[_ Old Earth _] Considerations about science

[Milk-Drops]

So fact is conjectural in nature now? Uhh, ok. Gotcha.

And you are a lying manipulator which is one of the main reasons why creationism is never taken seriously in science.

So I'm blind to worldly wisdom? Thank you, you compliment me. You do a good job of illustrating the problem for us in regards to the over educated types who only know the world. That God created the world and all that is in it in 6 days is a spiritual truth, ok? Spiritual truths can not be discerned through carnal knowledge because the carnal mind is at enmity with God. This is why we are instructed to not lean upon our own understanding, at all, but to become as a little child and look to our Father for revelation of truth.

I guarantee you probably call one of us over educated types whenever you need help with something. You probably pay us to.

That sort of carnal thinking goes all the way back to the fall of man in the garden. Once we ate of the tree of knowledge of good & evil, it gave man the propensity to see only evil...iow, we can only look for things that are wrong or bad now. To (blindly, lol) accept that the bloody man holding a dagger is the guilty party, simply because the first responder points him out and says there's our man as you arrive on scene (?!)... is to embrace the world and accept in faith what is presented to you by a man. It's also bad police work, lol. We've been warned that deception is the enemies primary tool, so a better response than that would be to listen to the first officer's (lol) theory and file it away for future consideration...then take a look at the scene himself and see if his conclusions match the others theory.

Here is the problem, you don't know all that much. You're all bravado and spin. You're actions are dangerous because its assumption and can sound like the ravings of a mad man off their meds.

The scenario you describe is too perfect man. A mountain of evidence is there against the man! Too much in fact, lol. You don't smell frame up in that?!

And you just went off on a long tangent of nothing.

It's all talked about fairly regularly here on the forum.

Actually the same topics are repeated ad nauseum and when ever the topics get to where people actually start discussing something, the thread gets closed.

But you can't hear it because you're preoccupied with gazing at the bloody man so are resistant to considering other possibilities. Let those with ears hear.

I keep asking you guys to show or explain something and it always ends in one of three ways trolled, ignored, or thread closed where the process then repeats again. You don't explain anything and when confronted you play games. That isn't science.

Sure I have before. But when I have, you only seek to find something wrong with it, rather than consider it as a potential truth.

No see above.

So you say, "But look at the bloody man! He has a knife! Look at the fossils and the skulls"...so I learned to not waste my time with types that say "c'mon man, have some tunnel vision and look at the bloody man" Sorry man, I look at the big picture. In this world of CGA & CGI, nothing can be taken at face value. Truth is not always readily apparent. Nothing wrong with looking at a bloody tree for a moment, but unless one stops themselves from becoming so fixated on it that they can not see the rest of the picture...the forest...they'll prolly never become a decent investigator.

Actually I have more reason to think you are just scared. You don't understand that much. You assume way to much. You troll and misrepresent people so you don't have to think. That is why you troll people on a christian board in a section flat out states in the rules that they will censor, delete, erase, or change anything they see as being a threat. You are in an echo chamber man. You guys aren't defeating evolution, you are hiding from it. That is the sad thing.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Once you actually present a theory, that isn't just an evolution bashing, then I'll listen to you. Until then you have nothing.

Sure, for example, when God made the original human kind (species) it obviously had within its design the propensity for all the lighter and darker variations. As time passed children with less melanin and more melanin began to emerge in cases where less Ms and more Ms mated the allele tendencies were reinforced (and so on) until over time, we ended up with all the variety we now see..."white" people and "black" people are just extremes (variety) not new or different "species" and certainly not new or different "races"....and even in that, one is not more or less superior

That isn't a theory. What evidence do you have that God did this?


Your God made people with different melanin levels and they aren't superior to one another based on this. No mechanism is mentioned, so there is no way to tests this.

 

[turnorburn]

That isn't a theory. What evidence do you have that God did this?


Your God made people with different melanin levels and they aren't superior to one another based on this. No mechanism is mentioned, so there is no way to tests this.

Some things you can't test Milk-Drops..

I Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

tob

 

[brother Paul]

Loved it Barbarian...another book I have not read but I will look into it....thanks.

Are you not a creature of God? Did he not create the body in which you are located by natural means? Why would you think that should not count? No creationist has ever been able to explain this to me.

