[_ Old Earth _] The problem with accepting Christianity and Evolution

[Karma2Grace]

If you accept micro evolution and given enough time, you get macro evolution.

Well that is a story :

No Not even one Macro evolution ever witnessed so far , All evolution produced is a Monkey(ape) closest to man and a man closest to Monkey (ape) . It just lives in the hands of artists who can draw color pictures !!

I hope you would answer my question "why no evolution for 193000 years"?

 

[Quath]

Well that is a story :

It is the same thing as saying "I have seen people count to 1000. With enough time, they could count to a million." Enough small (micro) changes add up to a big (macro) change.

No Not even one Macro evolution ever witnessed so far ,

One Macroevolution is the equivalent of a lot of micro changes. We have seen a lot of such changes. If you really want to see macroeviolution in action, check out a quickly breeding system like a virus. See how ofthen they change and mutate into new a new virus?

I hope you would answer my question "why no evolution for 193000 years"?

There has been evolution. The ones that went to Africa got genes for darker skin. Some got sickle cell gene to help protect against malaria. The ones that went to Asia had some further changes. They would be "microevoluttion" in your termology.

Macroevolution works on the time scale of millions of years for larger organisms. We have fossils of humanoids from 8 million years ago. You can look at the skeletons over time to see human macroevolution.

Quath

 

[Muad'Dib]

I think that is a valid question, Karma2Grace. The span of time in which evolutionists assert that man developed from the first primate is very small, at least in terms of the history of Earth. Yet there are many many species which supposedly developed between that time and when the first humans appeared. The human evolution chain is much more complicated than that which has been found in most species.(Just one of many examples of how man is an anomaly within the multiple theories of evolution) This means there must have been at least some significant changes in thousand year periods. Therefore I would expect something significant to have changed in recorded history, at least one alteration. Especially considering that humans have remained isolated from other humans in different climates for many years. In other species we see significant differences in species in different areas. This is not so with humans. Other than skin color, facial structure, or build there are no significant differences among humans.

I'm sure someone will have an answer for this. Just as a final note, I have already the many many different version of how all this is explained away multiple times, and I find these explanations lacking.

 

[Karma2Grace]

It is the same thing as saying "I have seen people count to 1000. With enough time, they could count to a million." Enough small (micro) changes add up to a big (macro) change.

I don't think a school kid would buy this explanation, do you know famous atheist Anthony Flew and why he started to believe in "intelligent design�

It is not as easy as counting numbers, there is something called “Irreducible Complexity†(Try Darwin Black Box by Mick Be he) The more that scientists learn about life, the more complex life appears. The life processes are now known to be immensely complex, each function having many interrelated parts. For example, if a function requires 100 parts then all 100 parts must be present before the new function will provide any benefit to the creature. If a creature should develop one of the parts by chance, it would be of no advantage and probably be a disadvantage to the creature, Even to create parts one by one the evolutionary system should have the prior knowledge about all 100 parts and it is connections.

There has been evolution. The ones that went to Africa got genes for darker skin. Some got sickle cell gene to help protect against malaria. The ones that went to Asia had some further changes. They would be "microevoluttion" in your termology.

I think you missed the point, My questions is why there is no cultural evolution for the past 193000 years , Why all emerge in last 7000 years?

Macroevolution works on the time scale of millions of years for larger organisms. We have fossils of humanoids from 8 million years ago. You can look at the skeletons over time to see human macroevolution.

Out dating mechanism is not good for dating anything older than 5000 years, Moreover the presence of water will increate the rate decay, if the flood theory is true then all our time scales will go for nothing !.
It is as simple as people like Steven Hawkins came forward and reverses the theory about block wholes his old theory is still present in science books!


Thanks

 

[Quath]

It is not as easy as counting numbers, there is something called “Irreducible Complexity†(Try Darwin Black Box by Mick Be he) The more that scientists learn about life, the more complex life appears. The life processes are now known to be immensely complex, each function having many interrelated parts. For example, if a function requires 100 parts then all 100 parts must be present before the new function will provide any benefit to the creature. If a creature should develop one of the parts by chance, it would be of no advantage and probably be a disadvantage to the creature, Even to create parts one by one the evolutionary system should have the prior knowledge about all 100 parts and it is connections.

I have heard that argument. However, they have found that many of these "irreducible" systems are really irreducable when studied more thoroughly. A good critique of the flaws of this line of thinking is at TalkOrigins.

The basic problem is that argument rests on our ignorance. It is a "God of the Gaps" type of argument where all factors are not considered. For example, say if you remove one part of this comple process. That missing part may have come from the environment or it may have come from a gene that use to be activated but is now in the "junk" section of DNA.

I think you missed the point, My questions is why there is no cultural evolution for the past 193000 years , Why all emerge in last 7000 years?

It is the exponential growth of technology. In early human societies, they hunted and gathered. It worked very well for the most part. They had some innovations like fire, wheels, and stone tools. However, it took growing food as crops to get them to the next level of growth. Before then, large groups of humans could not live together and share ideas. Wars were fought over territory.

However, once wild plants became a major source of food, tribes settled into permament settlements. People had to work harder because agriculture takes a lot more energy and has a higher death rate (diseases and crop failures are nasty killers). But for the most part, extra food is gained. So people can specialize and work on other stuff besides hunting and gathering. So people became makers of stone tools. Some became chiefs to deal with neighboring tribes. Religion took off. Some think religion evolved because it could be used to rally a tribe in a war to wipe out other tribes. Some think it came about because chiefs gained power from the people and religion helped keep people unified.

