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

[Free]

Let's keep this on topic. The meaning of "day" and the age of the Earth are a separate discussion.

 

[zeke]

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.

Theists of the the Judaeo-Christian tradition believe God created the universe 'in the beginning'. Atheists appear to have no clue how something (the universe) can come from nothing.

For the record - until about the middle of the 20th century most scientists thought the universe was 'eternal' - science has now caught up with what the Bible has always taught - the universe had a beginning. Are you a theist?

 

[spartakis]

spartakis observes barbarian don't get it.
I understand the difference, what I am saying is anything common in any animal does not prove evolution. So because a dinosaur, bird, whale fin, chimpanzees arm all have upper arm bone, two bones in the forearm, and multiple bones in the wrist means their common ancestor is a reptile with the same set up. Is the hyrax related to the elephant because of its teeth? Come on. Besides the hypothesis of similarities in bone structure and etc... back to my point.

Evolution has been going on for billions of years according to evolutionist so you say no one can document it. But should we not see apes in the transition? Has any apes in the wild been documented as half human half ape? This stopped because the niche was filled, poor excuse to say its not happening.

And we have abundant evidence for ungulates becoming cetaceans.

Once again you are talking about a hypothesis of something you can not show in the process today. Where is the group of land animals changing into whales.
This is your evidence pretty bad hypothesis.

Once again Evolution has been going on for billions of years according to evolutionist so you say no one can document it. But should we not see apes in the transition? Has any apes in the wild been documented as half human half ape? This stopped because the niche was filled, poor excuse to say its not happening.

 

[Barbarian]

spartakis observes barbarian don't get it.

I get science, and I get Christian theology. Creationism has so many different "churches", I don't think I'll ever get all of that.

I understand the difference, what I am saying is anything common in any animal does not prove evolution.

Homologies do, of course, but not analogies. For reasons that are obvious.

So because a dinosaur, bird, whale fin, chimpanzees arm all have upper arm bone, two bones in the forearm, and multiple bones in the wrist means their common ancestor is a reptile with the same set up.

Well, technically, the common ancestor for that feature was a fish.

Is the hyrax related to the elephant because of its teeth?

And elephant-like hooves, and mostly because the genetic information demonstrates this. But the ancient hyraxes were quite large, perhaps horse-sized, and were for a while the dominant grazers in Africa. The tiny ones alive today are not much like those, but of course ,the homologies show their true affinities.

Evolution has been going on for billions of years according to evolutionist so you say no one can document it.

I've shown you numerous ways that scientists have documented it. I'm aware of the dodge wherein creationists declare that "real evolution" is evolution that takes to long for anyone to personally observe. No one really takes that seriously, any more than someone would take a similar argument about giant redwoods growing from seeds.

But should we not see apes in the transition?

All of them, so far as I know. For example, chimps have split into two species, and gorillas are in the process of this. Siamangs are beginning to be more like the higher apes, evolving away from gibbons. And so on.

Has any apes in the wild been documented as half human half ape?

Evolutionary theory would be in big trouble if that happened. It would contradict everything we know about evolution.

This stopped because the niche was filled

Well, just our way. But as you just learned, there's lots of other niches that can be filled.

poor excuse to say its not happening.

As you learned, it's happening now. And of course, humans have evolved over the last hundred thousand years or so.

Barbarian observes:
And we have abundant evidence for ungulates becoming cetaceans.

Once again you are talking about a hypothesis

No. A hypothesis is a prediction. The prediction was that there must have been at one time, whales with functional legs. That hypothesis has been since verified and we now know that is true. One only has a confirmed theory when it has been confirmed by such fulfilled predictions.

Where is the group of land animals changing into whales.

That already happens. But we can see, for example, otters becoming marine, being mostly water animals, sea lions somewhat more adapted to the water, seals more so, and manatees, even more so. All these transitions continue.

Why not just accept it the way He did it?

 

[cupid dave]

Theists of the the Judaeo-Christian tradition believe God created the universe 'in the beginning'. Atheists appear to have no clue how something (the universe) can come from nothing.

For the record - until about the middle of the 20th century most scientists thought the universe was 'eternal' - science has now caught up with what the Bible has always taught - the universe had a beginning. Are you a theist?

