Jump to content


Photo

What If The Earth Were Old?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
61 replies to this topic

#21 Jesse

Jesse

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Connecticut

Posted 01 December 2012 - 10:56 AM

How and why would it hurt your faith?

It would hurt my faith because the Bible clearly teaches a young earth. (Biblical genealogies)

First of all, I don't have any "faith" in evolution, at least not in the sense of believing without seeing. I accept evolution as the most likely explanation for a huge number of phenomena in the natural world.

By accepting evolution, you believe in something that has never been observed. I would call that faith.

#22 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Pretending he used to be a science teacher
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:11 AM

It would hurt my faith because the Bible clearly teaches a young earth. (Biblical genealogies) By accepting evolution, you believe in something that has never been observed. I would call that faith.


Good point, Jesse. But I assure you he will argue with you about the evidence thing.

#23 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:25 AM

Actually, I did. But you've managed to dodge everything and blunder on ahead regardless.

Why are you being rude and insulting? I am endeavoring to treat everyone here with respect, I don't understand what I've done or said to provoke such a response from you.

Can we reset this somehow, and start over? I have no desire to make anyone upset.

#24 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:28 AM

It would hurt my faith because the Bible clearly teaches a young earth. (Biblical genealogies) By accepting evolution, you believe in something that has never been observed. I would call that faith.

Evolution has most certainly been observed. Evolution is the reason that we need to create new flu vaccines every year. It's the reason that antibiotics are becoming ineffective against a number of diseases. It's seen in the breeding of domestic animals. Evolution is all around us.

#25 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:31 AM

Evolution has most certainly been observed. Evolution is the reason that we need to create new flu vaccines every year. It's the reason that antibiotics are becoming ineffective against a number of diseases. It's seen in the breeding of domestic animals. Evolution is all around us.

Ah, but Xanifred, if it's been observed then it's "microevolution" and doesn't count !

#26 Jesse

Jesse

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Connecticut

Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:49 AM

Ah, but Xanifred, if it's been observed then it's "microevolution" and doesn't count !


You beat me to it...

Evolutionist take microevolution, and then say its proof that the others occurred. You have only observed microevolution. You take it on faith that the other five happened.

When you observe one species evolve into another, let me know.

#27 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:11 PM

You beat me to it... Evolutionist take microevolution, and then say its proof that the others occurred. You have only observed microevolution. You take it on faith that the other five happened. When you observe one species evolve into another, let me know.

First of all, there is only one kind of evolution, not 6.

Secondly, ring species are exactly what you're asking for: one species evolving into another.

#28 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:18 PM

You beat me to it... Evolutionist take microevolution, and then say its proof that the others occurred. You have only observed microevolution. You take it on faith that the other five happened. When you observe one species evolve into another, let me know.

That's been observed quite a few times too, google "speciation".
Next step : but those don't count as "species" because they're still [genus/family/phylum/kingdom] ! Where are the dogs giving birth to cats ?

#29 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Pretending he used to be a science teacher
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:35 PM

First of all, there is only one kind of evolution, not 6. Secondly, ring species are exactly what you're asking for: one species evolving into another.

You're giving us baloney. Here is the 'ring species' illustration... Posted Image Notice that each diagram is open ended. The source you gave us says..." classic example of ring species is the Larus gulls' circumpolar species "ring". The range of these gulls forms a ring around the North Pole, which is not normally transited by individual gulls." (Wikipedia) So they start with gulls and end up with organisms that are in the same family... Quote: "The European Herring Gull (L. argentatus argenteus), which lives primarily in Great Britain and Ireland, can hybridize with the American Herring Gull (L. smithsonianus), (living in North America), which can also hybridize with the Vega or East Siberian Herring Gull (L. vegae), the western subspecies of which, Birula's Gull (L. vegae birulai), can hybridize with Heuglin's gull (L. heuglini), which in turn can hybridize with the Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gull (L. fuscus). All four of these live across the north of Siberia. The last is the eastern representative of the Lesser Black-backed Gulls back in north-western Europe, including Great Britain." (highlighted words mine).

You must really think we are so stupid as to swallow your line of reasoning. You better come up with something a lot better than that....say something like this: Posted Image that is if you think you can find any fossils that fill in the blanks between rodents and bats.

#30 Jesse

Jesse

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Connecticut

Posted 01 December 2012 - 01:03 PM

That's been observed quite a few times too, google "speciation". Next step : but those don't count as "species" because they're still [genus/family/phylum/kingdom] ! Where are the dogs giving birth to cats ?

I will rephrase my original statement. When you observe a dog produce anything but a dog, let me know.

Your next step... "But, evolution takes a long time, millllions of years, we will be dead by the time a dog produces a "non" dog."

#31 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 01 December 2012 - 01:05 PM

The definition of "species" has nothing to do with two animals not sharing a common name. It has to do with the ability of members of one group of animals to produce fertile offspring by mating with the members of another group of animals. So, for example, housecats and lions are two different species, even though we call both of them "cats."

that is if you think you can find any fossils that fill in the blanks between rodents and bats.


How about the fossils that fill in the blanks between land-mammals and cetaceans?

Or perhaps you'd enjoy this article: Fossils solve mystery of bat evolution

Here's the thing: I accept the Theory of Evolution as the best known answer for thousands of phenomena in the natural world. In most cases, these phenomena were predicted by evolutionary biologists many years before they were actually discovered.

