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

[zeke]

Since you seem to have backed off from your claim that evolution was to deny God, that's a good first step.

Biological evolution is science and naturalistic evolutionism is atheism and it denies God out of hand.

It's not surprising that you share an agenda with atheists. But of course, all of you have a reason to make science and faith at odds.

As noted there is no conflict between science and faith - the conflict is between classical Darwinism (atheism) and theism.

Not surprising that you share a worldview with atheists.

But I don't you are just confused. It is you who shares the evolutionism embraced by atheists such as William Provine.

Evolutionary theory is accepted by theist of all sorts, as well as agnostics and atheists.

Yes but Provine's point is well taken and you are being taken for a ride.

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine​

 

[Asyncritus]

If you would be happier with my argument that the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolutionary theory as convincing beyond reasonable doubt if I dropped the 'beyond reasonable doubt' part, then so be it.

I don't know what 'the overwhelming majority of scientists' means. It is a meaningless canard, because the overwhelming majority of scientists are not biological scientists.

Assuming equal numbers of scientists in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology and their associated fields, then the physicists and chemists would account for 66% of the whole number.

The biologists make up about 33%, and even if every one of them accepts evolutionary theory as correct, then that is still a minority of 'scientists'. The opinions of the other 2 big branches are irrelevant. The fact is that there are quite a number of biological scientists who don't accept it, doesn't seem to have entered your thinking, LK.

I pointed out a link to the Darwin papers where there are some trenchant remarks about all these 'pre-human ancestors', quoted from experts in the field. Worth a look, and an attempt at refutation by you evolutionist chaps.
Without the perennial bleat: 'quote-mine' please.

If we make the assumption that there is about 98% of the human and chimp genomes common to both, does that make you 98% chimp, or 98% human if you are a chimp?

I am given to understand that about 60% of our genes are common to bananas and fruit flies.

Does that prove that we are 60% bananas and /or 60% fruit fly?

 

[Asyncritus]

They and you can all 'recognize' whatever they want to. I am asking for an explanation as to how what you all 'recognize' amounts to something more than assertion. In other words, how does homology support common design? It is insufficient to simply assert that it does.

Whatever homology supports, it isn't evolution. Sir Gavin de Beer FRS had something to say (and he was Director of the Natural History Museum, and an eminent embryologist, I gather, though that seems to mean nothing to you, LK):

In all these discussions homology has been recognized as “the central concept for all of biology” (Wake, 1994) as well as “an unsolved problem in biology” (De Beer, 1971). Furthermore, there has been no shortage of new and not so new interpretations of homology (see e.g., Hall, 1994; Bock and Cardew, 1999). http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/5/777.full

de Beer points out that if homology is to carry any weight, then the development of embryonic organs in related species should occur from homologous parts of the developing embryo.

That in fact, is very far from being the case, and he gives several illustrations of his statement.

The vertebrate alimentary canal is formed from quite different embryological sites in different vertebrate classes:

in sharks, it is formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity;

in lampreys from the floor.

From the roof and floor in frogs,

and from the lower layer of the embryonic disc in birds and reptiles.
(see de Beer reference in the above citation).

The vertebrate kidney:

In fish and amphibians the kidney is derived from the mesonephros, whilst in reptiles and mammals the mesonephros plays no part in the formation of the adult kidney.

The ureter (which carries urine from the kidney to the bladder) is formed in a completely different manner in reptiles and mammals from the equivalent duct in amphibia.

If homology fails, and it does, then evolution is left high and dry - where it always has been, particularly, as I have pointed out many times, with regard to the question of instinct's origin and genome entry.

We are therefore left with individual design rather than anything else.

 

[spartakis]

Your missing my point, I know they are similar but yet not related. No it does not confuse me, I am simply saying things can look related and not be related.
And you are missing half of what I am saying like usual. I am not talking about a new species of chickens or dogs or zonkey, but something changing from one kind to another, I will give you my example one more time to dodge.
Kind as in dear like creature in process of turning into whale sea creature or whatever, Ape into man and etc... Only thing still is niche is filled so not happening.

 

[Barbarian]

Your missing my point, I know they are similar but yet not related.

I get that, what you don't get is that you have confused analogous organisms with homologous ones. Analogous organisms look superficially alike, but are formed very differently. Homologous organisms may appear to be quite different, but their anatomy clearly establishes their relationship.

No it does not confuse me, I am simply saying things can look related and not be related.

And that is why you are confused. You have confused analogy and homology. Organisms that look quite different can be shown to be closely related by anatomical means. And genetic data demonstrates the fact.

And you are missing half of what I am saying like usual.

No, you're still trying to get your head around the idea. It is not "they look similar, so they must be related."

I am not talking about a new species of chickens or dogs or zonkey, but something changing from one kind to another,

Yes, we're all familiar with the dodge. "Evolution is only evolution so great that no one could possibly live long enough to document it, so since no one can live long enough to document it, evolution has to be false. Do you actually think anyone buys that story?