Yes, you are correct on both counts.

In the first matter, my point is that both the church and the science say the same thing happened, but attribute it in one case to the First Cause, while in the second cases, they say God.

But in regard to the science and the text of Genesis, the same thing is said to have happened.

Consider that Gen 1:9 says that "all the waters were collected together" at some time during the second "day," which is yowm in the Hebrew.

In 1920, a scientist named Wegener discover that this is true, and he clled the one ocean Panthallasssa.
He also said that allhe land which was surrounded by that one ocean was called Pangea.

Do Bible people not see that science is PROVING Genesis to be true, in regard to the Big Bang, and here again???

 

[cupid dave]

Now take away all the arguments of the past on both sides.

1) Let's think with an open mind for a moment.

We do not know anybody that was in the past to document any proof of evolution. As a believer we know of the creator who was there and documented what happened for us,...


2) ... but lets say you don't believe that.
Put away all the hypothesis for a moment.

No one can prove what happened.

3) So look around you, what do you see?
All animals in their form.
When was the last time you seen... any transitional animal.

4) There is no present proof of evolution.
Don't tell me you see any.

5) Even the evolustionist faviorite stephen hawkins says we have entered a new phase of evolution.

Basically coming up with an excuse of why we do not see what we should see if evolution was real. God told us we have no excuse.

1) I am trying to talk with an open mind.
I am trying to see how what science says could help them believe what Genesis says.
But for them to so do, the church people need to let them see things from their point of view.
They must let science people understand things like the Hebrew word used for "day" actually means "a duration of time."

I need to let science people see that tye beginning of the Universe was what they know as the Big Bang.
So on and so forth.

I am try to talk openenly.



2) When you say, "No one can prove what happened," you ignore that science IS the process of "proving" things through arguments that are based upon facts, and through doing experiments which should have predictable outcomes, all based upon those previous arguments.


3) "The last time I saw... any transitional animal" was a recent Russian experiment with the Fox, where by the fox is beoming a dog.

4) ?
I just told you there is proof of evolution from these Russian experiments.
Are we to be open minded or not?

5) think Hawkins is right, but he does not realize that man is about to change, n a twinkling.
Man is about to take that next step very soon, when mankind becoames a new creature.
Man is about to evo0lve one more step.

 

[jasoncran]

sigh if yom is long the so is the shabat and we are still all doing the very first shabat.

i would like the hear what the nights and days of these long durations were like.

 

[cupid dave]

sigh if yom is long the so is the shabat and we are still all doing the very first shabat.

i would like the hear what the nights and days of these long durations were like.

Start a thread on yom,...

 

[cupid dave]

i would like the hear what the nights and days of these long durations were like.

Well they coorespond well with the seven eras that science people divide the creation of the present relity into.

For instance, the Big Bang starts with all the matter of the Universe instantly and suddenly appearing as one fast and hot expanding glob, containing everything that would differentiate gradually into all that is in the heaven, including the material which would become the Earth.

Gen1:2 continues by explaining that the Earth was without form and a mirky mass of rotating matter that was fluid and watery transitory "things" (like balls of molten mass: [mayim: Hebrew]

The darkness is reported as a consequence to the disk formation of the planets rotating like flat saucers each in it's own orbit around the Sun:

 

[spartakis]

Open mind yes. Russian experiments for evidence. Come on get serious. Sounds like compromiseing with Gods word to please others.

Barbarian I would say something about your church and theology but my post will get deleted so once again I will stay out of the theology part cause you really shouldn't go there it would be bad on your behalf. If you would like we can start a thread in the theology section for that. So please stop with the churches and theology I am trying to refrain myself.

So from your drown out answer from what i get is no.

Evolutionary theory would be in big trouble if that happened. It would contradict everything we know about evolution.

so you are still using the niche is filled excuse and have no transitional live evidence. So species stopped evolving ( dont believe they ever did)Please don't list change in a kind. Looking for a change from one kind to another. You know like a dear like species in the process of changing into a sea creature. Every kind is of its kind. Like he said he did it.

