Different Opinions....Who is right?

[Bear Wild]

Well, I believe there are genuine invisible entities that exist.... One could be called "Odin". Do you believe in Thor? Or Frigga?

Reminded of Thor every time there is a storm and give thanks to Frigg every day.

 

[Bear Wild]

This is ultimately yet another contradiction for common descent evolution: uniformitarianism, geology's 'guiding principle.'

For evolution to occur, it needs environmental changes, or pressures exerted on organisms to effect their adaptability. With all the diverse life we've found, and more everyday, there would have to have been major changes all over. But uniformitarianism would work against such varied change happening. Forms of life are just too diverse!

What epigenetics shows is that evolution has more possibilities than just genetic inheritance. This does not contradict common descent since the genetic pattern is still important but that variation is more than just the genetics. It includes the interaction of the environment and cytoplasmic interaction to the genetic material. It is more dynamic than first thought. So we found natural selection first then we found genetics and now epigenetics. Each helps to explain the diversity of life. Life is so diverse because of these factors with no need for anyone or anything to intervene. The radio dialog ironically presented evidence that helps explain more rapid events from epigenetic aspects but nothing presented especially at the referenced symposium denies evolution. The new information helps explain biological evolution.

This does not mean you should not believe in the god (or goddess) you want to believe in. There are many Christians than believe in a god and realize the evidence for evolution is clear but does not deny their belief in their god. Most think that it is the way their god intended for life to develop. In my religious view it is the universe that created both gods, goddesses, men, women and all other life. Evolution only strengthens my belief and reminds me to appreciate this world and treat it with the respect it deserves.

 

[Bear Wild]

This is ultimately yet another contradiction for common descent evolution: uniformitarianism, geology's 'guiding principle.'

For evolution to occur, it needs environmental changes, or pressures exerted on organisms to effect their adaptability. With all the diverse life we've found, and more everyday, there would have to have been major changes all over. But uniformitarianism would work against such varied change happening. Forms of life are just too diverse!

No it is not! The common descent is with the full genetic inheritance pattern. Thus birds developed similar patterns of complex behavior on a different common descent pattern. This is exactly what is predicted in evolution theory. Diversity is driven but the environment interacting with the DNA, histones, methylation of the DNA and other cytoplasmic interactions. Major changes in regulation genes have huge implications on gene activation and phenotypic expression. Thus when the genetic variation created new expressions of the hox genes, life developed a new axis development. Thus changes in regulation genes can result in new structural changes and in this case a change in body plan which could produce a major change and considerable variation to produce the opportunity to develop immense diversity.

 

[Brian2]

Except life on earth does not show evidence of intelligent design but rather the interplay of a complex genetic code with its environment. There are far to many aspects of life that makes no sense in intelligent design and are explained through the changes in the genetic code that allow that phenotype to utilize the resources available and to change when those resources change so the argument for intelligent design completely fails.

From this site:

Creation Stories.

"Odin and his brothers had set up the sky and stars, but otherwise they left the heavens unlit. Long afterwards, one of the descendants of those first two people that the brothers created had two children. Those two children were so beautiful that their father named the son Moon and the daughter Sol. The gods were jealous already and, when they heard of the father's arrogance, they pulled the brother and sister up to the sky and set them to work. Sol drives the chariot that carries the sun across the skies, and she drives so fast across the skies of the northland because she is chased by a giant wolf each day. Moon likewise takes a course across the sky each night, but not so swiftly because he is not so harried."

At least the Biblical creation tells us much of what science has discovered and can be read in a way that incorporates evolution.
A mistake that you seem to make is that you seem to think that what is shown to be natural proves that God did not do it.
Something that you may or may not realise about science is that there is bias there, and if someone suggests ID it is tantamount to heresy and that person may sink into the depths of scientific oblivion in the scholarly world. That of course does not mean that no evolution scientists believe in a God who created everything, including the system that ensures survival and diversity of life in a variety of environments.
There really is no battle between evolution and the Bible except in the minds of Young Earth Creationists on one side and a variety of others on the other, including yourself it seems.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And you would be correct, imo.

Yet you have not shown, even once, any evidence to support a designer.

Evolution processes have limits. Very limited ability to create de novo anatomical features.

And you have only made unsupported claims and have ignored questions put to you and all the evidence provided to you.

At least, not to account for the diversity we observe.

The theory of evolution is the explanation for the diversity we see. Everything else is claims without explanation or evidence.

Adding in horizontal gene flow is not a radical departure that destroys the thoery.

(That’s why many scientists are arguing in support of the Extended Synthesis. Gerd Müller referred to the Modern Synthesis as having “Explanatory Deficits”. But some here are diehards....) As even artificial (lab-controlled) evolution reveals, all types of species can form, but they always stay within their *families / orders*.

