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

[Sparkey]

It looks like we are trying to examine the difference found between inductive and deductive reasoning. Inductive includes going from specific observation toward making general conclusions, "All the crows that I've seen are black, therefore all crows are black."

Charles Darwin used inductive reasoning in his development of his theories on evolution. He observed differences in finches on different islands in the Galapagos Islands. After more observation, he noticed that the finches were geographically isolated. He reasoned that because of their similarities, all finches on the islands came from a common ancestor, but had evolved and adapted to the unique requirements of each island.

Deductive reasoning is the polar opposite to inductive where Inductive is "bottom-up" and begins with observation (or observations) to establish patterns, Deductive reasoning is top-down in that it usually starts with a theory and then observations are made to test the hypothesis or theory involved.

The scientific method includes both types of reasoning. Theology accepts the conditions of the world as given by the Word of God and observations are made in conformity to the given truth. Science doesn't attempt to prove or disprove what cannot be measured. God is not in the realm of science but all knowledge (including scientific knowledge) is given by God.

In much the same way, believers can not expect those who don't believe to accept "given" facts. lordkalvan's objection, "And again can I point out that you are only asserting that your interpretation amounts to 'the word of God,' given that you are a fallible human being, just like those who wrote the Bible, can you explain why your fallible interpretation of other fallible humans' claims to be recounting the word of God should be understood as authoritative?" --is a valid objection.

Just as science does not expect to prove or disprove the existence of God, believers can have no expectation that non-believers will rely on any "God given truth". The two points-of-view simply do not mix. Even attempts to prove the word of God by showing prophecy that was fulfilled or even if God were to resurrect someone from the dead and have it witnessed by hundreds --this does not constitute "proof" to the skeptic. Suffice it to say that there are two different methods but just because we come to the table from different houses doesn't mean that we can not dine together and agree.

Neither Evolution nor Biblical Understanding of creation involve observation of the start-point. Both are top-down assumptions of theories, one that God created, the other that there was an original ancestor --both attempt to prove a "given truth" that was not originally observed.

 

[wayseer]

So takeing the Bible literally has nothing to do with God?

Spot on. Taking the biblical texts literally is effectively holding the Bible above God and demanding God conform to your idea of the Bible.

When you stop taking the Bible literally and start compromising is when it creates problems.

Of course any reading of the Bible creates problems. That is why there is such a thing as hermeneutics - one needs a systematic method by which to 'read' the texts.

By the way where did all that energy and exploding stars come from?

No one knows - there are many questions unanswered.

 

[Free]

Spot on. Taking the biblical texts literally is effectively holding the Bible above God and demanding God conform to your idea of the Bible.

I don't want to take this topic any further off course than it already is but it should be said that it is more common now to speak in terms of "literal" and "literalism," where "literal" means as the author intended and "literalism" is as the text appears. For example, literalism would understand Jesus' statement of being the gate as him meaning he is literally a gate, a talking gate, and to take it literally would be to understand Jesus as being the way to salvation.

We need to take the texts literally but be careful with literalistic approaches.

 

[stovebolts]

Any Hebrew scholar will tell you that the word day in Genesis 1 is a literal day.
Your arguments don't really stand.

They have for nearly 2000 years.

Um... the texts are a bit older than 2,000 years. Hate to tell you this, But neither Augustine nor Spurgeon were Hebrew Scholars.

Ummm... hate to tell you this, but it is only modern evangelical Christians that try to turn the hebrew word for Day into age and try to fit the creation account into an evolutionary perspective.

Barbarian has posted before of those theologians long ago who believed in an old Earth.

But where they scholars in the Hebrew language? I could go back through the writings I have from Augustine, but he does not claim the Hebrew language as one of his forte's. I believe he stated that in his confessions.

Any Hebrew scholar will tell you that the word day in Genesis 1 is a literal day.
Would they?

I didn't see anybody you linked to as claiming to be a Hebrew Scholar. BTW, does being a theologian qualify one as being a hebrew scholar? Is Benny Hinn a theogian too? He's got a lot of stuff written out there too ya know.

Daniel Gregg
I did not find anywhere that stated he was a Hebrew Scholar.

Paul Copan
Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics
Palm Beach Atlantic University

Again, nothing on the scholarship of the Hebrew language.

And the link you gave... http://www.truebiblecode.com/understanding234.html

Hebrew scholar?.... Dont think so.

Let's look at what a true Hebrew Scholar has to say.

Dr Ting Wang earned his M.Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary in California (Escondido) and his doctorate in Biblical Studies at the Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion (Cincinnati, Ohio). He now lectures on biblical Hebrew at Stanford University in California,1 and is a pastor for the Youth and Children’s Ministries at Korean Central Presbyterian Church. Dr Wang is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and the National Association of Professors of Hebrew. He has also been a college instructor in biblical and classical Greek. Dr Wang lives in Palo Alto with his wife, Becky.

******************************************
http://creation.com/hebrew-scholar-affirms-that-genesis-means-what-it-says-ting-wang

Many ‘old-earth creationists’ claim to believe that Genesis was truly history, but they want to fit in the billions of years proposed by scientists who weren’t there. So they assert that the creation days were really long periods of time. Dr Wang firmly refutes this suggestion:

‘The semantic range [list of all possible meanings] of the English word “day” is not unlike the range of the Hebrew word (yôm). No-one denies that “day” can mean a period or era in some contexts in both languages. For example, that’s what we mean if we say, “in Martin Luther’s day … .”

