Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

I'm assuming that is correct. However, how do you again know that was always the case in the past? Remember -- on another level, it has been said the tectonic plates have moved. So if the EARTH wasn't always the same, mountains and all, what again makes you think that the skies holding water-moisture haven't changed?
2 Peter 3 says: 5 But they deliberately overlook the fact that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world of that time perished in the flood.

Because water is water. We know its traits. And why ask a question totally unrelated?

 

[gnostic]

Well, the earth is the earth and generally not the sky if that's what you mean. Clouds are not earth. They are in the atmosphere, not generally thought of as outer space.

The author(s) of Genesis have very primitive understanding of the Earth, the Earth's atmosphere, space, sky, sun, moon, stars, and they know absolutely nothing about the universe.

Everything that have to do with the Earth's atmosphere, have to do with the Earth.

The problem isn't with the science of Earth, but with the description given in Genesis, which is wrong about most things in the first chapter, and the order of creation in Genesis 2 contradicted the order given in Genesis 1.

The Earth was never completely covered in oceans of water at the beginning (Genesis 1:2) or at the time of the Flood (Genesis 7 & 8).

There can be no water or wind (again 1:2) in the first place without there being Earth's atmosphere.

In Earth science, the young Earth developed atmosphere first, before there were waters. And the Earth's crust developed when the magma of surface of the mantle cooled; so lands formed before water formed from condensation of gases (gases from volcanic activities). But even when water formed, it never the entire Earth's crust. So there were dry lands as well as seas of water, when the Earth was still young, unlike Genesis 1:2.

There can be no daylight, hence no morning in the 1st day of creation, without the Sun (Genesis 1:3-5), which wasn't created along with the moon and stars until the 4th day (Genesis 1:14-19).

The cycle of evening and morning, which is period of a day, only occur because the Earth rotate on its axis, so that certain part of the Earth's surface get light from the Sun. So there being evening and morning on the 1st 3 days is wrong astronomy.

And how can there be vegetation (3rd day) before the creation of the sun (4th day)?

And in Genesis 1, the order was vegetation first (on 3rd day), then land animals before humans (on the 6th day), but in Genesis 2, man was created first, then vegetation (Garden of Eden) and lastly land animals.

So Genesis 2 contradicted the order of creation in Genesis 1.

Neither creation narratives are accurate.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please, drop the poorly asked questions if you want a polite answer.

Try again.

I take that as you cannot answer. All you have is genetic discovery in bones, which in no way shows that any organism was or is evolving. It only shows that there are similar genes. But nothing to show that those genes were changing in that organism. So -- nothing. You have nothing to show any evolution by genes in a micro or macro fashion. Feathers?

 

[YoursTrue]

Because water is water. We know its traits. And why ask a question totally unrelated?

Scientists postulate that great earth changes have occurred. Including the movement of tectonic plates, in fact changing the surface of the earth and its water. You blithely say because water is water. Genesis explains that there is water on the earth, in the earth, and above the earth. It didn't just dump on the earth. It took 40 days to flood the earth. Not overnight. I don't know about you, but when it rains in some areas, people need to get in a rowboat and be rescued.

 

[YoursTrue]

The author(s) of Genesis have very primitive understanding of the Earth, the Earth's atmosphere, space, sky, sun, moon, stars, and they know absolutely nothing about the universe.

Everything that have to do with the Earth's atmosphere, have to do with the Earth.

The problem isn't with the science of Earth, but with the description given in Genesis, which is wrong about most things in the first chapter, and the order of creation in Genesis 2 contradicted the order given in Genesis 1.

The Earth was never completely covered in oceans of water at the beginning (Genesis 1:2) or at the time of the Flood (Genesis 7 & 8).

There can be no water or wind (again 1:2) in the first place without there being Earth's atmosphere.

In Earth science, the young Earth developed atmosphere first, before there were waters. And the Earth's crust developed when the magma of surface of the mantle cooled; so lands formed before water formed from condensation of gases (gases from volcanic activities). But even when water formed, it never the entire Earth's crust. So there were dry lands as well as seas of water, when the Earth was still young, unlike Genesis 1:2.

