[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[lordkalvan]

My view of the creation of heaven and earth is that, it was in the beginning. How old is a very interesting research. However, in my view, and for any christian, it shouldn't matter because, God created time and He is not bound by time. He can view the past, present and future all at the same time. So, a trillion years into past and a trillion years into future is same to God because, He is the only One who dwells in a place where time doesn't exist. So, God did not wait for infinite number for years and suddenly thought of creating humans. However, He did create heavens and earth in the past and Bible does not record what happened between the beginning and the first day. While, there are some theories, those are not strictly Biblical. Coming back to the question with what I mentioned as a background, honestly, I don't know, neither it should bother a Christian, but somewhere in the "beginning". Also, as the Bible says, for God, a day is like 1000 years (it is just an illustration for representing that He is not bound by time).

So you don't know how old Earth is, you have no evidence to support a conclusion either way and you don't care anyway? So why do you take so much issue with dating metrics and phenomena that show certain minimum ages for Earth?

 

[felix]

So you don't know how old Earth is, you have no evidence to support a conclusion either way and you don't care anyway? So why do you take so much issue with dating metrics and phenomena that show certain minimum ages for Earth?

It is not the age of Earth, but age of fossils and evolution (i.e., living organisms).

 

[lordkalvan]

It is not the age of Earth, but age of fossils and evolution (i.e., living organisms).

So is that a yes to my first question? The trouble with your dating issue with fossils is that they are inextricably linked with dating metrics that also date Earth. So far, you have done nothing to refute those dating metrics, nor have you offered a better account of the evidence that explains it as consistently, consiliently and adequately as does the 'standard' explanation. So I guess you're left with old fossils and evolution after all.

 

[felix]

So is that a yes to my first question? The trouble with your dating issue with fossils is that they are inextricably linked with dating metrics that also date Earth. So far, you have done nothing to refute those dating metrics, nor have you offered a better account of the evidence that explains it as consistently, consiliently and adequately as does the 'standard' explanation. So I guess you're left with old fossils and evolution after all.

No. The errors in RM dating which I mentioned earlier are valid. Varves or any other dating method apart for RM dating do not prove life is much older or evolution to be true.

 

[lordkalvan]

No. The errors in RM dating which I mentioned earlier are valid.

No, they are not. As I have repeatedly pointed out, you simply speculate and provide no evidence to support that speculation.

Varves or any other dating method apart for RM dating do not prove life is much older or evolution to be true.

Well, varves date to much, much older than 6000 years (Lakes Baikal and Suigetsu, the Green River Formation, for example) and contain evidence of life existing much, much longer ago than 6000 years.

 

[Arch Angle]

when one addresses a creation story we have to list the storieswe have and then cross check the evidence that supports them.

That really is backwards. What we should do is look at the evidence andthen draw a conclusion from that evidence.

So we look around and see what gives. Of all the creation conclusion,s what one or two, seems tofit observations the most? I don't look to see what ones are wrong, I lookaround to see what god is showing us.

 

[felix]

No, they are not. As I have repeatedly pointed out, you simply speculate and provide no evidence to support that speculation.

I am simply pointing out that there is no evidence for the assumption made in RM dating. After all, assumption is not evidence.

Well, varves date to much, much older than 6000 years (Lakes Baikal and Suigetsu, the Green River Formation, for example) and contain evidence of life existing much, much longer ago than 6000 years.

No, not really. having any organic mater is not evidence of life itself. I would say, the same way other planets are... is the situation before 6000 years.

 

[Arch Angle]

Is Uniformatarism a valid approach?

That being, that things operate the way we think they do?

Like depositions rates?

index fossils?

DNA, containing the code to solve external input changes from the environment?

Plate tectonics?

Have these things operated differently in the past? And if so, why? Why/how would they be different?

 

[lordkalvan]

I am simply pointing out that there is no evidence for the assumption made in RM dating.

First of all, there is: namely, the observed behaviour of radioisotopes.

After all, assumption is not evidence.

Secondly, you have done nothing to show that the assumptions that underlie RM dating methodologies are flawed in any way.

No, not really. having any organic mater is not evidence of life itself.

I didn't say 'organic matter', I said 'evidence of life'. This includes

I am simply pointing out that there is no evidence for the assumption made in RM dating.

First of all, there is: namely, the observed behaviour of radioisotopes.

After all, assumption is not evidence.

Secondly, you have done nothing to show that the assumptions that underlie RM dating methodologies are flawed in any way.

No, not really. having any organic mater is not evidence of life itself.

I didn't say 'organic matter' I said 'evidence if life'. This includes pollen, other plant material, diatoms and cladocerans (water fleas, etc).

I would say, the same way other planets are... is the situation before 6000 years.

Well, that would quite simply be wrong.

 

[lordkalvan]

Is Uniformatarism a valid approach?

That being, that things operate the way we think they do?

Like depositions rates?

index fossils?

DNA, containing the code to solve external input changes from the environment?

Plate tectonics?

Have these things operated differently in the past? And if so, why? Why/how would they be different?

Strict uniformitarianism no longer applies, if it ever I'd. Geologists, for example, ave long recognised that gradual processes are also interrupted by (usually localised) short-term events (volcanic eruptions, rupture of ice dams, impact events, etc). Where such phenomena have led to interruptions of gradual processes, they tend to leave evidence behind (the Yellowstone Caldera, the Washington Scablands, the Chicxulub Impact, etc) which allows us to draw conclusions about their effects.

 

[Arch Angle]

you bringup two interesting points.

1) "Strict". When we start labeling things as"strict" that implies literalism to me. Like "no speeding", strictly speaking, not even a "police car" can speed then.

