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

[spartakis]

Barbarian, this will probably be my last response to you why?

Because there is no point. You continue to take a couple words out of my response and misuse it. You try to bait and switch on change in a species and what we are talking about (new novel features, and microbes to man).

My last post you chopped up avoided main points that I put in red at your request, argue with fallacies, and only give assumptions with no evidence. When you do post something you consider evidence you chop up the response and start with fallacies.

The main problem is your contradictions. Lets look at them

1) You stated there are big gaps in the hypothesis, but you claim the evidence is compelling and proves that microbes to man is fact.

2) You claim the first life form was a single cell, and this cell produced all the life we see on earth. But then you claim the only thing evolution does is modify what is already there. There is no way a single cell only modified what was there. It had to turn into an invertebrate, into a vertebrate sea life, into amphibians, into reptiles, into birds, mammals, then man. This would results in many different new genomes, and new novel features being developed. But you claim this don't happen and that first cell just modified what was already there.

3) You claim you don't take Genesis literal and don't believe what God said about his creation. But then you state you believe in how he did it and others who believe the Bible don't. . When Paul talks about his creation for evidence and those who deny it have not excuse, you say that creationist deny it when they believe in creation and you don't. You say evolution does not have any conflict with the Bible, but for you to put it in the Bible you can not take it literal. So that means when the Bible is taken literal there are many conflicts with evolution.

We do have something in common, we both agree with dawkins on something. I believe he is right and can not show an example of information being added to a genome by mutations.

And I also believe what he says in the video below.

[video=youtube;BAbpfn9QgGA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA[/video]

You believe the same thing he believes as to how we have all these different diverse life, the hypothesis of evolution.

Microbes to man is not feasible with all the evidence you can come up with sorry.

Get your contradictions straight, or it is to much of a waste of time discussing something with someone who keeps contradicting them self.

BTW the thread I started was not about Roman Catholics just salvation. There are many of the same threads in that section. The big difference is my authority is the Bible the true word of God, creator of all things, and not someone higher up in my church.

Lets see how much of this post you chop up and leave out on your response

 

[Milk-Drops]

This is for spartakis

What is the theory of Evolution?

The theory of Evolution was solidified by Charles Darwin durring the 1800s as a way to explain and form theories on the diversity of organisms.

The basic break down of the theory of evolution is that organisms adapt to their environment through various selection methods (Natural, convergent, Sexual, artificial, Etc.).

Mutations and Selection pressures are the mechanisms of what brings forth changes in organisms performance, habit/behavior, reproduction, and appearance.

That is the theory of evolution.


The reason why Evolution is so accepted is based on repeatable observations. The theory of Evolution can be easily tested in several ways. One way is to observe organisms in their habitat for many generations to see if changes take place based on selection pressures.

Another way to test this is to observe organisms in a lab and test different variable to see how organisms react. This has been done countless times with Mendel style breeding and with Bacteria and Flies.


That is what the theory of Evolution is at its basic foundation.


Common decent is its own theory, Genetics is its own field of Study, Taxonomy/phylogeny is its own field.

Most of the stuff that is lumped into evolution is actually only partially related. I hope this helps.

 

[cupid dave]

- God created life "in the beginning". .

Hmmm...

No, life first is mentioned on the third evening and the beginning of the 4th "day."



Gen. 1:11 And (Father Nature, Reality), “God,†said, Let the earth bring forth "grass"i.e.; ("deshe," in the Hebrew meaning "the first sprouts of the Earth, and, then)," the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.



Gen. 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, i.e.; ("deshe," in the Hebrew meaning "the first sprouts of the Earth)" and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and (Father Nature, Reality), “God,†saw that it was good.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]​

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Divisions of the Archean Era[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Gen. 1:13 And the (Neo-archean) evening (of the Archean Era) and the (Paleo-proterozoic) morning (of the Proterozoic Era) were the third "day," (time, period [general]).

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]




[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]​

[/FONT]

 

[cupid dave]

Originally Posted by cupid dave
Exactly.

Consider the interpretation that inside man's mind is the collection of all the past experiences of our species and perhaps even back further.
Locked in the Unconscious mind and inaccessible to us for now, this ancient of ancient entity is that third eye which not only exists in the kingdom of our mind within, but is identical with the same entity in all other people.

It is part of the Collective Unconscious.
That Collective metaphysical Unconscious mind lives on in humanity, and over the heads of humans in every generation.