‘Similarly, in Proverbs 25:13 we find “as the cold of snow in the time/‘day’ of the harvest.” However, it’s totally improper to claim “day” can mean “era” in a different context. For instance, “on the last day of Luther’s life … ,” “day” clearly must mean an ordinary day—the modifier “last” and the context—Luther’s passing—render the meaning clear.

‘In Genesis 1, yôm comes with “evening” and “morning”, and is modified by a number. So it’s obvious that the Hebrew text is describing a 24-hour day—the exegetical burden of proof rests crushingly upon those who view otherwise (notice too that in Jeremiah 33:17–22, God’s covenant with the day and the night, so that both will come at the appointed time, is as unalterable as the promise that a son of David will reign). But no amount of evidence will convince those who are persuaded to play devil’s advocate—just like the serpent in Genesis 3, they must ask, “Did God really say?”’

Some have claimed that biblical Hebrew had no long-age words available. However, Dr Wang showed the falsity of this:

One of the most familiar passages in the Hebrew Bible is found in Ecclesiastes 3:1–8, the “God makes all things beautiful in his time” passage. In Hebrew, two words for “time” appear. The passage begins “There is a season (זְמָן zeman) for everything, and a time (עֵת ‘et) for every activity under heaven: a time (עֵת) to be born and a time (עֵת) to die, a time (עֵת) to plant and a time (עֵת) to uproot, a time to kill and a time to heal … ,” and so on. Whereas זְמָן is only used in the later books Esther, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, (עֵת) is used throughout Scripture, and would be an appropriate term to communicate an indefinite period of time, though most likely used without a number.

******************************************************************************

James Barr of Oxford University, had written in a letter twenty years ago, “So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.

*******************************************************************************
Emanuel Tov of Hebrew University Jerusalem; he would be on anyone’s list of Hebrew experts. Professor Tov responded in kind: “For the biblical people this was history, difficult as it is for us to accept this view.”

 

[spartakis]

Barbarian I want to address your major issue, you have been studying this for a long time and following him but how is it you do not understand Genesis and evolution do not mix.

For one God created the day and describes it.
Genesis 4&5
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Okay but lets say you don't believe that which you don't, your excuse is he was not talking about a literal day. I believe he was but beyond this point.

You believe whales evolved from land animals, same with seals, this is what evolution teaches. But God says in Genesis he created the whales and sea life before the land animals.

So your excuse will be not only can you not take the days seriously but the order in what he created.
Genesis Theistic Evolution
Ocean before land Land before Ocean
Earth before stars Stars before earth
There are many more fatal contradiction between the two.
How can you not see that?
And you say the YE creation is the one that don't believe it all and add stuff to it.
I have already showed you where YE Creation has been around for a very long time.
Should I post that again?

Then you keep saying God created us as apes. Come on now your contradictions are all over the place.

And like Jesus says if you can't believe Moses how can you believe him.

John 5:46-47 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Galatians, Barbarian whatever you have been at this same thing for what like 12 years and still claim your beliefs fit Genesis. Too many contradictions.

Back on topic can you show me a animal changing from its own kind, say a land animal turning into a whale or sea life or something of that nature? Cause that is what evolution teaches. And not what the Bible teaches.

Ancestor A B C D E F G H I J K Animal

Natural selection is survival of the fittest, so it kills off the weaker animals not create new body parts and etc... Natural selection of artificial breading may remove a trait that is already present but never create new information in the DNA and new genes. It will not add fur flippers and etc...

Mutations only change one code, of DNA out of billions and to think mutations of thousands of codes in perfect order is how we got here is not logical.

We see changes in a kind but never between a kind.

All I have received so far is nothing evolves now because the niche is filled.

you might want to get your contradictions in Genesis straight if you cant't believe Genesis how can you believe the rest of the Bible as literal.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian I want to address your major issue, you have been studying this for a long time and following him but how is it you do not understand Genesis and evolution do not mix.

I merely let Scripture be what it is. Adding YE doctrines is a very recent thing, as you learned. It was the results of the visions of an Adventist "prophetess."

Okay but lets say you don't believe that which you don't, your excuse is he was not talking about a literal day. I believe he was but beyond this point.

You believe whales evolved from land animals, same with seals, this is what evolution teaches. But God says in Genesis he created the whales and sea life before the land animals.

Remember, forcing a literalist interpretation on Genesis leads to logical absurdities.

So your excuse will be not only can you not take the days seriously

As you see, I take them as they are, not as modernists have revised them.

And you say the YE creation is the one that don't believe it all and add stuff to it.

Yep. That's a very new doctrine. The creationism presented in the Scopes trial was old Earth creationism. And as you see, medieval Hebrew scholars did not agree that the days in Genesis were literal ones.

I have already showed you where YE Creation has been around for a very long time.

Wrong. No older than the last century.

Then you keep saying God created us as apes.

As humans. It's just that our bodies evolved from apes. But we are not our bodies.

Come on now your contradictions are all over the place.

As I said, I just take it His way.

And like Jesus says if you can't believe Moses how can you believe him.

Moses didn't express an opinion as to whether Genesis was literal or not.

Galatians, Barbarian whatever you have been at this same thing for what like 12 years and still claim your beliefs fit Genesis. Too many contradictions.

