An unreasonable debate...

[rusra02]

I took your bait and didn't find anything but religious creationists (a redundant pairing of terms, IMO) pretending debate within the scientific community about specific details of evolution means some biologists reject evolution.

That's not what it means. It means they all accept evolution, but don't agree on some of the niggly details.

Niggly details? "Cambridge Professor John Barrow says that the belief in “the evolution of life and mind” hits “dead-ends at every stage. There are just so many ways in which life can fail to evolve in a complex and hostile environment that it would be sheer hubris to suppose that, simply given enough carbon and enough time, anything is possible.” (Quote from g11/10) Sheer hubris, indeed.
Your claim that "all" biologists accept evolution fails to mention a growing list of biologists who reject evolution, openly and publicly.

 

[McBell]

Niggly details? "Cambridge Professor John Barrow says that the belief in “the evolution of life and mind” hits “dead-ends at every stage. There are just so many ways in which life can fail to evolve in a complex and hostile environment that it would be sheer hubris to suppose that, simply given enough carbon and enough time, anything is possible.” (Quote from g11/10) Sheer hubris, indeed.
Your claim that "all" biologists accept evolution fails to mention a growing list of biologists who reject evolution, openly and publicly.

List them.
And we are talking about real biologists, not archaeologists who happen to share your beliefs...

 

[rusra02]

According to Genesis, land plants were created on the third day and the sun and moon were created on the fourth.


The first aquatic animals arose about 600 million years ago. Fish arose about 500 million years ago.

The first land plants didn't arise until about 450 million years ago. Fruit-bearing trees (specifically mentioned in Genesis) really didn't start flourishing until the beginning of the Tertiary period, 66 million years ago.

For fruit trees specifically, Genesis got the order wrong by half a billion years.

Your first statement is based on an erroneous view of what Genesis actually says. As frequently explained before, the Bible says Jehovah created the heavens and the earth in the beginning, before the start of the creative periods that focused on the earth being prepared for life. (Genesis 1:1,2)Thus, the billions of galaxies came into existence "in the beginning", not in creative day four. As to the order of life's appearance, there is considerable differences of opinion on when and in what order life began.

 

[rusra02]

List them.
And we are talking about real biologists, not archaeologists who happen to share your beliefs...

Many have been listed in the forum, as you should know well, Mestemia. Rather disingenuous of you to imply otherwise, IMO.

 

[Thief]

I don't believe that the firmament actually exists, but I do believe that the authors of Genesis thought it did.

I think the term of 'firmament' makes the distinction of the forms which behave with fluidity as contrasted to the form that gathers to a more solid condition.

The portion from which light came forth would be that portion God called 'water'....when He was speaking to Moses.

 

[Desert Snake]

sir-loin..............................

sorry, resume discussion........

 

[Desert Snake]

Hello,
I just wanted to post on here my thoughts about the whole Evolution v Creation thing- IT'S UNREASONABLE.
Let me elaborate.

Evolution is a theory on how modern man came to be today- today meaning long ago, of course. Evolutionists (yes it's a word) believe in changes in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift can create new species. Creationists (also a damn word for you etymological geniuses) believe that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

An Evolutionist and Creationist step up to the pulpit to debate their ideals.
We now have a predicament. The problem being that one is supporting their theory by examining the world around us and carrying out experiments to support this theory by finding old fossils and carrying out dating techniques such as carbon dating (Side note: Dating techniques aren't exactly accurate anyway) and what-not. This is the Evolutionist.
The Creationist supports their theory by using a piece of Script written a long long time ago. Period. (To the creationists out there, I'm not trying to demean this theory because, who knows, you could ultimately be right).

And this is the problem. The two just aren't compatible. It would make sense for an Evolutionist to debate another scientific theory, but Creationism isn't a scientific theory it is a spiritual theory. And that's the problem.
The Evolutionist asks the Creationist: "Explain [this]" and the Creationist responds: "Well the Bible says this about [this]. And that's the problem! The Evolutionist will never understand the Creationist and vice-versa.

What are your thoughts on this?

Agreed, I never debate on those threads.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your first statement is based on an erroneous view of what Genesis actually says. As frequently explained before, the Bible says Jehovah created the heavens and the earth in the beginning, before the start of the creative periods that focused on the earth being prepared for life. (Genesis 1:1,2)Thus, the billions of galaxies came into existence "in the beginning", not in creative day four.

Genesis 1:14, part of the account of the fourth day, describes God making the Sun, moon, snd stars explicitly.

As to the order of life's appearance, there is considerable differences of opinion on when and in what order life began.

Among reasonable people, nobody is arguing that the first sea creatures arose AFTER fruit-bearing trees.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the term of 'firmament' makes the distinction of the forms which behave with fluidity as contrasted to the form that gathers to a more solid condition.

