[_ Old Earth _] Alright, time for some answers

[Barbarian]

Okay, I'll go along with that. But if I were to ask you HOW such a thing (the mechanical processes or methods involved in the history of flight) might have happened, you would not have to rely on mysterious methods to explain it.

No mysterious methods for evolution, since Darwin. It's directly observable and understandable.

I'll accept your assessment that the evidence for evolution is as strong (for you) as the evidence that airplanes exist. What other choice is there?

I can directly observe airplanes. I can directly observe evolution.

Of course, I've never directly observed an airplane flying from New York to London, but there's pretty good evidence to support the idea.

 

[Sparkey]

No mysterious methods for evolution, since Darwin. It's directly observable and understandable.



I can directly observe airplanes. I can directly observe evolution.

Of course, I've never directly observed an airplane flying from New York to London, but there's pretty good evidence to support the idea.

Okay, so you've directly observed what I have previously described as barriers of "kind" being crossed? And you have the same amount of evidence as could be produced in support of the theory that Boeing or Airbus produce airplanes? Barbarian, please.

"Golly, Sparrow. When you put it that way, I may have overstated my case a little bit."

 

[Barbarian]

Okay, so you've directly observed what I have previously described as barriers of "kind" being crossed?

Never actually saw it happening. But there is overwhelming evidence for it.

And you have the same amount of evidence as could be produced in support of the theory that Boeing or Airbus produce airplanes?

Never actually say it happening, but I have very good evidence for it. Keep in mind, I've spent a lifetime studying life, and only casually looked at aircraft manufacturing, so it's understandable that I can't support my conclusion about Boeing as well as I can for evolution.

Barbarian, please.

You've only seen a tiny part of the evidence here. I've seen some new part of it almost every day of my life.

"Golly, Sparrow. When you put it that way, I may have overstated my case a little bit."

Perhaps. But if we go to Seattle, I bet we can find a building where aircraft are being constructed. Which would be pretty much like finding predicted transitionals, I think.

 

[Sparkey]

Never actually saw it happening. But there is overwhelming evidence for it.



Never actually say it happening, but I have very good evidence for it. Keep in mind, I've spent a lifetime studying life, and only casually looked at aircraft manufacturing, so it's understandable that I can't support my conclusion about Boeing as well as I can for evolution.



You've only seen a tiny part of the evidence here. I've seen some new part of it almost every day of my life.



Perhaps. But if we go to Seattle, I bet we can find a building where aircraft are being constructed. Which would be pretty much like finding predicted transitionals, I think.

Again, I am speaking about biblical kinds and am not opposed to variation. If we accept a taxonomist's definition of species I can go along with you - right up to the point where I imagine a barrier between kinds. Yes, I admit that it is an imagined barrier because God didn't do more than imply it when He said that He created each kind and their seed.

I do like your analogy of evidenciary support for the mechanical process of airplanes. If we expanded (loosened) the criteria for such evidence, we wouldn't have to go to Seattle (or south King County) you could "prove" the whole thing by producing a wrench.

Evolutionary "wrenches" are missing. How did our little caterpillar get the information about the likeness of the snake (the image) in order to create the fake? I read your answer, that it was a combination of mutation and reinforcement (selection) because of predation, but beyond the relatively simple change in a single species -- how does one biblical kind "evolve" into another? What mechanical method is there? What direct observational evidence do we have for this? Where is the wrench?

 

[Barbarian]

Again, I am speaking about biblical kinds and am not opposed to variation. If we accept a taxonomist's definition of species I can go along with you - right up to the point where I imagine a barrier between kinds. Yes, I admit that it is an imagined barrier because God didn't do more than imply it when He said that He created each kind and their seed.

But biology is about evidence. And I'm unaware of any evidence at all for any sort of barrier. It would certainly be a blow against evolution if such a barrier could be found.

I do like your analogy of evidenciary support for the mechanical process of airplanes. If we expanded (loosened) the criteria for such evidence, we wouldn't have to go to Seattle (or south King County) you could "prove" the whole thing by producing a wrench.

Well, maybe more than that. I'd need more than that to buy the story about building big machines that fly.

