nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 52:
Line 52: + + + + + + + + + + +
→Any Suggestions: Australia cut off; both fossil record views have gaps; not enough generations; design features vs. wear and tear; etc.
: I did not want this to turn in to a creation - evolution argument, but that seems to be the only grounds on which I will find any sort of reasoned debate. A theological debate without jumping back to the idea that 'the Bible says this so it must be right' or that 'scientist have no evidence' seems impossible, though it would be beneficial to Christian dogma and any idea of the pursuit of truth to engage in one fully.
: I did not want this to turn in to a creation - evolution argument, but that seems to be the only grounds on which I will find any sort of reasoned debate. A theological debate without jumping back to the idea that 'the Bible says this so it must be right' or that 'scientist have no evidence' seems impossible, though it would be beneficial to Christian dogma and any idea of the pursuit of truth to engage in one fully.
: [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 11:23, 5 December 2008 (EST)
: [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 11:23, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:: How many different environments between the middle east and Australia would there have been in the first few hundred years after a global flood wiped everything out? I doubt that there would be much in the way of deserts by then, for example.
:: I don't think the journey is doubtful at all on the basis that the journey would have to fit into the time between dependence and maturity. If you've got enough of the animals around, chances are ''some'' will be at just the right stage to make the water-crossing part of the journey.
:: Once you've got to Australia, there's not much place left to go that is not across larger stretches of water. No, they would not have targetted Australia. Rather, what's likely is that the sea levels rose (at the end of the [[ice age]]) and cut off or increased the gap from the mainland after the marsupials reached Australia and before large carnivorous animals reached Australia. When spreading out from the middle east after the flood, the carnivorous animals are not going to lead the way; they are going to follow the vegetarians. The vegetarians would lead. Everywhere but Australia the carnivores eventually caught up and wiped them out, but the ones that reached Australia became isolated so survived.
:: 41,000 generations might seem a small number in terms of a six billion year earth history, but (a) Earth's history is only supposed to be 4.5 billion years; (b) life on Earth is only supposed to be around 3.5 billion years old, (c) humans are supposed to have evolved around, say one million years ago, from a common ancestor with the apes around, say, six million years ago. This means that humans evolved from that common ancestor in around 200,000 generations. With one mutation per 41,000 generations, that allows for about ''five'' mutations! But it's worse than that. With sexual reproduction, there's only a 50% chance of any mutation being passed on, so you'd only get to keep two or three of those five! ''That'' is why Lenski's research is so bad for the evolutionary hypothesis (one reason anyway).
:: Okay, I ''think'' that I understand your argument about the fossil record. Is this it? If the Earth has a 60-million year history, it would have lots of gaps in the fossil record. But if it has a 6,000 year-history, the fossil record would be pretty complete. Is that it? If so, the problem is that if the Earth has a 6,000-year history, the vast majority of the fossil record comes from the one year of the flood around 4,500 years ago, and comparatively very little since. So under ''either'' scenario, the "recent" fossil record is very incomplete. As for the "fact" of evidence of an ancient history, I reject that there is any such "fact". Dates are based on the belief and on assumptions, not directly on measurements (see [[radiometric dating]]).
:: Evolution is not philosophy and story telling like scientific ''observation'' is, because molecules-to-man evolution is ''not'' observed! If I propose that water boils at 120 degrees Celsius, you can test that claim for yourself, and ''observe'' the results. If you propose that 100 million years ago dinosaurs turned into birds, what test can I do to see if your claim is correct? Testing the boiling point of water is science. Claiming that dinosaurs turned into birds is story-telling. Genetic changes that don't add new genetic information—such as wings on cane toads (or even something less dramatic but still something ''new'')—is not molecules-to-man evolution, but merely variation within the created kind.
:: Your reference to fingernails, hair, and eyesight is a distinction without substance. There is no reason for God not to have created man with these features, so, as I said before, this is not an argument against creation unless you first presume that God wasn't involved. Unlike scars, etc., fingernails, hair, and eyesight are ''design features'', not the products of wear and tear, and for that matter, are present from conception in the form of genetic information.
:: I did miss reading your reference about different views on apparent age. It is a reasonable summary of the different positions as far as it goes, but doesn't really get into the problems with each view very much. It lists the "theological questions" as being non-existent for the (misnamed) "Ham" view, but not for your view; although it only discusses what these problems are in the briefest possible way. It says that the "Ham" view has the most "scientific challenges", but accepts ''a priori'' that those "challenges" really are ''scientific'', which the "Ham" view rejects (i.e. it takes sides). "Conventional" geology ''starts'' by rejecting the biblical account (Hutton said that geology must be based only on the processes we see happening today. We don't see global floods happening today, so he's ruled out the biblical account ''by decree''). On the other side of the coin, the Bible [[Creation week|''unambiguously'']] says that the entire period of time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days. The biblical problems with an "old" Earth are insurmountable. The "scientific" problems with a "young" Earth are by the decree of someone who didn't believe the Bible.
:: In any debate, the two sides need to start with common ground. And when there is not even common ground regarding such basic things as how we came to be, then debate necessarily must start there. It does help, however, to not misrepresent the other side as "dogma" nor the debate as one between the Bible and science.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:25, 7 December 2008 (EST)