What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionism and Evolution; some essential differences

Barbarian said:
I'm sure it was a surprise to learn that almost all mammals can echolocate. So bats and whales are merely more acute in their abilities. I realize that the creationist belief in "evolutionism" can't account for this. But observed evolution shows why that happens.

Merely insisting that it's not possible for a population to gain more acute senses is directly refuted by observed cases such acuity evolving. Would you like to learn about that?
Click to expand...

Once again I. have to laugh ...is that the best you got. The echo-location of a dolphin is bait ore sophisticated than you seem to be suggesting....then again you already knew that. So, Barbarian, try again with another response.
 
Cygnus said:
I know evolutionism is about dried-up when these are the examples given to support the theory.
Click to expand...
When certain people start citing studies, start doing some digging. They are usually from some site that carries as much water as a bucket with a big hole in it......from my experience.
 
civilwarbuff said:
When certain people start citing studies, start doing some digging. They are usually from some site that carries as much water as a bucket with a big hole in it......from my experience.
Click to expand...

They would have you believe that the peppered moth evolved.
But, do you remember when I said the Eve's would not show how mutations could add up? So far I've been correct.
 
Cygnus said:
They would have you believe that the peppered moth evolved.
Click to expand...

It did, but that is largely recombination, not mutation and natural selection. So while it is a change in alllele frequency in a population, it's not an example of a series of mutations leading to complex new traits such as we see in Tibetan and Peruvian populations.

But, do you remember when I said the Eve's would not show how mutations could add up?
Click to expand...

Yeah, you goofed on that one. Both Tibetans and Peruvians show exactly that.
 
civilwarbuff said:
When certain people start citing studies, start doing some digging. They are usually from some site that carries as much water as a bucket with a big hole in it......from my experience.
Click to expand...

Maybe a little more experience in science would help you with that. Knowing what you're talking about is always a big advantage.
 
Barbarian said:
Try this:
http://gizmodo.com/key-mutations-show-how-tibetans-thrive-at-high-elevatio-1794709789


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_adaptation_in_humans

As you see, it's what I just told you it is.
Click to expand...
As is usual, your "sources" that you quote are not even worth commenting on.........why is it you never use as a source a journal such as JAMA, ACA, or some other widely recognized and accepted medical/scientific journal? Instead, you use as a source some obscure non-entity of a "publication" that no one has ever heard of and the lightest of investigation will leave a person laughing? It is pathetic.....
 
Barbarian said:
It did, but that is largely recombination, not mutation and natural selection. So while it is a change in alllele frequency in a population, it's not an example of a series of mutations leading to complex new traits such as we see in Tibetan and Peruvian populations.



.
Click to expand...

Yes we know...it's not an example of how mutations can add up.
 
civilwarbuff said:
As is usual, your "sources" that you quote are not even worth commenting on.........
Click to expand...

The links to the actual research are there. If you wanted to read it, all you had to to was go there. Would you like me to do it for you?

why is it you never use as a source a journal such as JAMA, ACA,
Click to expand...

I've done links to Nature, Science, Genetics,etc.

Did you not read any of the cited links? Here's one of the links in the article, which you seem to have ignored:
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006675 Notice that it's a well-regarded, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

You also ignored this link at one of the sites to which I directed you:
Sequencing of 50 Human Exomes Reveals Adaptation to High Altitude
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5987/75

Science, as you may know, is the Journal of the American Academy of Sciences, and one of the most highly-regarded scientific journals in the world.

There are a lot more of those in the two sites to which I directed you. Apparently, you never read any of it.

Instead, you use as a source some obscure non-entity of a "publication" that no one has ever heard of
Click to expand...

If you think so, you know nothing at all of scientific journals.

It is pathetic.....
Click to expand...

It is. If you are unwilling to even click on the links I provided you, some of them to the most prestigious science journals on the planet, then there really isn't much I can do for you.
 
Cygnus said:
Yes we know...it's not an example of how mutations can add up.
Click to expand...

As you learned, Tibetans are not bacteria, and scientists have shown that they became adapted to high altitudes by a series of useful mutations.

So it's really pointless to deny the fact.
 
Barbarian observes:
Maybe a little more experience in science would help you with that. Knowing what you're talking about is always a big advantage.

civilwarbuff said:
See #89...........
Click to expand...