There can be no daylight, hence no morning in the 1st day of creation, without the Sun (Genesis 1:3-5), which wasn't created along with the moon and stars until the 4th day (Genesis 1:14-19).

The cycle of evening and morning, which is period of a day, only occur because the Earth rotate on its axis, so that certain part of the Earth's surface get light from the Sun. So there being evening and morning on the 1st 3 days is wrong astronomy.

And how can there be vegetation (3rd day) before the creation of the sun (4th day)?

And in Genesis 1, the order was vegetation first (on 3rd day), then land animals before humans (on the 6th day), but in Genesis 2, man was created first, then vegetation (Garden of Eden) and lastly land animals.

So Genesis 2 contradicted the order of creation in Genesis 1.

Neither creation narratives are accurate.

The sun was there. The atmosphere of the earth was enabled that the light was evidently being seen from the earth.
Genesis 1:14-19
And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I take that as you cannot answer. All you have is genetic discovery in bones, which in no way shows that any organism was or is evolving. It only shows that there are similar genes. But nothing to show that those genes were changing in that organism. So -- nothing. You have nothing to show any evolution by genes in a micro or macro fashion. Feathers?

No, I am getting tired of rude and ignorant questions as if you made a point. This is not an honest approach to the topic.

You also are terribly confused and cannot seem to remember that there are several independent lines of evidence for evolution.

Can you ask a question politely and properly? And please try to remember the Ninth Commandment, you do claim to be a Christian after all. It is not just a ban on lying it is ban on any sort of bearing of false witness and you do that regularly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientists postulate that great earth changes have occurred. Including the movement of tectonic plates, in fact changing the surface of the earth and its water. You blithely say because water is water. Genesis explains that there is water on the earth, in the earth, and above the earth. It didn't just dump on the earth. It took 40 days to flood the earth. Not overnight. I don't know about you, but when it rains in some areas, people need to get in a rowboat and be rescued.

And Genesis got it wrong. There is water deep down in the mantle, but that cannot come out rapidly. And movement of tectonic plates does not help you either. They move about as fast as your fingernails grow. How is that going to result in a global flood?

If you seriously try to learn I will politely answer questions. Endless grasping at straws is always a losing strategy.

 

[gnostic]

The sun was there. The atmosphere of the earth was enabled that the light was evidently being seen from the earth.
Genesis 1:14-19

There is nothing about in Genesis 1:1-2 in the beginning, and nothing on Genesis 1:3-5 (eg creation of light) say anything about the sun.

The Sun is never mentioned until verses 14-19.

There are also no mention of atmosphere or clouds of gases, from verses 1 to 5.

What you are doing is making up things so that it can aligned with modern knowledge of the Earth and astronomy, and with the Solar System cosmology.

The only time it IMPLIED there were atmosphere, is with the 2nd day of creation, when it describe the firmament (vault, dome, expanse, heaven, sky), which it stated separated the waters above from waters below (seas). Genesis 6-8.

This same firmament, dome or sky, is where God created the sun, moon and stars...

16 God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth

...as well as where winged birds or fowls fly...

20 And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.”

So birds can fly in the same "dome" or "firmament" or "sky" where the sun, moon and stars?

Different translations use different words for the firmament:

KJV: firmament
NRSV: dome
NASB: expanse
NIV: vault​

And in last part, of the 2nd day, different translations use one of the two words to what is the firmament - "heaven" or "sky":

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. 12 The rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Did the flood water (7:11) come from "above" the firmament, hence above the sun, moon and stars?

The bad news, in real science, there are no waters above the sun, moon and stars. All weather, wind and rain, occurred at the lowest layer of Earth's atmosphere - the Troposphere.

With each layers above, Stratosphere, Mesosphere, there are increasing LESS water vapors than the Troposphere. Above, the Mesosphere, are the Thermosphere and Exosphere, where there are no water molecules at all.