Evolutionary "wrenches" are missing. How did our little caterpillar get the information about the likeness of the snake (the image) in order to create the fake? I read your answer, that it was a combination of mutation and reinforcement (selection) because of predation, but beyond the relatively simple change in a single species

They are actually a number of different species. Most likely, geographical separation makes it happen, and two related species would probably not produce a hybrid fake as good as either of the two by themselves. So it can be a mode of speciation.

-- how does one biblical kind "evolve" into another?

The problem is, we don't have a testable definition of "kind." We can speculate, (the ICR thinks that it amounts to "family", but that puts humans and apes in the same "kind." Which is probably not what they intended.

What mechanical method is there?

In the case of onychophorans and arthropods, it seems to have been largely a process called "tagmosis", the reduction in, and modification of body segments. In the case of birds, it's mostly a matter of reduction in size, and exaggeration of traits already in dinosaurs.

Can we talk about some of those?




What direct observational evidence do we have for this? Where is the wrench?

 

[Sparkey]

Yes, I admit that it is an imagined barrier because God didn't do more than imply it when He said that He created each kind and their seed.

But biology is about evidence. And I'm unaware of any evidence at all for any sort of barrier. It would certainly be a blow against evolution if such a barrier could be found.

What kind of evidence would you like to see (best case scenario)? I'm willing to leave the word of God out of it, but would like to know what evidence you'd like for me to give that would be considered satisfactory. If the fact that it has never been seen or observed doesn't satisfy, what would?
______________________________________________________



I read your answer, that it was a combination of mutation and reinforcement (selection) because of predation, but beyond the relatively simple change in a single species

They are actually a number of different species. Most likely, geographical separation makes it happen, and two related species would probably not produce a hybrid fake as good as either of the two by themselves. So it can be a mode of speciation.

Allopatric speciation does not produce cross-kind types of change. Although things like:

• Glacial ice sheets
• Mountain chains uplifted
• Major river course changes
• Sea level changes
• Warming climates resulting in a "push" of vegetation
• Drying climates that change lakes (large single lakes into multiple smaller)
• Large scale oceanic current change
• Volcanism forming islands

... can all work to geographically separate individuals in a given population ... and this distancing can also be seen to produce consequent "speciation events" (like when brown squirrels "evolve" into black squirrels due to allopatric speciation) but I don't know of any new creature coming from it. This isn't the "wrench" we're looking for. Even when all life is wiped out and an entire area is devastated to the point that there is no life in the soil (like after a volcanic eruption) -- a primary succession can be seen as life resumes.
___________________________________________


-- how does one biblical kind "evolve" into another?

The problem is, we don't have a testable definition of "kind." We can speculate, (the ICR thinks that it amounts to "family", but that puts humans and apes in the same "kind." Which is probably not what they intended.

In the case of onychophorans and arthropods, it seems to have been largely a process called "tagmosis", the reduction in, and modification of body segments. In the case of birds, it's mostly a matter of reduction in size, and exaggeration of traits already in dinosaurs.

Can we talk about some of those?

The bible mentions things that creep and crawl. Yes, lets talk about evidence that suggests that such creatures have evolved into things that do no longer creep nor crawl.

_________________

If we leave the bible out of it (and I don't know why anyone would do that, because it is a valid source of observation) and if we don't consider absence of observation of any one kind of creature giving rise to another kind (biblical kind, that is) I would like to again ask, is there any way left for me to prove my theory? You be the expert here and go ahead and let me know how I might (best case scenario) point to satisfactory evidence. In other words, what evidence do the experts consider sufficient, what would be considered as "beyond a mere preponderance" and what would be considered as evidence "beyond any reasonable doubt"?

 

[Barbarian]

What kind of evidence would you like to see (best case scenario)? I'm willing to leave the word of God out of it, but would like to know what evidence you'd like for me to give that would be considered satisfactory.

Some sort of evidence that a barrier exists. Genetically "this far, but no further." Or a biochemical incompatibility that demonstrably couldn't be by common descent. Something of substance.

If the fact that it has never been seen or observed doesn't satisfy, what would?

If that's evidence, then we can rule out the idea that giant redwoods grow from seeds.

read your answer, that it was a combination of mutation and reinforcement (selection) because of predation, but beyond the relatively simple change in a single species

At some point, such variation becomes great enough that different populations can no interbreed and produce viable offspring.