Not for a Christian. For others, maybe.

Back on topic can you show me a animal changing from its own kind, say a land animal turning into a whale or sea life or something of that nature?

Sure. Pakicetus-Ambulocetus-Dorudon. There is similar transitional evidence for lizards to mososaurs, and for lobed-fin fish to tetrapods. The evidence is increasing and compelling. Of course, the genetic and anatomical evidence from modern whales confirms that, as to the occasional hind limbs that appear on whales.

Cause that is what evolution teaches. And not what the Bible teaches.

The Bible neither denies nor proclaims evolution. It is merely consistent with it. But YE creationism is not consistent with Genesis.

Natural selection is survival of the fittest, so it kills off the weaker animals not create new body parts and etc...

Natural selection never makes anything de novo; it merely changes things already there.

Natural selection of artificial breading may remove a trait that is already present but never create new information in the DNA and new genes. It will not add fur flippers and etc...

Every new mutation adds information to the population. Would you like to see the calculations?

Mutations only change one code, of DNA out of billions and to think mutations of thousands of letters in perfect order is how we got here is not logical.

Comes down to evidence. And that's what the evidence shows. Would you like to see some of it?

We see changes in a kind but never between a kind.

All I have received so far is nothing evolves now because the niche is filled.

It's ongoing. There are always evolutionary changes. Poaching has so impacted African elephants, for example, that they are rapidly evolving to smaller, tuskless types.

Galatian you might want to get your contradictions in Genesis straight if you cant't believe Genesis how can you believe the rest of the Bible as literal.

Remember, I accept it as it is. You only accept the parts of it you like, and add some of your modern ideas to it.

 

[spartakis]

Spartakis observes to many contradictions in your beliefs

I merely let Scripture be what it is. Adding YE doctrines is a very recent thing, as you learned. It was the results of the visions of an Adventist "prophetess."

No I take it as it is as God wrote it, you add what you want to believe to it, which contradicts Genesis and multiple other scriptures.

As you learned young earth beliefs are from way further then a century ago.
"The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world to 3751 BC while the later Seder Olam Zutta to 4339 BC.[10] The Hebrew Calendar has traditionally since the 4th century AD by Hillel II dated the creation to 3761 BC.[11][12][13][14][15]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

It was not until two centuries ago when people started rejecting a young earth
"By the 1830s, mainstream science had abandoned young Earth creationism as a serious hypothesis. It became therefore important for biblical scholars as well as Christian scientists to harmonize the Genesis myth with new scientific results into a 'new geology'.[40]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

In 1923 Christians finally stood up for the word of God and realized evidence still points to young earth and creation
"The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the twentieth century saw a revival of interest in young Earth creationism, as a part of the movement's rejection of the explanation of evolution.[45] In 1923, George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist wrote The New Geology, a book partly inspired by the book Patriarchs and Prophets in which Seventh-day Adventist prophet Ellen G. White described the impact of the Great flood on the shape of the Earth. Although not an accredited geologist, Price's writings, which were based upon reading geological texts and documents rather than field or laboratory work,[46] provide an explicitly fundamentalist perspective on geology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

As you see, I take them as they are, not as modernists have revised them.

I see you don't take them at all as they are, you even said you don't take them literally.
I am not going to list the other 15 different fatal contradictions because you don't seem to see anything as it is but only as you want it to be. If you can't take the Bible literally then what do you believe.
I would say you know that kind of how the devil tempted eve was not taking Gods word literally but your beliefs that we came from apes seems like you wouldn't believe eve was real or anything in Genesis in that matter.

Yep. That's a very new doctrine. The creationism presented in the Scopes trial was old Earth creationism. And as you see, medieval Hebrew scholars did not agree that the days in Genesis were literal ones.

Yep I addressed that above.

Wrong. No older than the last century.

Also addressed above, if you want to call the name new don't bother me but the beliefs are way older then that. Addressed above.

As humans. It's just that our bodies evolved from apes. But we are not our bodies.

Sounds like you mean as apes but we evolved to humans. Contradictions in one sentence.

As I said, I just take it His way.

You don't take him literally so how do you figure. Many contradictions in your beliefs and Gods word.

Moses didn't express an opinion as to whether Genesis was literal or not.

God didn't express to Adam to take him literally about the eating of the tree, Oh I am preaching from Genesis to someone that don't believe in what is written in Genesis.

Sure. Pakicetus-Ambulocetus-Dorudon. There is similar transitional evidence for lizards to mososaurs, and for lobed-fin fish to tetrapods. The evidence is increasing and compelling. Of course, the genetic and anatomical evidence from modern whales confirms that, as to the occasional hind limbs that appear on whales.

You should know of the eye problem of the
Ambulocetus more of a crocodile I am suprised you
did't put the rodhocetus kasrani in with them, the whale fossil record for evolution is sad. Scientist have added tails flippers and etc.. to animals that did not have any. Darwin believed a bear changed into a whale. The California academy of science believe it was a hyena, others now believe a dear like animal from india, Scientist from University of Michigan thought a cat, Japanese suggest a Hippo.
I can tell you where it came from but you wouldn't believe it. The book God documented creation in tells us.

The Bible neither denies nor proclaims evolution. It is merely consistent with it. But YE creationism is not consistent with Genesis.