Many? What does that mean? Do you have numbers? You only mention one.

You do not appear to understand what is asserted in this "expanded synthesis" nor understanding of the evidence being used. You saw dissent over details and magnified that arbitrarily to falsely mean the theory was being refuted.

The barriers exist within those animal groups, which the Bible refers to, somewhat indistinctly, as “according to their kinds.”

Once again, dependence on a term defined after the fact and not internally from within the source. You have to define it based on information from the science you deny.

What barriers does Genesis illustrate, define and explain? I see none.

Now, regarding an old Earth, those Creative Days are brought under scrutiny. Does the Bible specifically mean 24-hr. days? Not at all. ‘Yom’ (the Hebrew Word there) can mean an indeterminate period.
One piece of evidence that this applies to the creative days, is found by examining Day 6.
A lot was going on. But the clincher is when, after Eve was created, Adam exclaimed, “This is at last bone of my bones...”
No one says that about anything after a measly 24 hrs! ((Unless it’s food, lol.)

Stay safe...have a good day.

An opinion that has a much validity as the one claiming it is actual 24 hour days. Your opinion of an ancient text is not evidence that the basis is correct.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

At least, I can tell you listened to the program.



Sounds like you accept that there is design evident in living systems.
Hey, that’s a start!

Can you show the evidence you claim is evident? I have only been on here a few years and so far you have not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The idea of intelligent design and the idea of evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Some Christians who are Young Earth Creationists might like to say they are, and some others who do not believe in a creator may like to say also that they are mutually exclusive. The reality seems to be imo that the Bible can be understood with evolution and an old earth and universe in mind.

One is based on belief and the other is based on evidence. How would you merge the two? How do you exclude every belief save one? What evidence is that that a designer exists and what evidence shows the actions of that designer in physical and biological processes?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"All the time"?
No, we don't. We rarely observe novel information forming. Eating citrate? Ingesting nylon?
These abilities came from already-existing genes....even if new gene development was observed, it wouldn't alter nor debunk my claims.

You listed two examples of novel information right after your claim that we rarely see it happen. Well done.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is ultimately yet another contradiction for common descent evolution: uniformitarianism, geology's 'guiding principle.'

I cannot make any sense of this. Care to explain it?

For evolution to occur, it needs environmental changes, or pressures exerted on organisms to effect their adaptability. With all the diverse life we've found, and more everyday, there would have to have been major changes all over. But uniformitarianism would work against such varied change happening. Forms of life are just too diverse!

I see. You do not understand the concepts you are using. Uniformitarianism in geology is about continuous changes to the Earth over time and you seem to be saying this is the only environmental condition that drives evolution. Not that it would not, but it is not the totality of the environment. Seems like another straw man argument gone wrong for you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

From this site:

Creation Stories.

"Odin and his brothers had set up the sky and stars, but otherwise they left the heavens unlit. Long afterwards, one of the descendants of those first two people that the brothers created had two children. Those two children were so beautiful that their father named the son Moon and the daughter Sol. The gods were jealous already and, when they heard of the father's arrogance, they pulled the brother and sister up to the sky and set them to work. Sol drives the chariot that carries the sun across the skies, and she drives so fast across the skies of the northland because she is chased by a giant wolf each day. Moon likewise takes a course across the sky each night, but not so swiftly because he is not so harried."

At least the Biblical creation tells us much of what science has discovered and can be read in a way that incorporates evolution.
A mistake that you seem to make is that you seem to think that what is shown to be natural proves that God did not do it.
Something that you may or may not realise about science is that there is bias there, and if someone suggests ID it is tantamount to heresy and that person may sink into the depths of scientific oblivion in the scholarly world. That of course does not mean that no evolution scientists believe in a God who created everything, including the system that ensures survival and diversity of life in a variety of environments.
There really is no battle between evolution and the Bible except in the minds of Young Earth Creationists on one side and a variety of others on the other, including yourself it seems.

I believe in God, but I do not have the compulsion to ignore reality or to force it to fit my beliefs out of obedience to some church doctrine.

Science is not a belief system. It is a means to understand the world based on what we observe and can test. If the the answers we find do not fit neatly into beliefs, should we ignore them?

 

[Bear Wild]

"Odin and his brothers had set up the sky and stars, but otherwise they left the heavens unlit. Long afterwards, one of the descendants of those first two people that the brothers created had two children. Those two children were so beautiful that their father named the son Moon and the daughter Sol. The gods were jealous already and, when they heard of the father's arrogance, they pulled the brother and sister up to the sky and set them to work. Sol drives the chariot that carries the sun across the skies, and she drives so fast across the skies of the northland because she is chased by a giant wolf each day. Moon likewise takes a course across the sky each night, but not so swiftly because he is not so harried."