The collective Unconscious mind was here before we were born and continues afterwards, as if our good shepherd, watching us secretly, invisibly, and usually, silently.
It is this Unconscious mind that speaks to us in dreams and leads us by the thoughts it promotes and the insights it reveals which men often report as epiphanies or starling insights that seem to occur to them inexplicably:








///////////
I really wish this new wave garbage would leave Jung out of it.


Besides that, what you posted has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. Let's try to keep on subject.

?
Psychology is part of Modern Science, so how can you leave it out of this discussion?

And, it is on topic to mention the fact that a direct Evolution is supported by the observation that life can genetically collect, store, and us learning from previous life experiences of its species.

Instinct is a perfect examplee of living things learning from their life experience and storing that information away genetically, installing it in every next generation thereafter and using it when similar situations present themselves.

In fact, my point is that, this Unconscious mind, for man, is The Christ inside us, the Personal Friend Christians insist they have a relationship with.

 

[Adam]

?
Psychology is part of Modern Science, so how can you leave it out of this discussion?

And, it is on topic to mention the fact that a direct Evolution is supported by the observation that life can genetically collect, store, and us learning from previous life experiences of its species.

Instinct is a perfect examplee of living things learning from their life experience and storing that information away genetically, installing it in every next generation thereafter and using it when similar situations present themselves.

In fact, my point is that, this Unconscious mind, for man, is The Christ inside us, the Personal Friend Christians insist they have a relationship with.

Which has nothing to do with Jung, or what he proposed.

Psychology is fine.

New wave pseudo-psychology that twists the work of great pioneers like Jung is not.


Your claims have no merit.

 

[Stan53]

Now take away all the arguments of the past on both sides. 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, but lets say you don't believe that. Put away all the hypothesis for a moment. No one can prove what happened. So look around you, what do you see? All animals in their form. When was the last time you seen a horse with a neck almost grown to be a giraffe, an ape human, or any transitional animal. There is no present proof of evolution. Don't tell me you see any. 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.

I have to agree with you. :nod

ALL we have these days is theories. Even from a non-believers perspective, creationsim is theory. As believers, we can see the creator's design. It would not be unusual that there is a certain basic designe in the universe, just as Bill Gates gave Windows a basic design and has improved it over the years. Here is a site I ran across that has some very good contributions.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

​

The bottom line for believers is, we either believe God's Word, or we don't.

 

[Pard]

]The bottom line for believers is, we either believe God's Word, or we don't.

Too true! Amen.

Too often faithful men fall to the fallacy of entertaining the unfaithful men by exempting God's Word from their logic. Just because that unfaithful man will not except the logic if it contains the Word of God doesn't mean you have to exempt the Word of God from that logic. Perhaps you should exempt that unfaithful man from your life. There is a point to which we must fight for our lost brothers, but there is a point at which we must cut them lose and carry on, lest they drag us under with them.

 

[cupid dave]

Which has nothing to do with Jung, or what he proposed.

Psychology is fine.

New wave pseudo-psychology that twists the work of great pioneers like Jung is not.


Your claims have no merit.

?
??



The Collective Unconscious is a storehouse of all theexperiences of humankind transmitted to each individual.

As the repository for all past experiences, it includeseven our pre-human animal ancestry.

(Assumably through the genetic processes, though unknownto Freud and Jung at the time.)



It becomes the primary base of a person's pyche, directing and influencing behavior.

It is the deepest and most inaccessable level of thepsyche.

Jung believed that a person accumulates and files all ofhis past experiences, so does humankind, collectively.





Jung was supported by Freud in that Freud predicted oureventual discovery of what he called "Phylogenetic Memory."

Jung said, "the form of the world into which aperson is born is already inborn in him, as a virtual image." (Jung, 1953,pg 188).

 

[Pard]

Sounds like the last half of Romans 1 and Hebrews 8:10 to me... God put the law upon the heart of every man, that he would have no excuse to commit sin.

 

[cupid dave]

I\

The bottom line for believers is, we either believe God's Word, or we don't.

No way...

The bottom line on this thread is whether you Creationists can read comprehensively enough to even make sense of Genesis.

And for the other side, the issue is intellectual honesty, for those Bible Bashers who refuse to acknowledge that Genesis seems very much to conform with the cosmic unfolding when read with a mind to see it that way.

Do YOU agree that there was indeed a Big Bang Beginning to what became the heavens and the earth?

