[_ Old Earth _] evolution or creation?

[Paloma]

But of course some of you don't agree with the way He does it. The numerous transitional forms between little browsing Hyracotherium and large, grazing Equus, many with less differences than we see in many mammalian species, makes it clear that horses evolved from a small multitoed herbivore, that lived in forests and browsed on bushes.

Horse feathers. Lol barbarian. Your assumptions are showing.

 

[Barbarian]

This is our model. And we have as much a right to develop it, as you do. Yes?

You have a right to your own opinions. But not to your own facts. Reality might be difficult, but it has the virtue of being true.

 

[Barbarian]

Horse feathers. Lol barbarian. Your assumptions are showing.

Comes down to evidence. And it says living populations evolve. And it says common descent is a fact.

 

[Paloma]

I agree. Nothing you said disagrees with Creationism.

 

[Edward]

You have a right to your own opinions. But not to your own facts. Reality might be difficult, but it has the virtue of being true.

Well...they do know a lot but they are not infallible. It'll all make sense some day when the Lord finally does reveal the truth to all.

For all we know, the Lord's creation process could have included an accelerated aging process or something. We do know that earth is about 6K years old if the scripture is to be taken literally, and I think it should.

So if the scientific community is even partially correct then there would have to be creation events that happened that were not recorded in detail. God could have easily done something like that.
So we would wind up at some point having to take it on faith for now?

Either that or we find out that Darwin is 100% lies, lol.

 

[Barbarian]

Well...they do know a lot but they are not infallible. It'll all make sense some day when the Lord finally does reveal the truth to all.

For all we know, the Lord's creation process could have included an accelerated aging process or something. We do know that earth is about 6K years old if the scripture is to be taken literally, and I think it should.

Probably, it's not a good idea to solve difficulties by imagining nonscriptural miracles.

Why not just accept it without the modern changes YE produced?

 

[Paloma]

Well...they do know a lot but they are not infallible. It'll all make sense some day when the Lord finally does reveal the truth to all.

For all we know, the Lord's creation process could have included an accelerated aging process or something. We do know that earth is about 6K years old if the scripture is to be taken literally, and I think it should.

So if the scientific community is even partially correct then there would have to be creation events that happened that were not recorded in detail. God could have easily done something like that.
So we would wind up at some point having to take it on faith for now?

Either that or we find out that Darwin is 100% lies, lol.

Wonderfully said Edward.

 

[Edward]

Probably, it's not a good idea to solve difficulties by imagining nonscriptural miracles.

Why not just accept it without the modern changes YE produced?

Soo, God couldnt/wouldn't do something like that? Why limit God because it isn't scriptural? God obviously didn't tell us everything.

What is scriptural, is that the enemies main tool is deception. They're pushing Darwin pretty hard. Prolly a red flag there, lol. Why not just accept it? After all, they're smarter, better educated men than I...but they're men, with wicked deceitful hearts like any other, perhaps moreso?

That said, I better have faith in the Lord over the deceitful hearts of men. Even if I don't understand it all yet. It's non-salvific anyway.

 

[Paloma]

Even "Answers in Genesis" now admits the fact of speciation. ICR accepts the evolution of new genera and families, as well. Macroevolution is an observed fact.

You got a link on these facts ?

 

[brother Paul]

What evidence can determine external topical characteristics by bones of stone...
Body shape, diet, range of motion of limbs and backbone, how active it was, if it was warm-blooded or not, size, mass, walking speed, whether an aquatic animal was a freshwater or marine species... list is pretty extensive.

LOL!!!You know what I meant...skin or hair color, quality of fur....whether or not they were striped (all artistic contrivances)...not to speak of things like the importation and attachment of the Bodo skull and calling it truth, or pretending tiny dinosaurs ate off the skin of large ones (like in the mythology of the children's propaganda tool Walking with Dinosaurs)...even "walking speed" is an assumption for many of these creatures....etc.

 

[brother Paul]

What is scriptural, is that the enemies main tool is deception.

And we certainly have enough evidence of that!

 

[Barbarian]

links? Sure:
Speciation is generally associated with isolation of organisms whose traits are favored under certain circumstances, such as a low population among starfish with the genetic information to function as hermaphrodites. Through the process of natural selection (and other processes), those equipped to function best under the circumstances have an advantage favoring their survival and reproduction, so that the population soon exhibits those characteristics.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/speciation-evolution-power/

They go on to deny it's really evolution. You see, speciation is now well-documented, and undeniable. So they back up a bit and declare that the evolution of new species doesn't count. They just moved "macroevolution" from "new species" to "new kinds." Problem is, they can't come up with a testable definition of kind. Because any such definition that admits speciation, puts humans and chimps in the same "kind."