The portion from which light came forth would be that portion God called 'water'....when He was speaking to Moses.

The "firmament" is described as separating the "waters above" from the "waters below". The implication is that the firmament is some sort of physical barrier.

 

[Thief]

The "firmament" is described as separating the "waters above" from the "waters below". The implication is that the firmament is some sort of physical barrier.

I might agree.

Perhaps the physical barrier would be an applied force?
Gravity has a the ability to gather...and to separate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I might agree.

Perhaps the physical barrier would be an applied force?
Gravity has a the ability to gather...and to separate.

Twist it however you want, but "firmament" means the solid dome of the sky that holds the "fixed" stars. If you want to interpret the passage literally, then that's what it means.

If you want to interpret it metaphorically, fine by me, but it would still have to be a metaphor that evokes the image of a solid dome in the sky.

 

[rusra02]

Genesis 1:14, part of the account of the fourth day, describes God making the Sun, moon, snd stars explicitly.



Among reasonable people, nobody is arguing that the first sea creatures arose AFTER fruit-bearing trees.

Here is what verse 14 actually says "Then God said: “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years."
Thus, the already existing luminaries became visible in the atmosphere or expanse in the fourth creative period. The sources of light first became discernible in the expanse on creative day 4.
I know many reasonable people who would argue that sea creatures arose after plant life.

 

[Alceste]

Niggly details? "Cambridge Professor John Barrow says that the belief in “the evolution of life and mind” hits “dead-ends at every stage. There are just so many ways in which life can fail to evolve in a complex and hostile environment that it would be sheer hubris to suppose that, simply given enough carbon and enough time, anything is possible.” (Quote from g11/10) Sheer hubris, indeed.
Your claim that "all" biologists accept evolution fails to mention a growing list of biologists who reject evolution, openly and publicly.

Baloney. Barrow is not a biologist. There is no such list.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Many have been listed in the forum, as you should know well, Mestemia. Rather disingenuous of you to imply otherwise, IMO.

Then there should be no problem with reposting them. Please present a list of biologists who reject evolution.

 

[McBell]

Many have been listed in the forum, as you should know well, Mestemia. Rather disingenuous of you to imply otherwise, IMO.

I noticed you did not list even one....

Rather dishonest way of avoiding your list.

Or perhaps you are afraid of your list being nit picked and it being shown that those on your list are not biologists.?
You know, like the last time you presented a list of "biologists"?

And you accuse me of being disingenuous?

 

[Thief]

Twist it however you want, but "firmament" means the solid dome of the sky that holds the "fixed" stars. If you want to interpret the passage literally, then that's what it means.

If you want to interpret it metaphorically, fine by me, but it would still have to be a metaphor that evokes the image of a solid dome in the sky.

Naw....that's ok...

I think the dome idea came from the artist's efforts made to describe what Moses was told.

From the ground looking up.....the stars appear to be 'firmly fixed'.

Any depiction of artwork would be dealt as 'fixed'.

Art sometimes exposes what people think.
Several thousand years ago people did not understand what spins over their heads.

They didn't even know there was a 'spin' to it!

 

[outhouse]

Twist it however you want, .

That's a given

 

[Pegg]

Yet you started a thread trying to do just that?
Seems you are confused.

no, this thread is about the 'unobservable' aspect of evolution theory. The fact is no on saw an creature change into a different type of creature, hence this is 'unobservable' yet people still believe it happens. IOW, they take it on 'faith' that it happens.

thats what this thread is about.

Bold empty claim.
Care to evidence it or is it merely another ratification?

Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study - TelegraphBelief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study - Telegraph

Perhaps the universe does know what it is talking.
One cannot help but wonder if you are listening or merely ratifying your beliefs.

oh i'm listening

 

[Alceste]

no, this thread is about the 'unobservable' aspect of evolution theory. The fact is no on saw an creature change into a different type of creature, hence this is 'unobservable' yet people still believe it happens. IOW, they take it on 'faith' that it happens.

thats what this thread is about.




Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study - TelegraphBelief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study - Telegraph



oh i'm listening

Evolution does not propose that an animal changes into some other species of animal in one lifetime, or even one generation. So the fact nobody had every observed such a thing is actually evidence FOR evolution, not against it.

As for beneficial mutations and novel traits between generations, those have indeed been observed, both inside and outside the laboratory.

 

[Alceste]

no, this thread is about the 'unobservable' aspect of evolution theory. The fact is no on saw an creature change into a different type of creature, hence this is 'unobservable' yet people still believe it happens. IOW, they take it on 'faith' that it happens.

thats what this thread is about.




Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study - TelegraphBelief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study - Telegraph



oh i'm listening

That study found belief in both mummy and God having supernatural powers is common in children under five. Are you under five, Pegg?