[_ Old Earth _] The Cambrian Explosion: Evidence Against Evolution?

[lordkalvan]

What type of evidence do you have to support the notion that life on earth evolved?

Well, for my part the type of evidence that I would put forward to begin with would include:

• The fossil record, which shows evidence of change in earlier, ancestral species.
• The molecular biological similarities in related species.
• The morphological similarities in related species.
• The geographic distribution of related species.
• The observed genetic variations in organisms over several generations.

 

[kenan]

That's because it can't. Evolution just "assumes" it just happened.

You're missing the point, evolution accounts for the the changes in the characteristics of species over time, there's no explanation as to why the species were there in the first place. From a scientific point of view, that's a completely different field called abiogenesis. From a religious point of view, that's where the Creator steps in.

Where did the "something" come from?

You tell me. Unless you can think of a better explanation, there was either nothing before everything (and since nothing can come from nothing, that's basically a stupid belief to hold), or there was something before everything. What was this something? Obviously it had to be separate from everything (i.e. uncreated, primeval) otherwise everything could not have come from it. The label we give to this something is God.

What type of evidence do you have to support the notion that life on earth evolved?

Because there are species that exist today that weren't existent millions of years ago, and there were species that existed millions of years ago that aren't existent today. Some species today have characteristics similar to the species that existed millions of years ago. Obvious deduction from these two piece of information: the species millions of years ago changed their characteristics to the ones seen in the similar species today.

edit: and everything lordkalvan said

 

[RND]

You're missing the point, evolution accounts for the the changes in the characteristics of species over time, there's no explanation as to why the species were there in the first place. From a scientific point of view, that's a completely different field called abiogenesis. From a religious point of view, that's where the Creator steps in.

I'm not missing anything. What you are describing is "phenotype" and I'm not disputing "phenotype". This explains why a Chihuahua and a Great Dane are still dogs. I'm referring to "genotype" which evolution can't and won't touch.

You tell me. Unless you can think of a better explanation, there was either nothing before everything (and since nothing can come from nothing, that's basically a stupid belief to hold), or there was something before everything. What was this something? Obviously it had to be separate from everything (i.e. uncreated, primeval) otherwise everything could not have come from it. The label we give to this something is God.

God made it.

What type of evidence do you have to support the notion that life on earth evolved?

Because there are species that exist today that weren't existent millions of years ago,

Were you around millions of years ago allowing you the freedom of witness?

and there were species that existed millions of years ago that aren't existent today.

Such as?

Some species today have characteristics similar to the species that existed millions of years ago.

I have similar characteristics to a Zebra but we aren't the same.

Obvious deduction from these two piece of information: the species millions of years ago changed their characteristics to the ones seen in the similar species today.

How did species millions of years ago "change their characteristics"? Does a species wake up one morning and say I want to grow a bigger nose and whammo, a bigger nose?

edit: and everything lordkalvan said

I'll get to that.

 

[RND]

Regardless of whether or not your statement is correct, it remains the fact that it has been pointed out to you several times that evolutionary theory is not directly concerned with the origin of life, but only with how that life develops.

I understand. Evolution doesn't care about the first pitch in the top of the first. It is only concerned with talking about how the final score came about.

There are a number of scientific hypotheses that explore ideas for how life may have begun, so even though 'evolution' is not concerned with these origins, science most certainly is.

And none, count them none, have come up with any answer other than "it just happened."

A question that is not immediately relevant as to whether or not evolutionary theory is evidentially supported.

Sure it is. It's extremely relevant. This is the one point that the evolutionist consistently hides behind. It's as if they want to say, "Evolution is true and it doesn't matter how it started." Well, it does matter how it started.

 

[RND]

What type of evidence do you have to support the notion that life on earth evolved?

Well, for my part the type of evidence that I would put forward to begin with would include:

• The fossil record, which shows evidence of change in earlier, ancestral species.

The fact is that fossilization can occur in a short period of time, not millions of years.

• The molecular biological similarities in related species.

Practically all living things on earth share similar aspects of molecular biology.

• The morphological similarities in related species.

There's no such thing. There is -zero- proof or evidence that any species morphed into another.

• The geographic distribution of related species.

Could also be said that this includes a common creator and distribution of life.

• The observed genetic variations in organisms over several generations.

Which speaks more to adaptation than evolution.

 

[kenan]

You're missing the point, evolution accounts for the the changes in the characteristics of species over time, there's no explanation as to why the species were there in the first place. From a scientific point of view, that's a completely different field called abiogenesis. From a religious point of view, that's where the Creator steps in.

I'm not missing anything. What you are describing is "phenotype" and I'm not disputing "phenotype". This explains why a Chihuahua and a Great Dane are still dogs. I'm referring to "genotype" which evolution can't and won't touch.

You realise that dogs are descended from wolves don't you?

[quote:yupchncb]You tell me. Unless you can think of a better explanation, there was either nothing before everything (and since nothing can come from nothing, that's basically a stupid belief to hold), or there was something before everything. What was this something? Obviously it had to be separate from everything (i.e. uncreated, primeval) otherwise everything could not have come from it. The label we give to this something is God.