Flightless birds on islands possibly resulted through microevolution (or, better, variation) from birds which had flown there. I present evidence that this can happen in a short time. Also because of this, we need not suppose that God created birds with useless wings.
http://www.icr.org/article/studies-creationism-flood-geology/

Moas were an order of flightless birds comprising three families. So I underestimated how much evolution the ICR will accept. Turns out, they have redefined "microevolution" to include this: evolving to this:

Which is a whole lotta evolution, no matter how you spin it.

 

[Barbarian]

even "walking speed" is an assumption for many of these creatures....etc.

You have been misled on that. Physically similar organisms walk (without breaking into a run) when the square of their speed is proportional to their linear dimensions. Hence, in Earth's gravity, ostriches walk, while very small songbirds hop, rather than walk at anything but very slow speeds. A "Froude number", originally used for scaling up motion in models of proposed vessels, turns out to work just fine for all sizes of mammals and birds.

Bipedal walking following inverted pendulum mechanics is constrained by two requirements: sufficient kinetic energy for the vault over midstance and sufficient gravity to provide the centripetal acceleration required for the arc of the body about the stance foot. While the acceleration condition identifies a maximum walking speed at a Froude number of 1, empirical observation indicates favoured walk–run transition speeds at a Froude number around 0.5 for birds, humans and humans under manipulated gravity conditions. In this study, I demonstrate that the risk of ‘take-off’ is greatest at the extremes of stance. This is because before and after kinetic energy is converted to potential, velocities (and so required centripetal accelerations) are highest, while concurrently the component of gravity acting in line with the leg is least. Limitations to the range of walking velocity and stride angle are explored. At walking speeds approaching a Froude number of 1, take-off is only avoidable with very small steps. With realistic limitations on swing-leg frequency, a novel explanation for the walk–run transition at a Froude number of 0.5 is shown.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1617162/

 

[brother Paul]

Also not all flightless birds show evidence of once having flown....the Kakapo of New Zealand as not been shown to have earlier ancestors who flew nor Ostriches, nor penguins, etc., though some have....but then again I believe in evolution such as this (production of variety) so though we have no proof it could be possible...

 

[Paloma]

links? Sure:
Speciation is generally associated with isolation of organisms whose traits are favored under certain circumstances, such as a low population among starfish with the genetic information to function as hermaphrodites. Through the process of natural selection (and other processes), those equipped to function best under the circumstances have an advantage favoring their survival and reproduction, so that the population soon exhibits those characteristics.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/speciation-evolution-power/

They go on to deny it's really evolution. You see, speciation is now well-documented, and undeniable. So they back up a bit and declare that the evolution of new species doesn't count. They just moved "macroevolution" from "new species" to "new kinds." Problem is, they can't come up with a testable definition of kind. Because any such definition that admits speciation, puts humans and chimps in the same "kind."
Moas were an order of flightless birds comprising three families. So I underestimated how much evolution the ICR will accept. Turns out, they have redefined "microevolution" to include this: evolving to this:

Which is a whole lotta evolution, no matter how you spin it.

This article concludes with this, the most logical interpreation from the data. God simply allows starfish to procreate in very creative ways, but star fishstay starfish. Exacly what we would expect to see after being created after their kind.

>>>>>So does this discovery demonstrate that molecules-to-man evolution not only happens but might happen more quickly than supposed? Actually, no. Nothing about this discovery has anything to do with molecules-to-man evolution, the phrase we use to refer to the evolution of one kind of creature into another. No new genetic information to transform into a non-starfish was being obtained. In fact, starfish demonstrate a variety of reproductive strategies ranging from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction using the “broadcast” strategy to sexual reproduction as with these hermaphrodites. Some species are even sequential hermaphrodites, actually switching genders periodically, thus maintaining sources of both male and female gametes in the population. This suggests the genetic potential for these variations existed within these invertebrates from creation.

Speciation is generally associated with isolation of organisms whose traits are favored under certain circumstances, such as a low population among starfish with the genetic information to function as hermaphrodites. Through the process of natural selection (and other processes), those equipped to function best under the circumstances have an advantage favoring their survival and reproduction, so that the population soon exhibits those characteristics. But the starfish are still reproducing after their kind, just as God designed them to do. No evolutionary power is being demonstrated here.<<<<<

 

[Paloma]

links?