Yes, you seem to have refused to even click on the links provided. Either that, or possibly you didn't know enough about the subject to understand what the research results were about.

Which takes us back to my point. If you learned a little about the science involved, this would go a lot easier for you.
 
Silmarien said:
Eh, I actually would not consider Adam to be male from his beginning if Eve were not there too. Male and female are incoherent as concepts except in relation to each other, so... still not seeing it. I very much think that Adam would have been gender neutral by default in the beginning if their creation weren't simultaneous. (And actually, if you go back to the Hebrew, Adam isn't referred to with the explicitly gender specific word "male" until after the operation.)

I really don't think the quote in question implies separate beginnings, though. That would invalidate the whole point of the argument, since if the beginning weren't mutual, there's really no logical connection between the genders. A third one could pop up at any moment and throw everything into disarray.
Click to expand...
Hello calvin here.
I think I understand your reasoning, though I can not agree.
We don't know how 'old' Adam was when he was created, but we can reason that he was not a day old baby. We can further reason that he may well have not gone through puberty. My reasoning here is that as a young boy he would not be in conscious need of a compliment.
With puberty approaching and the production of hormones driving him batty he was soon going to be desperate.
God knew what was coming and provided a companion that was suitable in every respect for him.
Of course this is pure conjecture on my part......I wasn't there.
The gap between Adam and Eve could have been months or years..we don't know.
It would take quite a while to name all the birds and animals, reptiles insects.
A clue:
Gen 2:23 When confronted with Eve, Adam says either "This now..."Kjv or "This at last is..." Esv..thus ending a lengthy and frustrating search for a mate.
Now back to your original 'objection'
If Adam had no gender prior to the advent of Eve, and we are not told of any genital work being done on Adam when he had the rib taken. then he must reasonably have had all the hardware and plumbing required for masculinity prior to Eve being provided.
If he had not become a sexually frustrated man, why would the Lord say that it was not good for him to be alone? Of course he could not reproduce without a wife, and that was obviously the plan from the beginning Gen 1:28. but that is not of immediate concern here, he was in need of a suitable companion, he should not be alone.
I do not believe that the difference in time between Adam and Eve could possibly be considered as two separate creation events when talking of them as a couple. so to say 'from the beginning' is not in error. Also look closely at this: Mat 19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, Esv.
Now, I am going to help things along by adding a bit of punctuation that is missing from the Greek.
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them, from the beginning made them male and female,
That added punctuation is saying that they were created, and that from their beginning they were male and female,not at some indefinite time later.
 
calvin said:
The gap between Adam and Eve could have been months or years..we don't know.
Click to expand...

I believe the Bible tells us Eve was made on day 6

27So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Then skip a few verses and we read....
31God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
 
Cygnus said:
I believe the Bible tells us Eve was made on day 6

27So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Then skip a few verses and we read....
31God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Click to expand...
Hello calvin here
Yes, that is from chapter one which is not as detailed as chapter two.
Please read:
Please first read :Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.Esv Note the underline that I have added
then skip to;
Gen 2:19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. Esv.
Do you seriously think that Adam could name all the animals and birds in less than one whole 24 hour day? How many types of birds were there to be named? How many animal types were there for Adam to name?
I believe that common sense should show that there was, there had to be more time on the clock than a casual reading would show.
 
Last edited:
calvin said:
Yes, that is from chapter one which is not as detailed as chapter two.
Please read:
Gen 2:19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. Esv.
Do you seriously think that Adam could name all the animals and birds in less than one whole 24 hour day? How many types of birds were there to be named? How many animal types were there for Adam to name?
I believe that common sense should show that there was, there had to be more time on the clock than a casual reading would show.
Click to expand...
Did Adam have to name every species? Or id Adam say...that's a bird. That's a cat, that's a fish.
 
calvin said:
What does the text say? Specifically verse 19?
Click to expand...

The question is, when God created animals, did He create a variety os species....or did He create "kinds" from which the species came from? Sort of like Noah's Ark.....from those kinds came the species.

I think your basing your view upon species...where Adam had to name all of the species.
I don't think Adam said....black snake, there's a green snake and over there is a brown snake. Instead I think Adam said, I'll call them "snake".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top