The Bible states God created

Genesis 1:21 (KJV) And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Does that sound like evolution? No

And talking about lizards and another form of lizards. I am not looking for things in the fossil record and similarities we went over this a couple pages ago.

Natural selection never makes anything de novo; it merely changes things already there.

Sound like you agree can't create fins and etc.

Every new mutation adds information to the population. Would you like to see the calculations?

I know what mutation do. They only change very 1 letter of DNA code out of billions. If you know how DNA has to be in perfect order to make since but to thank that to add body parts fins and etc.. you need thousands of changes in DNA letter code, and to think random DNA mutations is how we came to be is pretty ridiculous.

Comes down to evidence. And that's what the evidence shows. Would you like to see some of it?

Really we have documented seeing thousands of letters of DNA code mutate in perfect order to make new body parts?

" Besides mutations that cause information loss, in theory there could also be mutations that cause a gain of new information. There are only a few alleged cases of such mutations. However, if a mutated DNA strand were built up with a group of base pairs that didn’t do anything, this strand wouldn’t be useful. Therefore, to be useful to an organism, a mutation that has a gain of new information must also cause a gain of new function."

"Observations confirm that mutations overwhelmingly cause a loss of information, not a net gain, as evolution requires.
Mutations, when properly understood, are an excellent example of science confirming the Bible. When one sees the devastating effects of mutations, one can’t help but be reminded of the curse in Genesis 3. The accumulation of mutations from generation to generation is due to man’s sin. But those who have placed their faith in Christ, our Creator, look forward to a new heaven and earth where there will be no more pain, death, or disease."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/mutations-engine-of-evolution
Ya I know AiG they are frauds lol but brakes it down.

It's ongoing. There are always evolutionary changes. Poaching has so impacted African elephants, for example, that they are rapidly evolving to smaller, tuskless types.

I was not asking for an example of elephant on elephant, but maybe changing into something else, or something else changing into elephant would prove your point pretty well.

Remember, I accept it as it is. You only accept the parts of it you like, and add some of your modern ideas to it.

I have addressed this above. It is more the opposite direction.

You are getting this off topic and could almost be moved to theology section.
Remember what I was looking for and end the rest of it. I am not interested in the hypothesis of evolution of the fossil record, heard all the arguments on both side and made my decision. Observation science has not showed anything close to what evolution states. Yes we see changes in animal kinds but not animals changing to different kinds.

 

[Free]

Um... the texts are a bit older than 2,000 years. Hate to tell you this, But neither Augustine nor Spurgeon were Hebrew Scholars.


But where they scholars in the Hebrew language? I could go back through the writings I have from Augustine, but he does not claim the Hebrew language as one of his forte's. I believe he stated that in his confessions.



I didn't see anybody you linked to as claiming to be a Hebrew Scholar. BTW, does being a theologian qualify one as being a hebrew scholar? Is Benny Hinn a theogian too? He's got a lot of stuff written out there too ya know.

Daniel Gregg
I did not find anywhere that stated he was a Hebrew Scholar.

Paul Copan
Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics
Palm Beach Atlantic University

Again, nothing on the scholarship of the Hebrew language.

I never stated they were Hebrew scholars. My point is that there are some issues going on beyond the use of "yom" that may cause some Hebrew scholars to disagree with you that "yom" in Genesis 1 refers to a 24-hour period of time. It's as though you didn't even read the links.

 

[Barbarian]

As you learned young earth beliefs are from way further then a century ago.

Many people over the years thought the Earth might be only a few thousand years old. YE creationism is a unique set of beliefs invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists.

It was not until two centuries ago when people started rejecting a young earth
"By the 1830s, mainstream science had abandoned young Earth creationism as a serious hypothesis. It became therefore important for biblical scholars as well as Christian scientists to harmonize the Genesis myth with new scientific results into a 'new geology'.[40]"

Since the Bible does not say whether the Earth is a few thousand or a few billion years old, there is no harmonizing to be done.

In 1923 Christians finally stood up for the word of God and realized evidence still points to young earth and creation

Adventists are merely one sect of Christians. But a young Earth is not the Biblical POV, and never has been the orthodox Christian position.

"The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the twentieth century saw a revival of interest in young Earth creationism, as a part of the movement's rejection of the explanation of evolution.[45] In 1923, George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist wrote The New Geology, a book partly inspired by the book Patriarchs and Prophets in which Seventh-day Adventist prophet Ellen G. White described the impact of the Great flood on the shape of the Earth. Although not an accredited geologist, Price's writings, which were based upon reading geological texts and documents rather than field or laboratory work,[46] provide an explicitly fundamentalist perspective on geology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

Barbarian observes:
As you see, I take them as they are, not as modernists have revised them.

I see you don't take them at all as they are, you even said you don't take them literally.

I take them literally in the sense that I accept what God says in Genesis, not that I force a literalist interpretation on them.

I am not going to list the other 15 different fatal contradictions because you don't seem to see anything as it is but only as you want it to be. If you can't take the Bible literally then what do you believe.

This is my objection to YE. It doesn't take the Bible as it is; it adds new doctrines, and rejects parts of Genesis.

I would say you know that kind of how the devil tempted eve was not taking Gods word literally

In fact the Devil was a Biblical literalist. He told Eve that she would not die when she ate from the tree, and that it would make her like God. His YE interpretation presented the death as a physical one, which did not happen the day she and Adam ate from the tree. And they did become like God. YE has always been a way to separate people from God.

but your beliefs that we came from apes seems like you wouldn't believe eve was real or anything in Genesis in that matter.