God made it.[/quote:yupchncb]
Then what are we arguing about - that something I was talking about was obviously God, it's just that we as Christians place our God in that position as Hindus place Brahma in that position, or Muslims place Allah in that position. I was leaving it as ambiguous as possible because all different religions have differing ideas on their creator God (or gods)

[quote:yupchncb]

What type of evidence do you have to support the notion that life on earth evolved?

Because there are species that exist today that weren't existent millions of years ago,

Were you around millions of years ago allowing you the freedom of witness?[/quote:yupchncb]
Fossil record.

[quote:yupchncb] and there were species that existed millions of years ago that aren't existent today.

Such as?[/quote:yupchncb]
Dinosaurs.

[quote:yupchncb] Some species today have characteristics similar to the species that existed millions of years ago.

I have similar characteristics to a Zebra but we aren't the same.[/quote:yupchncb]
You both have hair, you're mammals, you both descended from a common ancestor.

Your pentadactyl hand is the same as that of many creatures today, but these creatures aren't the same. Why? - because you all descended from a common ancestor that had a pentadactyl limb.

[quote:yupchncb]Obvious deduction from these two piece of information: the species millions of years ago changed their characteristics to the ones seen in the similar species today.

How did species millions of years ago "change their characteristics"? Does a species wake up one morning and say I want to grow a bigger nose and whammo, a bigger nose?[/quote:yupchncb]
I'll go of on a limb here and say that you don't understand evolution to the extent necessary for argument here - animals don't make the conscious choice to change, they are born with slightly different characteristics (lets face it, no one is the same) and the characteristics which are favourable (e.g. longer necks to reach the leaves in tall trees) are passed down as these organism reproduce, while the characteristics which are unfavourable (e.g. not having a long neck if your food is found in tree tops) are lost because the organisms that have them die out.

I'd seriously suggest you read The Origin of Species by Darwin, or at least find a substitute which gives you the jist of it - although I never read it, my biology unit in science was based around it.

Sure it is. It's extremely relevant. This is the one point that the evolutionist consistently hides behind. It's as if they want to say, "Evolution is true and it doesn't matter how it started." Well, it does matter how it started.

They're not trying to explain how it started, they're trying to explain why there is such an abundance of different species and why the fossils we have uncovered from millions of years ago differ so significantly from those existent today.

 

[RND]

You realise that dogs are descended from wolves don't you?

I do. Wolves are not a diferent species from dogs though, are they?

Then what are we arguing about - that something I was talking about was obviously God, it's just that we as Christians place our God in that position as Hindus place Brahma in that position, or Muslims place Allah in that position. I was leaving it as ambiguous as possible because all different religions have differing ideas on their creator God (or gods)

Do those other gods create or have creation accounts like the Torah? No, they don't.

Fossil record.

:biglaugh Bones that someone said were millions of years old that have been shown that they can be fossilized rather quickly?

Dinosaurs.

There is evidence that these animals lived relatively recently not millions of years ago.

You both have hair, you're mammals, you both descended from a common ancestor.

Or that can seen as evidence of a common creator.

Your pentadactyl hand is the same as that of many creatures today, but these creatures aren't the same. Why? - because you all descended from a common ancestor that had a pentadactyl limb.

With opposing thumbs? No.

I'll go of on a limb here and say that you don't understand evolution to the extent necessary for argument here - animals don't make the conscious choice to change, they are born with slightly different characteristics (lets face it, no one is the same) and the characteristics which are favourable (e.g. longer necks to reach the leaves in tall trees) are passed down as these organism reproduce, while the characteristics which are unfavourable (e.g. not having a long neck if your food is found in tree tops) are lost because the organisms that have them die out.

If that's the case why wouldn't the long necks simply choose to eat things closer to the ground?

I'd seriously suggest you read The Origin of Species by Darwin,

Why? It's known garbage.

or at least find a substitute which gives you the jist of it - although I never read it, my biology unit in science was based around it.

So why are you suggesting I read a book you've never read? That seems idiotic in a way.

They're not trying to explain how it started,

I know, that's what I said.

they're trying to explain why there is such an abundance of different species and why the fossils we have uncovered from millions of years ago differ so significantly from those existent today.

Speculation.

 

[kenan]

You realise that dogs are descended from wolves don't you?

I do. Wolves are not a diferent species from dogs though, are they?

Realise that the term "species" is a man-made term to describe creatures with characteristics so similar that they are grouped together for the convenience of mankind. Wolves have characteristics similar to dogs, but are not the same - they are a different species just as humans are a different species to chimps.

[quote:1vgwvzi1]Then what are we arguing about - that something I was talking about was obviously God, it's just that we as Christians place our God in that position as Hindus place Brahma in that position, or Muslims place Allah in that position. I was leaving it as ambiguous as possible because all different religions have differing ideas on their creator God (or gods)

Do those other gods create or have creation accounts like the Torah? No, they don't.[/quote:1vgwvzi1]
Oh lordy you'd love to meet my friend, his hobby is tearing this argument to shreds. I'll see if I can get a counter argument to this from him, but essentially, the creation account in Genesis is actually very, very similar to not only the religions of the ancient Levant, but of the animist religions of early humankind in Africa.