 

[cupid dave]

Sounds like the last half of Romans 1 and Hebrews 8:10 to me... God put the law upon the heart of every man, that he would have no excuse to commit sin.

Exactly...

 

[Adam]

Jung believed that a person accumulates and files all ofhis past experiences, so does humankind, collectively.





Jung was supported by Freud in that Freud predicted oureventual discovery of what he called "Phylogenetic Memory."

Jung said, "the form of the world into which aperson is born is already inborn in him, as a virtual image." (Jung, 1953,pg 188).

No he didn't believe that. And what Jung did believe regarding the unconscious was in contrast to Freud.


You're quotemining and leaving off context doesn't change that.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, this will probably be my last response to you why?

You're tired of being blind-sided by evidence you never knew exisited. And you're dismayed that all your "sure-fire" arguments against evolution have holes in them one can drive a truck through.

And I keep correcting your misconstructions of evolutionary theory.

1) You stated there are big gaps in the hypothesis

Nope. In fact, as you know, I didn't call it a hypothesis, nor did I say it had big gaps. What I said was that like all sciences, evolution has many problems yet to be resolved. Just like chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc.

but you claim the evidence is compelling

As you learned, it is.

and proves that microbes to man is fact.

"Microbes to man" was your misconception; I didn't use it.

2) You claim the first life form was a single cell, and this cell produced all the life we see on earth. But then you claim the only thing evolution does is modify what is already there.

That is true, demonstrably so. As you learned, there is no step from a single cell to any modern organism that could not have involved. Indeed, rather than having a "new genome", vertebrates including humans, have most of the microbe genes still working.

There is no way a single cell only modified what was there.

You were challenged to come up with some step that was impossible, and failed.

It had to turn into an invertebrate, into a vertebrate sea life, into amphibians, into reptiles, into birds, mammals, then man. This would results in many different new genomes

Wrong. As you learned, we retain most of the microbial genome. What happened was modification of the old.

You claim you don't take Genesis literal

But I do, in the same sense Augustine did, when he wrote "The Literal Meaning of Genesis." He rejected a six-day creation week, arguing that we should accept what it says, even if it uses figurative language. Which is true. When Christ says He will separate the sheep from the goats, no one should think He's planning on sorting livestock.

and don't believe what God said about his creation.

I told you that unlike creationists I believe all of God's word, not just some of it.

But then you state you believe in how he did it and others who believe the Bible don't.

Nope. I pointed out that YE creationists deny what Genesis says.

When Paul talks about his creation for evidence and those who deny it have not excuse, you say that creationist deny it when they believe in creation

I never said that, and you know it. I pointed out that they deny His creation.

You say evolution does not have any conflict with the Bible, but for you to put it in the Bible you can not take it literal.

Another dishonesty. I never said that.

We do have something in common, we both agree with dawkins on something.

You and Dawkins have the same agenda; to make science and God incompatible. A hopeless cause.

I believe he is right

Christians don't.

BTW the thread I started was not about Roman Catholics just salvation.

Read the rules again. We are guests here, and I intend to follow them as well as I can. Hopefully, you learned caution, if nothing else. Since this was your last post to me, may God be with you.

 

[cupid dave]

No he didn't believe that. And what Jung did believe regarding the unconscious was in contrast to Freud.


You're quotemining and leaving off context doesn't change that.

1) I have quoted what Jung is reported to have said in the book he wrote as referenced in my post.

Jung believed that a person accumulates and files all ofhis past experiences, so does humankind, collectively.
(Jung, 1953,pg 188).

2) But I suggest that Jung's initial thoughts, on this whole train of thinking to which I refer, can be built upon, as all science allows.

3) Consider this evidence for the Unconscious mind learning things in this environment of the living, and somehow incorporating that learning into the gentic memories that are born with the new generations of a species to come in the future.

Certain birds can maintain a ritual of flying to a designated location for breeding which is 2500 miles away from where they are born every generation.

Their parent birds do not lead them or go with them.
But they get to the exact location every year, generation after generation.

 

[Adam]

1) I have quoted what Jung is reported to have said in the book he wrote as referenced in my post.

Jung believed that a person accumulates and files all ofhis past experiences, so does humankind, collectively.
(Jung, 1953,pg 188).

2) But I suggest that Jung's initial thoughts, on this whole train of thinking to which I refer, can be built upon, as all science allows.