The Bible does not teach He created my body. My body came from previous generations being fruitful and multiplying (this is how He chose to MAKE or FORM us). What He created in me was nephesh (soul life) which I share with many creatures, and ruach (a spirit) that only we uniquely possess. And yes by taking the dust of the ground and forming the elements just so He then breathed into the form the "breath of life" (neshamah or vital energy or energy of vitality) and it became a living soul. In us the spark of life is carried by the sperm and the formative material by the egg but the spirit is from Him.

In Psalm 139, he wrote, “For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise you; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are your works; and that my soul knows right well.”

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which comes out of it; he that gives breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk in it.

Isaiah 57:16 For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth: for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made.

Zech.12:1 This is the word of the LORD concerning Israel. The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him.

Hope this helps understand my perspective. I do not know if it is sufficient to answer you...

Paul

 

[Milk-Drops]

Some things you can't test Milk-Drops..

I Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

tob

Then it isn't science.

 

[turnorburn]

Then it isn't science.

If your talking about the wisdom of this world then that's something entirely different..

tob

 

[Milk-Drops]

If your talking about the wisdom of this world then that's something entirely different..

tob

No, I'm going by how science is actually conducted. Using the therm "worldly wisdom" just comes off as a wiggle tactic to ignore anything inconvenient.

 

[brother Paul]

That isn't a theory. What evidence do you have that God did this?

Your God made people with different melanin levels and they aren't superior to one another based on this. No mechanism is mentioned, so there is no way to tests this.

None and no evidence He did not....the problem MD is that IF we have a spectral variety of skin tones now and only one Adam and Eve. So for me, this must be the case (they weren't both strictly white or black or else the variety could not have come forth)....I suppose as some speculate (and that is all I was doing...theorizing) one could have been one extreme, and the other the opposite extreme, but that is not necessary (but it is equally possible). My speculation can be explained by the science of allele distribution though. For example, my wife is Filipina and I am strictly Euro mixed with dark brown hair (or use to be) Hazel eyes the same as my mom and dad (although as a baby her hair was blond and she has grown blond siblings and brownette siblings...there were 13 in all), both my brother and sister had what is called dirty blond hair and blue eyes

My wife however had Black hair and brown eyes....

The mechanism is this when blonds mate with blonds for generations the majority of offspring are blond....a dominant allele like brown eyes mating with brown eyes over and over produces predominately brown eyed offspring. If Jacob continued only allowing white sheep to mate with white and black with black they would continue to reinforce the tendency but he cross bred them and got a variety of different spotted patterns (to be separated in later generations)

Hey....I took a shot at it....how about you? After all this is a post about considerations is it not? Give something to consider please

In His love

Paul

 

[turnorburn]

No, I'm going by how science is actually conducted. Using the therm "worldly wisdom" just comes off as a wiggle tactic to ignore anything inconvenient.

As you can see i haven't been ignoring anything, just stating that evolution isn't a fact, didn't you view that video that explains what science isn't telling you?

tob

*edit: that should keep you busy for a while I've got yard work ahead..

 

[brother Paul]

Then it isn't science.

Ah yes like the Universe began by evolving, or that non-living matter evolved into living things, or that one kind of creature over time becamse an entirely different kind of creature....Thanks for making the point so clear. According to this logic since these cannot be tested they must not be science but rather assumption based conclusions (otherwise known as "blind" faith).

Paul

 

[brother Paul]

I have a view of the Bible and science for consideration....

I have heard some Evolutionary Biologists default to the accusation that creationists are amiss because they believe in what is called “fixity of species”. The theory teaches that all species remained fixed throughout all the earth’s history.

Now though some creationists do adhere to this notion, the idea of fixity of species (that species never change and only that pre-set number ever existed) was a Greek notion, not a Biblical or Jewish one, and generally Theologians outside of the oppression and dogma of middle ages Roman Catholicism (which co-mingled with a lot of Greek Philosophy), many believe the Noah story demonstrates dispersion and development of species (though within the range of each particular species i.e., from a few types of dogs we now have many types of dogs) into greater variety. And only the Fundamentalists believe that God created everything instantaneously (poof). Genesis 1 and 2 in general describe stages and process (whether YEC or OEC). Even the formation of Adam was in time unlike the initial let there be light.

