Do you believe in God?

[YoursTrue]

How old is earth?

I mean like maybe you think the residents should have a birthday party?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I do not 'believe' in God, I know that God exists. I do not need proof to know. Proof is for people who need it.

That said, I believe that I have evidence for God's existence so my faith is not blind.

Carl Jung said pretty much exactly this once, and incited such a furore that he supposedly came to regret saying it publicly; not because he didn't mean what he said, but because he was thereafter constantly forced to justify himself to cynics and sceptics for whom their could never be any justification. Jung knew there was a God, because he had seen the revolutionary changes faith in God could work in the human soul. But of course he couldn't prove his knowledge, and the mere fact he spoke about it undermined his status, in the eyes of his detractors, as a man of medical science.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I mean like maybe you think the residents should have a birthday party?

Not enough candles

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you want me to guess?

No, just answer I know or I don't know. But I guess you don't know.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, just answer I know or I don't know. But I guess you don't know.

Of course I don't know. Do you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course I don't know. Do you?

No!

 

[YoursTrue]

Not enough candles

which makes me wonder -- if they could make enough candles for each year the earth was in existence, do you think they would cover the earth if placed upright? Maybe they'd have to leave out the watery places, mountains and such.

 

[metis]

So far scientists, to my knowledge (maybe you or others know something more), have not demonstrated/proved/shown that fish do not remain fish, for instance, even though they change due to surroundings, and bacteria again, while changing, still have remained bacteria. OK, even houseflies remain houseflies. So far that's what it is. Birds remain birds, even with developing larger or smaller beaks, salmon remain salmon even when developing traits that enable them to adapt to different environment.

We all are a byproduct of evolutionary change.

 

[YoursTrue]

We all are a byproduct of evolutionary change.

I ain't saying anything much about that except that bacteria "evolve" yet there is no evidence that I know of that bacteria become (evolve to) anything other than bacteria. (Same with gorillas, etc.) Just because I haven't heard of gorillas, etc. becoming something more or less than gorillas doesn't mean that it didn't/doesn't happen, but so far I have not seen any scientific evidence supporting the change of -- kind. And I use that word specifically because interbreeding or inbreeding can produce some interesting results, but as you know, the experiment infusing a woman, if I remember correctly, with the sperm of a gorilla didn't work out. I know it was in my mind a ghastly experiment, but there is nothing to show besides birds changing beaks and colorations among other things, yet they remain birds, etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I ain't saying anything much about that except that bacteria "evolve" yet there is no evidence that I know of that bacteria become (evolve to) anything other than bacteria. (Same with gorillas, etc.) Just because I haven't heard of gorillas, etc. becoming something more or less than gorillas doesn't mean that it didn't/doesn't happen, but so far I have not seen any scientific evidence supporting the change of -- kind. And I use that word specifically because interbreeding or inbreeding can produce some interesting results, but as you know, the experiment infusing a woman, if I remember correctly, with the sperm of a gorilla didn't work out. I know it was in my mind a ghastly experiment, but there is nothing to show besides birds changing beaks and colorations among other things, yet they remain birds, etc.

So you are back. Care to start our exchange up again?

 

[metis]

I ain't saying anything much about that except that bacteria "evolve" yet there is no evidence that I know of that bacteria become (evolve to) anything other than bacteria. (Same with gorillas, etc.) Just because I haven't heard of gorillas, etc. becoming something more or less than gorillas doesn't mean that it didn't/doesn't happen, but so far I have not seen any scientific evidence supporting the change of -- kind. And I use that word specifically because interbreeding or inbreeding can produce some interesting results, but as you know, the experiment infusing a woman, if I remember correctly, with the sperm of a gorilla didn't work out. I know it was in my mind a ghastly experiment, but there is nothing to show besides birds changing beaks and colorations among other things, yet they remain birds, etc.

If we look back at the human fossil record, humans over 3 million years ago look quite different and had much smaller brains than we do know. If we look back 5 million years ago, it would be very easy to believe that what they see are apes, and yet we know they are small-brained humans.

IOW, there's nothing exactly like us back then, and humans throughout the world now look quite differently than the humans then, and yet all of them are humans. This is not an unusual when we deal with other animal species, such as with the rest of the ape line. This is not at all unusual with other animal species as well.

So, if God supposedly created all as we see today, then why is it that the species back millions of years ago don't look like the species that we see today?

The reality is that the ToE simply does not mean nor imply that God cannot be the Creator. This is why most Christian and Jewish theologians have no trouble accepting the ToE as long as it is believed that God caused this all to happen.

 

[Trailblazer]

Carl Jung said pretty much exactly this once, and incited such a furore that he supposedly came to regret saying it publicly; not because he didn't mean what he said, but because he was thereafter constantly forced to justify himself to cynics and sceptics for whom their could never be any justification. Jung knew there was a God, because he had seen the revolutionary changes faith in God could work in the human soul. But of course he couldn't prove his knowledge, and the mere fact he spoke about it undermined his status, in the eyes of his detractors, as a man of medical science.

Thanks, I never knew that about Jung and I never would have even thought it.

 

[YoursTrue]

If we look back at the human fossil record, humans over 3 million years ago look quite different and had much smaller brains than we do know. If we look back 5 million years ago, it would be very easy to believe that what they see are apes, and yet we know they are small-brained humans.

IOW, there's nothing exactly like us back then, and humans throughout the world now look quite differently than the humans then, and yet all of them are humans. This is not an unusual when we deal with other animal species, such as with the rest of the ape line. This is not at all unusual with other animal species as well.