 

[Free]

Barbarian I would say something about your church and theology but my post will get deleted so once again I will stay out of the theology part cause you really shouldn't go there it would be bad on your behalf. If you would like we can start a thread in the theology section for that. So please stop with the churches and theology I am trying to refrain myself.

Well, no, you cannot do it in theology either and it will get deleted. Please read the TOS regarding where RC discussion is allowed.


All,

Any further discussion on the the length of the days of Genesis will get deleted. Please start a new thread for that.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian I would say something about your church and theology but my post will get deleted so once again I will stay out of the theology part cause you really shouldn't go there it would be bad on your behalf.

I would be pleased to explain why I am a Christian, within the rules of the board. The point is that there is nothing in evolutionary science that is contrary to Christian belief, although atheists and YE creationists are united in trying to make it so.

(Barbarian regarding the idea of a half human/half ape)
Evolutionary theory would be in big trouble if that happened. It would contradict everything we know about evolution.

so you are still using the niche is filled excuse

No. We wouldn't expect today's apes to ever become like a human. They are too far evolved in their own direction for that.

and have no transitional live evidence.

As you learned, there is abundant evidence both in the fossil record and in modern primates, showing the relationship.

So species stopped evolving

I just showed you that they haven't.

Please don't list change in a kind.

Oh, yeah, the giant redwood thing again... "if it takes longer than one human lifetime, then it can't happen." Do you actually think anyone buys that?

Looking for a change from one kind to another. You know like a dear like species in the process of changing into a sea creature.

We have the example of Pakicetus and the many transitionals between it and modern whales. Would you like to learn about the evidence in modern whales that show their ancestry?

Every kind is of its kind. Like he said he did it.

The problem is that you don't approve of the way He did it.

 

[spartakis]

The problem is that you don't approve of the way He did it.

No I approve of anything God does and it does not need my approval, I believe he did it how he told us he did, the problem is you don't believe what he said, but back to the science part once again.

The redwood has never came out of my mouth so don't know why you keep bringing it up. I guess you like telling me what I believe.

My thought is this, if evolution has always been going on and still is then we should see the process in some part of living transition species. On kind to another. Then again you want to show me a similarity of modern whale to a land animal. I am looking for the species that should be in the process of changing from a land animal to whale, but they are all in their own kind. I understand that it would take a long time and no one would be able to see the whole process. But all we see is species in their own kind, not in the process living missing links.

To put an end to it, you are telling me apes quit evolving into humans. So the answer I am getting for the thread title is yes because the niche is filled.

Mods sorry this turned into a debate and got into theology never meant for it to happen.

 

[Asyncritus]

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

Oh yes please. Just don't mention Babinski's tripe. And be prepared to answer some serious questions. Hand waving not allowed.

Heh heh heh. Evil chuckle

 

[Asyncritus]

My thought is this, if evolution has always been going on and still is then we should see the process in some part of living transition species. On kind to another. Spartakis

Gould actually makes the same point, Spartakis. He said words to the effect (and I can't immediately lay hands on it) that it is surprising that there are such things as distinct species. If evolution is going on, there should not be any such things.

Barbarian happily overlooks the facts such as there has not emerged a new genus in the last 2 million years or so, according to Broom and I think, Huxley.

He also overlooks the facts of palaeontology which I'll quote here from google:

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. ... The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories."(1)

--Leading 20th Century Evolutionary Biologist Ernst Mayr

A striking example is the Cambrian explosion, where nearly all of the major living animal groups (called “phyla”) appear in the fossil record in a geological instant about 530 million years ago. As one college-level textbook acknowledges, “Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian ... The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla."(15)

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol.6(1), January 1980,p. 127.

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Steph...y_contradicts_natural_selection#ixzz1vDYY5JGM


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Ms sans serif]This is the discontinuity of the variation among organisms. If we assemble as many individuals living at a given time as we can, we notice at once that the observed variation does not form any kind of continuous distribution. Instead, a multitude of separate, discrete, distributions are found. The living world is not a single array in which any two variants are connected by unbroken series of intergrades, but an array of more or less distinctly separate arrays, intermediates between which are absent or at least rare.