Most clouds are found in the Troposphere, with fewer clouds in the Stratosphere and Mesosphere, with none above the Mesosphere.​

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I am getting tired of rude and ignorant questions as if you made a point. This is not an honest approach to the topic.

You also are terribly confused and cannot seem to remember that there are several independent lines of evidence for evolution.

Can you ask a question politely and properly? And please try to remember the Ninth Commandment, you do claim to be a Christian after all. It is not just a ban on lying it is ban on any sort of bearing of false witness and you do that regularly.

So it appears that I must take it from you but you cannot take it from me. OK, and thank you, because you say what you think about me without responding to the question, telling me I'm ignorant, unlearned, dishonest, but I am not allowed to tell you what I think. OK again, and thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is nothing about in Genesis 1:1-2 in the beginning, and nothing on Genesis 1:3-5 (eg creation of light) say anything about the sun.

The Sun is never mentioned until verses 14-19.

There are also no mention of atmosphere or clouds of gases, from verses 1 to 5.

What you are doing is making up things so that it can aligned with modern knowledge of the Earth and astronomy, and with the Solar System cosmology.

The only time it IMPLIED there were atmosphere, is with the 2nd day of creation, when it describe the firmament (vault, dome, expanse, heaven, sky), which it stated separated the waters above from waters below (seas). Genesis 6-8.

This same firmament, dome or sky, is where God created the sun, moon and stars...


...as well as where winged birds or fowls fly...


So birds can fly in the same "dome" or "firmament" or "sky" where the sun, moon and stars?

Different translations use different words for the firmament:

KJV: firmament
NRSV: dome
NASB: expanse
NIV: vault​

And in last part, of the 2nd day, different translations use one of the two words to what is the firmament - "heaven" or "sky":

Did the flood water (7:11) come from "above" the firmament, hence above the sun, moon and stars?

The bad news, in real science, there are no waters above the sun, moon and stars. All weather, wind and rain, occurred at the lowest layer of Earth's atmosphere - the Troposphere.

With each layers above, Stratosphere, Mesosphere, there are increasing LESS water vapors than the Troposphere. Above, the Mesosphere, are the Thermosphere and Exosphere, where there are no water molecules at all.

Most clouds are found in the Troposphere, with fewer clouds in the Stratosphere and Mesosphere, with none above the Mesosphere.​

It says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Then it goes on to be more detailed about the revealing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So it appears that I must take it from you but you cannot take it from me. OK, and thank you, because you say what you think about me without responding to the question, telling me I'm ignorant, unlearned, dishonest, but I am not allowed to tell you what I think. OK again, and thank you.

If you could support your claims we would be on an equal level. You can't. So far you have refused to even learn what is and what is not evidence so it all but guarantees that you will post screw up after screw up. Don't worry, all creationists appear to be afraid of the concept of evidence.

Can you tell me why you are afraid to even try to learn what is and what is not evidence? Is your faith that weak? The strong in faith can believe even if the Genesis myths are false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Then it goes on to be more detailed about the revealing.

And contradicts itself between the two accounts.

 

[YoursTrue]

The author(s) of Genesis have very primitive understanding of the Earth, the Earth's atmosphere, space, sky, sun, moon, stars, and they know absolutely nothing about the universe.

Everything that have to do with the Earth's atmosphere, have to do with the Earth.

...

The Bible's basic theme is towards the earth and the outcome of mankind.

 

[YoursTrue]

Maybe look up the word "demonstrable" then read my post again.

Here's an experiment for you ...

When human beings produce children, they are not genetic clones of themselves, rather they are made up of a 50/50 mix of both parent's DNA with something like 100 genetic mutations. If evolution were not a fact, our children should all just be our clones, which of course, they are not.

For a really good "experiment" look up comparative genomics and nested hierarchy. Or try "artificial selection" which wouldn't work if evolution were not a fact of reality.

