How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[YoursTrue]

The point I made was not that God didn't make all but what's the process He used? Clearly, the evolution of life forms is a large part of that process.

This link should help: Early Primate Evolution: The First Primates (palomar.edu)

This would fly against the statements in the Bible. Especially about how God created man and woman. So each one of us must make a decision. I believe it is impounding on many things in life. You decide, I decide. I have decided that God is the Grand Creator, that He did not let things happen by means of generic things happening, such as the theory of the Big Bang, or cells automatically expanding and forming fish, mammals, humans, etc. So we humans have been in existence so many years according to scientists yet somehow just happened to come up from forces stemming from mammals evolving millions of years ago. I no longer believe that. I certainly don't want to insult anyone, but again, fossils are discovered showing that organisms had bones, etc., a long time ago -- but again -- there simply is no proof that fish started to walk around or flop around on the earth and eventually could not live under water. Nope. I no longer believe that theory. Sorry if you feel insulted -- anyway, it's probably time for me to say goodbye to these types of discussions, although I most likely will mention things from time to time. You have your beliefs, you think they're rational and many people agree. I no longer trust the theory of evolution by natural selection as being true. Bye for now...

 

[shunyadragon]

While it seems and is interesting about gigantic magnetic properties of the earth, thank you for exposing what you believe or understand about dating process of millions of years in the past. It nevertheless does not prove evolution. As far as I am concerned. But thanks for offering that explanation.

Nothing in my responses proves anything, neither does science. It only describes and demonstrates the dating methods that is verified by many redundant and extensive research over the last century that has determined the reliability of comparing many dating methods to come up with an accurate dating og of the history of life, the earth, solar system and the cosmos. C14 dating is actually a minor league player in this arena. The most important and accurte dating method is the K-Ar dating method. The gigantic(?) magnetic properties of the earth are used,, but mostly a second or third dating method.

Again, again again, again, and again science does not prove anything,

 

[Tiberius]

No. Not particularly about the rocks. Rather how did they determine when the first so-called primate-like mammals evolved so many millions of years ago. Shunydragon offered his thought about the dating process. I wasn't particularly wondering about the dating of the rocks but rather the scientificly oriented decision that these primate-like mammals evolved like 50 millions of years ago or so.

There are many different kinds of radiometric dating. Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

 

[Tiberius]

The support is that no one has seen actual organisms evolve, move, or shift from one type of organism to another. That's it. There are no photographs of genes building into another type of organism. I know the arguments by now that it takes lots and lots of time and incrementally small changes, but there is no proof of that. And of course, no science has proof, is that right?

That's because there is no single hard boundary when a population goes from being Species A to Species B.

Can you pinpoint the exact second when it stops being daytime and becomes night time?

If I place individual grains of sand together, can you tell me how many grains it will take before it's officially a heap?

No you can't.

You can't say, "At this exact time, it's night time, but one second earlier it was daytime." After all, a person looking at the time the transition happened wouldn't see any significant change, would they?

Likewise, a person can't say, "Ah yes, if there are 1,243,827 grains of sand, that's not a heap, but once you add one more grain, that's definitely a heap."

It's the same thing with species. The difference between any two generations is never going to be sufficient to call them two different species. But over MANY generations, those little changes add up.

 

[metis]

This would fly against the statements in the Bible. Especially about how God created man and woman.

The authors of the Bible used various forms of symbolism, including allegory. Jesus' parables are just one example of this. The creation accounts [there are 2 and they vary a bit] are almost without a doubt allegorical as it doesn't make sense at the literalistic level.

IMO, I think it is likely allegorical so as to refute the earlier and much more widespread polytheistic Babylonian creation account. Thus, the importance of our accounts is to establish that there's One God and that he made all and that it was "good", and then He rested on Shabbat, which was mandated later with God's directions to Moses.

Thus, the ToE in no way refutes Divine creation.

 

[shunyadragon]

This would fly against the statements in the Bible. Especially about how God created man and woman. So each one of us must make a decision. I believe it is impounding on many things in life. You decide, I decide. I have decided that God is the Grand Creator, that He did not let things happen by means of generic things happening, such as the theory of the Big Bang, or cells automatically expanding and forming fish, mammals, humans, etc. So we humans have been in existence so many years according to scientists yet somehow just happened to come up from forces stemming from mammals evolving millions of years ago. I no longer believe that. I certainly don't want to insult anyone, but again, fossils are discovered showing that organisms had bones, etc., a long time ago -- but again -- there simply is no proof that fish started to walk around or flop around on the earth and eventually could not live under water. Nope. I no longer believe that theory. Sorry if you feel insulted -- anyway, it's probably time for me to say goodbye to these types of discussions, although I most likely will mention things from time to time. You have your beliefs, you think they're rational and many people agree. I no longer trust the theory of evolution by natural selection as being true. Bye for now...