[quote:1vgwvzi1]Fossil record.

:biglaugh Bones that someone said were millions of years old that have been shown that they can be fossilized rather quickly?[/quote:1vgwvzi1]
:gah anything to back that statement up? Also, just because bones can be fossilised quickly doesn't mean they were, the typical fossilisation process takes a very long time.

[quote:1vgwvzi1]Dinosaurs.

There is evidence that these animals lived relatively recently not millions of years ago.[/quote:1vgwvzi1]
Is that right...

[quote:1vgwvzi1]You both have hair, you're mammals, you both descended from a common ancestor.

Or that can seen as evidence of a common creator.[/quote:1vgwvzi1]
Or that can be seen as evidence of a common ancestor. The evidence of ancient and relatively primitive life existing millions of years ago stacks up against your claim.

quote]Your pentadactyl hand is the same as that of many creatures today, but these creatures aren't the same. Why? - because you all descended from a common ancestor that had a pentadactyl limb.

With opposing thumbs? No.[/quote]
...you do know that the opposable thumb is a characteristic shared by many primates? Common ancestor.

I'll go of on a limb here and say that you don't understand evolution to the extent necessary for argument here - animals don't make the conscious choice to change, they are born with slightly different characteristics (lets face it, no one is the same) and the characteristics which are favourable (e.g. longer necks to reach the leaves in tall trees) are passed down as these organism reproduce, while the characteristics which are unfavourable (e.g. not having a long neck if your food is found in tree tops) are lost because the organisms that have them die out.

If that's the case why wouldn't the long necks simply choose to eat things closer to the ground?

[quote:1vgwvzi1]I'd seriously suggest you read The Origin of Species by Darwin,

Why? It's known garbage.[/quote:1vgwvzi1]
It's observed fact.

[quote:1vgwvzi1] or at least find a substitute which gives you the jist of it - although I never read it, my biology unit in science was based around it.

So why are you suggesting I read a book you've never read? That seems idiotic in a way.[/quote:1vgwvzi1]
I know the jist, no need to get pissy. That's why I said that you could get a substitute for it, because the book in and of it self is a hell of a long read, and there are simpler, abridged explanations of it which aren't nearly as long floating around the place.

[quote:1vgwvzi1]They're not trying to explain how it started,

I know, that's what I said.[/quote:1vgwvzi1]
Then what's the problem? We have the answer for how it started, evolution gives us the process by which things have become the way they are today.

[quote:1vgwvzi1]they're trying to explain why there is such an abundance of different species and why the fossils we have uncovered from millions of years ago differ so significantly from those existent today.

Speculation.[/quote:1vgwvzi1]
How is it speculation?

 

[RND]

double post

 

[RND]

Realise that the term "species" is a man-made term to describe creatures with characteristics so similar that they are grouped together for the convenience of mankind. Wolves have characteristics similar to dogs, but are not the same - they are a different species just as humans are a different species to chimps.

:biglaugh Wolves and dogs are all canines. Genis: Canis

Oh lordy you'd love to meet my friend, his hobby is tearing this argument to shreds. I'll see if I can get a counter argument to this from him, but essentially, the creation account in Genesis is actually very, very similar to not only the religions of the ancient Levant, but of the animist religions of early humankind in Africa.

Great, good news, God told more than one group!

:gah anything to back that statement up? Also, just because bones can be fossilised quickly doesn't mean they were, the typical fossilisation process takes a very long time.

Go to Google. Type in Coalified wood. And saying "just because bones can be fossilised quickly doesn't mean they were" is kinda childish don't ya think?

Is that right...

Yes.

Or that can be seen as evidence of a common ancestor. The evidence of ancient and relatively primitive life existing millions of years ago stacks up against your claim.

How, because you say so? :biglaugh The fact of the matter is that practically all life forms on earth share similar features. The fact that a monkey has eyes just like a donkey shows consistency in creation not evolution.

...you do know that the opposable thumb is a characteristic shared by many primates? Common ancestor.

Your chart seemed to try and equate a cows "arm" with other animals yet cows don't have thumbs. BTW, monkeys have oppositional thumb on their feet, but man doesn't. How come?

It's observed fact.

There is presently on earth narly one species of creature involved in transition between one species and another. None.

I know the jist, no need to get pissy. That's why I said that you could get a substitute for it, because the book in and of it self is a hell of a long read, and there are simpler, abridged explanations of it which aren't nearly as long floating around the place.

I'm not getting pissy. I just think it takes some nerve to recommend a book you yourself have never read.

Then what's the problem? We have the answer for how it started,

Nope. Evolution doesn't explain origin.

evolution gives us the process by which things have become the way they are today.

Without telling us how things started.

How is it speculation?

Because there is no proof the bones are millions of years old.

 

[kenan]

First off, give this a read:

I think it was Galileo that once said something along the lines of 'If God gave me brains, surely he meant for me to use them?'

The simple fact is, YEC has only one thing backing it up, the 'literal' reading of Genesis, which obviously goes against 'all' the evidence from several differant fields of study, but interestingly, YECers don't actualy read a 'literal' translation of Genesis.

