[_ Old Earth _] Evolution stopped after billions of years.

[Milk-Drops]

But how does natural selection change a theropod dinosaur into a bird?

Don't you mean, what genetic traits of ancestral theropod dinosaurs branched off due to natural selection and modern understanding of inherited genetics show the links between them and modern birds?

If this is not what you meant, then I see what you did there and wont cast more pearls before you.

 

[zeke]

Don't you mean, what genetic traits of ancestral theropod dinosaurs branched off due to natural selection and modern understanding of inherited genetics show the links between them and modern birds?

I mean where did all of the new information come from that can change a theropod into a bird.

 

[Stan53]

Here's Darwin's opinion:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
He thought God created the first living things. I think so, too. What do you think?

I really don't base my belief on Darwin's opinion, sunstandtiated or otherwise. I base it on the Word of God. I believe in the literal six day account in the book of Genesis.

What's the bare minimum you'd accept as "life?"

Uh...LIFE!

In my opinion, the unifying force in the universe is God. What do you think?

Well seeing as He made it, what do you think?

Don't think there is a "force" in evolution. It's a process.

Well that is ONE MAN'S opinion. God says different.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I mean where did all of the new information come from that can change a theropod into a bird.

Yeah, I'm not playing that game.

You quoted my post where I explained that Genetics, Mutations, Natural Selection, etc. are all parts of different theories.

Then you turn around and ask what I just clarified as being a misunderstanding. Knowing your track record, I refuse to explain again. I'm not giving the class clown the attention. No pearls for you. Considering I, Free, Barbarian, and Lordkalvan have already been down this road with you before. Good day.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Here's Darwin's opinion:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.


He thought God created the first living things. I think so, too. What do you think?

I really don't base my belief on Darwin's opinion

I don't either. But do you think he's right?

Barbarian asks:
What's the bare minimum you'd accept as "life?"

Uh...LIFE!

So a rock? A virus? What? If you don't know, it's O.K. to say so.

Barbarian observes:
In my opinion, the unifying force in the universe is God. What do you think?

(declines to say)

Why?

Barbarian chuckles:
Don't think there is a "force" in evolution. It's a process.

Well that is ONE MAN'S opinion. God says different.

Show us what God says about evolution.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I really don't base my belief on Darwin's opinion, sunstandtiated or otherwise. I base it on the Word of God. I believe in the literal six day account in the book of Genesis.

that is fine, but I think you misunderstand what the relevence of what Darwin said is. When discussing the theory of evolution and what it says. Darwin would be an authority, since it was Darwin who constructed it. Many YE creationists claim that Evolution states there is no god, when the reality is that Darwin ( the person who created the field of evolutionary biology, believed in a God and didn't state that there is no God. That is the point being delivered here.

Uh...LIFE!

In Biology, life has a definition. Also in Biology there are stages of life. So when you ask about life, naturally it is a question of what do you consider life.

Well seeing as He made it, what do you think?

Well, how exactly did God make it. I'm not asking about the narrative. What are the mechanisms that your claim God used in your stance?

Well that is ONE MAN'S opinion. God says different.

No, actually in the field of Biology, Evolution is an observed process, not a force. What you are probably talking about are the mechanisms. Such as Natural Selection, Genetic Inheritance, etc.

Just as I would ask, what mechanism did God use to create life?

 

[zeke]

Yeah, I'm not playing that game.

Then you do not know where the new information come from that can change a theropod into a bird? Does Darwinism have the answer or do they just claim 'evolution of the gaps'?

 

[zeke]

He thought God created the first living things. I think so, too. What do you think?

I think Darwin's atheism was showing earlier that you realized and your dilemma continues. You are digging and Augustine is not on your side - he believed the earth was created about 5600 BC - YEC - yes?

Many scholars are coming to the conclusion that Darwin was in fact an atheist well before the publication of Origin. Howard Gruber stated, “The material gives clear evidence for Darwin’s realization during this period that his ideas were indeed materialistic, tending toward atheism, and therefore dangerous.†Stephen Jay Gould likewise said, “The notebooks prove that, Darwin was interested in philosophy and aware of its implications. He knew that the primary feature distinguishing his theory from all other evolutionary doctrines was its uncompromising philosophical materialism...

(Is Darwinism Atheistic? By: Bill Johnson)​

 

[Stan53]

Barbarian observes:
Here's Darwin's opinion:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
He thought God created the first living things. I think so, too. What do you think?
I don't either. But do you think he's right?
Barbarian asks:
What's the bare minimum you'd accept as "life?"
So a rock? A virus? What? If you don't know, it's O.K. to say so.
Barbarian observes:
In my opinion, the unifying force in the universe is God. What do you think?
Why?
Barbarian chuckles:
Don't think there is a "force" in evolution. It's a process.
Show us what God says about evolution.