Barbarian observes:
They are actually a number of different species. Most likely, geographical separation makes it happen, and two related species would probably not produce a hybrid fake as good as either of the two by themselves. So it can be a mode of speciation.

Allopatric speciation does not produce cross-kind types of change.

Seems to have done so in the moas. And marsupials. And apes. Among others.

Although things like:

Glacial ice sheets
Mountain chains uplifted
Major river course changes
Sea level changes
Warming climates resulting in a "push" of vegetation
Drying climates that change lakes (large single lakes into multiple smaller)
Large scale oceanic current change
Volcanism forming islands

... can all work to geographically separate individuals in a given population ... and this distancing can also be seen to produce consequent "speciation events" (like when brown squirrels "evolve" into black squirrels due to allopatric speciation) but I don't know of any new creature coming from it.

New Zealand, before humans found it, had no mammals other than bats (which began to evolve toward a terrestrial existence). The Moas had to fly there. And yet they are clearly a different kind than any sort of flying bird.

-- how does one biblical kind "evolve" into another?

Give me a testable definition for "biblical kind."

Barbarian observes:
The problem is, we don't have a testable definition of "kind." We can speculate, (the ICR thinks that it amounts to "family", but that puts humans and apes in the same "kind." Which is probably not what they intended.

In the case of onychophorans and arthropods, it seems to have been largely a process called "tagmosis", the reduction in, and modification of body segments. In the case of birds, it's mostly a matter of reduction in size, and exaggeration of traits already in dinosaurs.

Can we talk about some of those?

The bible mentions things that creep and crawl. Yes, lets talk about evidence that suggests that such creatures have evolved into things that do no longer creep nor crawl.

Sure how about onychophoran worms to bumblebees? If I can show you a logical path, with evidence, would that be two kinds?

Different phyla would be, right?

we leave the bible out of it (and I don't know why anyone would do that, because it is a valid source of observation) and if we don't consider absence of observation of any one kind of creature giving rise to another kind (biblical kind, that is) I would like to again ask, is there any way left for me to prove my theory?

Show us a barrier for genetic variation that rules out one of these transitions.

You be the expert here and go ahead and let me know how I might (best case scenario) point to satisfactory evidence. In other words, what evidence do the experts consider sufficient, what would be considered as "beyond a mere preponderance" and what would be considered as evidence "beyond any reasonable doubt"?

Show us something that could not have evolved. Of course, it's a bit of a problem establishing negatives. (logical certainty isn't required, just overwhelming evidence) But that's what you're proposing to do. Or, I suppose, if you could demonstrate in some manner that kinds were created de novo.

I don't know how do explain that, without making it sound like you need to verify the Easter Bunny.

 

[Sparkey]

New Zealand, before humans found it, had no mammals other than bats (which began to evolve toward a terrestrial existence). The Moas had to fly there. And yet they are clearly a different kind than any sort of flying bird.

The evidence you offer (the moa used to fly) can only be considered if you've ruled God so far out of the picture that He can no longer be considered. I would appreciate a discussion about systematic biases to one of speculation about timelines derived from comparing contental drift to molecular clocks. Some have stated that Gondwanaland was submerged (at least once) entirely. But of course, since they don't take the bible into account, this isn't evidence of a biblical flood. You've challenged me to provide a "testable definition" for kind, and I think you did so knowing that the bible wasn't written by for that purpose, but then you present evidence for an undefined "kind". This to you is "clearly a different 'kind', or מין , or miyn??

We're at an impasse.

 

[zeke]

Some sort of evidence that a barrier exists. Genetically "this far, but no further."

You remain confused and misinformed - even "the most intensive artificial selection has also proven to be unable to transcend the species barrier." Educate yourself - your argumentum ad ignorantiam makes look silly.