Young's Literal Translation has Genesis beginning;

"1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth —
2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,"

So you see, it doesn't actualy mention God 'creating' the earth or anything else, just that as God was 'preparing' the heavens and the earth, (which implies that this whole story is taking place after any creation may have taken place and it could even be said to be a possibility that God didn't actualy have a hand in the creation of matter. It certainly doesn't mention God 'creating' matter anywhere) the earth existed as waste and void, which can mean a number of things, from a vacume to a desert.
It goes on to say;

"3 and God saith, 'Let light be;' and light is.
4 And God seeth the light that good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness,
5 and God calleth to the light 'Day,' and to the darkness He hath called 'Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning — day one.
6 And God saith, 'Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.'

Interesting, where did the waters come from? It apparently already exists.

7 And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which under the expanse, and the waters which above the expanse: and it is so.
8 And God calleth to the expanse 'Heavens;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning — day second.
9 And God saith, 'Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen:' and it is so.
10 And God calleth to the dry land `Earth,' and to the collection of the waters He hath called 'Seas;' and God seeth that good.
11 And God saith, 'Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:' and it is so.
12 And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that good;
13 and there is an evening, and there is a morning — day third"

Again, no mention of actual 'creation' of life, just that God said 'let it happen'. It could be argued that the earth and the life contained within it already existed and that God simply 'organised' it.
Or even that God stood there saying 'let it happen' in the same way as I can face the dawn and say 'let it happen', knowing all the while that it was going to happen anyway.
This could all even be considered as refering to some form of terraforming, using already existing plants. It certainly doesn't mention him 'creating' grass, herbs and trees, just that he 'Let the earth yield' them, that could simply mean he planted them or sowed seeds.
It's interesting that this part of Genesis, (1) is followed by Genesis 2, the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, it may actualy be referring to the building of the Garden of Eden rather than the entire earth. After all, the story of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve and Cain and Able is full of clues that all point to it being about the development of agriculture. Genesis 1 may just be referring to the very beginning of agriculture, with people learning about irrigation ('Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen') and growing crops like wheat, (grasses) herbs and fruit trees. Notice it doesn't mention any inedible plants anywhere.

But what is really interesting is when we compare that to tribal creation myths.
In the African 'Bakuba' account, the Earth was originally nothing but water and darkness, ruled by the giant Mbombo.
The 'Yoruba' creator is called Olorun or Olodumare and is often assisted by the spirit, or "lesser god", Obatala. In the beginning of their creation myth, there was only water and chaos. The supreme being sent Obatala or Orishanla down from the sky to create some land out of the chaos.
In the Mongol tradition, which varies slightly depending on which group of Mongols you ask, the primordial world is usually described as being covered in darkness with no separation between earth and sky.
In the traditional creation narrative of the Orok people of Sakhalin, the earth was completely liquid. In Japanese Shinto, The god Izanagi and goddess Izanami churned the ocean with a spear to make a small island of curdled salt.
Even the Cherokee in North America say that in the beginning, there was just water. The Incan tradition in South America states that in the most ancient of times the earth was covered in darkness. Then, out of a lake called Collasuyu (modern Titicaca), the god Con Tiqui Viracocha emerged, bringing some human beings with him. Water again.

So when we read Genesis in it's literal translation, it actualy conforms quite well with an ancient polytheistic creation myth found all over the world.

 

[kenan]

Great, good news, God told more than one group!

There are significant similarities and significant differences, what's the explanation for that?

[quote:3to1tp3u] :gah anything to back that statement up? Also, just because bones can be fossilised quickly doesn't mean they were, the typical fossilisation process takes a very long time.

Go to Google. Type in Coalified wood. And saying "just because bones can be fossilised quickly doesn't mean they were" is kinda childish don't ya think?[/quote:3to1tp3u]
Well to use the logic "Bones can be fossilised quickly, therefore all bones were fossilised quickly" is moreso.

Yes.

What evidence might this be?

Your chart seemed to try and equate a cows "arm" with other animals yet cows don't have thumbs.

They have a pentadactyl limb.

BTW, monkeys have oppositional thumb on their feet, but man doesn't. How come?

Because men don't need opposable thumbs on their feet, ergo evolution.

There is presently on earth narly one species of creature involved in transition between one species and another. None.

I'm not getting pissy. I just think it takes some nerve to recommend a book you yourself have never read.

That's why I said don't spend effort on reading the entire thing if you don't want to, get an abridged version.

Nope. Evolution doesn't explain origin.

Yeah but the Bible does.

Without telling us how things started.

We may be on two very different wavelengths here, so I'll just point out that I'm a creationist who believes in evolution - God created the universe in a metaphorical 6 days (resting on the 7th), and the process by which life has changed on earth over eons is called evolution.

Because there is no proof the bones are millions of years old.

Radio isotope dating. To say that the fossils around the rocks (which are in fact millions of years old) aren't as old as the rocks is completely unreasonable and is based on a confirmation bias.

 

[RND]

There are significant similarities and significant differences, what's the explanation for that?

Can't say - never heard the other stories so I can't compare.

Well to use the logic "Bones can be fossilised quickly, therefore all bones were fossilised quickly" is moreso.

Not if we have a starting point as to when bones began to fossilize.

What evidence might this be?

