We have found some worthy fossils, the numbers and ‘worthiness’ we have found are regarded by scientists as consistent with the theory of evolution and our knowledge of the survival rates of bones, and the strata that contain them, over these long periods of time. Also the small amounts of sedimentary rocks and deposits which we have actually scanned for such bones.
"Evolution" just kind of "wanders along", slowly losing features that the fittest don't have, etc (and some suppose they gain new features, but it is really just a loss of info that makes an otherwise "suppressed" bit of DNA/gene "appear").
This - particularly the bit in brackets - is incorrect. Yes physical mutation of an organism's body is 'random' (in a very specific sense). But selection ensures that only mutations that increase the probability of survival and successful breeding survive. The process, far from meaning loss of information over the aeons, leads to an increase in the complexity of the most complex organisms. This latter is true for a very simple reason. There is a lower boundary to complexity, but no obvious upper boundary. There is a very good explanation of this process in one of Stephen Gould's essays, which I can find if you are interested. There are also some very good explanations of how complex new features come into being, gradually and incrementally, with each step resulting in an increase in survival chances.
"Intelligent design", at least in my view, is that a God [i]created[/i] or [i]designed[/i] everything. He has capacity for thought and reason, and has a purpose for what is made. We are in the "image" of God, so since He has thought and reason, so do we.
Nature didn’t come by chance (the fittest survivors happened to not have so-and-so, so it was lost, etc.), but was made by Someone with a purpose for it.
Then to make it possible to test this theory we have to know what that purpose is. Do we know this? In enough detail to yield specific predictions about the nature of organisms? If we don’t know the purpose in sufficient detail, we cannot test it, so the theory is not testable (refutable). If we don’t know the purpose it is arguably therefore not a scientific theory at all.
I was replying to Metal's idea that the authors were stupefied peasants, not specifically trying to prove the Bible is true.
OK I understand.
I agree; historical accounts can be quite biased. However, there was more than one human author (or [i]interpreter[/i] of what was told by God) of the Bible, and there were other historical accounts by different people that mention the same details.
Yes more than one interpreter, but I guess not many, if any, truly independent reports of the events that could be used to distinguish the hypothesis of divinity from that of being a very well intentioned man. Those who wrote the gospels had an interest in believing the divinity hypothesis, I think. As did others who were involved in the movement. So ultimately all I think we can say is that some of what is reported in the bible happened. Just as some of what is reported in the Koran about Mohammed happened.
Documented evidence is highly suspect in dating when things happened so presenting any of it would be futile. All of the dating methods currently in use have been found to be flawed. I don’t accept all of the scientific theories but I also do not accept the timeline that some religious people use in saying that the earth is only thousands of years old. I believe that the earth may very well be billions of years old but that there has been an ongoing directed process of creation by an eternal being for whom time has no meaning. Genesis is true as far as the process goes but as I said, the timeline of 7 days is not to be taken literally. It was only told that way to a human in a way that he could comprehend and accept and more importantly, pass on.
The timelines given in the Bible after the creation of man however, are very accurate. If you follow what is given in all the so and so begat so and so and lived X number of years and construct a time line you find out a very interesting thing. Methuselah, the longest living one recorded, died in the year of the flood and so did some of the others mentioned. People once did live over 900 years but because of the massive inbreeding that had to occur after the flood, the species was weakened to the point where 125 years seems to be the maximum. Interestingly enough again, the Bible says that God decreed that man should live no longer than that after the flood. Again we have an instance where the Bible presents something that is only discovered by man much later, the effects of inbreeding.
There are other instances that can be cited showing that God knew things and cautioned against them before Science ever discovered the problems for themselves. Such as the prohibition against eating the meat of animals with cloven hoofs, in particular pork, which was eventually discovered to harbor the trichnosis parasites. This knowledge would not have been obtainable by the people of the times but God knew because he had created it all.
“Margins of error” and flaws are different things and while I’m in no position to question persolnal beliefs there is no was similar generic remarks could divert my oppennes to a more reasonable refutation that actually re-locate differet species leveraging on something else than purely personal considerations.
Time placement of different species might be irrelevant for beliefs but not for the scientific fields of research that focus on these aspects whereas obviously religion is not a factor and margins of errors are accounted for in scientific fields.
Of course I’m open to clarifications of the process even from you.