Fine, your bottom line is to reject science for a literal ancient scripture with no provenance and evolved fom Syrian, Babylonian and Canaanite myths and legends.

I do not believe God Created based on ancient myths and the actual physical evidence contadictes such an ancient mythological view.

 

[YoursTrue]

Fine, your bottom line is to reject science for a literal ancient scripture with no provenance and evolved fom Syrian, Babylonian and Canaanite myths and legends.

I do not believe God Created based on ancient myths and the actual physical evidence contadictes such an ancient mythological view.

Evolution offers the prospect of death. But that's what people expect anyway while they're alive, with or without the theory of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Fine, your bottom line is to reject science for a literal ancient scripture with no provenance and evolved fom Syrian, Babylonian and Canaanite myths and legends.

I do not believe God Created based on ancient myths and the actual physical evidence contadictes such an ancient mythological view.

As a Bahai, if that's the right term, do you believe in God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution offers the prospect of death. But that's what people expect anyway while they're alive, with or without the theory of evolution.

No, evolution only deals with the fact that since life first existed that death was a real thing.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nothing in my responses proves anything, neither does science. It only describes and demonstrates the dating methods that is verified by many redundant and extensive research over the last century that has determined the reliability of comparing many dating methods to come up with an accurate dating og of the history of life, the earth, solar system and the cosmos. C14 dating is actually a minor league player in this arena. The most important and accurte dating method is the K-Ar dating method. The gigantic(?) magnetic properties of the earth are used,, but mostly a second or third dating method.

Again, again again, again, and again science does not prove anything,

So then, while this may seem elementary, are you saying that science does not prove dates deemed to have been ascertained from scientific methods of dating objects, bones, soil, etc.?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So then, while this may seem elementary, are you saying that science does not prove dates deemed to have been ascertained from scientific methods of dating objects, bones, soil, etc.?

Science does not use the term "prove". There is very very strong evidence for those dates.

 

[shunyadragon]

So then, while this may seem elementary, are you saying that science does not prove dates deemed to have been ascertained from scientific methods of dating objects, bones, soil, etc.?

Your misuse of the concept ot 'proof' in science and your upfront rejection of science for an ancient religious agenda precludes any constructive dialogue,

No, science does not 'prove' anything it falsifies theories and hypothesis in an ever evolving body of knowledge that is the verifiable knowledge of our physical universe including the sciences of evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So then, while this may seem elementary, are you saying that science does not prove dates deemed to have been ascertained from scientific methods of dating objects, bones, soil, etc.?

Even when all the evidence supports a conclusion in science, that conclusion cannot be said to be proven. It is possible that some previously unknown data could emerge that does not fit the conclusion or cannot be explained by a theory.

In order to prove something in science would require omniscience on the part of scientists. If we have omniscience, we would have no need of science.

If scientists formulate and support a theory of gravity, and I claim that the theory is wrong only because of my belief in the god Bill who I claim pushes all objects down, that is not evidence against the theory. I would have to establish the existence of Bill. I would have to show that Bill has the ability to do as I claim. I would have to show that Bill is doing as I claim.

On the scientist hand there is evidence, logic and reason for a theory of gravity. On the other hand, I would be left with the bill and no means to pay it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This would fly against the statements in the Bible. Especially about how God created man and woman. So each one of us must make a decision. I believe it is impounding on many things in life. You decide, I decide. I have decided that God is the Grand Creator, that He did not let things happen by means of generic things happening, such as the theory of the Big Bang, or cells automatically expanding and forming fish, mammals, humans, etc. So we humans have been in existence so many years according to scientists yet somehow just happened to come up from forces stemming from mammals evolving millions of years ago. I no longer believe that. I certainly don't want to insult anyone, but again, fossils are discovered showing that organisms had bones, etc., a long time ago -- but again -- there simply is no proof that fish started to walk around or flop around on the earth and eventually could not live under water. Nope. I no longer believe that theory. Sorry if you feel insulted -- anyway, it's probably time for me to say goodbye to these types of discussions, although I most likely will mention things from time to time. You have your beliefs, you think they're rational and many people agree. I no longer trust the theory of evolution by natural selection as being true. Bye for now...

Does the Bible go into precise detail of how God accomplished creation? What does "God created the heavens and earth" tell us about the details of that creation process?

Since those details are lacking does that mean that we as believers know what those details are and can arbitrarily deselect any details that are latter ascertained through reasonable methods of inquiry based on the evidence of Creation?