As I reminded you before, there is nothing in evolutionary theory to deny that Adam and Eve were real people.

Barbarian observes:
The creationism presented in the Scopes trial was old Earth creationism. And as you see, medieval Hebrew scholars did not agree that the days in Genesis were literal ones.

Yep I addressed that above.

Mosheh ben Maimon משה בן מימון‎, called Moses Maimonides and also known as Mūsā ibn Maymūn (Arabic: موسى بن ميمون‎), or RaMBaM (רמב"ם – Hebrew acronym for "Rabbi Mosheh Ben Maimon"), was a preeminent medieval Jewish philosopher and one of the most prolific and followed Torah scholars and physicians of the Middle Ages. He was born in Córdoba, Almoravid Empire (present-day Spain) on Passover Eve, 1135, and died in Egypt (or Tiberias) on 20th Tevet, December 12, 1204.[6] He was a rabbi, physician and philosopher in Morocco and Egypt.

Although his writings on Jewish law and ethics were met with acclaim and gratitude from most Jews even as far off as Spain, Iraq and Yemen, and he rose to be the revered head of the Jewish community in Egypt, there were also vociferous critics of some of his rulings and other writings particularly in Spain. Nevertheless, he was posthumously acknowledged to be one of the foremost rabbinical arbiters and philosophers in Jewish history, his copious work a cornerstone of Jewish scholarship. His fourteen-volume Mishneh Torah still carries canonical authority as a codification of Talmudic law. In the Yeshiva world he is known as "haNesher haGadol" (the great eagle) in recognition of his outstanding status as a bona fide exponent of the Oral Torah.
The most respected of Hebrew scholars rejected a literalist interpretation of Genesis.

YE creationism is a very modern belief. Without the efforts of the Adventists, it would have remained a marginal belief of a few sects. As you learned, George Price managed to get Henry Morris as an ally in moving his new doctrine into the evangelical ranks.

Barbarian observes:
As humans. It's just that our bodies evolved from apes. But we are not our bodies.

Sounds like you mean as apes but we evolved to humans.

At some point, we had a common ancestor with apes. There is nothing shameful in that; our souls are given immediately by God.

Contradictions in one sentence.

Not to a Christian.
As I said, I just take it His way.

You don't take him literally so how do you figure.

It take Him at what He says. If He chooses to use figurative language, I do not try to amend it. That is what YE does.

Barbarian observes:
Moses didn't express an opinion as to whether Genesis was literal or not.

God didn't express to Adam to take him literally about the eating of the tree,

Indeed. God said Adam would die the day he ate from the tree, but Adam lived on physically for many years. The Serpent cleverly adopted the YE idea, and convinced Eve that it was about a physical death.

Oh I am preaching from Genesis to someone that don't believe in what is written in Genesis.

If you accepted Genesis without your revisions, you wouldn't be concerned about this.

Barbarian on demonstrations of major evolutionary changes.
Sure. Pakicetus-Ambulocetus-Dorudon. There is similar transitional evidence for lizards to mososaurs, and for lobed-fin fish to tetrapods. The evidence is increasing and compelling. Of course, the genetic and anatomical evidence from modern whales confirms that, as to the occasional hind limbs that appear on whales.

You should know of the eye problem of the
Ambulocetus more of a crocodile

I

You've been misled on that. It has the body of a mammal, and the limbs of a highly modified ungulate, right down to the hooves on each digit. C'mon, you could learn about it.

Darwin believed a bear changed into a whale.

Nope. You were misled on that, too. Darwin suggested that whales could have evolved from large terrestrial mammals, after seeing bears harvesting insects in water.

The California academy of science believe it was a hyena

Wrong again. Even years ago, they knew it was an ungulate, perhaps a mesonychid. Never a hyena.

others now believe a dear like animal from india, Scientist from University of Michigan thought a cat, Japanese suggest a Hippo.

Wrong again. Libraries are free. Why not try to learn about it.

I can tell you where it came from but you wouldn't believe it. The book God documented creation in tells us.

God says that living things came from the earth and waters. However, He didn't explain how. Left that up to us to find out.

Barbarian observes:
The Bible neither denies nor proclaims evolution. It is merely consistent with it. But YE creationism is not consistent with Genesis.

The Bible states God created

The only difference between us is that you don't approve of the way He did it.

And talking about lizards and another form of lizards. I am not looking for things in the fossil record and similarities we went over this a couple pages ago.

I understand. Some YE creationists regard evidence the way a vampire regards a crucifix.

Barbarian observes:
Natural selection never makes anything de novo; it merely changes things already there.

Sound like you agree can't create fins and etc.

Since we see that fins on whales are modified legs, it's obvious that they did evolve. Sometimes we even see legs appear on whales.

Barbarian observes:
Every new mutation adds information to the population. Would you like to see the calculations?

I know what mutation do. They only change very 1 letter of DNA code out of billions.

Sometimes. But often the changes are much more profound than that. Would you like to see how?

If you know how DNA has to be in perfect order

Turns out it doesn't. Each of us has his own unique variation of DNA, and it all works.

and to think random DNA mutations is how we came to be is pretty ridiculous.

That is ridiculous; I'm always astonished that YE creationists suppose that's what evolutionary theory says.