If there is a god, then of course god could easily have made the world in such a way that it looks as though it is 4.5 billion years old, with life-forms that have been evolving for the past 3.6 billion years, and we wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But why would any god do such a thing?

#32 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 01 December 2012 - 01:15 PM

I will rephrase my original statement. When you observe a dog produce anything but a dog, let me know. Your next step... "But, evolution takes a long time, millllions of years, we will be dead by the time a dog produces a "non" dog."


This is a very common misconception. The Theory of Evolution has never, ever claimed that the sort of radical shift in phenotype you are proposing can or did take place in a single generation. We see speciation all around us, but the groups of animals which diverge still look remarkably like each other. They simply no longer breed with each other, so their descendants will continue to develop in different ways.

The people who accept so-called "microevolution" but claim that speciation cannot occur are making two mistakes. First, they are imagining that evolution is something other than very small changes in a population over time. It's as if someone is saying "sure, you can place one brick on top of another with mortar in-between, but you cannot go from a single brick on top of another directly to an entire building - therefore brick buildings cannot have been built by placing one brick on another!" Secondly, they imagine that the word "species" means that there is a dramatic physical difference between one species and another. They seem to be combining the Biblically-derived idea of "kinds" with the scientific term "species." The two ideas are actually extremely different.

If you don't want to accept that one "kind" of animal can be evolved from another "kind," that's fine. I don't think I'll convince you otherwise. But if you're going to oppose the Theory of Evolution, shouldn't you at least study it enough to understand what it is that you are opposing?

#33 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 01 December 2012 - 01:21 PM

I will rephrase my original statement. When you observe a dog produce anything but a dog, let me know. Your next step... "But, evolution takes a long time, millllions of years, we will be dead by the time a dog produces a "non" dog."

Nope. My next step is : the day we observe an organism producing offspring that don't belong to its own clade you'd hear it from the loud scrambling of thousands of evolutionary biologists scrapping the theory of evolution and coming up with a theory of "trans-cladistic spontaneous transformations".

In other words, the theory of evolution does not predict dogs would give birth to non-dogs, quite the opposite. Even if it took millions of years they'd still be "dogs" - it's just that the word "dog" would no longer refer to a species, it would refer to a larger grouping, like "canid" or "carnivore" does now. Not all members of that family would be like the first dogs were, but then that's true even now. It would just be even more so.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if we actually did see a dog giving birth to a cat and all creationists adopted the theory of evolution just as mainstream science abandoned it.

#34 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:50 PM

This thread has spun way off the tracks, probably my fault for responding to the claim that my acceptance of evolution is due to "faith." Not sure where to go now, maybe the mods have some idea?

#35 Jesse

Jesse

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Connecticut

Posted 02 December 2012 - 07:40 AM

Nope. My next step is : the day we observe an organism producing offspring that don't belong to its own clade you'd hear it from the loud scrambling of thousands of evolutionary biologists scrapping the theory of evolution and coming up with a theory of "trans-cladistic spontaneous transformations". In other words, the theory of evolution does not predict dogs would give birth to non-dogs, quite the opposite. Even if it took millions of years they'd still be "dogs" - it's just that the word "dog" would no longer refer to a species, it would refer to a larger grouping, like "canid" or "carnivore" does now.


So because you observe small changes within dogs today, you assume they evolved from some goo millions of years ago?

#36 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 02 December 2012 - 08:48 AM

So because you observe small changes within dogs today, you assume they evolved from some goo millions of years ago?

No, they could just as easily have evolved from some specially-created proto-dog that came off the ark, the evidence for common descent of all life is mostly the nested hierarchy. You can look it up on Wikipedia or something, I'll stop now. I apologize for contributing to this massive thread drift.

#37 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 03 December 2012 - 10:43 AM


Why are you being rude and insulting? I am endeavoring to treat everyone here with respect, I don't understand what I've done or said to provoke such a response from you.Can we reset this somehow, and start over? I have no desire to make anyone upset.

Start over? How about you start with a rational response to the post I made.

#38 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 03 December 2012 - 05:18 PM

Start over? How about you start with a rational response to the post I made.

Jesus said to bless those who curse you. Why is it that i find this to be very good advice, yet I don't even claim to follow Jesus? Posted Image

#39 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Pretending he used to be a science teacher
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 05 December 2012 - 08:40 AM

Nope. My next step is : the day we observe an organism producing offspring that don't belong to its own clade you'd hear it from the loud scrambling of thousands of evolutionary biologists scrapping the theory of evolution and coming up with a theory of "trans-cladistic spontaneous transformations". In other words, the theory of evolution does not predict dogs would give birth to non-dogs, quite the opposite. Even if it took millions of years they'd still be "dogs" - it's just that the word "dog" would no longer refer to a species, it would refer to a larger grouping, like "canid" or "carnivore" does now. Not all members of that family would be like the first dogs were, but then that's true even now. It would just be even more so. Wouldn't it be hilarious if we actually did see a dog giving birth to a cat and all creationists adopted the theory of evolution just as mainstream science abandoned it.


When that happens then get back with us.Posted Image

#40 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 December 2012 - 02:54 PM

One kind of evolution... Pffft....

Cosmic Evolution: BB
Chemical Evolution: formation of heavier elements via the fusion of Hydrogen
Biological Evolution: as per Darwin, species evolve and change into new species
Variation, (aka microevolution): variations within a species pertaining to different breeds / variants

I am sure there are others, however these are the ones I know off the top of my head




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users