Enough Time for Evolution?

[Ouroboros]

Geneis 1:11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Land producing life? Sounds like evolution to me.

 

[Alceste]

My sentiments exactly, hence my belief in Epigenetics and Microevolution but not Macroevolution.

And yet you and every other creationist in history has failed to propose a specific mechanism that would limit the amount of change a species could experience over a vast amount of time.

You're saying "I believe I can walk from here to the mailbox, but it would be completely impossible to walk all the way to the next town!"

You have to explain why the same process that gets you to the mailbox can not take you any further. If not, obviously everybody is bound to assume you can just keep walking to get to wherever you're going.

Incidentally, this exactly why you guys lose every debate. You say "nobody can ever walk further than the mailbox" but refuse to explain why not.

 

[fantome profane]

Sure, for the record, for this thread, I am not necessarily arguing against Theistic evolution or even Common Descent, even if I personally don't hold to those.

This is 100% against Naturalism, non-theistic naturalism.

Did I imply otherwise? If so, I retract.

Do you acknowledge the difference between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism?

 

[savagewind]

You are you to define the god concept?

Yes I am me. LOL.

 

[savagewind]

Geneis 1:11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Land producing life? Sounds like evolution to me.

Said God sprout the earth vegetation plants yielding seed trees fruit bearing fruit their kind whose seed ____ on the earth and it was so.

Sprout - to sprout, shoot, grow green Strong's Hebrew: 1876. ??????? (dasha) -- to sprout, shoot, grow green Genesis 1:11 Hebrew Texts and Analysis

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Said God sprout the earth vegetation plants yielding seed trees fruit bearing fruit their kind whose seed ____ on the earth and it was so.

Sprout - to sprout, shoot, grow green Strong's Hebrew: 1876. ??????? (dasha) -- to sprout, shoot, grow green Genesis 1:11 Hebrew Texts and Analysis

What about pine trees??

 

[savagewind]

And yet you and every other creationist in history has failed to propose a specific mechanism that would limit the amount of change a species could experience over a vast amount of time.

You're saying "I believe I can walk from here to the mailbox, but it would be completely impossible to walk all the way to the next town!"

You have to explain why the same process that gets you to the mailbox can not take you any further. If not, obviously everybody is bound to assume you can just keep walking to get to wherever you're going.

Incidentally, this exactly why you guys lose every debate. You say "nobody can ever walk further than the mailbox" but refuse to explain why not.

It is what the thread is about. We believe not enough time has transpired to walk to the next town.
This word experiment on forum is proving my theory. People will hear only what they want to hear.....

 

[savagewind]

What about pine trees??

What about pine trees?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

What about pine trees?

They don't bear fruit. They also don't reproduce the same way fruit/flowering plants and other trees reproduce. Where do they fit in creation?

 

[Curious George]

My motive, however plain it may be, is not the issue here.

If your argument is that what Dr. Stewart Newman says about incremental changes doesn't affect the issue of the concepts we're discussing in the Review, then back up your case other than saying "Common Descent is still true".

We are discussing a very specific issue. If you're looking for ways to avoid discussing that very specific issue, feel free to be content to spectate.

Well I tried explaining specifically why the review was irrelevant, but u ignored my post. If we have now moved to the video I would agree that it is a very valid critique of evolution to suggest there is neo-darwinism favoritism. Since that is one of several views on evolution, yet that is the concept given for people to understand abiogenesis. While I think that this is a mistake, I also know and recognize that the neo-darwin idea of evolution is occurring. That may not be the whole picture, but I would suggest the Precambrian explosion should be enough to convince anyone that there is more to evolution than simply a slow evolutionary process involved in Darwinism. However, this scepticism of Darwinism must be focused on understanding the whole of evolutionary. Theory, because without doubt speciation has and is occurring.

 

[savagewind]

They don't bear fruit. They also don't reproduce the same way fruit/flowering plants and other trees reproduce. Where do they fit in creation?

The word fruit is not literally fruit. It also means reward. The squirrels know about the reward of pine trees imo.

 

[Iti oj]

The word fruit is not literally fruit. It also means reward. The squirrels know about the reward of pine trees imo.

They usualy eat acorn not pinecones

 

[fantome profane]

It always amuses me when people who take the Bible "literally" interpret it symbolically when it suits their needs.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The word fruit is not literally fruit. It also means reward. The squirrels know about the reward of pine trees imo.

The fruit being mention in genesis...is fruit...also acorns don't come from pine trees....

 

[Alceste]

It is what the thread is about. We believe not enough time has transpired to walk to the next town.
This word experiment on forum is proving my theory. People will hear only what they want to hear.....

So how far can you walk in 3.6 BILLION years?

