Young Earth/Old Earth

[TB2]

If they need to find something to look like it, they will find something.

Life was so plentiful for each period that is odd to not find plentiful transitional modes.

You obviously didn't read the research link I provided. Rarity of transitional forms is not surprising given our understanding today of how genetics works

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Huh? We do know evolution is true beyond a reasonable doubt

No we don't though. That is the problem. You believe evolution is true. Please bear in mind here that we are talking about macroevolution where one species transforms into a completely different species that can no longer reproduce with the previous types they came from. To be more specific, it's called Darwinian Evolution. That should leave no misunderstandings.

 

[TB2]

No we don't though. That is the problem. You believe evolution is true. Please bear in mind here that we are talking about macroevolution where one species transforms into a completely different species that can no longer reproduce with the previous types they came from. To be more specific, it's called Darwinian Evolution. That should leave no misunderstandings.

I'm afraid you're misinformed. We observe speciation in real-time and even instantaneous speciation. Modern evolution has advanced far beyond Darwinian gradualism and even Neodarwinism/Modern Synthesis.

See the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

See also

Nothing in Evolution Makes Sense Except in the Light of Genomics: Read–Write Genome Evolution as an Active Biological Process​

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

My link was not about transitional fossils (!) but endogenous retroviruses

Hmmmm. LOL

 

[EarlyActs]

Well the people in Ex 17:3 had a 'dichotomy'! Just days after the Big One, there was no supernatural world.

We don't have a dichotomy today; we have a psy-op by Huxley-funded elites and useful to them. You would not believe the amount of control that is possible. They buried Pellegrini and anything that would support what Steno had worked out. It was war. Maybe you don't grasp the losses of the British East India Co, which ran most of its economics, by the double-hit of American independence and the abolition of the slave trade. They desparately wanted racism to be scientifically-based, and with evangelical mosquitoes buzzing around quoting 'in Christ there is no Jew or gentile,' they had a huge problem.

So the frontispiece of OS was that the theory favored racial superiority because of its biological model. Haeckl confirmed and developed the pan-Germanic model of society, that the Aryan race was biologically meant to dominate, by the same techniques and principles laid down by Darwin. That's what concerns me about 'evolve-thinking.'

Significant sectors of the British elites said WW2 'is not our war;' because they wanted to form a united elitist-racist world. They disdained the clergy, and no wonder. They were still shaken by the powerful effects of evangelicals about slaves and manners (morals). Even as late as the 'back-home' generation of England after WW2, in a media as central as film production, morals were still fairly conservative. Like both Russian and Chinese cultural revolutions, the family was in the way.

The psy-op suppresses where it needs to. Cassuto was suppressed by U Toronto semitic languages department. Velikovsky by NASA. Bretz by USGS. Pellegrini by British publishing. As one measure of their 'victory,' fundamentalists in 1900 believed the Genesis flood was Caspian only, while also believing the virgin birth, inspiration of Scripture, atonement in Christ, etc. That was a step toward neo-orthodoxy, in which the Bible is regarded historically-false, but morally- or pastorally-true. --Schaeffer. Lyell thought that way.

Atheism actually has no theological interest (or support); it has political interest. To say there is no god is matched by Wikipedia writing 'there is no support for a global cataclysm.' It cannot do anything with a faith-based family except see it as in the way, competing. This is historically true in the Bolshevik period and China's cultural revolution. Understanding that can help show what has been done to 'science' to make a 'divided house' or dichotomy. But it is a psy-op.

When I went to Beijing as a missionary, we had to read a missionary's notes on how atheism was used as a tool by communist China. The CCP's interest wasn't so much the outcome of atheism as it was to enforce the dichotomy it wanted, in which faith was held by stupid people, which the party could not control. That's the tool they wanted, and the reverse does not work: Atheism does not produce independent-thinking people. The state is in the 'god' position in people's minds. Thus, to refer even to Jesus as historic was shattering. We as American visitors were prob right, but the psy-op was disturbed.

We were on a hike and this meant there were 'unmonitored' places along the way--safe for them to ask questions. At one of these, an engineer grabbed me by the arm, and drew a diagram on the ground. It was a slope and he drew a block on the slope and then he made the slope too steep, to where the block would slide down. Then he said 'why do Christians say the block will stay in place?' That is how the CCP practices the psy-op.

In the West, they ridicule the global cataclysm, the resurrection, the creation week. My answer is the 3 part support of Christian truth found in the rational defense I have given about Christ's in-person teaching, Pentecost, and the destruction of Jerusalem. The other things can more easily be accepted when these higher, tangible, direct forms are grasped. It is fascinating to me that the psy-op has irrational answers about each of the questions of the three supports: about inspiration, Pentecost and the destruction of Jerusalem.

 

[TB2]

Hmmmm. LOL

Seriously, you keep referring to transitional fossils when that was not what the link I gave you was about: Scientific evidence indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that humans-primates share a common ancestor (see first two posts).

 

[GeneZ]

"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die." ( Genesis 2:17 )

The passage implies that Adam understood the concept of death. Most likely from observation (Genesis 2:15 ). A venus flytrap is only one example.