This is much agreeable point whereas humans are also likely to misinterpret and fail to correctly convey messages they aren’t fully able to comprehend and accept.
This of course does not invalidate the whole message as long the chance of messengers’ mistakes is accounted for. :-La
I see you plenty leverage on purely personal consideration about dating “margins of errors” and even go length to claim them ureliable
[b]Fifth day:[/b] God commands the sea to "teem with living creatures", and birds to fly across the heavens (sixth command)[Gen 1:20–21] He creates birds and sea creatures, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply.
Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command);[Gen 1:24–25] He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates humanity in His “image” and “likeness” (eighth command).[Gen 1:26–28] They are told to “be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it.” Humans and animals are given plants to eat. The totality of creation is described by God as “very good.”
and clarify that days in the genesis narration of creation are meant to be considered “literally” (unlike Dch48) thus all the living species were created in two (24 hours) days.
But as you deem dating method “unreliable” there is no way to confitm that within “reason”.
[b]Third day: [/b]God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command).[Gen 1:9–10] "earth" and "sea" are named. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees (the fourth command).
Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament (the fifth command)[Gen 1:14–15] to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (most likely the Sun and Moon, but not named), and the stars .
:-La Are the above parts to be taken literally as well whereas water(sea) and dry land(earth) were created in 24 hours before stars came to be a day after?
As I said (and the articles I gave), there isn’t evidence that stands after being tested. The media all ignore them, of course.
This - particularly the bit in brackets - is incorrect. Yes physical mutation of an organism's body is 'random' (in a very specific sense). But selection ensures that only mutations that increase the probability of survival and successful breeding survive. The process, far from meaning loss of information over the aeons, leads to an increase in the complexity of the most complex organisms. This latter is true for a very simple reason. There is a lower boundary to complexity, but no obvious upper boundary. There is a very good explanation of this process in one of Stephen Gould's essays, which I can find if you are interested. There are also some very good explanations of how complex new features come into being, gradually and incrementally, with each step resulting in an increase in survival chances.
Then to make it possible to test this theory we have to know what that purpose is. Do we know this? In enough detail to yield specific predictions about the nature of organisms? If we don't know the purpose in sufficient detail, we cannot test it, so the theory is not testable (refutable). If we don't know the purpose it is arguably therefore not a scientific theory at all.
Westminster Shorter Catechism: Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.
We seem to be making the subject so complicated that the end result is getting cloudier.
One interesting thought; Most folks who subscribe to the big ■■■■/evolution theories don’t understand their own belief. Get someone to explain it away from a computer or book and they can’t explain a thing. Creation believers can talk to you about their views at any time. Interesting…
Over-complicating a subject is a common way to win an argument.
Obviously without a timeline there would no way to confirm whenever two species appeared in the same period (eg to refute when one specie is claimed to be evolved into anoter) or if not how much they would be apart in time.
But at least it it looks like there is some agreement that “evolution” might not be entirely unacceptable within a Genus whereas different species of the same Genus spanning in a timeframe of 2 million years can be placed on a seemingly agreeable timeline
One thing that has permeated the last few pages of this thread needs to be put right. One species has not and never will change from one to another. A ‘Monkey’ never gave birth to a "half human’ a reptile never gave birth to a ‘half bird’.
Definition of a species
A species, then, is defined by science as a group of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding populations that is reproductively isolated from other such groups.
The classic example of speciation is Darwins Finches, for which many links exist, should you wish to investigate.
As far as human evolution is concerned, whilst we share many things in common with modern apes, we are not evolved from them, hence there are apes and there are humans.
Please do a little research before making silly statements regarding these issues. Also, all the answers are not to be found in Answers in genesis, just one biased and skewed point of view.
Good point. I believe too many people confuse the term. Adaptation is where each species best adapt to their surroundings whereas evolution is where one species change into a whole other species altogether. Any which way they can be both incorporated into the theory of intelligent design because for them to have existed in the first place an intelligent being would have had to exist to create the pre-requisites for such things to be as they are today. So maybe in the beginning God did infact create a species of humans that over time would adapt well to their environment to appear the way they are today. Or, maybe God looked at a select species of monkeys and evolved them into humans thus He created one species into a whole other species. Therefore, He created the first man.
BTW even more accounting for adaptation is there anyone willing to support the idea all modern species derived from a finite set of ancestor species that appeared on earth at the same time?