Barbarian observes:
Comes down to evidence. And that's what the evidence shows. Would you like to see some of it?

Really we have documented seeing thousands of letters of DNA code mutate in perfect order to make new body parts?

There is no "perfect order." That's a fairy tale someone told you.

Besides mutations that cause information loss, in theory there could also be mutations that cause a gain of new information.

Every new mutation in population causes an increase in information. I don't think you know what "information" means, or how to calculate it, do you?

There are only a few alleged cases of such mutations.

There are many, many such cases. Even favorable mutations are quite common. Would you like me to show you some of them?

However, if a mutated DNA strand were built up with a group of base pairs that didn’t do anything, this strand wouldn’t be useful. Therefore, to be useful to an organism, a mutation that has a gain of new information must also cause a gain of new function."

You've confused "information" with "useful." That is not what information means. But we do have a very large number of observed useful mutations.

"Observations confirm that mutations overwhelmingly cause a loss of information, not a net gain, as evolution requires.

No, even in your new definition of "information" that's false. The vast majority of mutations don't do much of anything. All of us have several mutations that were not present in either parent. A few are harmful. And a very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.

Mutations – mistakes in the copying of genetic material – are not the freak events of science fiction. In fact, they are very common. Mutations occur in the cells of every individual as he or she grows older. And they are happening all the time. While you are reading this article, for example, you will have undergone tens of thousands of mutations.

“When you start looking at DNA directly, the mutation rate turns out to be very high.”
http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/science/we-are-all-mutations

Mutations, when properly understood, are an excellent example of science confirming the Bible.

The Bible says nothing about mutations.

When one sees the devastating effects of mutations

It's unusual for a mutation to be devastating. Few of us have mutations like that.

one can’t help but be reminded of the curse in Genesis 3. The accumulation of mutations from generation to generation is due to man’s sin.

That would be odd. It is the cause of genetic variability which pretty much guarantees an epidemic can't wipe out all humans. Populations that somehow lose variability (such as cheetahs) are in big trouble. It's not a curse; it's an improvement in fitness.

Ya I know AiG they are frauds

Probably not a good idea to cite them, then.

Barbarian observes:
It's ongoing. There are always evolutionary changes. Poaching has so impacted African elephants, for example, that they are rapidly evolving to smaller, tuskless types.

I was not asking for an example of elephant on elephant, but maybe changing into something else, or something else changing into elephant would prove your point pretty well.

Like not believing giant redwoods can grow from seeds, because no one has ever seen the whole thing happen. I got that. I'm pretty much convinced that you people know that's a faulty argument.

Barbarian observes:
Remember, I accept it as it is. You only accept the parts of it you like, and add some of your modern ideas to it.

I have addressed this above. It is more the opposite direction.

I see your denial, but the Bible remains, and it is incompatible with YE.

You are getting this off topic and could almost be moved to theology section.
Remember what I was looking for and end the rest of it. I am not interested in the hypothesis of evolution of the fossil record

Translation: "The evil Barbarian is resorting to evidence, again."

 

[spartakis]

Barbarian it gets old watching you repeat yourself. This has been going on for what 8-12 years. Young earth belief and creation belief have been around for a very long time, posted a link you disregard the truth.
Your theology is a total different topic. No offense to you but Roman catholics believe a lot of things that are not Biblical. I would start listing them but you don't take the Bible literal so it would not matter, and I am not here for theology, this is not the theology section. I am sure you have heard them all already and disregarded them.

Evidence I am waiting for, of a observation change from one kind to another.

 

[lordkalvan]

Barbarian it gets old watching you repeat yourself. This has been going on for what 8-12 years. Young earth belief and creation belief have been around for a very long time, posted a link you disregard the truth.
Your theology is a total different topic. No offense to you but Roman catholics believe a lot of things that are not Biblical. I would start listing them but you don't take the Bible literal so it would not matter, and I am not here for theology, this is not the theology section. I am sure you have heard them all already and disregarded them.

Evidence I am waiting for, of a observation change from one kind to another.

What do you regard as acceptable evidence in this case?

 

[spartakis]

What do you regard as acceptable evidence in this case?

An observed change not an hypothesis of the past. And from one group to another. Not a change in a group of species. But a group change. For instance like I have mentioned you would think you would see apes in the wild still evolving into humans but the excuse seems to be on everything is the niche is filled.

 

[stovebolts]

I never stated they were Hebrew scholars. My point is that there are some issues going on beyond the use of "yom" that may cause some Hebrew scholars to disagree with you that "yom" in Genesis 1 refers to a 24-hour period of time. It's as though you didn't even read the links.

Free,
I skimmed the links you provided, and then I also did a few Google Searches to find their accreditation.

When you responded to me, you were responding to a claim that I made in regard to Hebrew Scholars on the word Day, as used in Genesis 1. Are all theologians correct? I don't think so.

While I will admit that a few of the sites you posted were interesting, none of them were based on the Hebraic scholarship.

Barbarian mentioned earlier about RambaM. While he is admired in the Jewish community, he never rejected a young earth as Barbarian claimed. He did entertain the idea of an old earth, but from what I recall, and I must admit it's been awhile, I get the idea his mind was never settled on the matter.

I posted a video "Dating fossils and Rocks" several times for you in a previous thread, and I recall you stating that you didn't even click on the link. Again, you avert your attention to what I'm stating, and redirect it. Simply stated, I ask for a Scholar in the Hebrew language that reads day in Genesis 1 as anything other than a day, and you give me theologians that may not even know how to read Hebrew and call it authoritative.