In the ancient Hebrew after God creates the basic kinds (species) He commands let the sea bring forth creatures “after its own kind” only the "after its own" is not in the text. What it says is let the sea being forth Miyn (kind/species)…one word, a single concept. The same with when He creates creatures for the land and then commands that the earth bring forth miyn (kind/species)…He himself creates creatures before Adam, then Adam, then a second set of animals, then Eve….why assume fixity of species in such a light?

Also, it is generally assumed that in speciation different species even of the same genre do not mate, but we know that is not true, so why teach it? We have seen different variations, within say mockingbirds, and iguana (land iguana and sea iguana who do not “normally” mate), mate and have offspring (still able to reproduce), where a Tiger and a Lion can only be mated in a laboratory setting (because they never do this naturally) and the creature produced is impotent, much like the cross between a horse and a donkey (a mule), in these natural cases (God’s design) they are not impotent. A cougar and a mountain lion can mate and have offspring, but don’t, but a linx and bobcat cat cannot. Why?

The differences in allele expression among humans is slightly less fixed by group and mainly separates on the basis of familiarity and preference (but in humans we never consider such differences as differences of species). My argument/dispute however is really about transmutation. It was never really an issue that some basic type of rose (by God's built in and informationally encoded plan and purpose) eventually produced all the various types roses we now have and enjoy, only that at no time did roses naturally produce violets or gardenias (even over millions of years).

I most certainly believe that the original humans (created by God) had within their design the propensity and capability to produce all the variety we now enjoy (changes within the species). For example, some were eventually born expressing less melanin and others expressing more melanin, and in time some of the lighter varieties (being more attracted and familiar) mated reinforcing this trait, and some of the darker varieties (being more attracted and familiar) did the same.

Paul

 

[brother Paul]

Or how about this?

When groups became more distinct some moved away (isolating their blending) from the other, and started their own lighter and darker skinned communities, other separation occurred when the earth was divided and continents drifted (perhaps in the time of Peleg), and also separation occurred due to differences in language/dialect as we will see below. The fringe areas of communities near to each other obviously could have occasionally overlapped (we are all wired to be fruitful and multiply). This is why we see so many blond fair skinned Italians in the North, but the southern Mediterranean variety are olive toned with black hair.

History and cultural legend give us interesting stories told by people the world over that led credence to the theory of many philologists like Max Muller on the possible language connection in this phenomena. These scientists teach that the study of ancient languages and cognate roots implies that at one time all humans alive at the time shared a common tongue. R. W. Williamson’s (University of Chicago), Religions and Cosmic Beliefs of Central Polynesia, speaks of the Hoa peoples who claim one of the gods saw the people building this giant building to heaven so he chased them all away, broke down the building, and changed their languages, so they all spoke in different tongues. Another is found in the writings of the Native Mexican Historian Ixtilochtitl, who says that after a great flood some people decided to build a high tower to escape any future floods but the gods were angry and caused them all to speak other languages so they could not understand one another. A group of about 14 set out on a long journey over mountains, through forests and seas and after about 100 years settled where the people known to us as Toltecs became indigenous. Both these stories had been being passed down from long before these peoples ever saw or heard of a Bible.

However the fact that this is mentioned in one of the Toltec legends and another among the Hoa is curiously interesting to me since their civilizations are completely on the other sides of the world from the area of our Noah figure and the peoples are of quite different “varieties” (all still being completely human).

Then again many molecular genetics studies done recently are more and more indicating all humans alive on the earth today all come from one ancient mother (totally human though) but where on earth have we ever imagined such an thing? Hmmm? If one original mother, then one original tongue is very likely wouldn’t you say? I imagine the first word for fire was probably a scream (Eeaahhhh!!!!) or something (lol).

Paul

 

[Barbarian]

When groups became more distinct some moved away (isolating their blending) from the other, and started their own lighter and darker skinned communities, other separation occurred when the earth was divided and continents drifted (perhaps in the time of Peleg)

Not possible. The energy necessary to accelerate continents to even a fraction of a mile an hour would boil the seas. I can show you if you like.

and also separation occurred due to differences in language/dialect as we will see below. The fringe areas of communities near to each other obviously could have occasionally overlapped (we are all wired to be fruitful and multiply). This is why we see so many blond fair skinned Italians in the North, but the southern Mediterranean variety are olive toned with black hair.

That kind of thinking pretty much died with the eugenists. The last person with that outlook was Carleton Coon, and he had a lot of things wrong.