Dobzhansky
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Ms sans serif] Biological classification is simultaneously a man-made system of pigeonholes, devised for the pragmatic purpose of recording observations in a convenient manner, and an acknowledgment of the fact of organic discontinuity. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Ms sans serif]Dobzhansky

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/dobzhansky_organic-diversity.html

There are lots of others like this. So, friend Barbarian, why this discontinuity in today's species, and in the fossil record?

Why no new genus for >2 million years?
[/FONT]​

 

[jasoncran]

Well they coorespond well with the seven eras that science people divide the creation of the present relity into.

For instance, the Big Bang starts with all the matter of the Universe instantly and suddenly appearing as one fast and hot expanding glob, containing everything that would differentiate gradually into all that is in the heaven, including the material which would become the Earth.

Gen1:2 continues by explaining that the Earth was without form and a mirky mass of rotating matter that was fluid and watery transitory "things" (like balls of molten mass: [mayim: Hebrew]

The darkness is reported as a consequence to the disk formation of the planets rotating like flat saucers each in it's own orbit around the Sun:

learn from ranban and what modern jews do say at chabad.org and then tell me that. the jewish calender is based on that creation event. that is all i way say.

 

[cupid dave]

That the OP suggests that evolution did take place but has ended after billions of years at least admits to what science has proven within the realm of its own discipline, that the Universe is way older than 6000 years.

But the term "evolution" implies by its use here that biological evolution is what it refers to, not Cosmic Evolution.

In regard to biological evolution, applied only to life and the development of complexities and diversity among different species,... Genesis REALLY has no argument at all and tacitly agrees that the Plant Kingdom began with a Spontaneous Generation of all life starting at some point in the third duration of the overall cosmic unfolding.
From that first spark of a living substnce science agrees all plants including the fruit trees et al developed thereafter.

The specific agreement within Genesis is that the Animal Kingdom appeared second to that of the Plant kingdom.
Genesis agrees that it was some number of durations later, in the Paleozoic Era according to the scientists, that first animal life became abundant.


In other words, the debate between Genesis readers and science people here has not been about the whole of Genesis.
The debate has not been concerned with the Cosmic unfolding in totality.
The debate here is focused.

The debate concerns only those few passages which in essence actually agree with science, that first was abiogenetically conceived, not origniating from other living things, but life appearing "magically" out of the dead inorganic world of simple Chemistry and physics.

Both seem to agree further that kingdoms arose in the Plants and Animals which have become diverse and complex.

Pray that this evolution or "growth process" for all life has not ended but that a new creature in god will soon appear.

 

[Sparkey]

spartakis observes barbarian don't get it.
I understand the difference, what I am saying is anything common in any animal does not prove evolution.

Homologies do, of course, but not analogies. For reasons that are obvious.

Greetings, Barbarian!

I've selected a couple of the things you said in reply here b/c they seem to apply to our side conversation. Regarding homologies, it seems that you're position quite well depends on them.

The error of AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT:
If there is a single common ancestor then homologous traits will exist.
Homologous traits exit.
Ta-da! There you have it! I rest my case (whew, I hope nobody notices).

What is different b/w this and zeke's
If Gould said, "homology support common ancestry as much as it does common design, and if he didn't then you have to prove that Kenyon and Davis (two really smart guys) are liars, so even if nobody can prove that Gould said any such thang 'bout homology, but the point is the point:
If there is a common designer then homologous traits will exist.
Homologous traits exist! (Never mind Sparrow, he thinks that the definition itself assumes the consequent but he admits he's confused)
Ta-da! Since they exist, common design is true! There you have it! I too rest my case (whew, I hope nobody notices).

I've shown you numerous ways that scientists have documented it. I'm aware of the dodge wherein creationists declare that "real evolution" is evolution that takes to long for anyone to personally observe. No one really takes that seriously, any more than someone would take a similar argument about giant redwoods growing from seeds.

Dodge? Dodge? First, you affirm the consequent. Next, you twist the obvious.