You guys aren't showing your math, so your arguments are not at all compelling. WHY isn't 3.6 BILLION years - hundreds of thousands of millions of generations - long enough for gradual, incremental change to produce our present level of biological diversity? Because you say so? Not good enough. Sorry.

 

[Ouroboros]

It always amuses me when people who take the Bible "literally" interpret it symbolically when it suits their needs.

Exactly.

Creationists don't read the Genesis story literally. They interpret it to be this story about how God molded/designed/architected the world, when Genesis really is saying that God (supposedly) commanded the world to create life. Life was produced by Nature. God is Nature and the underlying force of self-organization that permeates all energy, time, matter, and life.

 

[Sculelos]

Exactly.

Creationists don't read the Genesis story literally. They interpret it to be this story about how God molded/designed/architected the world, when Genesis really is saying that God (supposedly) commanded the world to create life. Life was produced by Nature. God is Nature and the underlying force of self-organization that permeates all energy, time, matter, and life.

Some creationist don't take the Biblical account of Genesis literally, however some as myself do. I'm not trying to detract from this thread but if you believe in the Bible and believe it's incorruptible and the inspired words of God you will believe these things and only these things.

*We are in the Year 5,801 AC (Some might have very slight variations of this)

*Creation was 6 literal days.

*Creation happened exactly as stated in Genesis.

*No big bang or fireworks or gravity or evolution was involved in creation.

*Kind means a wide diverse group so yea Okapi, Zebra's, Horses, Donkeys, Mules, Lamas, and Camels are all technically the same kind.

*Basically the Creation account refutes any and all sort of naturalistic Godless explanations so it's not the Job of creationist to prove that the theory of Evolution is false, it's the Job of any theory maker to prove their theory is true we know only one can be true as both are conflicting interest and both can not be true so anyone who says both are true are lying to themselves and are indeed the epitome of foolishness.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Some creationist don't take the Biblical account of Genesis literally, however some as myself do. I'm not trying to detract from this thread but if you believe in the Bible and believe it's incorruptible and the inspired words of God you will believe these things and only these things.

*We are in the Year 5,801 AC (Some might have very slight variations of this)

*Creation was 6 literal days.

*Creation happened exactly as stated in Genesis.

*No big bang or fireworks or gravity or evolution was involved in creation.

*Kind means a wide diverse group so yea Okapi, Zebra's, Horses, Donkeys, Mules, Lamas, and Camels are all technically the same kind.

*Basically the Creation account refutes any and all sort of naturalistic Godless explanations so it's not the Job of creationist to prove that the theory of Evolution is false, it's the Job of any theory maker to prove their theory is true we know only one can be true as both are conflicting interest and both can not be true so anyone who says both are true are lying to themselves and are indeed the epitome of foolishness.

Ignoring the fact that you're basically admitting to having an inherent bias, the door on this swings both ways. You are correct that only one can be true, but that doesn't mean one HAS to be true. In other words, even if evolution were demonstrated to be completely false tomorrow, it wouldn't have any impact whatsoever on the truth of a literal Biblical account. As you said, it's not the job of people to prove it false, it's the job of people to prove it true. Since there is currently absolutely zero evidence of any kind (that we are aware of) for the veracity of the Biblical account of Creation, you are essentially committing a massive contradiction.

Actually, I am sad for anyone who mocks the Creator.

Well, that's your prerogative, but until you can clearly and concisely demonstrate "the Creator" actually exists I still feel validated in mocking the concept just as much as I would feel validated for mocking the concept of the Smurfs.

 

[savagewind]

Exactly.

Creationists don't read the Genesis story literally. They interpret it to be this story about how God molded/designed/architected the world, when Genesis really is saying that God (supposedly) commanded the world to create life. Life was produced by Nature. God is Nature and the underlying force of self-organization that permeates all energy, time, matter, and life.

Thank you. I think in 3.6 billions years I could not have found good words like those to express it. :bow:

Though I cannot say "God is nature", I can say God cannot be separated from nature imlo. That means I can not commit 100% to those wonderful words. Maybe in 3.6 billions year I might.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You are correct that only one can be true, but that doesn't mean one HAS to be true. In other words, even if evolution were demonstrated to be completely false tomorrow, it wouldn't have any impact whatsoever on the truth of a literal Biblical account.

A very good point. ID/creationist arguments invariably take the form of arguments AGAINST evolution, not arguments FOR creationism; the assumption is that this is an exhaustive distinction- either evolution is true, or creationism is, if one is false then it follows that the other is true.

Unfortunately, this simply is not the case. If evolution was conclusively refuted tomorrow, creationism would not become the default position- we simply would be left with nothing, and back to the drawing board we'd be bound!