History and cultural legend give us interesting stories told by people the world over that led credence to the theory of many philologists like Max Muller on the possible language connection in this phenomena.

Doesn't look so good now. At one time, the Nostratic hypothesis, linking all Eurasian languages has some support, but investigation hasn't been productive even for that limited idea.
Most language experts remain highly skeptical of the Nostratic hypothesis, which enjoyed so much publicity in the late 1980's and early 1990's that it is sometimes described as the linguists' version of cold fusion. "It would be terrific if it's true, but we don't want to jump to conclusions," said Dr. Brian Joseph, a linguist at Ohio State University in Columbus. Dr. Joseph and Dr. Joe Salmons of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., are editing the book, "Nostratic: Evidence and Status" (John Benjamins), in which the analysis of the five-fist connection will appear.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/27/science/linguists-debating-deepest-roots-of-language.html

There very likely was an ur-language; we all come from a bottleneck that cut human population down to a very few people (this was long after Adam and Eve) but the evidence for that seems to be totally gone; languages change rapidly.

Then again many molecular genetics studies done recently are more and more indicating all humans alive on the earth today all come from one ancient mother (totally human though)

Yes, but not Eve. Nuclear DNA studies indicate there were at least tens of thousands of humans alive at that time.

 

[turnorburn]

I have a view of the Bible and science for consideration....

I have heard some Evolutionary Biologists default to the accusation that creationists are amiss because they believe in what is called “fixity of species”. The theory teaches that all species remained fixed throughout all the earth’s history.

Now though some creationists do adhere to this notion, the idea of fixity of species (that species never change and only that pre-set number ever existed) was a Greek notion, not a Biblical or Jewish one, and generally Theologians outside of the oppression and dogma of middle ages Roman Catholicism (which co-mingled with a lot of Greek Philosophy), many believe the Noah story demonstrates dispersion and development of species (though within the range of each particular species i.e., from a few types of dogs we now have many types of dogs) into greater variety. And only the Fundamentalists believe that God created everything instantaneously (poof). Genesis 1 and 2 in general describe stages and process (whether YEC or OEC). Even the formation of Adam was in time unlike the initial let there be light.

In the ancient Hebrew after God creates the basic kinds (species) He commands let the sea bring forth creatures “after its own kind” only the "after its own" is not in the text. What it says is let the sea being forth Miyn (kind/species)…one word, a single concept. The same with when He creates creatures for the land and then commands that the earth bring forth miyn (kind/species)…He himself creates creatures before Adam, then Adam, then a second set of animals, then Eve….why assume fixity of species in such a light?

Also, it is generally assumed that in speciation different species even of the same genre do not mate, but we know that is not true, so why teach it? We have seen different variations, within say mockingbirds, and iguana (land iguana and sea iguana who do not “normally” mate), mate and have offspring (still able to reproduce), where a Tiger and a Lion can only be mated in a laboratory setting (because they never do this naturally) and the creature produced is impotent, much like the cross between a horse and a donkey (a mule), in these natural cases (God’s design) they are not impotent. A cougar and a mountain lion can mate and have offspring, but don’t, but a linx and bobcat cat cannot. Why?

The differences in allele expression among humans is slightly less fixed by group and mainly separates on the basis of familiarity and preference (but in humans we never consider such differences as differences of species). My argument/dispute however is really about transmutation. It was never really an issue that some basic type of rose (by God's built in and informationally encoded plan and purpose) eventually produced all the various types roses we now have and enjoy, only that at no time did roses naturally produce violets or gardenias (even over millions of years).

I most certainly believe that the original humans (created by God) had within their design the propensity and capability to produce all the variety we now enjoy (changes within the species). For example, some were eventually born expressing less melanin and others expressing more melanin, and in time some of the lighter varieties (being more attracted and familiar) mated reinforcing this trait, and some of the darker varieties (being more attracted and familiar) did the same.

Paul

Just to clarify something here Paul, you said: "I most certainly believe that the original humans (created by God) had within their design the propensity and capability to produce all the variety we now enjoy"

Who do you believe these original humans were?

tob

 

[brother Paul]

Not possible. The energy necessary to accelerate continents to even a fraction of a mile an hour would boil the seas. I can show you if you like.