In the Charles Dickens novel, Oliver Twist, Jack Dawkins is called the "Artful Dodger". Dodger is a pickpocket, so called for his skill and cunning in that respect. Like when you state theories as facts and call things that may support those theories "evidence". Like when you call anybody who looks too closely at your dodge a dodger. Like when you ignore the actual dodge that evolutionists use when they present as truth something that can never be proven b/c it takes too much time, and instead of dealing with the problem by making a frank admission that there is no direct evidence that can prove your theory, instead of saying, "it can never be proven and the reasons are obvious, instead, you try another dodge and mis-label Creationist as "dodgers" themselves. Creationists, who simply say, "God created" and "show me proof that He didn't do it as He said."

Your ducking of the point and dodging to get away from the well known objection is not subtle enough to call it artful. It's just a matter of calling white black and black white. I guess the "dodge" involved is that if you do it enough some may fall for it? Your statements dodge the fact that there is no conclusive, observed, repeatable proof offered. Continue to dodge the rigors of the scientific method (what choice do you have?), continue to propose unproven theory as fact, but please don't twist things around here. Show the person who started your Strawman, "if it takes longer than one human lifetime, it can't happen," which is your redwood tree seed analogy, or admit it is a strawman of your design. Stop pretending that because a Giant Redwood grows from a single seed all things must have grown from a single seed.

Saying "God created," can not be called a dodge or a ploy. It is a statement of belief. Saying, "all things evolved from a single-celled animal, no --wait, from a single giant redwood seed, no, hmmmm.... from a single cell, awww... heck, from a common ancestor and don't ask me for proof because any similarity that appears in our fancy list of categories that shows homology affirms the consequent (a fallacy) neither proving common ancestry nor common design. It is all the proof needed and never mind trying to do anything like the scientific method says and actually observe because I already told ya that it takes billions and billions of years! Forget about God's question to Job, "Where were you, when I..."

Oh!! and one more thing, I'm aware of the "dodge" that creationists use... yeah, that sums it up. I rest my case, except LOOK!! That creationist picked somebody's pocket! They don't like how God did it. Heck, if they believe that what God said is true (literally) and that doesn't agree with me, then God is a liar! It appears to me that it took billions of years, so if they say it could have taken days because for God all things are possible...

Ooops, I withdraw my last comment, for fear of violating the Free prohibition against discussion about time... still, it is a dodge, not an artful dodge, but a dodge none-the-less.

 

[Sparkey]

In regard to biological evolution, applied only to life and the development of complexities and diversity among different species,... Genesis REALLY has no argument at all and tacitly agrees that the Plant Kingdom began with a Spontaneous Generation of all life starting at some point in the third duration of the overall cosmic unfolding. From that first spark of a living substnce science agrees all plants including the fruit trees et al developed thereafter.

The specific agreement within Genesis is that the Animal Kingdom appeared second to that of the Plant kingdom.

Genesis points to the fact that birds were created before insects. Fowl on the fourth day, insects on the fifth day. That's a good thing too b/c if presumptions of "geologic time" are true and if the bible is also true then insects had billions and billions of years to eat plants without any natural predators (except other insects, of course) we'd need to look for evidence of insectivores and would be up a tree that had been overwhelmed by unchecked insect populations.

A recent article in The New York Times claimed that the world holds 300 pounds of insects for every pound of humans. Certain social insects have large numbers in their nests. An ant nest in Jamaica was calculated to include 630,000 individuals. A South American termite nest was found to have 3 million individuals. Locust swarms are said to hold up to one billion individuals (source: Encyclopedia Smithsonian).

 

[zeke]

Heck, if they believe that what God said is true (literally) and that doesn't agree with me, then God is a liar! It appears to me that it took billions of years, so if they say it could have taken days because for God all things are possible...

The facts remain – creationists say God created via supernatural processes; theistic evolutionists (an oxymoron) say God created via supernatural processes; and naturalists (atheists) say something (the universe) can from nothing via purely naturalistic processes (a logical absurdity). All three positions are based on statements of religion.

RC Sproul, who recently changed from the “framework hypothesis†to the traditional six twenty-four–hour periods for creation makes the excellent point that the most accurate hermeneutic is the concept that God created the world in the space of six twenty-four–hour days. This hermeneutic fits best with the “plain meaning of Genesis 1–2â€.

For most of my teaching career, I considered the framework hypothesis to be a possibility. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation, the fourth alternative and the traditional one. Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six twenty-four–hour periods. According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1–2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days... ~ RC Sproul​