The fact that researchers recovered protein from inside a massive T. Rex leg bone, allegedly buried for 68 million years. They sequenced seven fragments that identify it as collagen, the most abundant protein in bone.

They have a pentadactyl limb.

And no thumb.

Because men don't need opposable thumbs on their feet, ergo evolution.

Design differences.

They are still horses.

That's why I said don't spend effort on reading the entire thing if you don't want to, get an abridged version.

Seems disingenuous.

Yeah but the Bible does.

Yes, to a great extent the Bible does indeed declare the origin of how things were made.

We may be on two very different wavelengths here, so I'll just point out that I'm a creationist who believes in evolution - God created the universe in a metaphorical 6 days (resting on the 7th), and the process by which life has changed on earth over eons is called evolution.

Well, you aren't a creationist then. You're an evolutionist. The Bible says nothing about the days of creation being metaphors.

Radio isotope dating.

Is proven to be unreliable and highly subjective. For it to work a guesstimate as to the age of something must be stated.

To say that the fossils around the rocks (which are in fact millions of years old) aren't as old as the rocks is completely unreasonable and is based on a confirmation bias.

See the work of Dr. Robert Gentry.

 

[lordkalvan]

Regardless of whether or not your statement is correct, it remains the fact that it has been pointed out to you several times that evolutionary theory is not directly concerned with the origin of life, but only with how that life develops.

I understand. Evolution doesn't care about the first pitch in the top of the first. It is only concerned with talking about how the final score came about.

Then why do you keep repeating the canard that because evolutionary theory is not concerned with origins this in some way wholly invalidates the substantial amounts of evidential material that support the theory?

[quote:1v96twgu]There are a number of scientific hypotheses that explore ideas for how life may have begun, so even though 'evolution' is not concerned with these origins, science most certainly is.

And none, count them none, have come up with any answer other than "it just happened."[/quote:1v96twgu]
You do not seem to understand the idea of constructing hypotheses and then testing them to determine whether or not they explain the observed evidence. Such hypotheses constructed to explore the origins of life do not assume that 'it just happened'.

[quote:1v96twgu]A question that is not immediately relevant as to whether or not evolutionary theory is evidentially supported.

Sure it is. It's extremely relevant. This is the one point that the evolutionist consistently hides behind. It's as if they want to say, "Evolution is true and it doesn't matter how it started." Well, it does matter how it started.[/quote:1v96twgu]
It is clear that you want to ignore the evidence that supports evolutionary theory by diverting the discussion into the question of origins, but this does not become relevant to the validity of evolutionary theory just because you keep saying it is. I have already conceded for the sake of this discussion that it is entirely possible that life had a divine origin. If you can explain why this immediately invalidates the argument that evolutionary theory is evidentially supported, I would be glad to consider your explanation.

 

[kenan]

Can't say - never heard the other stories so I can't compare.

Please see the post that I quoted from a member of another forum.

Not if we have a starting point as to when bones began to fossilize.

What does that even mean?

And no thumb.

What's your point? Proto-humans developed a thumb when it became favourable for them to do so (i.e. using tools, etc.).

Design differences.

Opposable thumbs on the feet would certainly be handy, as would many things - humans, as well as many animals, are very inefficient creatures. What is this, unintelligent design?

They are still horses.

You understand that what that diagramme shows is evolution in its simplest form?

Seems disingenuous.

On the contrary, an abridged version would condense a simply theory which is complicated in its explanation into an understandable and usable volume.

Yes, to a great extent the Bible does indeed declare the origin of how things were made.

Not really, it just says "Yeah, God did this and that" - the mechanics by which God did these things is not shown. God is infinite and omnipotent, but he was working in a finite and limited world, the explanation that God simply said "Be" and it was is logically impossible. God can do anything within the constraints of logic.

Well, you aren't a creationist then. You're an evolutionist. The Bible says nothing about the days of creation being metaphors.

Evolutionist? It isn't a belief, it's a scientific fact, there's only one right belief concerning it. inb4 "yeah, and that is it's wrong", just no.

2 Peter 3:8 - "Beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Time is arbitrary for our Lord - he is beyond the constraints of the universe (which include time and space) because he created the universe, and if he were constrained by it then he could not possibly have created it. The word clearly states that the Lord is incorporeal, why do you have such a hard time believing that his sense of time (if he has one at all) is completely different to that of humankind, and indeed all of creation?

Is proven to be unreliable and highly subjective. For it to work a guesstimate as to the age of something must be stated.

Unreliable, possibly - we're not going to get it down to the date, but it works pretty darn well at giving a rough estimate. When working with such large geological time scales, using exact dates is an exercise in futility - what's the point when we're talking about processes which occurred over large periods of time?

Subjective? Hardly. It's measured by comparing the known rates at which naturally occurring radioactive materials break down into other materials with the observed abundance of the material at any given place - how is that subjective?

TSee the work of Dr. Robert Gentry.

So you're going to put the work of one man (who is working with a confirmation bias) against the work of hundreds of acclaimed scientists who have verified the age of the earth being greater than a mere 6000 years?

 

[lordkalvan]

Well, for my part the type of evidence that I would put forward to begin with would include:

• The fossil record, which shows evidence of change in earlier, ancestral species.