Kind as in dear like creature in process of turning into whale sea creature or whatever,

And we have abundant evidence for ungulates becoming cetaceans. Would you like to learn about that?

Ape into man and etc...

Technically, we are apes. But we do have numerous transitional forms showing how it happened, abundant genetic evidence, and even a chromosome fusion showing how we came to have a different chromosome number.

Compelling for anyone accessible to reason.

Only thing still is niche is filled so not happening.

?

 

[zeke]

Technically, we are apes. But we do have numerous transitional forms showing how it happened, abundant genetic evidence, and even a chromosome fusion showing how we came to have a different chromosome number.

The only problem is the barbarian just can't seem to fine those "numerous transitional forms".

 

[zeke]

If you would be happier with my argument that the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolutionary theory as convincing beyond reasonable doubt if I dropped the 'beyond reasonable doubt' part, then so be it.

Folks - consensus means nothing in science. The the "overwhelming majority of scientists" can be overwhelming wrong...

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” ~ Michael Crichton​

 

[cupid dave]

Could you please provide more details regarding your version of Darwinism and abiogenesis? Doesn't classical Darwinism claim that life arose from non-life via random chance (a logical absurdity)? In your theology did God create "in the beginning"? Is your "theistic evolutionism" based on faith or science?

“The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter, is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology.”

Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge University Press)
​

"Random choice" means that the Natural Laws, the "spirit of God" was the source of a Spontaneous Generation which is the same idea as scientists now define abiogenesis.

The first appearance of life on earth was "an Act-of-God," one which set forth the growth, development and final maturity into a whole diversity called the Plant and Animal Kingdom.

People must remember that, from that very first initial appearance of a living cell, all life today came forth simple by changes in that same first protoplasm.
All living things today are just that same protoplasm grown "fat" and separated into separate parts, as the organisms continued to split in half, cellularly (mitosis/miosis).

In other words, Gen 1:11 is factually correct in that the Plant Kingdom appeared first.
This was followed by the Animal kingdom.
Genesis never says how the Act of God was accomplished, but only that during the 3rd-4th duration of time after the Big Bang Beginning, it did take place.


I fail to see the logic of religious people, in opposing or even accepting the Theory of Evolution, in regard to how it relates to Genesis.
The Theory of Evolution seems to support exactly what is stated in Genesis, but that theory is not opposed nor specifically mentioned at all.

There is nothing in Genesis that seems different from what science reports in more specific and detailed terms.














1) It is clear that the Universe DID have a beginning, 13.9 billion years ago.

(Gen 1:1)

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id19.html





2) The hot spinning molten matter that was to coalesce into the planet Earth WAS without form:

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id132.html



3) There WERE six long Cosmic "days" since that Big Bang, which we call the six geological Eras.

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/Eraclock.jpg



4) A Cosmic Dark Age DID precede that advent of that Act-of-God when "let there be light" began to flood the cosmos after the darkness following the Big Bang.

(Gen 1:3-5)

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/DarkAge2.jpg



5) There WAS one ocean, once, where all the waters had been collected together.

(Gen 1:9)

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/superocean.jpg



6) Pangea/Rodinia DID actually confirm that the dry land appeared, surrounded totally by water.

(Gen 1:10)

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id123.html





7) The Plant kingdom DID establish itself before the Animal kingdom.

(Gen 1:11)



http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id18.html



8) The Sun and the Moon and all the Stars were "MADE,"i.e.; given authority over the circadian Earth Time as soon as life appeared:

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id126.html





9) Man WAS the last step in the evolution of Dominant Life onearth.

(Gen 1:27)

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/sethNoah.jpg



10) Man HAS managed to form a mental IMAGE of "FatherNature" by understanding of His Laws and creation.

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id21.html



11) Gen 5:2 says god called them, the man and his wife, the "Adamites,"... i.e.; a species:



Gen 5:2Male and female created he THEM;and blessed THEM, and called THEIRname Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY werecreated.

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id31.html





12) The 22 names in the genealogy DO compare directly, one-to-one, with the 22 now extinct species in the ascent to Modern man.



http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id143.html



The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)


http://www.amazon.com/Last-Human-Twenty-Two-Species-Extinct/dp/0300100477/ref=pd_ys_ir_all_76?pf_rd_p=258372101&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=list&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0ABGJDWD85JKZFZWTV3D

 

[stovebolts]

but only that during the 3rd-4th duration of time after the Big Bang Beginning, it did take place.

You've changed day, into duration. Not only that, but you've inserted a modern Big Bang ideology into the texts...

 

[cupid dave]

Technically, we are apes. But we do have numerous transitional forms showing how it happened, abundant genetic evidence, and even a chromosome fusion showing how we came to have a different chromosome number.

Compelling for anyone accessible to reason.

Whether these 22 links of now extinct humans are "transitional forms" or not is immaterial to the fact that both Genesis and paleontologists enumerate a similar list of the same number:

See the last book on this:

Isn't it immaterial...?