Are you starting to see my frustration yet?

 

[lordkalvan]

An observed change not an hypothesis of the past. And from one group to another. Not a change in a group of species. But a group change. For instance like I have mentioned you would think you would see apes in the wild still evolving into humans but the excuse seems to be on everything is the niche is filled.

What do you mean by a 'group' and what notional boundary do you want o see being crossed to result in the kind of change that you would regard as evidential? Why do you think that apes would currently be evolving into human beings? All lineages of apes represent the evolved descendants of, at various points, common ancestral species. Evolutionary theory no more proposes that a related branch of an existing genus or family will evolve into an already existing member species of that genus or family than that a dog will suddenly give birth to a cat. Indeed, we're either of these events to take place, this would be an immediate falsification of evolutionary theory and our understanding of evolution.

 

[spartakis]

What do you mean by a 'group' and what notional boundary do you want o see being crossed to result in the kind of change that you would regard as evidential? Why do you think that apes would currently be evolving into human beings? All lineages of apes represent the evolved descendants of, at various points, common ancestral species. Evolutionary theory no more proposes that a related branch of an existing genus or family will evolve into an already existing member species of that genus or family than that a dog will suddenly give birth to a cat. Indeed, we're either of these events to take place, this would be an immediate falsification of evolutionary theory and our understanding of evolution.

A group would be like lizards, horses, dogs and etc...
evolution states in the past that every thing evolved from something else. Whale from land animal. Bat from well they don't know. Humans from apes and so on. But this has never been observed. Only hypothesis of the past. Steven Hawkins even said we are in a new stage of evolution. So where did the old stage go and why? After billions of years it stops. And something that supposed to have been from random process knew when to stop when the niche is filled.

 

[Sparkey]

I'd like to see examples of natural selection do more than artificial selecting. Or examples of artificial selection (directed by man) producing any animal of a different kind.

Although local adaptation and differentiation within a species supports a conclusion that there might be an explanation (if the imagined process is extended universally) it does not explain how one goes from a single ancestor to many different descendants. How does a single ancestor produce all the variety of life we see? Can bacteria produce beetles? Arranging life into categories from simple to complex and forming trees to illustrate a process does not mean that it must have happened that way. Concluding otherwise is buying into a "just-so story". It is that way because that's the way it is.

Hundreds of years of artificial breeding show that there are limits to the reproductive process and I'd like to see what evidence there is to show that contrary to breeder experience there are no limits to the reproductive process.

Bacterial studies should be conducive to this type of thing because they reproduce and generate within periods of hours. It takes less than a day for full populations to emerge. If there were an example of a evolution from prokaryotic [e.g., bacterial] to eukaryotic [e.g., plant and animal] cells, I'd call that a proof of a process without the limits I believe the bible demands.

If there were no evidence of bacterial to plant or animal evolution that would support the conclusion that there are limits. It would seem to be a more simple thing to jump from one type of simple (unicell) form to another than it would to go from a far more complex multi-cellular form to another complex multi-cellular form. If there is no evidence for the simple how can we conclude that complex changes we see (that could also be achieved through artificial selection) prove there are no limits to natural selection?

If we can breed a large variety of dogs or birds from breeding programs that are intelligently directed but we can't breed anything other than dogs from dogs (or birds from birds) how is it that we expect a random (non-intelligence driven) program to have more success? If that were indeed the case and random is better than intelligent wouldn't that also be arguing for lesser intelligent hominids to have greater chances? Maybe that is the case. I think I'm being funny but sometimes I have to wonder.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian it gets old watching you repeat yourself.

Reality hasn't changed. Creative stories are for YE creationists.

This has been going on for what 8-12 years. Young earth belief and creation belief have been around for a very long time, posted a link you disregard the truth.

As you learned, it began with the Seventh-Day Adventists in the last century. YE is more than just the addition of a young Earth to Scripture. It's also life ex nihilo, the addition of "Worldwide" to the flood story, and many other new doctrines.

Your theology is a total different topic. No offense to you but Roman catholics believe a lot of things that are not Biblical.

Depends on whether you mean the Bible as it was in the early church, or after people got done removing the parts they didn't like. Even so, there's so much in there that is inconsistent with your new religion, much of it is still there. Want to see some examples?

I would start listing them but you don't take the Bible literal so it would not matter, and I am not here for theology, this is not the theology section. I am sure you have heard them all already and disregarded them.

I'm just pointing out that you don't even follow the parts of the Bible you have left in your version.

Evidence I am waiting for, of a observation change from one kind to another.

Like someone observing a giant redwood growing from a seed. Do you really think people don't see what that's about?

 

[Barbarian]

I'd like to see examples of natural selection do more than artificial selecting. Or examples of artificial selection (directed by man) producing any animal of a different kind.

At what level of taxonomy would you consider a new "kind" to have evolved?

Although local adaptation and differentiation within a species supports a conclusion that there might be an explanation (if the imagined process is extended universally) it does not explain how one goes from a single ancestor to many different descendants.

Mutation and natural selection. As long as there is a niche that can support a population, something will eventually evolve to fill it. This is why a huge proportion of the world's fruit flies (as well as the greatest amount of fly variation) are found in Hawaii. It was far from any other land, and when some insects were finally blown in, they had no competition. So they rapidly filled all sorts of insect niches. It's called "disruptive selection."