The fact is that fossilization can occur in a short period of time, not millions of years.

What do you mean by 'a short period of time' and what citations and references support this claim, please? Even if it can be shown that some fossilization can take place rapidly, this does not mean that all fossilization takes place rapidly.

[quote:21jv6g8h]• The molecular biological similarities in related species.

Practically all living things on earth share similar aspects of molecular biology.[/quote:21jv6g8h]
Which indicates an evolutionary relationship amongst them, in the same way that the molecular biological similarities between us and our parents allows the determination of whether or not our fathers are really our biological fathers or not.

[quote:21jv6g8h]• The morphological similarities in related species.

There's no such thing. There is -zero- proof or evidence that any species morphed into another.[/quote:21jv6g8h]
I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of the term 'morphological' here. Morphology is the study of the form, structure and configuration of an organism. Similarities in these aspects of different organisms are indicative of evolutionary relationships amongst them. If you construct a nested hierarchy of species based on morphological similarities, the match with one based on molecular biological similarities is persuasive evidence of the soundness of evolutionary theory.

[quote:21jv6g8h]• The geographic distribution of related species.

Could also be said that this includes a common creator and distribution of life.[/quote:21jv6g8h]
Well, it could be said that this is so, but the fact remains that this geographic distribution of species is further evidence of evolution and no evidence at all for the actions of a common creator. Why would a creator create species on remote islands whose nearest relatives are on the nearest large land-masses?

[quote:21jv6g8h]• The observed genetic variations in organisms over several generations.

Which speaks more to adaptation than evolution.[/quote:21jv6g8h]
So please explain to me how 'adaptation' in this context is different from evolution.

 

[kenan]

This may also interest you to:

We can trace the location and a rough date for the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, it was in Iraq, known historicaly as Mesopotamia, (because the Bible says that the Garden was watered by the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers) and couldn't have happend before 8000 years ago because that particular water system didn't exist before then as it was formed at the end of the last glaciation (ice age)
That places it slap in the middle of the Neolithic Revolution (onset of agriculture) in the same place that the earliest archeological examples of agriculture are found, so we can surmise from this that the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden were actualy about events during the Neolithic Revolution.
So, the story of Adam and Eve appears to be about the development of agriculture and the transition from nomadic hunter/gatherers to perminantly settled agriculturalists. The development of growing fruit in orchards was probably what finaly caused man to settle in one place, other crops like wheat can be grown in a single season (about 3 months) before people harvest it and move on to new grounds, but fruit trees take years to grow into something that gives a worthy crop, and the word 'Paradise' which we often use for the Garden of Eden is derived from a Persian word meaning 'walled orchard'.

This is further backed up by the story of Adam and Eve's sons Cain and Able, Abel worked with livestock, and Cain grew crops.
So rather than the story being about the creation of the first people, it's actualy more likely to be about the first people to grow fruit and settle in one perminant place. It's possible that these early agriculturalists regarded themselves as the first truly human people and the remaining hunter/gatherers as little more than animals, in a similar way to how slave traders used to regard Africans, but we now know better than that, we know that geneticaly, hunter/gatherer tribes are no different than agriculturalists.
It's also worth mentioning here the consequences that Cain had to face for killing Able, which is generaly classicaly regarded as the first murder.
From Genesis:
"What have you done? Your brother's blood cries out to Me from the ground! So now you are cursed from the ground that opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood you have shed. If you work the land, it will never again give you its yield. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth." '
Interesting eh? Cain became a hunter/gatherer again. Possibly the punishment for murder was to be regarded as an animal.
The overall impression is that as agriculture and perminant settlement was developed, new social laws or rules were also developed. It's possible that in most nomadic hunter/gatherer societies of the time, in that area, 'might was right'. Differences may have been settled in combat, the victor being the one who killed the vanquished. In a settled society however, there is a much bigger emphasis on cooperation, everyone working together for the good of the community, so such traditional hunter/gatherer forms of settling differences such as 'trial by combat' may have seemed archaic and no longer good for the community. Thus, the crime of 'murder' would have been developed. Killing your fellow man was no longer stood for, and those that did in a settled society would be likened to the remaining hunter/gatherers that still wandered the wilderness. So the story of Cain and Able, or, the first murder, may well be a commentry on how these laws were first developed and implimented, and possibly suggests that the sentence for breaking such laws may have been expulsion from the community out into the wilderness to fend for themselves.

Of course, hunter/gatherers were present for many thousands of years before the agriculturalists, and religion itself predates agriculture. Objects known as 'Venus Figurines' that are thought to depict a Mother Goddess date to around 30,000 years ago, to a time that Homo sapiens lived alongside Neanderthals. And even Neanderthals were thought to have some form of religion because what are thought to be Neanderthal ritual burials have been found.
Religion may actualy pre-date Homo sapiens, who have been around for about 200,000 years.
A site in Spain known as Sima de los Huesos (the pit of bones) has been found that may be a ritual burial site of Homo heidelbergensis, who date from about 600,000 to 400,000 years ago. Homo heidelbergensis are regarded as the common ancestor of both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, so religion, or at least a belief in an afterlife, may have actualy been passed down to our species (and the Neanderthals) from an ancestoral species.