You made the statement about something like 100 genetic mutations. While I realize that offspring (children) are a blend, a mix of two parents, can you please let me know more about the 100 or so genetic mutations you are describing? In what sense are they genetic mutations, and what would be considered a genetic mutation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You made the statement about something like 100 genetic mutations. While I realize that offspring (children) are a blend, a mix of two parents, can you please let me know more about the 100 or so genetic mutations you are describing? In what sense are they genetic mutations, and what would be considered a genetic mutation?

Now this is a reasonable question. There have been several ways that it has been measured. Here is an article on an earlier attempt:

Human mutation rate revealed

They have a rate from 100 to 200 or more. The problem was that they only measured the mutation rate of the Y-chromosome and it appears that some chromosomes mutate faster than others.

Wikipedia tries to keep up to date and they have a bit lower figure and they also explain what mutations are for you:

Mutation rate - Wikipedia

Asking how scientists know something is a good idea. Saying that they can't do something without justification is a bad idea.

 

[gnostic]

It says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Then it goes on to be more detailed about the revealing.

Actually, the first two verses are read together as one, before it start with the 1st day.

And it still doesn't say anything about the sun and stars with the creation of "heavens".

You are still making interpretation, by adding things that are not there (eg sun, stars, clouds, etc).

All it does say at the beginning the Earth was created with water, and wind blowing on the surface of the water. There is nothing about clouds or atmosphere (firmament, dome) at this point of Genesis.

And the Hebrew word for "heavens" and "heaven" or "sky" is the same:

sky, heaven, heavens: šā·mā·yim (שָׁמָ֑יִם)​

The word for "firmament" or "dome" or "vault", on the other hand, is rā·qî·a‘ (רָקִ֖יעַ).

 

[gnostic]

The Bible's basic theme is towards the earth and the outcome of mankind.

I agreed, but the creation don't match up what science about the Earth.

Genesis lack many details about what the Earth is physically like, because the Bible is book of belief and faith, not science.

Science is about acquiring knowledge through model, and this model must be explanatory, and falsifiable or testable ("testable" through observation or experiment or evidence).

Genesis doesn't explain; it describe, more from poetic medium, which is often open to interpretations.

It has become quite clear me, that you take passage out-of-context, by adding things that are not there. And what are there (in the passages), you would remove or ignore. That's to me is shoddy scholarship.

 

[Astrophile]

I didn't think of a solid firmament but of a vapor filled mass surrounding the earth. How it happened, or how it appeared to be, I don't know. But in terms of flood from above and below the earth, and pushing up of mountains, it makes sense to me.

By the way, on the subject of water canopy over the earth as Genesis says there was, it appears that others have wondered about water in other areas of the universe. And, as we also KNOW, planets are not the same. So it seems that astronomers believe-feel there is water in other realms of space. That some heavenly bodies evidently do not have water does not mean all planets are the same.

If there had been a water vapour canopy surrounding the Earth, its mass would have led to a great increase in the atmospheric pressure at the Earth's surface, as well as to a strong greenhouse effect and a rise in temperature. As a result, the Earth would have been a cloud-covered high-pressure hell-hole, very much like Venus, rather than a garden of Eden.

 

[Polymath257]

I take that as you cannot answer. All you have is genetic discovery in bones, which in no way shows that any organism was or is evolving. It only shows that there are similar genes. But nothing to show that those genes were changing in that organism. So -- nothing. You have nothing to show any evolution by genes in a micro or macro fashion. Feathers?

Why do you think that evolution says that genes change *in an organism*?

Can you be more clear what you think we should be observing if evolution is true?

 

[Polymath257]

You made the statement about something like 100 genetic mutations. While I realize that offspring (children) are a blend, a mix of two parents, can you please let me know more about the 100 or so genetic mutations you are describing? In what sense are they genetic mutations, and what would be considered a genetic mutation?

Just to answer your later question: to be a genetic mutation means it is a change in the DNA.

You see, genes are made from DNA and that DNA can be changed by chemicals, radiation, etc. Changes to that DNA are called mutations. If those changes happen in the sperm or egg cell, they get passed to the next generation.