Actually if you know the myth correctly the gods and goddesses were formed from the universe. They are a product of the when the Ice and fire meet which forms the rime-giants including Ymir and it is from the rime giant Ymir that the earth is formed. Thus this mythology shows the universe is the source of everything on Earth. It is, as all myths, a myth influenced by the environment of those who told it. It does not in anyway preclude the belief in evolution.
Compared to the genesis description it is more compatible with science, but to try and fit it in with science is just as ridiculous as trying to fit genesis in with science. These were and will remain myths with symbolic meanings to those who created them. Everyone who tries to equate creation myths to science must come up with new and creative meanings for each and every word that were not intended by those who developed the myths.

 

[ManSinha]

Actually if you know the myth correctly the gods and goddesses were formed from the universe. They are a product of the when the Ice and fire meet which forms the rime-giants including Ymir and it is from the rime giant Ymir that the earth is formed. Thus this mythology shows the universe is the source of everything on Earth. It is, as all myths, a myth influenced by the environment of those who told it. It does not in anyway preclude the belief in evolution.
Compared to the genesis description it is more compatible with science, but to try and fit it in with science is just as ridiculous as trying to fit genesis in with science. These were and will remain myths with symbolic meanings to those who created them. Everyone who tries to equate creation myths to science must come up with new and creative meanings for each and every word that were not intended by those who developed the myths.

@Wild Fox - Interesting that you should say that - the Vedas composed arguably about 3500-4000 years ago support that point of view FWIW - emphasis mine

From the RigVeda Chapter 10 Stanza 129

6. Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7. He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

 

[ecco]

This creature is as beautiful as the flowers that it walks on.....so what makes the most sense....deliberate and thoughtful creation....or just an accident of nature?

Neither. Doesn't it strike you as strange that you have to create a strawman to try to make a point?

 

[ecco]

Did nature just fluke these? Or was this camouflage clever and deliberate creation?

Neither. Doesn't it strike you as strange that you have to create a strawman to try to make a point?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I cannot make any sense of this. Care to explain it?
I see. You do not understand the concepts you are using. Uniformitarianism in geology is about continuous changes to the Earth over time and you seem to be saying this is the only environmental condition that drives evolution. Not that it would not, but it is not the totality of the environment. Seems like another straw man argument gone wrong for you.

No, it just would inhibit evolution somewhat ....uniformitarianism is in contrast to catastrophism....catastrophism is rejected by most geologists, yet catastrophism would support the view of evolution (naturalism) causing the huge diversity we see, more than uniformitarianism.

Can’t we talk amiably on the subject?

 

[gnostic]

Now, regarding an old Earth, those Creative Days are brought under scrutiny. Does the Bible specifically mean 24-hr. days? Not at all. ‘Yom’ (the Hebrew Word there) can mean an indeterminate period.
One piece of evidence that this applies to the creative days, is found by examining Day 6.
A lot was going on. But the clincher is when, after Eve was created, Adam exclaimed, “This is at last bone of my bones...”
No one says that about anything after a measly 24 hrs! ((Unless it’s food, lol.)

No one is saying anything about hours or 24 hours.

And you still don’t understand the concept of Hebrew language to critically analyze and comment about the Hebrew word “yom”, Hockeycowboy.

You don’t cherrypick a single word, then you think you know what it mean, and then put any number of period you like, into yom.

Yom may well mean unspecified period of time, but it certainly not a thousand-year, million-year, or billion-year, or whatever silly number some silly creationists - old or young - want to plug into yom.

That’s just typically sloppy biased biblical scholars I’d expect coming from any creationist - twisting a single word from a quoted passage.

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

1:3 waYomer élohiym y'hiy ôr way'hiy-ôr

1:4 waYar' élohiym et-häôr Kiy-†ôv waYav'Dël élohiym Bëyn häôr ûvëyn hachoshekh'.

1:5 waYiq'rä élohiym läôr yôm w'lachoshekh' qärä läy'läh way'hiy-erev way'hiy-voqer yôm echäd

The only way to grasp the meaning of yom, is to read the entire sentence.

Note the quoted in colored highlights:

“And there was evening and there was morning...”​

That part of the sentence is repeated 6 times, provide what the context to yom mean, Hockeycowboy.

The word morning (or dawn) is boqer or voqer (in Hebrew transliteration of בֹּקֶר). And the word for evening (dusk, night) is `ereb or erev (transliteration of עֶרֶב).

An evening and a morning is cycle of 1 day.

It is not a cycle of one week, not one year, not one century, not one million years, not one billion years, etc. No, Hockeycowboy, it is just “one day”.

The passages may not explicitly say “24-hour”, but it does say “there was evening and there was morning”, and that cycle or period does explicitly equate to “one day”.