Interesting since science books do contain evidence that indicates the possibility. One example I saw was a pictures of one fossil found on the west coast of Africa and the other half found of the east coast of South America. Seafloor spreading and so on. The USA has measured deterioration of its eastern coast at occurring at a very slow rate but it is reasonable to imagine at other times under different conditions it may have been occurring somewhere at a faster rate. There are more but these are some.

The Noah story describes a cataclysmic “breaking up of the deep”. Gorges and fault lines indicate shiftings from one place to another. Earthquakes and plate subductions occur all the time even in the ocean…imagine the continental shifting that occurred with the alleged comet impact extinction??????

and also separation occurred due to differences in language/dialect as we will see below. The fringe areas of communities near to each other obviously could have occasionally overlapped (we are all wired to be fruitful and multiply). This is why we see so many blond fair skinned Italians in the North, but the southern Mediterranean variety are olive toned with black hair.

That kind of thinking pretty much died with the eugenists. The last person with that outlook was Carleton Coon, and he had a lot of things wrong.

Is it just that you like to be contentious? This example has absolutely nothing to do with Eugenicists it speaks to peoples who live close to each other, with differing features, marry and the genetics mix, each side contributing their chromosomes

 

[brother Paul]

Just to clarify something here Paul, you said: "I most certainly believe that the original humans (created by God) had within their design the propensity and capability to produce all the variety we now enjoy"

Who do you believe these original humans were?

tob

Adam and Eve and their many offspring....I hope you agree

 

[turnorburn]

Adam and Eve and their many offspring....I hope you agree

Yes i agree, Adam and then Eve were the first then over a period of what, how long did Adam live, 930 years, they had oodles of kids..

Thanks Paul..

tob

 

[brother Paul]

Yes i agree, Adam and then Eve were the first then over a period of what, how long did Adam live, 930 years, they had oodles of kids..

Thanks Paul..

tob

indeed...by the time their first two get into their issue they are already grown....probably already had many bros and sists

 

[Milk-Drops]

None and no evidence He did not....the problem MD is that IF we have a spectral variety of skin tones now and only one Adam and Eve. So for me, this must be the case (they weren't both strictly white or black or else the variety could not have come forth)....I suppose as some speculate (and that is all I was doing...theorizing) one could have been one extreme, and the other the opposite extreme, but that is not necessary (but it is equally possible). My speculation can be explained by the science of allele distribution though. For example, my wife is Filipina and I am strictly Euro mixed with dark brown hair (or use to be) Hazel eyes the same as my mom and dad (although as a baby her hair was blond and she has grown blond siblings and brownette siblings...there were 13 in all), both my brother and sister had what is called dirty blond hair and blue eyes

Because you carry recessive traits.

My wife however had Black hair and brown eyes....

You are European and have hazel eyes. Just like Green eyes, hazel eyes are a mutation off of blue eyes.

The mechanism is this when blonds mate with blonds for generations the majority of offspring are blond....a dominant allele like brown eyes mating with brown eyes over and over produces predominately brown eyed offspring. If Jacob continued only allowing white sheep to mate with white and black with black they would continue to reinforce the tendency but he cross bred them and got a variety of different spotted patterns (to be separated in later generations)

Because mutations pop up and selective breeding reinforces selection pressures that enforce specific gene patterns. I'm familiar with Mendel's work that reinforced this.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Ah yes like the Universe began by evolving,

Nope, because the universe is not a living organism capable of reproduction. So evolutionary biology wouldn't explain this. However Cosmology and Astral Physics have been continuously studying the origins of the universe and its not my field.

or that non-living matter evolved into living things,

No where in the theory of Evolution does it propose that nonliving matter evolved into living organisms. However many Chemists have found evidence that suggest that proto-cells came about from simple proteins and once proteins started resembling basic primitive cells they developed a type of homeostasis which started life.

or that one kind of creature over time became an entirely different kind of creature....

No individual creature becomes a different type of creature. Populations and lineages however can produce different creatures. Heck its why we see the similarities between dogs, foxes, wolves, bears, weasels, and raccoons.

Thanks for making the point so clear.

No those are all yours. Take full credit for it. You deserve it. What lab did you work in again?

According to this logic since these cannot be tested they must not be science but rather assumption based conclusions (otherwise known as "blind" faith).

Paul

Correct you made a whole lot of assumptions and mistakes and I corrected you. Let me know if you need anymore help.