2) Uniformatarismdoes apply. Never did/does uniformatarnism imply "slow gradual" change all the time. punctuated equilibrium is the term used to describe what you just said. uniformatarnism only implies that the processes we see today have been going on for a long time.

So, Is it reasonable to assume that the process that we see around us are the same, or similar, to the process that happened before?
or is itmore reasonable to assume the things we see today did not operate in the same manor they did before?

 

[felix]

First of all, there is: namely, the observed behaviour of radioisotopes.

Secondly, you have done nothing to show that the assumptions that underlie RM dating methodologies are flawed in any way.

I didn't say 'organic matter', I said 'evidence of life'. This includes
First of all, there is: namely, the observed behaviour of radioisotopes.

Secondly, you have done nothing to show that the assumptions that underlie RM dating methodologies are flawed in any way.

I didn't say 'organic matter' I said 'evidence if life'. This includes pollen, other plant material, diatoms and cladocerans (water fleas, etc).

Well, that would quite simply be wrong.

If observed behavior is taken as an assumption, well, then how ironic, when you haven't observed any species evolved into another, and yet you want to believe?

Which is why, Bible rightly said:

Rom 1:20-21 For since the creation of the world His invisible [attributes] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

You simply want to believe what you want to believe.

 

[Free]

2.4: No Trolling:

You will not post anything that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum. Don't make inflammatory remarks just to get a response. This will also include posts that put down Christianity in general or any posts considered as blasphemy by staff (this is a CHRISTIAN FORUMS site).

Included is the multiple submission of posts and topics. Please do not flood the site with one copy/paste post after another.

2.5: Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

 

[lordkalvan]

you bringup two interesting points.

1) "Strict". When we start labeling things as"strict" that implies literalism to me. Like "no speeding", strictly speaking, not even a "police car" can speed then.

By 'strict' I was referring to the idea in some quarters that uniformitarianism precludes periodic catastrophic events. I think there may be some confusion in our relative positions here because I presumed - mistakenly I now believe - that you were referring to geological uniformitarianism. For which confusion, my apologies.

2) Uniformatarismdoes apply. Never did/does uniformatarnism imply "slow gradual" change all the time. punctuated equilibrium is the term used to describe what you just said. uniformatarnism only implies that the processes we see today have been going on for a long time.

I don't believe punk-eek actually violates that view of gradual biological processes going on over a long time.

So, Is it reasonable to assume that the process that we see around us are the same, or similar, to the process that happened before?

That would certainly seem to be the case. For example, palaeomagnetic data supports the hypothesis of plate tectonics and the gradual spreading of the sea floor over tens of millions of years.

or is itmore reasonable to assume the things we see today did not operate in the same manor they did before?

That would be 'more reasonable' if evidence could be provided to that effect.

 

[lordkalvan]

If observed behavior is taken as an assumption, well, then how ironic, when you haven't observed any species evolved into another, and yet you want to believe?

Which is why, Bible rightly said:

Rom 1:20-21 For since the creation of the world His invisible [attributes] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

You simply want to believe what you want to believe.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this comment relates at all to the post you are responding to.

That aside, the fossil record, molecular genetics, biogeography, developmental embryology, morphology, atavisms, vestigial features, ring species and actual observed speciation events all provide evidence that evolution actually happens and that new species evolve from ancestral forms.

 

[Arch Angle]

lord what can I say.

punk-eek is part of Uniformitarian myman. Like "Moby dick" and"Brewster's Millions" are part of things called "stories".

punk ee does not preclude "large scale events". These large scale events are part of uniformitarian. They are energy transfers through a system.

you are right in your last sentence. Based on the evidence. Is it morereasonable to assume that things operate today in a similar fashion as they did10,000,000 years ago? or is it more reasonable to assume that they did not?

Just based on evidence that is?

 

[lordkalvan]

lord what can I say.

punk-eek is part of Uniformitarian myman. Like "Moby dick" and"Brewster's Millions" are part of things called "stories".

punk ee does not preclude "large scale events". These large scale events are part of uniformitarian. They are energy transfers through a system.

you are right in your last sentence. Based on the evidence. Is it morereasonable to assume that things operate today in a similar fashion as they did10,000,000 years ago? or is it more reasonable to assume that they did not?

Just based on evidence that is?

The example I gave palaeomagnetic data and seafloor spreading/plate tectonics indicates it is reasonable to assume uniformitarianism, i.e. past physical processes were pretty much the same as current physical processes. I have not seen evidence that suggests the contrary view is more sustainable.

 

[Arch Angle]

agreed.

Now we need to convince people that theology should followobservations. Not, "squeezing",observation to match a theology. There is noevidence to suggest that god did not use evolution to create man.

 

[lordkalvan]

agreed.

Now we need to convince people that theology should followobservations. Not, "squeezing",observation to match a theology. There is noevidence to suggest that god did not use evolution to create man.

Good luck with that one. There's a great deal of resistance round here to such an idea.

 

[felix]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this comment relates at all to the post you are responding to.

That aside, the fossil record, molecular genetics, biogeography, developmental embryology, morphology, atavisms, vestigial features, ring species and actual observed speciation events all provide evidence that evolution actually happens and that new species evolve from ancestral forms.

No. Nothing actually says that I am evolved, nor any of what you mentioned actually proves evolution. Evolution is actually "assumed" based these features. Since God is not assumed nor included in science these days, the natural fall back and the only assumption left is evolution.

If observation is all what you are after, try this:
Matt 5:8 Blessed [are] the pure in heart, For they shall see God.

Have you ever tried Matt 5:8 ?