All of the above ages have been worked out using modern dating techniques. Of course you may not trust these techniques because they dis-prove your beliefs, but let me just explain a little about them.
Fair enough, if you just use one dating technique like carbon dating, you can never be absolutely cirtain of it's accuracy, a mistake might have been made causing cross contamination or the technique itself could be flawed without you knowing. But if another different technique is used for dating and you come up with a similar figure, it corroborates the first figure and helps to confirm the original finding while at the same time confirming the accuracy of the first technique.
Add another dozen techniques and the science of dating becomes very accurate indeed, which is what we have done. This makes modern dating techniques practicaly infallable.

From several of these techniques, we know that the geological age of the earth is actualy around 4.54 billion years old and that life arose about 3.7 billion years ago and has been evolving ever since, resulting in ourselves.

 

[RND]

What does that even mean?

Bones can't begin to fossilize until after the death of an animal. The flood in my mind would be a good place to start.

What's your point? Proto-humans developed a thumb when it became favourable for them to do so (i.e. using tools, etc.).

How did this happen? Did man not have thumbs and then determine "I want to use a hammer but since I don't have thumbs to use a hammer I better grow some."? How dod Proto-humans decide that using tools would be advantageous?

Opposable thumbs on the feet would certainly be handy, as would many things - humans, as well as many animals, are very inefficient creatures. What is this, unintelligent design?

The dexterity of a human hand is considerably more complex than that of a typical primate. Man doen't need feet with oppositional thumbs.

You understand that what that diagramme shows is evolution in its simplest form?

So? It doen't change the fact that these are still horses.

[quote:37nkoays]Seems disingenuous.

On the contrary, an abridged version would condense a simply theory which is complicated in its explanation into an understandable and usable volume.[/quote:37nkoays] I was referring to you insistence that I read a book you haven't. You are no more qualified in that regard to comment on Darwin's book than I am.

However, I do want to address this in the sense that Darwin's book was an attempt to expound on his racist views and it has been the catalyst to the wholesale slaughter of people throughout the world.

Robert N. Proctor (Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis [1988]) observed: "Prior to Darwin, it was difficult to argue against the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man, based on the single creation of Adam and Eve. Darwin 's theory suggested that humans had evolved over hundreds of thousands, even millions of years, and that the races of men had diverged while adapting to the particularities of local conditions. The impact of Darwin's theory was enormous."

Darwin spoke of the "gorilla" and the "Negro" [sic] as occupying evolutionary positions between the "Baboon" and the "civilized races of man" ("Caucasian"); viz: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro [sic] or Australian and the gorilla.

Thomas Huxley, known as "Darwin's bulldog" wrote: "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro (sic) is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successively with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites." (Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, 1871)

Not really, it just says "Yeah, God did this and that" - the mechanics by which God did these things is not shown. God is infinite and omnipotent, but he was working in a finite and limited world, the explanation that God simply said "Be" and it was is logically impossible. God can do anything within the constraints of logic.

Yes, the Bible declares directly that God made all things, evolution says, "It just happened." Evolution, as I have been painfully and consistently made aware doesn't even address actual origins! Thus the fairy tale you believe in says "it just happened" and doesn't even try to explain how! In the fairy tale I believe in (sic) at least I can point to God and say "He did it."

Evolutionist? It isn't a belief,

Yes it is.

it's a scientific fact,

No it isn't because it won't, can't and doesn't address origins.

there's only one right belief concerning it. inb4 "yeah, and that is it's wrong", just no.

What? This is incoherent.

2 Peter 3:8 - "Beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Time is arbitrary for our Lord - he is beyond the constraints of the universe (which include time and space) because he created the universe, and if he were constrained by it then he could not possibly have created it. The word clearly states that the Lord is incorporeal, why do you have such a hard time believing that his sense of time (if he has one at all) is completely different to that of humankind, and indeed all of creation?

If you read you Bible and it's chronology of mankind, from Adam to now, the time period is roughly six thousand years. It pays to read the entire Bible and not just pick out the parts you think support your view.

Taking 2 Peter 3:8 to heart then it actually supports the creation account and not evolution. It has only been 6 days since God created all things since a day with day is as a thousand years. Thus Peter words coincide exactly with the Bible record.

Unreliable, possibly - we're not going to get it down to the date, but it works pretty darn well at giving a rough estimate. When working with such large geological time scales, using exact dates is an exercise in futility - what's the point when we're talking about processes which occurred over large periods of time?

The way radio isotope dating works is that I go to a lab and say I have this bone and I think this bone is a million years old. It's completely unscientific and disingenuous.

Subjective? Hardly. It's measured by comparing the known rates at which naturally occurring radioactive materials break down into other materials with the observed abundance of the material at any given place - how is that subjective?

Because it relies on the guess offered to come up with a starting point.

So you're going to put the work of one man (who is working with a confirmation bias)

That's what evolution does right?

against the work of hundreds of acclaimed scientists who have verified the age of the earth being greater than a mere 6000 years?

There is an increasing number of scientist that are jumping on the young earth bandwagon. A majority belief is not indicative of a correct belief. Centuries ago the majority opinion was that the world was flat. Only a small minority said it wasn't.