Or it is that if each species’ earliest ancestors appeared at different times this would not account for the assumption that “One species has not and never will change from one to another”.
Or it that adaptation is a minor exception that apply to ever-existing modern species whereas eg horses and donkeys are not deemed to share a common ancestor?
The creation of each species at the time that God considered appropriate would definitely account for it.
I also once saw a very interesting piece on Discovery that suggested that every Archaeopteryx fossil is in fact a hoax. They even showed how it could very easily be done.
Strange way to put it. In your mind are/were there species that candidate/d for the use you made of half-bird?
A simple figure of speech to illustrate the perverseness of the idea that one species can suddenly become something else entirely.
Or it is that if each species' earliest ancestors appeared at different times this would not account for the assumption that "One species has not and never will change from one to another".
Key words:
Mitochondrial Eve
Y-Chromosomal Adam
haplotype
Homo antecessor is considered to be the common genetic ancestor of humans and Neanderthals.
Yes there is, huge volumes of it attested to by thousands of scientists working in competing teams, publishing peer reviewed results, over many, many years. I realise that you may not have understood this, but I am not taking information from the media, I have a degree in (what would be called in the US) geology, and have maintained that interest over many years. I would be very willing to look up the relevant articles for you, if you are open to such evidence.
The argument presented in your link is incorrect. Evolutionary theory does not suggest that genetic information is created by selection. The genetic information is created by random mutation and is chosen to survive by the process of selection.
Westminster Shorter Catechism: [i]Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.[/i]
Sums it up well.
This does not define a purpose for God, it defines a purpose for man. As we discussed above in the absence of such a purpose for God it is difficult to imagine how the theory of intelligent design is testable. (To what end is the intelligence applied?). If it is not (even in principle) testable it is not a scientific theory.
There are margins of error in everything. There are rarely ‘set margins of error’ in science. What you refer to as margins of error are probably what scientists refer to as ‘confidence limits’. Dating confidence limits are normally expressed as follows - example: 95% of the time this method (in these specified circumstances) will yield a result accurate within +/- 100 years. (This can be stated in an even more rigorous way, which I am happy to supply but its a bit long winded).
Arguably more interesting is the question: are the dating methods, as they are normally used, sufficient to support the conclusions that are drawn from them? In this case that the age of the earth is more than a few thousand years.
TO answer this you have to understand that what you refer to as ‘dating methods’ are not one or two individual techniques, but a whole battery of different techniques, each cross checked against the other, each yielding the similar messages on broad questions such as whether the earth is more than a few thousand years old.
To give you an idea, here are some of the techniques:
sedimentation rates, orientation & correlation indicators and the overall thickness of accumulated sedimentary deposits
the current core temperature of the earth and its observed rate of cooling.
radio-carbon dates
multiple other radiometric dating methods
tree ring data
electro-luminescence dating (eg of fired pottery)
observed current mutation and selection rates and rates of evolutionary change
O12/O14 ratio fluctuation patterns
… I could go on for several pages.
Each has different types of potential error, and so each has different confidence limits in different circumstances. Some are related but many are independent. These techniques are once again being developed and refined over many years by 1000’s of competing groups of scientists working through hundreds of peer reviewed journals in many different countries.
And all (in the peer reviewed literature) say that the age of the earth is greater than a few 1000 years. I hope I have been able to give you a flavour of the sheer massive weight of evidence that any challenge must address.
I take your comments focus on the only aspect you are interested whenever you cast bird, reptiles an what else in a figure of speech to state your feelings
I still find it really shocking that Laser and Watasha put evolution on a level playing field with god. Even though there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of a god.
I realised last night the reason i find it so shocking is because here in the UK and Europe(i believe you guys are from america??) Evolution is accepted as fact. Its up there with the theory of gravity etc. Denying Evolution in the UK would put you on the level of holocaust deniers. lol. Charles Darwin is even on the back of our £10 pound note, now that does make me proud to be British.
If you really looks at Evolution is so beautiful in its simplicity. Species have variations, in there enviroment some variation are more helpful than others, therefore those animals with the helpful variations have more children, and the children inherit these variations. Just knowing this simple fact makes it easy to grasp how different species can branch off of one.
time didn’t exist for “this” universe…cos “this” universe didn’t exist…
i believe “universe” a physical variable…and no physical variable is “finite”… Which means, there are infinite universes