Do you think that God would demand that a fully detailed accounting of His efforts would be warranted on an audience without the technical or world knowledge to understand those details? Even today when we know more of those details, the majority does not understand the little we do know.

Could the stories in Genesis simply be the codification of oral traditions presented as a metaphor of the broad strokes of creation?

What do you think of the implied claim by some Christians to seemingly state they know the Mind of God?

How do you know that God did not go through a process of creation that we are only in the last several hundred years developing the ability to recognize and understand? There is evidence of those details everywhere that we have looked.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolution offers the prospect of death. But that's what people expect anyway while they're alive, with or without the theory of evolution.

What do you mean by this?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So then, while this may seem elementary, are you saying that science does not prove dates deemed to have been ascertained from scientific methods of dating objects, bones, soil, etc.?

What you are saying is that since conclusions in science cannot be levied as immutable, that any believed alternative is by default the truth. How do you demonstrate that one sturdy, true ship in a sea of so many different believed views? You can offer your subjective witness, but how am I to verify your subjective claims.

Whereas, in science, I have the claims, the evidence and a body of individuals constantly looking at, studying and testing that evidence to support or refute it objectively. And this effort does not impede or refute the overarching belief in deity. Just the details.

 

[YoursTrue]

What you are saying is that since conclusions in science cannot be levied as immutable, that any believed alternative is by default the truth.

I am not saying that at all.

How do you demonstrate that one sturdy, true ship in a sea of so many different believed views? You can offer your subjective witness, but how am I to verify your subjective claims.

Part of it can be answered in the Bible, but I am sure that some would object, saying "Ah, who knows, it could be made up as fable, fantasy, parable, whatever," but I'll say it anyway -- despite objections -- when Jesus was on the earth, it is written that many did not believe him.

Whereas, in science, I have the claims, the evidence and a body of individuals constantly looking at, studying and testing that evidence to support or refute it objectively. And this effort does not impede or refute the overarching belief in deity. Just the details.

I understand, and frankly I have learned to look at evolution as somewhat of a fairy tale. I say somewhat because scientists believe they have the evidence. I no longer do. But then you don't view the Bible as a reliable witness, do you? So that would more or less eliminate trust in what the Bible says.

Also, I am not saying that God clicked his fingers and voila! there was life. Rocks -- animals -- fishes -- no, I'm not saying that at all. But then I have come to the conclusion that it didn't just happen by means of the chances of "natural" evolution. And I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is "inspired of God." Therefore, God put the necessary components together for life. And the various forms of it.

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you mean by this?

Let me rephrased, if possible, so you understand. Does evolution in anything (plants, animals) lead to the eventuality of death of the particular organism? Plants disintegrate and go back to the soil, human bodies also disintegrate and go back to -- the soil or whatever. So isn't that the eventuality of the theory of evolution when it comes to mankind, gorillas, pear trees, etc.? In other words, no way out. Death.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let me rephrased, if possible, so you understand. Does evolution in anything (plants, animals) lead to the eventuality of death of the particular organism? Plants disintegrate and go back to the soil, human bodies also disintegrate and go back to -- the soil or whatever. So isn't that the eventuality of the theory of evolution when it comes to mankind, gorillas, pear trees, etc.? In other words, no way out. Death.

What do you mean by death?

 

[YoursTrue]

Does the Bible go into precise detail of how God accomplished creation? What does "God created the heavens and earth" tell us about the details of that creation process?

Since those details are lacking does that mean that we as believers know what those details are and can arbitrarily deselect any details that are latter ascertained through reasonable methods of inquiry based on the evidence of Creation?

Do you think that God would demand that a fully detailed accounting of His efforts would be warranted on an audience without the technical or world knowledge to understand those details? Even today when we know more of those details, the majority does not understand the little we do know.

Could the stories in Genesis simply be the codification of oral traditions presented as a metaphor of the broad strokes of creation?

What do you think of the implied claim by some Christians to seemingly state they know the Mind of God?

How do you know that God did not go through a process of creation that we are only in the last several hundred years developing the ability to recognize and understand? There is evidence of those details everywhere that we have looked.

That is right, the Bible does not explain in detail 'how' God did it. The Bible has themes that are pertinent to mankind. And the mystery of it stays -- particularly how molecules were formed, put together, but then I'm going to stop because I have a feeling that there are those who will say like scientists may, that they found examples of the "first molecules." So do I believe they have found examples of the first molecules? No. But even if they are right -- the mystery is still there. I don't believe anyone ever will solve that mystery. One reason is that the Bible says we can live forever. To live forever also means we will never get bored, never get tired of learning about God's creation. That's what I think.