I have no interest in playing word games with you. My belief is IN Genesis 1 and 2. God created life as fully mature, and he formed Adam and breathed life into him.
God did not start a half baked idea and leave it up to chance. He created exactly what He wanted to create, a FULLY mature universe where life ONLY exists her on earth. You choosing to discount that or not support it fully, is to your detriment.

Heb 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Colossians 1:16
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

 

[Stan53]

that is fine, but I think you misunderstand what the relevence of what Darwin said is. When discussing the theory of evolution and what it says. Darwin would be an authority, since it was Darwin who constructed it. Many YE creationists claim that Evolution states there is no god, when the reality is that Darwin ( the person who created the field of evolutionary biology, believed in a God and didn't state that there is no God. That is the point being delivered here.

In Biology, life has a definition. Also in Biology there are stages of life. So when you ask about life, naturally it is a question of what do you consider life.

Well, how exactly did God make it. I'm not asking about the narrative. What are the mechanisms that your claim God used in your stance?



No, actually in the field of Biology, Evolution is an observed process, not a force. What you are probably talking about are the mechanisms. Such as Natural Selection, Genetic Inheritance, etc.

Just as I would ask, what mechanism did God use to create life?

Are you and Barbarian a tag team? He answers yours, you answer his?

Darwin is no more an authority on how the earth came into existance than you are. God is the authority. God created it. Darwin in his finite mind tried to understand God and failed miserably as most people do who try to wrap their finite minds around God's creation. I don't need to understand it to believe it. I just need to have faith, and I do.

FYI, most hard boiled evolutionists DON'T believe there is a God. They won't even accept Intelligent Design, and fanatically persecute those scientists who do.
The Holy Grail for most evolutionists is to have the THEORY accepted as FACT without ever fully knowing what the THEORY actually is. A theory can never be made fact without proof. As Christians we don't need fact, because we operate and believe based on faith.
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen.

 

[lordkalvan]

Are you and Barbarian a tag team? He answers yours, you answer his?

If you post in a public forum, you invite comments from anyone who wants to do so. If you want a one-on-one discussion, you should maybe use a board that offers debate forums. I hope this helps.

Darwin is no more an authority on how the earth came into existance than you are.

I don't think anyone is suggesting Darwin offered an authoritative opinion on how Earth came into existence.

God is the authority. God created it.

Well, clearly this is a moot point of view. Not only atheists would disagree with this assertion: Hindus would probably argue that Lord Brahma is the authority in this instance.

Darwin in his finite mind tried to understand God and failed miserably as most people do who try to wrap their finite minds around God's creation. I don't need to understand it to believe it. I just need to have faith, and I do.

And yet if you believe in God you must also believe that he gave you an inquiring mind for a purpose. Perhaps it might have been so that you could come to a better understanding of his creation by studying it? Many Christians, if not most, seem to have no difficulty reconciling the findings of science with their faith. Why would they be any more misguided in their understanding than you?

FYI, most hard boiled evolutionists DON'T believe there is a God.

i think you need to validate this assertion. Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller would seem to be 'hard boiled evolutionists' (although perhaps you need to qualify this description as well) and they certainly belive in the Christian God.

They won't even accept Intelligent Design, and fanatically persecute those scientists who do.

If you regard reasonably critiquing the arguments of those who propose ID as persecution, then I suppose you are right.

The Holy Grail for most evolutionists is to have the THEORY accepted as FACT without ever fully knowing what the THEORY actually is. A theory can never be made fact without proof.

I think you need to develop a more thorough understanding of what constitutes a scientific theory. Can you tell us what you understand evolutionary theory 'actually is', for example?

As Christians we don't need fact, because we operate and believe based on faith.

But presumably you operate and believe some things based on fact, so what criteria do you use to differentiate amongst fact and faith?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Are you and Barbarian a tag team? He answers yours, you answer his?

No, I respect Barbarian but we do differ on certain opinions.

Darwin is no more an authority on how the earth came into existance than you are.

Agreed, mainly because the theory of Evolution has nothing to do with how the Earth came into existence. The theory of Evolution is about Population Mechanics and adaptation.

God is the authority. God created it. Darwin in his finite mind tried to understand God and failed miserably as most people do who try to wrap their finite minds around God's creation. I don't need to understand it to believe it. I just need to have faith, and I do.

That is cool, but I'm a person that enjoys studying things and realize that I won't understand everything. Yet I still found it interesting to understand a very controversial subject in Biology.

FYI, most hard boiled evolutionists DON'T believe there is a God. They won't even accept Intelligent Design, and fanatically persecute those scientists who do.

