Evolution My ToE

[Audie]

Yes, but the Ark would never be going that fast. So brakes were not a necessity in any case.

Sheesh, and I thought JW had by far the lowest level
of education.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sheesh, and I thought JW had by far the lowest level
of education.

Whut?

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is something that is always confusing to me. Perhaps it is naivete, hope, or confusion of my own that leads me here.

How can you draw the conclusions that you have and then openly declare that you do not understand the material you are making conclusions about? The only reason I can determine that creationist reject this science is ideological. But that conclusion is always rejected by creationists and they follow that with claims that their rejection is based on an understanding of the evidence.

Ignorance of the basic scientific information and understanding of it cannot exist at the same time. Yet, this is where it all comes together.

What I see is that selective rejection of science is ideological and for no other reason. But creationists recognize this has been a failing rejection within their own growing awareness of the power of science in different areas they do not reject. But rejection has to be maintained to support ideology, so creationists convince themselves and try to convince others that it is based on understanding.

While I am glad to see a creationist openly acknowledge a lack of understanding of the material, and I do hope you find understanding, recognizing the actual basis for the selective rejection of science would be the next logical step.

This ^^^^^ So much this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, but the Ark would never be going that fast. So brakes were not a necessity in any case.

The ark had a magic brake system by Brembo. Vented, ceramic angels.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So much of what I read is conjecture, putting evidence into the theory and then moving on to figure that because apes stand somewhat upright, they're on the road to be humans. In a way. Somehow. By microsteps. Anyway, thanks for discussion, it has helped.

Who has said that???

Many people have taken the time to give you some very detailed explanations for the things you are asking about. I implore you to try taking some of it in.

 

[dad]

The promise of new heavens and new earth is very important, and, of course, that involves Jesus. But I'm not getting hung up on the 7th day. I'm just pointing out to you what the Bible says. God's Word says each day of the 6 days of creation had an evening and a morning. But the 7th day is not described as evening and morning.

So what? So He rested that day and we do not need markers such as the morning and evening.

How do you get from Isaiah 62:1 where God says He will not rest, to man resting on the sabbath day? No close said for the 7th day.

If you are right and this is still the seventh day He would still be resting!

 

[dad]

You really need to pray for understanding, ask God for help.

No. I understand that plants did not live millions of years waiting for the sun to be created.

 

[dad]

This post is just bizarre. Where do you get this stuff. At least you never cease to amaze me with your imagination.

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.


Actually the sun was made the next day, not two days later.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day F4 from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

If each day were millions and millions of years as christians who try to beat the bible into submission to please science claim, we have trees and grass and plants sitting around for millions of years in the dark before the sun was made.

 

[dad]

Nope, that's you.

I know you are, but what am I?

 

[Bear Wild]

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.


Actually the sun was made the next day, not two days later.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day F4 from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

If each day were millions and millions of years as christians who try to beat the bible into submission to please science claim, we have trees and grass and plants sitting around for millions of years in the dark before the sun was made.

1. So we have this god who if memory serves me right formed earth and heavens first except the heavens had nothing it because this god had created stars or our sun yet.

2.Then this god creates light. (So light does not come from the stars or our sun but is just light everywhere except where it is dark. Not sure what keeps light and dark apart yet.) Now we have light and dark and day one. No reference to whether the earth is turning yet but since this god uses the earth turning between the dark half of the heavens to the light half. Notice no reference to time frame, but since our days are 24 hours long and there is only one time frame we know - 24 hours.
.
3. Now on the next day god creates plants. No mention of algae yet. The plants grow without the sun but had light.

4. The next day after the plants are made god two lights in the sky to make day and night. Wait a minute this god had light already now this god puts lights in the sky? So there was this a reverse big bang where the light is then balled up into stars? I understand that one light was then coming from the sun now but which night light did god place? So god must have started spinning the earth and maybe the first two days were not the length of the third day but now we certainly have a 24 hour day.

5. Day four god through in some birds of the air (what about penguins?) and creatures of the seas. So now we have whales and dolphin but no mammals on land. We have mollusks in the seas but no snails on land. No mention if bats are in the sky.

6. Day five (24 hours later based on the only reference we have) now this god creates land animals both livestock and wild and then finally humans. then gave humans dominion over the mosquitoes, leeches, cockroaches and other life.

5. No sure what happened on day 6 but this god rested after all of that work.

No matter how you spin this story making up the length of days you want them to be this story is contrary to everything we know about our universe. As a myth it seems to say this world was made just for humans making the humans that believe it feel special but has nothing to do with reality no matter how hard you try to spin this.