It is now 147 years since the publication of Darwin’s celebrated “On the Origin of Species,“ yet not a single species has been observed to be formed through the mechanism he proposed. That mechanism, the natural selection of randomly produced variations is apparently incompetent to transform contemporary species even into a new member of the same genus. The most intensive artificial selection has also proven to be unable to transcend the species barrier. Furthermore, there is every reason to believe that evolution is finished as proposed by the anti-Darwinian Robert Broom and the Darwinian Julian Huxley, curiously the same man who coined the term “the modern synthesis.†(Davison, 2004). Pierre Grasse suggested the same. ~ Darwinism as Delusion (John A. Davison, biologist--former Darwinian)​

 

[Sparkey]

You've asked me to demonstrate in some manner that kinds were created de novo. But that is not my assertion, rather, I assert they were created in such a way that its seed was in itself (et factum est ita semen in semet ipso sit).
_____________________________

Speaking of creation, how do you deal with the miracle of the fishes, were Jesus fed 5,000 people and then later fed 4,000?

 

[Barbarian]

You remain confused and misinformed - even "the most intensive artificial selection has also proven to be unable to transcend the species barrier."

That has been directly observed. The first case was the evolution of O. gigas from O. lamarkania. Complete reproductive isolation, in one generation.

Usually it's slower than that. But even the honest creationists admit that speciation is a fact. The ICR, for example, touts the idea of John Woodmorappe, who says that new species, genera, and families evolved from a few "kinds" on the Ark. He confirmed that to me years ago in an e-mail exchange. "Answers in Genesis" also admit speciation is a fact.

Educate yourself - your argumentum ad ignorantiam makes look silly.

It is now 147 years since the publication of Darwin’s celebrated “On the Origin of Species,“ yet not a single species has been observed to be formed through the mechanism he proposed.

Drosophila miranda, a New Species
T. Dobzhansky
http://www.genetics.org/content/20/4/377.full.pdf

That mechanism, the natural selection of randomly produced variations is apparently incompetent to transform contemporary species even into a new member of the same genus.

Surprise.

 

[Barbarian]

The evidence you offer (the moa used to fly) can only be considered if you've ruled God so far out of the picture that He can no longer be considered.

Yes, if we admit miracles. Anything is possible if we insert a non-scriptural miracle where needed. Science is completely useless in evaluating a miraculous transportation of moas.

I would appreciate a discussion about systematic biases to one of speculation about timelines derived from comparing contental drift to molecular clocks.

I have some skepticism about molecular clocks, since the mutation rates are not entirely constant even in specific groups of organisms. Over the long run, it's probably sort of accurate, but I'm not convinced.

Some have stated that Gondwanaland was submerged (at least once) entirely. But of course, since they don't take the bible into account, this isn't evidence of a biblical flood.

The Black Sea catastrophe is solid evidence for a Biblical flood. And it happened about the right time and in the right place.

You've challenged me to provide a "testable definition" for kind, and I think you did so knowing that the bible wasn't written by for that purpose,

Precisely. Science can't deal in faith and miracles. Nothing wrong with those; it's O.K. to be unscientific when that is appropriate. I am often unscientific myself.

but then you present evidence for an undefined "kind". This to you is "clearly a different 'kind', or מין , or miyn??

To science, life is a kind. You have more in common with a bacterium, than things by which you differ. If you and E. coli were in a great collection of living things culled from across the universe by some alien collector, and he lost his notes, he would still know you and the E. coli were related.

We're at an impasse.

Maybe not. Your calm and rational argument is a little window into creationist thinking that gave me some new things to think about.

Speaking of creation, how do you deal with the miracle of the fishes, were Jesus fed 5,000 people and then later fed 4,000?

I figure it was a miracle. God doesn't have to do miracles to make everything work. When He does a miracle, He does it to teach us something.

 

[Sparkey]

Peter wrote about prophecy in his second epistle. In my view he was actually prophesying himself. Now, I do not believe that he was speaking about people who believe as you do, Barbarian, as I count you a brother in Christ, but he was talking about false teachers; those who were saved but have forgotten that they were bought with a great price, "...denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction..." (2Peter 2:1)


Peter directly spoke of the biblical narratives of the fall of the angels, of the biblical flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (and deliverance of Lot) -- and says, "For if God spared not..." and used these as examples, he concluded with the lesson that from this we understand emphatically that God knows how to deliver -and- how to reserve the unjust unto punishment. When talking about people that would be reserved unto judgment, Peter is specifically speaking about those who "have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, [and] are again entangled therein, and overcome."