I've never seen persecution. What I've seen is papers get thrown out because the logic tends to fall apart. Ken Miller is a high profile Biologist and guess what. He is a Christian.

The Holy Grail for most evolutionists is to have the THEORY accepted as FACT without ever fully knowing what the THEORY actually is. A theory can never be made fact without proof. As Christians we don't need fact, because we operate and believe based on faith.

Theories are constructions to explain fact. The theory of Evolution is just decent with modification. That is an observed fact. The theory is just the explanation of the mechanics.

 

[spartakis]

Are you and Barbarian a tag team? He answers yours, you answer his?

Darwin is no more an authority on how the earth came into existance than you are. God is the authority. God created it. Darwin in his finite mind tried to understand God and failed miserably as most people do who try to wrap their finite minds around God's creation. I don't need to understand it to believe it. I just need to have faith, and I do.

FYI, most hard boiled evolutionists DON'T believe there is a God. They won't even accept Intelligent Design, and fanatically persecute those scientists who do.
The Holy Grail for most evolutionists is to have the THEORY accepted as FACT without ever fully knowing what the THEORY actually is. A theory can never be made fact without proof. As Christians we don't need fact, because we operate and believe based on faith.
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen.

Stan its funny how many times I presented links here for books that date back to 160 AD for young earth creation.

The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world to 3751 BC while the later Seder Olam Zutta to 4339 BC.[10] The Hebrew Calendar has traditionally since the 4th century AD by Hillel II dated the creation to 3761 BC.[11][12][13][14][15]
By the 1830s, mainstream science had abandoned young Earth creationism as a serious hypothesis. It became therefore important for biblical scholars as well as Christian scientists to harmonize the Genesis myth with new scientific results into a 'new geology'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

But yet it's still denied here. Even the Hebrew calender has no meaning. With darwins speculation on what if we had a warm little pond ....... He was speculating the first protein forming on it's own. Since his wife did't like him pushing God away of course he would let that hang in speculation.

It don't matter how many facts and links you publish here they get thrown out if they do not agree with some people's beliefs. God could tell them himself that he created every animal after their kind in 6 days in the opposite order they believe they evolved in, and he would be wrong.

Give the video I posted an example, they are called a liar and ignorant for telling the truth. Of course no one listened to even the part I asked them to where Dr John Endler an evolutionist who's work is quoted by dawkins explains what is considered evolution and what is not. He even points out that many call NS evolution. They are called liars and ignorant when they point out facts as to what they are talking about. False claims was made about the video that they state scientist teach this when the video does state that the knowledgeable evolutionist do not teach this, but once again they give examples of what they are talking about. A claim was made that they state evolution has to prove where mutations come from? That was never stated, only thing was stated about mutations was when someone answered their questions brings it up and they state what mutations do. Where they got this? They obviously did't watch the video, watched and did not listen, or making something up. Here I was given a video that called creationist ignorant and was insulting ( even had a short insulting cartoon in it to Christians that believe the Bible) but I watched the whole thing opened minded. I posted 2 videos of facts of major problems with the fossil record but they I am sure are ignorant and not true. Facts don't mean anything here unless they agree with evolution.

Creation.com has some real good videos with interviews with biologist, chemist, marine biologist, and etc.... I recommend watching.
http://creation.com/creation-videos
Also 15 questions to evolutionist
http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed

 

[Barbarian]

I have no interest in playing word games with you.

If you don't know what the words mean, you have no hope of communicating anything.

My belief is IN Genesis 1 and 2. God created life as fully mature, and he formed Adam and breathed life into him.

But it doesn't say that, does it? It's O.K. to make up your own ideas, but it's not O.K. to attribute them to God.

God did not start a half baked idea and leave it up to chance.

Darwin discovered it wasn't by chance. But even if it was, God could do it that way:

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency. St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1)

You're greatly underestimating the Creator.

He created exactly what He wanted to create, a FULLY mature universe where life ONLY exists her on earth.

Again, it's O.K. to make up things, but it's not O.K. to pretend that it's in Scripture. You do know that those ideas are not in the Bible, right?

You choosing to discount that or not support it fully, is to your detriment.

I can believe you, or I can believe God. Not much of a choice, is it?

 

[Barbarian]

Then you do not know where the new information come from that can change a theropod into a bird?

We already showed you how information increases in a population. I even did the math for you.

 

[Barbarian]

Are you and Barbarian a tag team? He answers yours, you answer his?

This is a message board. People put up ideas, and other people talk about them. Anyone can comment on anything. I thought you knew.

Darwin is no more an authority on how the earth came into existance than you are.

Darwin's theory isn't about the way the Earth came into existence. I gather you never read it, um?

FYI, most hard boiled evolutionists DON'T believe there is a God. They won't even accept Intelligent Design, and fanatically persecute those scientists who do.