How does a single ancestor produce all the variety of life we see?

I could show you how to simulate that with some graph paper and dice, if you like. It's possible to program it, but it's much more impressive if you watch how randomness and two open niches can produce a split in a once-homogenous population.

Can bacteria produce beetles?

More likely, archaea. We have more in common with those protists than with bacteria. Bacteria happen to have come on aboard at some point; almost all eukaryotes depend on them for energy transfromations. They are called "mitochondria." Would you like to see the evidence for that?

Arranging life into categories from simple to complex and forming trees to illustrate a process does not mean that it must have happened that way.

So far, no one's found a nested hierarchy in nature that does not indicate descent. Can you think of one? More to the point is that Linnaeus made his tree without knowing about genetic data or fossil transitionals that confirm that he got it right. Even more convincing, there are no transitionals that don't fit the tree.

Concluding otherwise is buying into a "just-so story". It is that way because that's the way it is.

There is compelling evidence.

Hundreds of years of artificial breeding show that there are limits to the reproductive process and I'd like to see what evidence there is to show that contrary to breeder experience there are no limits to the reproductive process.

That's easily testable. Find some organism at the limit of its variability, and see if any new mutations can occur without death or loss of reproductive ability.

Bacterial studies should be conducive to this type of thing because they reproduce and generate within periods of hours. It takes less than a day for full populations to emerge. If there were an example of a evolution from prokaryotic [e.g., bacterial] to eukaryotic [e.g., plant and animal] cells, I'd call that a proof of a process without the limits I believe the bible demands.

Must have been pretty hard to do. It took over a billion years, with far, far, more individuals than you will ever see in a lab experiment, to get that change.
Seems that it is harder to become a eukaryote, than to become a human. Humbling, no?

It would seem to be a more simple thing to jump from one type of simple (unicell) form to another than it would to go from a far more complex multi-cellular form to another complex multi-cellular form.

Evidence indicates not.

If that were indeed the case and random is better than intelligent wouldn't that also be arguing for lesser intelligent hominids to have greater chances?

What's the ratio of unintelligent to intelligent primates? We seem to be badly outnumbered. Presently it's (huge number) to one or possibly two or three.

Maybe that is the case. I think I'm being funny but sometimes I have to wonder.

Wonder is the first step to knowing.

 

[lordkalvan]

A group would be like lizards, horses, dogs and etc...

Horses and dogs are both subspecies, the one of Equus ferus, the other of Canis lupus. Lizards, on the other hand, are a suborder known as Lacertilla. So do you want an example of a subspecies 'evolving into' another subspecies, or of a suborder 'evolving into' another suborder?

Interestingly, of course, several members of the genus Equus, to which all living species and subspecies of equines belong, can, despite their differing chromosome numbers (horse 64 and donkey 62, for example), interbreed - a convincing demonstration that these animals are evolutionarily related and, given your condition above, a fulfilment of your stated requirement.

evolution states in the past that every thing evolved from something else. Whale from land animal. Bat from well they don't know. Humans from apes and so on. But this has never been observed. Only hypothesis of the past.

A hypothesis supported by so much evidence from multiple lines of research to be effectively beyond reasonable doubt.

Steven Hawkins even said we are in a new stage of evolution. So where did the old stage go and why?

I think Barbarian has already pointed out that Hawking was referring to human evolution and our ability to affect our own development technologically.

After billions of years it stops.

If you are different from your parents, that is evidence that evolution is continuing. There is plenty of other evidence that evolution is a continuing process. Would you like to discuss some of it?

And something that supposed to have been from random process knew when to stop when the niche is filled.

Put simply, in order to supplant an occupied niche, an organism must successfully supplant the one that is already occupying that niche. Various conditions may lead to such opportunities arising, for example disease or mass extinction events. For example, Lesothosauruses and Klipspringers are very similar in size and habitat requirements, but the former are now extinct and their 'niche' has been filled in part by the latter.

 

[stovebolts]

The most respected of Hebrew scholars rejected a literalist interpretation of Genesis.

YE creationism is a very modern belief. Without the efforts of the Adventists, it would have remained a marginal belief of a few sects. As you learned, George Price managed to get Henry Morris as an ally in moving his new doctrine into the evangelical ranks.

Barbarian observes:
As humans. It's just that our bodies evolved from apes. But we are not our bodies.

As far as Rambam, how about actually taking the time to pull his work out and lets discuss exactly what he said, and the context in which he said it. Maimonides was predominately not only a doctor, but he also studied greek philosophy, as his major was in philosophy, Aristotle to be more precise. Maimonides argued against the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato, not science... and his argument was based on the earth being created out of nothing (bara), not "a moment in time". Maimonides also believed that the sun and stars revolved around the earth. Clearly, he was wrong about that too.

You seem to think that this whole young earth idea is a relatively new idea based on the 7th day Adventists. This is simply not true. The Jews long before Christianity believed in a young earth and many still do. Tzi Freeman, a respected Rabbi says, The answer at the dating of this writing is 5,761 years. This age is according to ancient Jewish tradition, and can be calculated by compiling the chronologies written in the Torah.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2901/jewish/How-Old-is-the-Universe.htm#footnote3a2901

As far as your statement which says we've evolved from apes... what a sad, sad statement.