 

[dad]

1. So we have this god who if memory serves me right formed earth and heavens first except the heavens had nothing it because this god had created stars or our sun yet.

Correct.

2.Then this god creates light. (So light does not come from the stars or our sun but is just light everywhere except where it is dark. Not sure what keeps light and dark apart yet.) Now we have light and dark and day one.

In the future, we see a city 1500 miles tall and about half the size of the continental USA that has no need of the light from the sun. Why? Because God is the Light there. Jesus is the Light and He was right there creating and hovering over the sea at the time.

No reference to whether the earth is turning yet but since this god uses the earth turning between the dark half of the heavens to the light half. Notice no reference to time frame, but since our days are 24 hours long and there is only one time frame we know - 24 hours.

Time existed before God created the earth in six days.
Time is just something we became aware of after we were created here. As mentioned above the Light was here and moving/hovering above. So before the sun was put there, we had moving light over the earth!

3. Now on the next day god creates plants. No mention of algae yet. The plants grow without the sun but had light.

Correct. They had the best Light in the universe. Algae was not needed.

4. The next day after the plants are made god two lights in the sky to make day and night. Wait a minute this god had light already now this god puts lights in the sky?

Correct. He had already created light here. There was light before the sun. You see science does not know where the origin of light is. They do not know where it's 'house' is.
Don't take my word, here is the Almighty Himself telling you in His Own words!

Job 38:19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, 20 That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?

So there was this a reverse big bang where the light is then balled up into stars?

There were no stars. Earth was here first.

I understand that one light was then coming from the sun now but which night light did god place? So god must have started spinning the earth and maybe the first two days were not the length of the third day but now we certainly have a 24 hour day.

As mentioned above we had the Light moving over the planet.

It is right there in the second verse in the bible!
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

5. Day four god through in some birds of the air (what about penguins?) and creatures of the seas.

So now we have whales and dolphin but no mammals on land. We have mollusks in the seas but no snails on land. No mention if bats are in the sky.

Right, they did not get put here till after the sun was here.

6. Day five (24 hours later based on the only reference we have) now this god creates land animals both livestock and wild and then finally humans. then gave humans dominion over the mosquitoes, leeches, cockroaches and other life.

Man and animals were created day 6. The fish and birds the day before.

No matter how you spin this story making up the length of days you want them to be this story is contrary to everything we know about our universe.

There is nothing you know that is contrary. Your religious wrong dates and misconception of what the fossil record is all about lead you to make models of the past that are fantasy.

As a myth it seems to say this world was made just for humans making the humans that believe it feel special but has nothing to do with reality no matter how hard you try to spin this.

The whole universe will soon go dark because of things man has done and God has to do in response. All the stars, and the sun and moon. God is moving to earth forever because of us. The governments of this world will all be overthrown completely because of believers being saved by Jesus. God will remake the earth into a paradise for us to live with Him here forever. God is making a whole new universe for us. For science to paint man as insignifcant is wicked.

 

[YoursTrue]

I already answered that. No. there are meny genes that are similar, but the chromosomes look quite different:

Cat:
http://felinegenetics.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Cat_Karyotype.jpg

Human:
https://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/human_chromosomes2.jpg

That said, some of the chromosomes are going to be *similar* and have many of the same genes. Both cats and humans are mammals, after all.

I don't understand. You say there are many genes that are similar, but the chromosomes look quite different. I need a better explanation than that. I appreciate you showed me graphs of the cat genes and human genes, they look similar but certainly not like duplicates. The cat genes and human genes are obviously not exact in looks, therefore I figure that the genes in the cat are not in humans, despite someone being called a "cat lady," and there are more genes anyway in humans that may or may not look like genes that are in the cat, but humans have more than the cat. So other than a mountain in Africa looks similar but different from a mountain in Colorado, I don't see that humans have 38 is it? cat genes plus some more for humans. I'm not ready to give up though. You say many have the same genes. They do? Can you show me that? Many what have the same genes anyway? Many cats have the same genes as other cats? or what...

 

[YoursTrue]

Who has said that???

Many people have taken the time to give you some very detailed explanations for the things you are asking about. I implore you to try taking some of it in.