So, if God supposedly created all as we see today, then why is it that the species back millions of years ago don't look like the species that we see today?

The reality is that the ToE simply does not mean nor imply that God cannot be the Creator. This is why most Christian and Jewish theologians have no trouble accepting the ToE as long as it is believed that God caused this all to happen.

I am not a specialist in this area. I understand that many do not go by the word kind, but rather keep talking about species changing. All right. So according to that theory I suppose, fish evolved to become humans. I do not really see support for that idea. Tiktaalik is not evidence of this in the real unsupposed sense as far as I am concerned.

 

[paarsurrey]

Tiktaalik

I just quote from the Wikipedia for the benefit of friends in the forum:

Tiktaalik (/tɪkˈtɑːlɪk/; Inuktitut ᑎᒃᑖᓕᒃ [tiktaːlik]) is a monospecific genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned fish) from the Late Devonian Period, about 375 Mya (million years ago), having many features akin to those of tetrapods (four-legged animals).[1] Tiktaalik is estimated to have had a total length of 1.25–2.75 metres (4.1–9.0 ft) based on various specimens.[2]

Unearthed in Arctic Canada, Tiktaalik is a non-tetrapod member of Osteichthyes (bony fish), complete with scales and gills—but it has a triangular, flattened head and unusual, cleaver-shaped fins. Its fins have thin ray bones for paddling like most fish, but they also have sturdy interior bones that would have allowed Tiktaalik to prop itself up in shallow water and use its limbs for support as most four-legged animals do. Those fins and other mixed characteristics mark Tiktaalik as a crucial transition fossil, a link in evolution from swimming fish to four-legged vertebrates.[3] This and similar animals might be the common ancestors of all vertebrate terrestrial fauna: amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.[4]

The first Tiktaalik fossils were found in 2004 on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada. The discovery, made by Edward B. Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Neil H. Shubin from the University of Chicago, and Harvard University Professor Farish A. Jenkins Jr., was published in the April 6, 2006 issue of Nature[1] and quickly recognized as a transitional form.

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Regards

​

 

[YoursTrue]

I just quote from the Wikipedia for the benefit of friends in the forum:

Tiktaalik (/tɪkˈtɑːlɪk/; Inuktitut ᑎᒃᑖᓕᒃ [tiktaːlik]) is a monospecific genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned fish) from the Late Devonian Period, about 375 Mya (million years ago), having many features akin to those of tetrapods (four-legged animals).[1] Tiktaalik is estimated to have had a total length of 1.25–2.75 metres (4.1–9.0 ft) based on various specimens.[2]

Unearthed in Arctic Canada, Tiktaalik is a non-tetrapod member of Osteichthyes (bony fish), complete with scales and gills—but it has a triangular, flattened head and unusual, cleaver-shaped fins. Its fins have thin ray bones for paddling like most fish, but they also have sturdy interior bones that would have allowed Tiktaalik to prop itself up in shallow water and use its limbs for support as most four-legged animals do. Those fins and other mixed characteristics mark Tiktaalik as a crucial transition fossil, a link in evolution from swimming fish to four-legged vertebrates.[3] This and similar animals might be the common ancestors of all vertebrate terrestrial fauna: amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.[4]

The first Tiktaalik fossils were found in 2004 on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada. The discovery, made by Edward B. Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Neil H. Shubin from the University of Chicago, and Harvard University Professor Farish A. Jenkins Jr., was published in the April 6, 2006 issue of Nature[1] and quickly recognized as a transitional form.

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Regards

​

I understand it is considered as a transitional form. HOWEVER, other than the figuring of scientific conjecture or placement, there is nothing beyond that. How do you feel about that, in other words, what do you think?

 

[McBell]

I understand it is considered as a transitional form. HOWEVER, other than the figuring of scientific conjecture or placement, there is nothing beyond that. How do you feel about that, in other words, what do you think?

Since every fossil is a "transitional form" it is a transitional form fossil.

Also, since it has been found, it is no longer a "missing link"

 

[YoursTrue]

Since every fossil is a "transitional form" it is a transitional form fossil.

Also, since it has been found, it is no longer a "missing link"

It might be considered that way by some.
Has the line of descent (or ascent, however it goes) leading from fish without bony structures giving the impression these would lead to legs noted from which this specimen came from? Or went to? I mean evolved to?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I understand it is considered as a transitional form. HOWEVER, other than the figuring of scientific conjecture or placement, there is nothing beyond that. How do you feel about that, in other words, what do you think?

I think that if the universe is orderly it has nothing to do with how I think. Now it appears orderly and it appears that over the long period of time that fossils cover and the evidence for DNA, that the TOE explains it.
Either that or that for a young earth that God cheats in effect.

 

[YoursTrue]

Since every fossil is a "transitional form" it is a transitional form fossil.

Also, since it has been found, it is no longer a "missing link"

It's a fossil.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think that if the universe is orderly it has nothing to do with how I think. Now it appears orderly and it appears that over the long period of time that fossils cover and the evidence for DNA, that the TOE explains it.
Either that or that for a young earth that God cheats in effect.

Well...that's an interesting reply, and again, I am no expert, and DNA transmission does sound interesting, but I do not see any evidence that the in-betweens or offshoots of that Unknown Common Ancestor which is no longer around (meaning the gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, humans) interbred with whatevers to produce gorillas, chimpanzees, humans, etc.