Peter continues to speak about "them," later, in the third chapter of his epistle. Peter wants us to allow him to "stir up our minds" by way of remembrance - and to know that scoffers will come in the last days. He goes on to characterize them (so they can be recognized, I would presume) and says (among other things) that they say, "Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation."


If it has been 6.5 billions of years since the beginning of creation the unstated message is that the words of the holy prophets should be dismissed. When we (you and I, earlier in thread) spoke of Jesus referring to His Father creating "them" male and female "at the beginning" you suggested that the 'beginning' that Jesus spoke about was the beginning of the human race. I've thought about it and it is a way of understanding what he meant that is consistent with the other things are are integral parts of your belief. But Peter isn't talking about the beginning of humans, instead he says that in the last days there will be scoffers who say (in essence) "all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation."

We're at an impasse.

Maybe not. Your calm and rational argument is a little window into creationist thinking that gave me some new things to think about.



I figure it was a miracle. God doesn't have to do miracles to make everything work. When He does a miracle, He does it to teach us something.

He does it to teach us something -or- for reasons that are not ours to see. "The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law." - (Deu 29:29 KJV)

 

[zeke]

Drosophila miranda, a New Species

Do you make the distinction between subspeciation and transspeciation? I have asked you to define 'species' before but you have yet to do that - why not give us your definition. You appear to misunderstand much.

But even the honest creationists admit that speciation is a fact.

Do you not read the posts - I have already noted Culex pipiens molestus of the London Underground. Try to keep up.

 

[Barbarian]

If it has been 6.5 billions of years since the beginning of creation the unstated message is that the words of the holy prophets should be dismissed.

I don't see how.

When we (you and I, earlier in thread) spoke of Jesus referring to His Father creating "them" male and female "at the beginning" you suggested that the 'beginning' that Jesus spoke about was the beginning of the human race. I've thought about it and it is a way of understanding what he meant that is consistent with the other things are are integral parts of your belief.

The problem with not taking it that way, is then we have a difference of opinion between the Father and the Son, as to what was there at the beginning. God makes it very clear in Genesis 1:1, and male and female were not there.

But Peter isn't talking about the beginning of humans, instead he says that in the last days there will be scoffers who say (in essence) "all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation."

Science doesn't say that. It just assumes that the rules haven't changed. So far, every time we test it, that's right.

 

[Sparkey]

The problem with not taking it that way, is then we have a difference of opinion between the Father and the Son, as to what was there at the beginning. God makes it very clear in Genesis 1:1, and male and female were not there.

If "the beginning" means the first week of creation a couple days doesn't matter.

[science] assumes that the rules haven't changed. So far, every time we test it, that's right

If the "rules" haven't changed in 'X' number of years - all tests conducted from then on would veryify that they NEVER changed? Barbarian, you know better than to advance that.

 

[Barbarian]

If the "rules" haven't changed in 'X' number of years - all tests conducted from then on would veryify that they NEVER changed? Barbarian, you know better than to advance that.

Well, a few billion years is all we really need for evolution. And that's what we have, as far as uniformity of physical laws goes. And that's keeping in mind the possibility that God might have miraculously altered the evidence to make it look as though it was ancient when it was not.

While it's conceivable, it's completely at odds with everything we know about God.

 

[Sparkey]

He goes on to characterize them (so they can be recognized, I would presume) and says (among other things) that they say, "Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation."

Science doesn't say that. It just assumes that the rules haven't changed. So far, every time we test it, that's right.

If the "rules" haven't changed in 'X' number of years - all tests conducted from then on would verify that they NEVER changed?

Well, a few billion years is all we really need for evolution. And that's what we have, as far as uniformity of physical laws goes. And that's keeping in mind the possibility that God might have miraculously altered the evidence to make it look as though it was ancient when it was not.

While it's conceivable, it's completely at odds with everything we know about God.

"Every time we test..." over a period of a few billion years??? You have pre-flood tests of the uniformity of physical laws? I suspect we are not communicating well. That happens. I don't know what you mean.

Do you have evidence that you can bring to show that the lifespans of men were shorter than the bible says they were before the flood? That's one of the things that the bible explicitly states has not continued "as they were" from the beginning. There are other changes. Language was change at the Tower of Babel. Do you have evidence that shows this isn't so? I can't imagine how one could even go about that one. Although some argue that it may have rained before the flood and some say it didn't - is there evidence that this has continued "as it were, from the beginning"?

