[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[Adam]

the core message of the bible regarding the human condition is about transformation ... we are meant to undergo an everchanging process of refinement in order to become holy
... through evolution? So, why is there a Holy Spirit? Don't call yourself a Christian. It's a shame!!

Yet even more fallacies.

 

[Adam]

"Lamb of God" is different from "lamb".

How so?

 

[felix]

Yet even more fallacies.

Stop saying you are a Christian when you deny Holy Spirit. No wonder Jude was correct.

 

[felix]

How so?

If Lamb is not literal in that phrase, God is also not literal.

 

[Adam]

Stop saying you are a Christian when you deny Holy Spirit. No wonder Jude was correct.

Yet even more fallacies.

 

[Adam]

If Lamb is not literal in that phrase, God is also not literal.

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[felix]

That doesn't even make sense.

Which is why, "Lamb of God" is a single literal term. Split them to prove a contrary point wouldn't make any sense.

Lion is the "king of Jungle" is a phrase. Splitting a phrase and proving lion is not really a literal king is nonsense. They either doesn't know English or doesn't know how to read titles and phrases.

 

[Adam]

So...


You understood VirginShallConceives point but just pretended not to?

Is it that difficult to admit that the Gensis account may not literally mean that man was made from clay, but there is an allusion to starting from lifeless material and through some guided process the materials arranged and rearranged themselves over a span of time until there were humans?


You don't have to agree, just don't dodge the point by pretending you don't understand that when he asked if the "lamb was literal" or sidestepping with semantics.

 

[felix]

Is it that difficult to admit that the Gensis account may not literally mean that man was made from clay, but there is an allusion to starting from lifeless material and through some guided process the materials arranged and rearranged themselves over a span of time until there were humans?

If Genesis account is not literal, so does God did not breathe into man's nostrils. Neither God's breath will be the reason for man's living natural and his soul.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

It's a total denial of what God did and how He created.

 

[Adam]

Remember the conversation we JUST HAD about Jesus being a literal four-hooved wooly farming animal?

What had you said?

"Lamb of God" is different from "lamb."


Now, apply that same logic to "Breath of God" being not the same as "breath."

Literal breaths requires literal lungs. Are you suggesting God has lungs? A diaphram? How about a tongue?


I am not denying that God created man. I am saying that you have a surface understanding of scripture and cannot appreciate the depth of meaning expressed in poetic gestures that don't actually mean that woman was formed out of man's rib in reality.

Does a woman actually being formed out of man's rib seems like the most plausible explanation to you? Or is it possible, as hinted at in the NT when Jesus ONLY TAUGHT BY PARABLE, that these stories allude to some universal characteristic or struggle that we must all face? These stories tell us much more than just what they literally say. There are expressions that are fully lost to us because we do not understand the Hebraic euphamisms especially when distorted by translation.


Especially considering that the true art of literature has been double entendre, foreshadowing, and mystery.
Jesus teaching in parable is simply an EXTENTION of that tradition, not a deviation from a literal one.

 

[Adam]

Let's put it this way:

What is the Word?

 

[felix]

Remember the conversation we JUST HAD about Jesus being a literal four-hooved wooly farming animal?

What had you said?

"Lamb of God" is different from "lamb."

Of course they are different. Lamb of God is different from the lamb I ate yesterday.

Now, apply that same logic to "Breath of God" being not the same as "breath."

Literal breaths requires literal lungs. Are you suggesting God has lungs? A diaphram? How about a tongue?

Of course they are different. It is only you and virginshallconcieve are suggesting to be same but taking it literally. The term and the title are literal not the words used.

I am not denying that God created man. I am saying that you have a surface understanding of scripture and cannot appreciate the depth of meaning expressed in poetic gestures that don't actually mean that woman was formed out of man's rib in reality.

This shows, you don't believe in the Bible. How about a poetic gestures of representing "natural section" as "god" and evolution it's religion? Nothing is stopping you from doing that.

Does a woman actually being formed out of man's rib seems like the most plausible explanation to you?

I have heard secret believers living underground in China. I never knew there were secret unbelievers among Christians.

Or is it possible, as hinted at in the NT when Jesus ONLY TAUGHT BY PARABLE, that these stories allude to some universal characteristic or struggle that we must all face? These stories tell us much more than just what they literally say.

When Jesus mentions a parable, Bible specifically mentions it as a parable and the context is well understood as a parable.

There are expressions that are fully lost to us because we do not understand the Hebraic euphamisms especially when distorted by translation.

Especially considering that the true art of literature has been double entendre, foreshadowing, and mystery.
Jesus teaching in parable is simply an EXTENTION of that tradition, not a deviation from a literal one.

Since you don't believe in Holy Spirit, no wonder you are not aware of His work.

 

[felix]

Let's put it this way:

What is the Word?

The question is wrong.

The right questions are: Who is "The Word"? and What is "a word"?

The Word is Christ and a word is a spoken word. Understood?

 

[lordkalvan]

Which is exactly what I saying repeatedly: You don't seem to understand how RM dating works. Lack of (or) small amounts of isotopes returns exponential dates in the past.