 

[lordkalvan]

...However, I do want to address this in the sense that Darwin's book was an attempt to expound on his racist views and it has been the catalyst to the wholesale slaughter of people throughout the world.

Well, if you want to advance such an inane argument, so has the Bible.

Robert N. Proctor (Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis [1988]) observed: "Prior to Darwin, it was difficult to argue against the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man, based on the single creation of Adam and Eve. Darwin 's theory suggested that humans had evolved over hundreds of thousands, even millions of years, and that the races of men had diverged while adapting to the particularities of local conditions. The impact of Darwin's theory was enormous."

Which undoubtedly explains the lack of such phenomena as slavery, anti-semitism and xenophobia before the advent of Darwin.

Darwin spoke of the "gorilla" and the "Negro" [sic] as occupying evolutionary positions between the "Baboon" and the "civilized races of man" ("Caucasian"); viz: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro [sic] or Australian and the gorilla.

Nice quotemine. Perhaps you should place the carefully selected piece of text in its proper context:

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, pp 200-201:
The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, convinced by general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks incessantly occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and other mammals. But all these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,16 will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

With respect to the absence of fossil remains, serving to connect man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay much stress on this fact, who will read Sir C. Lyell's discussion,17 in which he shews that in all the vertebrate classes the discovery of fossil remains has been an extremely slow and fortuitous process. Nor should it be forgotten that those regions which are the most likely to afford remains connecting man with some extinct ape-like creature, have not as yet been searched by geologists.

Perhaps you might also want to comment on these observations of Darwin's from the same work:

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, pp 94-95:
The great sin of Slavery has been almost universal, and slaves have often been treated in an infamous manner. As barbarians do not regard the opinion of their women, wives are commonly treated like slaves. Most savages are utterly indifferent to the sufferings of strangers, or even delight in witnessing them. It is well known that the women and children of the North-American Indians aided in torturing their enemies. Some savages take a horrid pleasure in cruelty to animals, and humanity with them is an unknown virtue. Nevertheless, feelings of sympathy and kindness are common, especially during sickness, between the members of the same tribe, and are sometimes extended beyond the limits of the tribe. Mungo Park's touching account of the kindness of the negro women of the interior to him is well known. Many instances could be given of the noble fidelity of savages towards each other, but not to strangers; common experience justifies the maxim of the Spaniard, "Never, never trust an Indian." There cannot be fidelity without truth; and this fundamental virtue is not rare between the members of the same tribe: thus Mungo Park heard the negro women teaching their young children to love the truth. This, again, is one of the virtues which becomes so deeply rooted in the mind that it is sometimes practised by savages even at a high cost, towards strangers; but to lie to your enemy has rarely been thought a sin, as the history of modern diplomacy too plainly shews. As soon as a tribe has a recognised leader, disobedience becomes a crime, and even abject submission is looked at as a sacred virtue.

 

[RND]

Well, if you want to advance such an inane argument, so has the Bible.

God is not a respecter of persons.

Which undoubtedly explains the lack of such phenomena as slavery, anti-semitism and xenophobia before the advent of Darwin.

These traits are inherent in the unconverted man.

[quote:82m4x3hv]Darwin spoke of the "gorilla" and the "Negro" [sic] as occupying evolutionary positions between the "Baboon" and the "civilized races of man" ("Caucasian"); viz: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro [sic] or Australian and the gorilla.

Nice quotemine. Perhaps you should place the carefully selected piece of text in its proper context:

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, pp 200-201:
The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, convinced by general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks incessantly occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and other mammals. But all these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,16 will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

[/quote:82m4x3hv]This actually seems to be making the point.

Perhaps you might also want to comment on these observations of Darwin's from the same work:
[quote:82m4x3hv]Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, pp 94-95:
The great sin of Slavery has been almost universal, and slaves have often been treated in an infamous manner. As barbarians do not regard the opinion of their women, wives are commonly treated like slaves. Most savages are utterly indifferent to the sufferings of strangers, or even delight in witnessing them. It is well known that the women and children of the North-American Indians aided in torturing their enemies. Some savages take a horrid pleasure in cruelty to animals, and humanity with them is an unknown virtue. Nevertheless, feelings of sympathy and kindness are common, especially during sickness, between the members of the same tribe, and are sometimes extended beyond the limits of the tribe. Mungo Park's touching account of the kindness of the negro women of the interior to him is well known. Many instances could be given of the noble fidelity of savages towards each other, but not to strangers; common experience justifies the maxim of the Spaniard, "Never, never trust an Indian." There cannot be fidelity without truth; and this fundamental virtue is not rare between the members of the same tribe: thus Mungo Park heard the negro women teaching their young children to love the truth. This, again, is one of the virtues which becomes so deeply rooted in the mind that it is sometimes practised by savages even at a high cost, towards strangers; but to lie to your enemy has rarely been thought a sin, as the history of modern diplomacy too plainly shews. As soon as a tribe has a recognised leader, disobedience becomes a crime, and even abject submission is looked at as a sacred virtue.

[/quote:82m4x3hv] Again, this seems to actually make the point.