Flightless birds on islands possibly resulted through microevolution (or, better, variation) from birds which had flown there. I present evidence that this can happen in a short time. Also because of this, we need not suppose that God created birds with useless wings.
http://www.icr.org/article/studies-creationism-flood-geology/

.

Notice he says "possibily" and "need not suppose"?....he's working out possible models. We just don't know. Personally I think he's wrong. But I have no problem with what he generally said ( that their may be more built in change allowed within the bird kind then we first realized) and it's still internally consistent with ICR and their stance. I would like to see what data he has on this. Interesting find. Thanks.

 

[Barbarian]

Notice he says "possibily" and "need not suppose"?....he's working out possible models.

He says the evidence indicates they evolved, er "varied" on the island. He's a bit stuck for explanations, since if the flood was worldwide, the only way those birds could be there, would be if they flew there. But then they'd have to have radically evolved ,er "varied", to become gigantic, wingless, grazing animals. That would mean bats and elephants are the same kind.

The alternative is that the flood wasn't worldwide, and those birds were always there. The evidence, however, is that they evolved, er "varied" from flying birds as the ICR suggests.

We just don't know. Personally I think he's wrong. But I have no problem with what he generally said ( that their may be more built in change allowed within the bird kind then we first realized)

No kidding. The genetic data says that it goes all the way from bacteria to advanced mammals like us.

 

[turnorburn]

Body shape, diet, range of motion of limbs and backbone, how active it was, if it was warm-blooded or not, size, mass, walking speed, whether an aquatic animal was a freshwater or marine species... list is pretty extensive. People excavating Pompeii can tell the profession of many of the people they have found by various traces of activity on skeletons. Faces are accurately constructed by looking at muscle insertions, scars where cartilage formed, and so on. It's quite a science.

Would you like to know how we can determine what a fast walk was for these animals? It's pretty interesting, actually borrowing concepts used in ship design.



But of course some of you don't agree with the way He does it. The numerous transitional forms between little browsing Hyracotherium and large, grazing Equus, many with less differences than we see in many mammalian species, makes it clear that horses evolved from a small multitoed herbivore, that lived in forests and browsed on bushes.

No that's not true we just don't agree with the way "you" think he did it..

tob

 

[turnorburn]

links? Sure:
Speciation is generally associated with isolation of organisms whose traits are favored under certain circumstances, such as a low population among starfish with the genetic information to function as hermaphrodites. Through the process of natural selection (and other processes), those equipped to function best under the circumstances have an advantage favoring their survival and reproduction, so that the population soon exhibits those characteristics.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/speciation-evolution-power/

They go on to deny it's really evolution. You see, speciation is now well-documented, and undeniable. So they back up a bit and declare that the evolution of new species doesn't count. They just moved "macroevolution" from "new species" to "new kinds." Problem is, they can't come up with a testable definition of kind. Because any such definition that admits speciation, puts humans and chimps in the same "kind."

Flightless birds on islands possibly resulted through microevolution (or, better, variation) from birds which had flown there. I present evidence that this can happen in a short time. Also because of this, we need not suppose that God created birds with useless wings.
http://www.icr.org/article/studies-creationism-flood-geology/

Moas were an order of flightless birds comprising three families. So I underestimated how much evolution the ICR will accept. Turns out, they have redefined "microevolution" to include this: evolving to this:

Which is a whole lotta evolution, no matter how you spin it.

No evolution Barb, each after its own kind no matter how you spin it..

I Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Also not all flightless birds show evidence of once having flown....the Kakapo of New Zealand as not been shown to have earlier ancestors who flew

In fact, we know the Kakapo had ancestors that flew, for the same reason the ICR had to suppose that Moas evolved from birds that could fly. No other way to get to New Zealand. And the Kakapo has a vestigial keel found only in flying birds. And it still can glide pretty well, launching from trees, and using its wings to glide, maneuver, and safely land. So, the evidence shows it is descended from parrots that could fly.

nor Ostriches

Ostriches retain the vestigial hollow bone airsacs, althought in much reduced form. So the evidence is that they evolved from flying birds, as your creationists supposed moas did.

nor penguins, etc.

Molecular biology shows that penguins and albatrosses have a common ancestor.