You fail to grasp the idea that I understand exactly what you're saying, but that what I am asking for repeatedly is some evidence to support your speculations, speculations that appear contrived on an ad hoc basis simply to preserve the illusion of a 'young' Earth that has no basis in objective reality. For example, if radioisotopes were absent from the geological record 'pre-flood', because there are so many different radioisotopes that decay at different rates, each of those radioisotopes would need to be be present in just the right proportions required that each different type returned the dating metric that we would expect to see if Earth was many orders of magnitude older than 6000 years. I have yet to see you put forward any such evidence or even an attempted explanation of how this might be so. Also, and again for example, the best evidence we have is that terrestrial uranium originated in a supernova explosion and was subsequently incorporated into the material from which the Solar System formed. So you need to provide an explanation of how this uranium came to be incorporated into terrestrial geology post-flood.

Yes it is, because, it is so much of a deception that it is not even mentioned as an assumption but by default "assumed" to be true.

So that's no evidence then, we just have to take your unsubstantiated word for it? Can you tell us why we should find this persuasive?

I told you again and again and you are not understanding... ah... ok, let me explain.

Today, C14 (taken C14 just as an example but the logic applies to all RM dating) ratio is one part in a trillion. (i.e, 1/1000000000). Anything fossiled today will start the decay process. C14 half life is 5730 years. So, after 5730 years, the fossil will only 0.5/1000000000 of C14 isotopes. Hence, based on the amount of isotope which is reduced, we can always trace back when it was fossilized (or contact with this world or atmosphere is cut). If we have a fossil today with only 0.5/1000000000 isotope, then the fossil is 5730 years old.

This process assumes that C14 occurs in nature as 1/1000000000. This assumption is based on the present conditions and what currently occurs. The way C14 is generated is from upper stratosphere in atmosphere. If the atmosphere is very different in the past which produced little or no isotopes, then the level of C14 occurring in nature is also very low. Hence, instead of 1/1000000000, there will be only say, .001 part per trillion before the change in atmosphere. If the change in atmosphere is very recent (say 5000 years ago), and if we consider the C14 occurance today as a constant throughout ages, then .001 part per trillion which was the case in 5001 years ago became 1 part per million. However, if we try to do RM dating based on half life, the value of occurance is always taken as 1/1000000000 and the natural occurance of .001 part per trillion before 5000 years is not considered. Based on the constant "1/1000000000", if you do the half life decay, you will notice that 1 part becomes as half in 5730 years. half becomes quarter in 11460 years, then quarter become 0.125 in 17190 years and 0.0625 in 22920 years and 0.03125 in 28650 years and ..... and 0.001 in 60000 years.

Hence, lower the quantity, explodes the time scale esp., in RM dating. I can't explain much better than this.

You seem to think I don't understand the hopeful arithmetic underlying your speculation. I do. What I also understand is that you have no evidence to support either the speculation or the arithmetic. As I have pointed out to you before, we have evidence of atmospheric Carbon 14 concentrations that long predate your imaginary global flood some 4500 years ago and this evidence alone invalidates your argument. Let me provide the citation for you again:

'Evidence of past history of C-14 concentration in the atmosphere is now available through the past 22,000 years, using ages of lake sediments in which organic carbon compounds are preserved. Reporting before a 1976 conference on past climates, Professor Minze Stuiver of the University of Washington found that magnetic ages of the lake sediments remained within 500 years of the radiocarbon ages throughout the entire period. He reported that the concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere during that long interval did not vary by more than 10 percent (Stuiver, 1976, p. 835).'

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Dating_cores

A layer is approx 1.7 cm. Do your own Math. Above wiki has some references on how dates are arrived.

I see no evidence in your link that indicates the average depth of ice layers in the EPICA cores is 1.7 cms, so this figure seems rather like your assertion that the deepest ice core drilled was less than 2 kilometres, that is totally spurious. This reference links to an article with images of ice cores set against a centimetre scale:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/

As you can see, many of those layers are considerably less than one centimetre in thickness, so your figure of 1.7 cms lacks any validity at all.

I already check them all. I think you should check them first. None of what you mentioned can verify RM dating because, then rely on RM dating for correction.

As they don't 'rely on RM dating for correction' either you haven't checked them at all or else you fail to understand the methodologies used:

'The raw radiocarbon dates, in BP years, are calibrated to give calendar dates. Standard calibration curves are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates of samples that can be dated independently by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits).'

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Calibration

You can't prove something with what you assumed. While varve sequencing predates RM dating, none at that time arrived any date more then 10000 years....

In the first place, Gerard De Geer counted varve sequences to 17000 years BP (source: 'Introduction to paleolimnology', C. C. Reeves, p.166). In the second place, this validates your assertion that '...there is not a single dating method that does not use RM dating to measure' how, exactly?

...nor any varve is found to be miles long.

And as I have never claimed any such thing, you are raising this strawman to what purpose?

 

[lordkalvan]

If genetic variation is evolution according to you, for the sake of this discussion, when I refer evolution, I refer only macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is adaptability and variations. If different terms exist for differentiating, then it is better to address them differently.