He also told Eve she would increase in the pain of child bearing, but up the then she never gave birth.
How could that be explained? The animals being brought to Adam procreated and produced offspring.
That is how Adam (who was all alone) could know man will leave his father and mother. For the Lord was explaining to Adam what he was witnessing to with animals reproducing.

Maybe a vague concept of death was conveyed to Adam.

Yet, all living creatures were to eat plants at that time. No death of creatures was yet to be found. Not even an insect.

​

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth ​

and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the ​

beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along ​

the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant ​

for food.” And it was so." Genesis 1:29-30​

Yet, it was Satan who truly understood the concept of death having witnessed to T-Rex tearing up a victim and eating it alive.
Satan could not wait to see the death of the new ruler of the earth so he could take back what he felt was rightfully his.
So, began operation Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Satan got permission to temp Adam and the woman, just like
the Lord granted Satan permission to tempt Job.

in Christ.... grace and peace

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Seriously, you keep referring to transitional fossils when that was not what the link I gave you was about: Scientific evidence indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that humans-primates share a common ancestor (see first two posts).

Sharing a common ancestor is not a linear progression from one species to another. So that is not the theory of evolution.

 

[GeneZ]

You obviously didn't read the research link I provided. Rarity of transitional forms is not surprising given our understanding today of how genetics works

Its amazing how plentiful life of one period died off suddenly... with allegedly a few transitional forms able to survive.... to bounce back with new and different forms in great abundance once more. Something is not right with that picture.

One period should look much like the last period, but only stronger than the first.

 

[TB2]

Sharing a common ancestor is not a linear progression from one species to another. So that is not the theory of evolution.

It's certainly not, but it is evolution. Darwin's linear gradualism progression change of one species into another (anagenesis) is an obsolete view and not how evolution (speciation, cladogenesis) works. (and still haven't addressed the actual link in question!)

Scientific evidence indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that humans-primates share a common ancestor (see first two posts).

 

[TB2]

Its amazing how plentiful life of one period died off suddenly... with allegedly a few transitional forms able to survive.... to bounce back with new and different forms in great abundance once more. Something is not right with that picture.

One period should look much like the last period, but only stronger than the first.

Still didn't read the link I see. You asked for evidence I gave you a link with four hundred citations to research work

 

[GeneZ]

Sharing a common ancestor is not a linear progression from one species to another. So that is not the theory of evolution.

And, how can it be evolution and not life created individually by an Intelligent, highly creative, and versatile creator?

After all? Look at all the wildly diverse creatures we have in the world. Yet, almost all that share a common biological schematic?
Almost all have need of lungs. Hearts. Livers. Spleens. Bones.. .. brains.. eyes.. appendages for getting around... mouths.. tongues...stomachs.. bowels...etc!

That reappearing biological schematic screams of having a common "Designer and Engineer."

.......

 

[EarlyActs]

TB2:
I know you have lots of references and your maps, but can you tell me in a line: how does material from a small ice dam in MT move slurry to Eugene, OR, and still get called 'small' or 'local'? Not water, slurry. With a mastodon. I have seen trucks carry elephants. Now I want a formula about a slurry that can carry an elephant. Fair question? And the elephant must be found a few feet below the surface, ie, recent, not hundreds down, over Ms of years.

 

[TB2]

TB2:
I know you have lots of references and your maps, but can you tell me in a line: how does material from a small ice dam in MT move slurry to Eugene, OR, and still get called 'small' or 'local'? Not water, slurry. With a mastodon. I have seen trucks carry elephants. Now I want a formula about a slurry that can carry an elephant. Fair question? And the elephant must be found a few feet below the surface, ie, recent, not hundreds down, over Ms of years.

Please post the reference/citation so I can see what you're referring to

 

[David1701]

Huh? We do know evolution is true beyond a reasonable doubt

If you think that, then you might as well throw out your Bible.

 

[GeneZ]

You obviously didn't read the research link I provided. Rarity of transitional forms is not surprising given our understanding today of how genetics works

I looked at the link. It was unfair to assume it was an appropriate answer for 99% of the people here.
No one is qualified to see when its wrong.

 

[TB2]

If you think that, then you might as well throw out your Bible.

Only if Genesis 1 was meant to teach modern science, which it's clearly not (See, "Scientific Concordism vs Divine Accommodation").

 

[EarlyActs]

I was watching a life of C Mueller this week, and after they had prayed and been given an orphanage-worth building, they had no kids. Oops! He realized he hadn't actually prayed for children. Things like this happen.

It made me wonder about evolution: let's say they are right about how an organism evolves more complex. Oh, but did they remember there has to be food? At the same time, place, volume. I already know the odds of life are way past the Farrellian rule, but now...

 

[David1701]

Only if Genesis 1 was meant to teach modern science, which it's clearly not (See, "Scientific Concordism vs Divine Accommodation").

Genesis 1, written in narrative form, is meant to be believed. If you don't believe it, then why keep it?

Edit: having read some of the linked post, I'd like to add that Scientific Concordism, which I believe, and Divine Accommodation are not mutually exclusive. You can explain scientific facts in simple language, to youngsters, without giving much detail.

 

[GeneZ]

If you think that, then you might as well throw out your Bible.

No... God caused hyper-evolution to take place right before Adam and Eve's eyes.

So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life." Genesis 3:14


That serpent had four adept legs just moments before!
If any evolution takes place, its God doing it.