We may be running into a problem of communication because although Peter knew exactly what he was talking about I'd guess he wasn't educated enough to fathom the known physical laws of his time. Maybe he had heard some of the things that the Greek scholars were saying, but his statement is admittedly somewhat ambiguous. The idea is clear though. Things aren't the same and there will come some who say things have always been the same from the beginning of creation. Peter said this was heresy.

 

[Barbarian]

"Every time we test..." over a period of a few billion years??? You have pre-flood tests of the uniformity of physical laws? I suspect we are not communicating well. That happens. I don't know what you mean.

I mean that physical processes leave behind traces that we can read and understand. For example, we note that radioactive decay has not changed in the billions of years the Earth has been here. How do we know? Because this leaves evidence in the materals around it. The Oklo reactor (a natural reactor) shows that it was the same 2 billion years ago:

In May 1972 at the Pierrelatte uranium enrichment facility in France, routine mass spectrometry comparing UF6 samples from the Oklo Mine, located in Gabon, Central Africa, showed a discrepancy in the amount of the 235
U isotope. Normally the concentration is 0.720%; these samples had only 0.717% – a significant difference. This discrepancy required explanation, as all uranium handling facilities must meticulously account for all fissionable isotopes to assure that none are diverted for weapons purposes. Thus the French Commissariat à l'énergie atomique (CEA) began an investigation. A series of measurements of the relative abundances of the two most significant isotopes of the uranium mined at Oklo showed anomalous results compared to those obtained for uranium from other mines. Further investigations into this uranium deposit discovered uranium ore with a 235
U concentration as low as 0.440%. Subsequent examination of other isotopes showed similar anomalies, such as Nd and Ru as described in more detail below.

This loss in 235
U is exactly what happens in a nuclear reactor. A possible explanation therefore was that the uranium ore had operated as a natural fission reactor. Other observations led to the same conclusion, and on September 25, 1972, the CEA announced their finding that self-sustaining nuclear chain reactions had occurred on Earth about 2 billion years ago. Later, other natural nuclear fission reactors were discovered in the region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

Do you have evidence that you can bring to show that the lifespans of men were shorter than the bible says they were before the flood?

Bible says "threescore and ten." It lists some patriarchs as being older, a lot older. Which could, if it's literal, mean God intervened, or it could mean that they had several times as many telomere units on their DNA as people do today. But it doesn't invalidate the evidence.

That's one of the things that the bible explicitly states has not continued "as they were" from the beginning.

Perfectly consistent with the rules as they are, however. Lots of things are different, but the rules haven't changed.

There are other changes. Language was change at the Tower of Babel. Do you have evidence that shows this isn't so?

The evidence suggests that all languages in existence today have evolved from one ur-language. It's not compelling to many lingusts yet, but it has a name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Human_language

And there's genetic and linguistic evidence for it:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/303/5662/1315.full

Or, of course, it could be an allegory for man's pride and folly. Since it has God expressing concern that they might actually reach heaven with their tower, I suspect the latter.

I can't imagine how one could even go about that one. Although some argue that it may have rained before the flood and some say it didn't - is there evidence that this has continued "as it were, from the beginning"?

Without a water cycle, no rivers. So that's out as of Eden, at least.

We may be running into a problem of communication because although Peter knew exactly what he was talking about I'd guess he wasn't educated enough to fathom the known physical laws of his time. Maybe he had heard some of the things that the Greek scholars were saying, but his statement is admittedly somewhat ambiguous. The idea is clear though. Things aren't the same and there will come some who say things have always been the same from the beginning of creation. Peter said this was heresy.

Or rather, he said that those who said things have always been this way, and therefore God was not coming were heretics. The antecedent can be true, and the conclusion false. Or they might be speaking of human society, and not the elementary rules by which God makes the universe work.

I'm not sure this verse can carry the load you want to put on it.

 

[Sparkey]

You may have a point and perhaps I am trying to put too much weight on a single verse but if we zoom out a bit and read the chapter and the one before it to discover the context - the meaning becomes clear.

Peter specifically mentioned the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah. The phrase "all things continue," simply means that they continue without God: Diesm.