I know that some creationists would like to quote some other passages (eg 2 Peter 3:8), to twist Genesis 1:5, but that silly shoddy scholarship that I would only expect from some dishonest creationists.

Read more than one word, Hockeycowboy. You want to know what yom mean, read the whole damn sentence, or even read the whole paragraph.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, it just would inhibit evolution somewhat ....uniformitarianism is in contrast to catastrophism....catastrophism is rejected by most geologists, yet catastrophism would support the view of evolution (naturalism) causing the huge diversity we see, more than uniformitarianism.

Can’t we talk amiably on the subject?

What is the basis for your claim? What is the evidence that evolution would be inhibited (somewhat?) under one and not the other? When was the last time you looked into the views geologists hold on uniformitarianism and catastrophism?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And you would be correct, imo.
Evolution processes have limits. Very limited ability to create de novo anatomical features. At least, not to account for the diversity we observe. (That’s why many scientists are arguing in support of the Extended Synthesis. Gerd Müller referred to the Modern Synthesis as having “Explanatory Deficits”. But some here are diehards....) As even artificial (lab-controlled) evolution reveals, all types of species can form, but they always stay within their *families / orders*.

The barriers exist within those animal groups, which the Bible refers to, somewhat indistinctly, as “according to their kinds.”

Now, regarding an old Earth, those Creative Days are brought under scrutiny. Does the Bible specifically mean 24-hr. days? Not at all. ‘Yom’ (the Hebrew Word there) can mean an indeterminate period.
One piece of evidence that this applies to the creative days, is found by examining Day 6.
A lot was going on. But the clincher is when, after Eve was created, Adam exclaimed, “This is at last bone of my bones...”
No one says that about anything after a measly 24 hrs! ((Unless it’s food, lol.)

Stay safe...have a good day.

I noticed that you have moved your arbitrary borders around evolution to include orders now instead of evolution within families alone. Looks like we are making some headway with you.

 

[rational experiences]

O stone planet is stated in science theism to be GOD O the body that created its own heavenly gas spirits in the spatial womb as a stone body.

Said GOD O our Earth is only one body unique to its own presence....a Creator entity by that description.

Not any cosmological description.

Science if they claim I will do a reaction GOD O by MASS is the physical presence beginning with stone.

If you said you were going to theory an END...the end would be to take stone massed fusion, the planet O GOD...the notification by non stop constant mind teaching/preaching says GOD is the stone planet.

So a theist today would own no excuse to try to placate that GOD could be a particle...no excuse at all to make that claim.

However, of you stated GOD O the mass/fusion beginnings I want it to become a particle...the answer would equate NOTHING itself by a machine caused core reaction.

Which would state GOD O MASS to convert by hot out of space conversion of cold spatial radiation into a black mass body of heat...for Earth to pass spatially in a travelling model....O by his theme....but I want it to be linear.

O cycle and O Earth is not linear, a cycle is exactly a circular function movement of GOD O in space...space travel.

However if you wanted to contradict MASS to become particle to own particle reaction, it would equate NOTHING....but nothing as a hot radiation mass.

Reason for the advice...you live in an alight gas burning atmospheric conscious awareness....burning.

Why SATANIC advice related to that theme about ANTI GOD.

You own historically by all O GOD natural themes ANTI CHRIST. So science already knew the ANTI CHRIST result was JESUS.

But Jesus, Earth gases were never owned by GOD O MASS.

So if science said I will equate formulas about Jesus for God, they intended to remove GOD O mass into particle separation....which is the same as claiming I will re invent GOD conversion by SUN sciences for Earth males...my own self historically.

Which is to form a great big black mass heated cold spatial radiation body for Earth to pass into on its journey.

GOD, just like in the past with the SUN O would gas expand to take the gas fusion to holding particles ready to explode.

The Satanist/theist wanted to take the particle beyond that holding....into a particle reaction which equals heated black mass spatial irradiation forming.

By invention and copying.....as a satanic known act against NATURAL GOD O its origins....by claiming I want to copy what the SUN o UFO mass first did to Earth historically, when space is frozen owner of cold radiation mass.....which is not heated black mass space.

Cold radiation you cannot see....why we can see through night time cold gases in cold space.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

First of all, become a little more proficient yourself, before you start telling me what I do or don't understand.... I've probably studied this much longer than you have. Point:

Note the quoted in colored highlights:

“And there was evening and there was morning...”​

That part of the sentence is repeated 6 times, provide what the context to yom mean, Hockeycowboy.

In the Jewish arrangement of days, mornings have no bearing on a 24-hr day. So the phrase, "there was evening and there was morning", cannot be taken as meaning a literal day.
In fact, read Genesis 1:5....there, Yom means the light part of a 24-hr day, not the whole day.

Again, Yom can mean indefinite periods of time, too. I pretty much proved that, in my previous post.