3) Consider this evidence for the Unconscious mind learning things in this environment of the living, and somehow incorporating that learning into the gentic memories that are born with the new generations of a species to come in the future.

Certain birds can maintain a ritual of flying to a designated location for breeding which is 2500 miles away from where they are born every generation.

Their parent birds do not lead them or go with them.
But they get to the exact location every year, generation after generation.

"Thus the whole nature of man presupposes woman, both physically and spiritually. His system is tuned into woman from the start, just as it is prepared for a quite definite world where there is water, light, air, salt, carbohydrate, etc. The form of the world into which he is born is already inborn in him as a virtual image. Likewise, parents, wife, children, birth and death are inborn in him as virtual images, as psychic aptitudes. These a priori categories have by nature a collective character; they are images of parents, wife and children in general, and are not individual predestinations. We must therefore think of these images as lacking in solid content, hence as unconscious. They only acquire solidity, influence, and eventual consciousness in the encounter with empirical facts, which touch the unconscious aptitude and quicken into life. They are, in a sense, the deposits of all our ancestral experiences, but they are NOT the experiences themselves."


There's the context you left out which shows that Jung believed the opposite of what you claim he believed.

You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between instinct and memory.

 

[spartakis]

I have to agree with you. :nod

ALL we have these days is theories. Even from a non-believers perspective, creationsim is theory. As believers, we can see the creator's design. It would not be unusual that there is a certain basic designe in the universe, just as Bill Gates gave Windows a basic design and has improved it over the years. Here is a site I ran across that has some very good contributions.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

​

The bottom line for believers is, we either believe God's Word, or we don't.

Very true. There is a million dollar award right now from the origin of life foundation for anyone who can answer how the DNA code originated.
What other coding system exist without a creator. A computer program needs a programmer like you said gates with windows and its basic design. God gives us evidence of him through his creation and his manifestation in us.
Another good resource for you
http://creation.com/

There are a lot of good books out there to.

 

[cupid dave]

They are, in a sense, the deposits of all our ancestral experiences, but they are NOT the experiences themselves."


There's the context you left out which shows that Jung believed the opposite of what you claim he believed.

You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between instinct and memory.

?

That is what I am saying..."They (instincts and memories) are... the deposits of all our ancestral experiences,"...

They are together the Truth about our whole existence founded upon the accumulated memories of all the ancestors in our genetic vine, back to the first Adam.

 

[spartakis]

This is for spartakis

What is the theory of Evolution?

The theory of Evolution was solidified by Charles Darwin durring the 1800s as a way to explain and form theories on the diversity of organisms.

The basic break down of the theory of evolution is that organisms adapt to their environment through various selection methods (Natural, convergent, Sexual, artificial, Etc.).

Mutations and Selection pressures are the mechanisms of what brings forth changes in organisms performance, habit/behavior, reproduction, and appearance.

That is the theory of evolution.


The reason why Evolution is so accepted is based on repeatable observations. The theory of Evolution can be easily tested in several ways. One way is to observe organisms in their habitat for many generations to see if changes take place based on selection pressures.

Another way to test this is to observe organisms in a lab and test different variable to see how organisms react. This has been done countless times with Mendel style breeding and with Bacteria and Flies.


That is what the theory of Evolution is at its basic foundation.


Common decent is its own theory, Genetics is its own field of Study, Taxonomy/phylogeny is its own field.

Most of the stuff that is lumped into evolution is actually only partially related. I hope this helps.

Well its nothing new but we may have some term issues. Last time I watched a video on your request. Watched the whole thing. Please watch one for me. In around the middle they quote what Dr John Endler describes as evolution. Watch the whole thing should clear up what I have been trying to explain. [video=youtube;WK9t8pmVKdc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK9t8pmVKdc&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]

 

[Adam]

?

That is what I am saying..."They (instincts and memories) are... the deposits of all our ancestral experiences,"...

They are together the Truth about our whole existence founded upon the accumulated memories of all the ancestors in our genetic vine, back to the first Adam.

Which is not what Jung said.

 

[Barbarian]

Last time I watched a video on your request. Watched the whole thing. Please watch one for me. In around the middle they quote what Dr John Endler describes as evolution. Watch the whole thing should clear up what I have been trying to explain.

I watched a bit, and first thing out of the box was the claim that scientists say natural selection is evolution. How do you deal with ignorance that profound?