Agriculture took an extremely long time to come about because it was not needed and it was more work. Howeverm droughts, floods, and overpopulation eventually forced tribes into this. That is why a lot of this took so long. Check out "Guns, Germs and Steel." I am only at the beginning, but it is a great book.

Out dating mechanism is not good for dating anything older than 5000 years, Moreover the presence of water will increate the rate decay, if the flood theory is true then all our time scales will go for nothing !.

Carbon dating can go back quite a bit further reliably. But there are many other radiometric dating methods that can go back quite a ways further. These work because radioactive decay is constant. Adding water does not change spontaneous radioactive decay (it can change how often stimulated decay happens in uranium as it moderates the neutrons). But it does not change how often carbon spontaneous decays.

It is as simple as people like Steven Hawkins came forward and reverses the theory about block wholes his old theory is still present in science books!

He just showed an overlooked process would make black holes decay away. He showed how the second law of thermodynamics held for a black hole. So it is better to say he expanded the knowledge instead of rewrote old theories.

Black holes are still on the edge of what we know since we don't have a good theory of gravity on the quantum level yet. However, radioactive dating has a lot of understanding since the 3 major forces (electromagnetic, strong and weak forces) are very well understood and are all really the same force. So this is an area of very high confidence, where black holes are areas of low confidence.

Quath

 

[keebs]

It is not as easy as counting numbers, there is something called “Irreducible Complexity†(Try Darwin Black Box by Mick Be he)

So far, no one in the ID movement has been able to give any evidence at all for irreducible complexity. You can't retort things with as-of-yet unproven ideas.

 

[Karma2Grace]

So far, no one in the ID movement has been able to give any evidence at all for irreducible complexity. You can't retort things with as-of-yet unproven ideas.

There are lot of evidences given see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

BTW you are caught in your own words, do you have any evidence for the First Life? We have NO evidence for the formation of a life from life less matter! How do you believe in evolution then? , When you count you need count from 0,1,2,3, not like 56 98 205…

Thanks

 

[Quath]

There are lot of evidences given see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Ummm. he website shows examples of "irreducible complexity" and then shows the explanations for why the examples are not accepted as "irreducible complex."

Quath

 

[Karma2Grace]

There are lot of evidences given see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Ummm. he website shows examples of "irreducible complexity" and then shows the explanations for why the examples are not accepted as "irreducible complex."

Quath

It can be edited by anyone, It also includes a link to Mick be he's answers

 

[Sleeker]

Probably the easiest way an "irreducibly complex" system is evolved from is co-evolution, where multiple systems evolve based on adaptations of the other system.

 

[keebs]

BTW you are caught in your own words, do you have any evidence for the First Life? We have NO evidence for the formation of a life from life less matter!

Define life-less matter and a living organism.

 

[Solo]

BTW you are caught in your own words, do you have any evidence for the First Life? We have NO evidence for the formation of a life from life less matter!

Define life-less matter and a living organism.

animate (living) and inanimate (non-living)

For those in the Bill Clinton camp;
Is (living) and Is Not (non-living)

And for those who are not confused with an elementary definition;
life (having life) and life less (not having life)

 

[Quath]

What is the smallest thing that is alive? A cell? bacteria? virus? carbon dioxide? How do you define one as alive and the next as not?

Quath

 

[Solo]

What is the smallest thing that is alive? A cell? bacteria? virus? carbon dioxide? How do you define one as alive and the next as not?

Quath

A cell can be dead or alive. Bacteria can be dead or alive. A virus can be dead or alive. Carbon Dioxide is a combination of two elements, carbon and oxygen; and are not alive nor ever will be.

Of course pantheists would argue the point as they believe that God is everything, element, plant, animal, etc.

One day all of those that are saved will know all truth, while those that refused to believe will know a little more truth but not all.

 

[Quath]

A cell can be dead or alive. Bacteria can be dead or alive. A virus can be dead or alive. Carbon Dioxide is a combination of two elements, carbon and oxygen; and are not alive nor ever will be.

So lets take the virus. What makes it alive or dead?

Usually by adding or moving atoms around, we can change something from "alive to dead" or from "dead to alive." This would show that something "dead" can become something "alive" by simple mechanical motion of atoms.

Quath

 

[keebs]

animate (living) and inanimate (non-living)

Does that mean that an electron is living?

 

[ThinkerMan]

Wouldn't anything that is self-replicating (using available organic material to make copies of itself) be defined as life?

 

[Karma2Grace]

So lets take the virus. What makes it alive or dead?

Usually by adding or moving atoms around, we can change something from "alive to dead" or from "dead to alive." This would show that something "dead" can become something "alive" by simple mechanical motion of atoms.

Don't Fool yourself, Life is so complex it is not just adding atoms around, I always laugh when a Evolution believer uses the word "simple" (see ..Can become something "alive" by simple mechanical motion of atoms.) , If it so simple, Can you create a life from lifeless matter in the labs, we are not even in the range of Dreaming about itâ€Â, unfortunately the increase bio technology is showing life is too complex than we even imagine!!

 

[Quath]

I see science going the other way. Organic chemistry was made because they thought the mechanics of life would be vastly different from inorganic checmistry. That later on found out that organic chemistry is regular chemistry.

Science has shown that life is just a bunch of atoms strung together. Life is also a grey concept.

For example, we know all the atoms in a virus and how they are attached. It is inconcievable that we put those atoms together and make life? If we did it, would it make you believe that life is a mechanical process?

Quath

 

[sheseala]

Is a prion alive?

I find it odd that a virus is considered alive here.