There is no meaningful distinction between microevolution and macroevolution except that you declare the one to be possible and the other to be impossible. Yet you are unable to offer us any evidence at all to support this view. You cannot tells us what the biological mechanism is that prevents micro becoming macro, nor can you explain how it functions, nor can you tell us how it can be identified. All you tell us is that it's impossible. Not very convincing, is it?

 

[lordkalvan]

...If you find a ruin, don't ask for an evidence of a standing building in the past. Low radio-isotopes found in specimens by itself is evidence that radiations were extremely less. Interpreting it falsely and assuming it to be only the left over, is what you deliberately want to do. That's not science.

What would be science is for you to provide some evidence that the claim that 'low radio-isotopes by itself is evidence that radiations were extremely less' has any basis in reality.

 

[lordkalvan]

No. Macroevolution has nothing to do with variation in genes. 95% of monkey genes matching human genes is in no proves that it is a man's ancestor. It simply shows it has the genes for producing the sample building blocks of life - as mentioned, a common design pattern only proves a common designer not one design evolving into another.

So, are all monkeys related to each other? What about the great apes - chimpanzees/bonobos, gorillas and orangutans?

 

[felix]

So, are all monkeys related to each other? What about the great apes - chimpanzees/bonobos, gorillas and orangutans?

Absolutely not! Why should I even suggest that? Each of them are different genus. They are in no way related to each other. Microevolution is within species level and what you have mentioned are genus and not even species.

 

[lordkalvan]

Absolutely not! Why should I even suggest that?

To salvage a flood/Ark legend that is already deeply problematic as history.

Each of them are different genus. They are in no way related to each other. Microevolution is within species level and what you have mentioned are genus and not even species.

And yet some monkey species can interbreed. How do you figure this in terms of your blanket denial of evolution?

 

[felix]

You fail to grasp the idea that I understand exactly what you're saying, but that what I am asking for repeatedly is some evidence to support your speculations, speculations that appear contrived on an ad hoc basis simply to preserve the illusion of a 'young' Earth that has no basis in objective reality. For example, if radioisotopes were absent from the geological record 'pre-flood', because there are so many different radioisotopes that decay at different rates, each of those radioisotopes would need to be be present in just the right proportions required that each different type returned the dating metric that we would expect to see if Earth was many orders of magnitude older than 6000 years. I have yet to see you put forward any such evidence or even an attempted explanation of how this might be so. Also, and again for example, the best evidence we have is that terrestrial uranium originated in a supernova explosion and was subsequently incorporated into the material from which the Solar System formed. So you need to provide an explanation of how this uranium came to be incorporated into terrestrial geology post-flood.

So that's no evidence then, we just have to take your unsubstantiated word for it? Can you tell us why we should find this persuasive?

You seem to think I don't understand the hopeful arithmetic underlying your speculation. I do. What I also understand is that you have no evidence to support either the speculation or the arithmetic. As I have pointed out to you before, we have evidence of atmospheric Carbon 14 concentrations that long predate your imaginary global flood some 4500 years ago and this evidence alone invalidates your argument. Let me provide the citation for you again:

'Evidence of past history of C-14 concentration in the atmosphere is now available through the past 22,000 years, using ages of lake sediments in which organic carbon compounds are preserved. Reporting before a 1976 conference on past climates, Professor Minze Stuiver of the University of Washington found that magnetic ages of the lake sediments remained within 500 years of the radiocarbon ages throughout the entire period. He reported that the concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere during that long interval did not vary by more than 10 percent (Stuiver, 1976, p. 835).'

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

I see no evidence in your link that indicates the average depth of ice layers in the EPICA cores is 1.7 cms, so this figure seems rather like your assertion that the deepest ice core drilled was less than 2 kilometres, that is totally spurious. This reference links to an article with images of ice cores set against a centimetre scale:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/

As you can see, many of those layers are considerably less than one centimetre in thickness, so your figure of 1.7 cms lacks any validity at all.

As they don't 'rely on RM dating for correction' either you haven't checked them at all or else you fail to understand the methodologies used:

'The raw radiocarbon dates, in BP years, are calibrated to give calendar dates. Standard calibration curves are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates of samples that can be dated independently by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits).'

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Calibration

In the first place, Gerard De Geer counted varve sequences to 17000 years BP (source: 'Introduction to paleolimnology', C. C. Reeves, p.166). In the second place, this validates your assertion that '...there is not a single dating method that does not use RM dating to measure' how, exactly?

And as I have never claimed any such thing, you are raising this strawman to what purpose?

Gerard De Geer did not count in any continuous and it is not 17000. With several gaps and break, he made a chronology and it is till 14000 bp.
Ref: http://eos.tufts.edu/varves/History/history1.asp

Also, as I already mentioned, 10% variation in C14 will explode the date to 4-5 times the value. Also, lake sediments cannot be dated independently to verify RM dating. Rather, they date it using RM and other isotopes it to calibrate C14 concentrations, which will anyway be false.

I did not say radioisotopes were absent but rather, extremely low as the light of the sun does gets through and so does limited cosmic rays.