 

[cupid dave]

You've changed day, into duration. Not only that, but you've inserted a modern Big Bang ideology into the texts...

Not exactly.

I merely pointed out that among scientists when they talk, the creation of this universe as we find it today is a result of changes over time which is measured geologically, over six durations.

Contrasted to what the bible people say, the same events took place over durations they think of as "days,"... though the "24 hour day" was not made until the 4th duration "day" when the solar clock was established.


And, the Big Bang was and is the Big Start of the Universe in both stories, isn't it????

 

[Ambrose]

Not exactly.

I merely pointed out that among scientists when they talk, the creation of this universe as we find it today is a result of changes over time which is measured geologically, over six durations.
Contrasted to what the bible people say, the same events took place over durations they think of as "days,"... though the "24 hour day" was not made until the 4th duration "day" when the solar clock was established.


And, the Big Bang was and is the Big Start of the Universe in both stories, isn't it????

Well not exactly and not specifically no.. It actually says

Genesis 1:1 NIV

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

_____________________________________________________________

That leaves room for quite broad interpretation. It does not specifically say

"In the beginning God triggered a bang and it created everything."

Or if they decided to put it in more detail it might go like this

"In the beginning God triggered The big bang (Or even A big bang if you wanted) and it created everything.

 

[stovebolts]

Not exactly.

I merely pointed out that among scientists when they talk, the creation of this universe as we find it today is a result of changes over time which is measured geologically, over six durations.

Contrasted to what the bible people say, the same events took place over durations they think of as "days,"... though the "24 hour day" was not made until the 4th duration "day" when the solar clock was established.


And, the Big Bang was and is the Big Start of the Universe in both stories, isn't it????

We are just going to disagree here. You won't find a biblical hebrew scholar who will say that day in Genesis 1 means anything other than a literal day. I'm afraid you are inserting ideas into the biblical texts that are not supported by the texts.

 

[zeke]

"Random choice" means that the Natural Laws, the "spirit of God" was the source of a Spontaneous Generation which is the same idea as scientists now define abiogenesis.

Naturalistic evolutionism present the error that life arose from non-life via purely naturalistic processes (an absurdity) and evolution is a purposeless, mindless process that did not have man in mind (atheism).

 

[cupid dave]

It would help if you could educate yourself a bit. Naturalistic evolutionism present the error that life arose from non-life via purely naturalistic processes (an absurdity) and evolution is a purposeless, mindless process that did not have man in mind (atheism).

Well, yeah...

We are not requiringthe science community to say life originated other that spontaneously.
That is what Genesis says, too.

We are only concerned that both agree this was what insurance companies call an "Act-of-God," or some event beyond the control of men.

 

[cupid dave]

We are just going to disagree here. You won't find a biblical hebrew scholar who will say that day in Genesis 1 means anything other than a literal day. I'm afraid you are inserting ideas into the biblical texts that are not supported by the texts.

But even you will agree that these seven "durations" of time were not 24 hours, since it was in the 4th duration that the 24 hour day was created for the first time in the story,... right?



"A day is like a thousand years to god...?"

 

[zeke]

Well, yeah...

We are not requiringthe science community to say life originated other that spontaneously.
That is what Genesis says, too.

We are only concerned that both agree this was what insurance companies call an "Act-of-God," or some event beyond the control of men.

You're still missing the point - theism says God created and naturalistic evolutionism (atheism) denies there is a God.

 

[stovebolts]

But even you will agree that these seven "durations" of time were not 24 hours, since it was in the 4th duration that the 24 hour day was created for the first time in the story,... right?



"A day is like a thousand years to god...?"

wrong. I would say that each day is 24 hours through the creation account. A day is a day, not an age.

I fear that you've introduced a new concept into this thread that isn't in line with the OP.

I would ask that a mod split this subject off as it's own topic, or that you , Cupid Dave, start a new topic on the subject.

 

[cupid dave]

wrong. I would say that each day is 24 hours through the creation account. A day is a day, not an age.

I fear that you've introduced a new concept into this thread that isn't in line with the OP.

I would ask that a mod split this subject off as it's own topic, or that you , Cupid Dave, start a new topic on the subject.

1) So you would prefer that I go away because this is getting too difficullt to avoid?

The issue here is all about whether evolution is right or wrong, because on one side the Bible people THINKS that theory says something they assume is stated differently in the Bible.

2) I am arguing that evolution did not stop, it continues, and it is pretty much as described in Genesis.

3) Clearly Genesis SPECIFICALLY says that on the 4th duration the olar Day came into account, "for days, for years, and sasons"...

 

[cupid dave]

You're still missing the point - theism says God created and naturalistic evolutionism (atheism) denies there is a God.

That is true.

The Science book says the same thing as the Bible.

But Bible people say God is the first cause, while atheists say the Big Bang just magially started the whole unverse and this earthly experience.

I am just saying that BOTH agree that before the Big Bang there was no Universe, as was once believed before Moses.