How can I take it in when I don't understand what you're saying, what scientists say, and what others say about this? I mean I understand they believe it's evolution, but that's basically where it stops. Now please look at this and tell me what you think, because this chart is typical, like the upward surge of humans from a chimpanzee or gorilla type animal. Cats are left out, even though -- do they? -- have similar genes to humans? But here is a typical representation of evolution from chimpanzee (I guess that is) to an upright human.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How can I take it in when I don't understand what you're saying, what scientists say, and what others say about this? I mean I understand they believe it's evolution, but that's basically where it stops. Now please look at this and tell me what you think, because this chart is typical, like the upward surge of humans from a chimpanzee or gorilla type animal. Cats are left out, even though -- do they? -- have similar genes to humans? But here is a typical representation of evolution from chimpanzee (I guess that is) to an upright human.

Are there no books available where you exist? You obviously have internet access. Why not try a search? How about ordering 'Genetics for summit's from Amazon.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sheesh, and I thought JW had by far the lowest level
of education.

I think he was just doing a play on words from your spelling of brackish without the c. At least, that was what I got.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think he was just doing a play on words from your spelling of brackish without the c. At least, that was what I got.

I do believe that years ago @Audie used a desktop, or a laptop at the very least. Her spelling, punctuation and usage was flawless. Now she is using a phone or a tablet at best and those devices do not lend themselves as well to precision with the English language. I can sympathize since my tablet's autocorrect is so bad that I called it "autowrong" and turned it off. And it still changes words. At least now when it does if I catch it and backspace it goes back to the original spelling. When I use my table it is much harder to find sources and link them (Bing sucks) .

But yes, I was having fun with her typo. I knew what she meant, but picturing the Ark with brakes was too funny not to use.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can I take it in when I don't understand what you're saying, what scientists say, and what others say about this? I mean I understand they believe it's evolution, but that's basically where it stops. Now please look at this and tell me what you think, because this chart is typical, like the upward surge of humans from a chimpanzee or gorilla type animal. Cats are left out, even though -- do they? -- have similar genes to humans? But here is a typical representation of evolution from chimpanzee (I guess that is) to an upright human.

It is a gross oversimplification and therefore wrong. But it is still not as wrong as the Bible account. Try to keep things in perspective.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do believe that years ago @Audie used a desktop, or a laptop at the very least. Her spelling, punctuation and usage was flawless. Now she is using a phone or a tablet at best and those devices do not lend themselves as well to precision with the English language. I can sympathize since my tablet's autocorrect is so bad that I called it "autowrong" and turned it off. And it still changes words. At least now when it does if I catch it and backspace it goes back to the original spelling. When I use my table it is much harder to find sources and link them (Bing sucks) .

But yes, I was having fun with her typo. I knew what she meant, but picturing the Ark with brakes was too funny not to use.

I recognized that, given I post from handheld device myself. I know that autowrong function well too. I spend considerable time editing and don't catch them all. Sometimes, I forget to check an entire post. One recent example changed something to the word pejorative as well as a number of errors that I could not fix since too much time had elapsed and editing was turned off. Reminds me that sometimes while editing I find strange words and can't remember what I had actually intended. Once, by chance, the correction was an entirely different word with a slightly different meaning that actually worked better. But most make the sentences look like nonsense or drunk posting. Sometimes they are funny.

I thought brakes on the ark were pretty funny too. A magical, mythical boat. Why can't it have brakes? Maybe a cool spoiler to. For high speed stability.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I recognized that, given I post from handheld device myself. I know that autowrong function well too. I spend considerable time editing and don't catch them all. Sometimes, I forget to check an entire post. One recent example changed something to the word pejorative as well as a number of errors that I could not fix since too much time had elapsed and editing was turned off. Reminds me that sometimes while editing I find strange words and can't remember what I had actually intended. Once, by chance, the correction was an entirely different word with a slightly different meaning that actually worked better. But most make the sentences look like nonsense or drunk posting. Sometimes they are funny.

I thought brakes on the ark were pretty funny too. A magical, mythical boat. Why can't it have brakes? Maybe a cool spoiler to. For high speed stability.

My tablet's favorite trick is to change the first letter of a new paragraph from upper case to lower case. Why it does that is beyond me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My tablet's favorite trick is to change the first letter of a new paragraph from upper case to lower case. Why it does that is beyond me.

Mine does that too. It also adds letters and words to the of a sentence, after the period, when I start a new paragraph. Sometimes, it I accidentally hit a letter instead of the space bar, it creates an entirely new word where there should have been two different words.

Edit. It also likes some two letter words more than others and insists on using its favorites. Like it instead of if in the third sentence above.

Second edit. Leaving end off of 'end of a sentence' above was my error. Can't blame them all on the technology.