They don't accept voodoo as a useful part of science, either. For the same reason. Religion, no matter how intense, can't work in science.

The Holy Grail for most evolutionists is to have the THEORY accepted as FACT without ever fully knowing what the THEORY actually is.

Notice that scientists take a lot of time trying to clear up misconceptions people have about science. You've got it backwards.

A theory can never be made fact without proof.

Perhaps you don't know what "theory" means. It's not the slang term you think it is. A theory is a well-tested body of ideas that is supported by evidence. It doesn't get any more settled than "theory" in science. And proof is not part of science at all. Science is mostly inductive, and only works by inferences from evidence.

As Christians we don't need fact

There's nothing wrong with faith. But if you try to use faith to solve your plumbing problems, you're asking for a disaster. Science is more like plumbing than like religion.

 

[Barbarian]

Charles Darwin, on the origin of life:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Barbarian chuckles:
He thought God created the first living things. I think so, too. What do you think?

I think Darwin's atheism was showing earlier that you realized

I never thought of God creating life as an atheistic idea. This is why people suspect you're a troll, trying to make Christians look foolish.

and your dilemma continues. You are digging and Augustine is not on your side

Let's take a look...

In the book, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

Saint Augustine (353-430) painted an even clearer picture. He taught that the original germs of living things came in two forms, one placed by the Creator in animals and plants, and a second variety scattered throughout the environment, destined to become active only under the right conditions.

He said that the Biblical account of the Creation should not be read as literally occupying six days, but six units of time, while the passage `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth' should be interpreted:

As if this were the seed of the heaven and the earth, although as yet all the matter of heaven and of earth was in confusion; but because it was certain that from this the heaven and the earth would be, therefore the material itself is called by that name.

Augustine likens the Creation to the growth of a tree from its seed, which has the potential to become a tree, but does so only through a long, slow process, in accordance with the environment in which it finds itself.

God created the potential for the heavens and earth, and for life, but the details worked themselves out in accordance with the laws laid down by God, on this picture.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/evolution.htm

YEC -Yes?

I don't think so.

 

[zeke]

I never thought of God creating life as an atheistic idea.

But classical Darwinists believe via great faith that naturalism created life with no need for God. How does that work with your Darwinism?

Augustine likens the Creation to the growth of a tree from its seed, which has the potential to become a tree, but does so only through a long, slow process, in accordance with the environment in which it finds itself.

You're digging - did Augustine believe in a 'young earth' - one created about 5600 BC? Stop digging. We're chuckling.

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian shows that Darwin thought God created the first living things)
He thought God created the first living things. I think so, too. What do you think?

Zeke disagrees:
I think Darwin's atheism was showing earlier that you realized and your dilemma continues.

Barbarian chuckles:
I never thought of God creating life as an atheistic idea.

But classical Darwinists believe via great faith that naturalism created life with no need for God.

See above. You're arguing that Darwin isn't a "classical Darwinist?"

How does that work with your Darwinism?

I agree with Darwin. God created life. The only difference between you and me, is you don't approve of the way He did it.

In the book, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegor...ons_of_Genesis

Saint Augustine (353-430) painted an even clearer picture. He taught that the original germs of living things came in two forms, one placed by the Creator in animals and plants, and a second variety scattered throughout the environment, destined to become active only under the right conditions.

He said that the Biblical account of the Creation should not be read as literally occupying six days, but six units of time, while the passage `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth' should be interpreted:

As if this were the seed of the heaven and the earth, although as yet all the matter of heaven and of earth was in confusion; but because it was certain that from this the heaven and the earth would be, therefore the material itself is called by that name.

Augustine likens the Creation to the growth of a tree from its seed, which has the potential to become a tree, but does so only through a long, slow process, in accordance with the environment in which it finds itself.

God created the potential for the heavens and earth, and for life, but the details worked themselves out in accordance with the laws laid down by God, on this picture.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/evolution.htm

Zeke asks:

YEC -Yes?

Barbarian chuckles:
I don't think so.

You're digging

Burying. If you're claiming that YE creationism denies literal 24-hour days of creation, and thinks organisms evolved from an initial creation, I'd have to say you were pretty confused. That's what Augustine wrote.

The available evidence in St. Augustine's time was for a young Earth. And he accepted that evidence. But St. Augustine also acknowledged human understanding is imperfect, and that as new evidence emerged, we should be willing to modify our views of Genesis to fit reality.

 

[Stan53]

Theories are constructions to explain fact. The theory of Evolution is just decent with modification. That is an observed fact. The theory is just the explanation of the mechanics.

THEORY:

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion, hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

It would appear you need to bone up on the actual meaning of the word and not try to obfuscate it's real connotation, and making it fit your preconceptions.