to brush off scientists as "know-nothings", it tends to identify the person doing the brushing off as a know-nothing rather than the scientists whose work is the foundation of our technologically advanced society. Those know-nothings who are always wrong are the reason we are not still an agrarian society without paved roads, motor vehicles, airplanes, telephones, modern medicine, and communication.


iakov the fool

 

[Knotical]

First off, how can you view the bible as merely literature? I will leave that question as it is.

Second, if you are really wanting to get into a debate as to why science is more important than the bible you are wasting your time. As I have stated in other threads the theories that scientists put forth in order to answer questions about the origins of life, much less our universe, are merely man's attempt at explaining what is clearly outlined in Genesis but taking God out of the equation, which is heresy.

I really don't have the time to go into this any further.

 

[Jim Parker]

First off, how can you view the bible as merely literature?

"MERELY" Literature???
Is that like; Mere Christianity?
Do you have any idea of the power of literature to covey ideas, truths, and reality?
It seems not. Your understanding of literature is appallingly meager.

if you are really wanting to get into a debate as to why science is more important than the bible

What???
I never said that science was more important than the Bible and have no idea how you came up with such a ridiculous idea.
Science is the study of nature.
The Bible is the self revelation of the Creator of nature Who wants mankind to be in intimate, loving, union with Him in Christ for all eternity.
Science doesn't even come close to being in the same league with the Bible with regard to importance.
There's nothing to debate.

As I have stated in other threads the theories that scientists put forth in order to answer questions about the origins of life, much less our universe,

Theories do not answer questions. They only suggest a direction of inquiry.
Scientists have stated that the causes of the origins of life are beyond their understanding.
The beginnings of the universe is pretty well understood by science. Observation and measurements have verified the "Big Bang" theory to be an accurate description of the early universe. (Right after God said, "Let there be light.")
Why it began seems to be beyond the ability of science to discover. (Because science has no means of observing or measuring God.)

 

[Knotical]

"MERELY" Literature???
Is that like; Mere Christianity?
Do you have any idea of the power of literature to covey ideas, truths, and reality?
It seems not. Your understanding of literature is appallingly meager.

What???
I never said that science was more important than the Bible and have no idea how you came up with such a ridiculous idea.
Science is the study of nature.
The Bible is the self revelation of the Creator of nature Who wants mankind to be in intimate, loving, union with Him in Christ for all eternity.
Science doesn't even come close to being in the same league with the Bible with regard to importance.
There's nothing to debate.

Theories do not answer questions. They only suggest a direction of inquiry.
Scientists have stated that the causes of the origins of life are beyond their understanding.
The beginnings of the universe is pretty well understood by science. Observation and measurements have verified the "Big Bang" theory to be an accurate description of the early universe. (Right after God said, "Let there be light.")
Why it began seems to be beyond the ability of science to discover. (Because science has no means of observing or measuring God.)

You, sir, are a walking contradiction. In one breath you state the bible is literature, which is to diminish it from what it actually is. Then you say the bible is more important than science, yet you then try to shoehorn the big bang theory into that very importance.

Methinks you may want to meditate on Matthew 6:24.

 

[Jim Parker]

You, sir, are a walking contradiction.

Your inability to comprehend plain English does not make my comments contradictory; it identifies your shortfall in the area of comprehension. (Hence, the demeaning of literature without which we would have not progressed beyond tribal communities.)

In one breath you state the bible is literature, which is to diminish it from what it actually is.

Of course it is literature. It is the written word. It contains poetry, history, allegory, metaphor and simile. The Old Covenant is written in the form of an ancient Middle Eastern Tassel-Suzerain Treaty.
The one thing that has enabled mankind to create everything that we have created is the ability to record our ideas in writing so that others can learn from what previous people have done. It is the how we record laws. I don't think you have any idea to the importance of literature to human civilization. Without it, man would have never progressed beyond the iron age.
Identifying the Bible as literature does nothing to diminish it any more than to say that mine is printed on paper diminishes it.

Then you say the bible is more important than science, yet you then try to shoehorn the big bang theory into that very importance.
Methinks you may want to meditate on Matthew 6:24.

Really?? You imagine that what you are doing is properly classified as "thinking."

Oh brave new world to have such people in it.