What's new

Evolution discussion

Creationists often say that the entire universe was created in six literal 24-hour days some 6,000 years ago. With teachings like this, they misrepresent the Bible, which says that God created the heavens and the earth “in the beginning”—at some unstated point before the more specific creative “days” began. Was all physical creation accomplished in just six days sometime within the past 6,000 to 10,000 years? The facts disagree with such a conclusion: (1)*Light from the Andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemisphere. It takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, indicating that the universe must be at least millions of years old. (2)*End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.

As to the actual length of each "creative" day, were they literally 24 hours long? Some claim that because Moses—the writer of Genesis—later referred to the day that followed the six creative days as a model for the weekly Sabbath, each of the creative days must be literally 24 hours long. (Exodus 20:11) Does the wording of Genesis support this conclusion?

No, it does not. The fact is that the Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.

The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration .*.*. Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.”1 This last sentence appears to fit the creative “days,” for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours. Even in the English vernacular we often refer to "day" in various lengths and ways! For example, back in "my fathers day" has reference to decades ago! Farmers use the expression "harvest day".....not a 24 hour period, but possibly weeks or even a month!

According to Bible usage, a day is a measured period of time and can be a thousand years or many thousands of years and the Bible’s creative days allow for even millions of years of time each and since they were "work" days.....each creative day could have even been of various lengths, some shorter, some longer than others! Further, the earth was already in existence before the creative days began. (Genesis 1:1)

Significantly, the Genesis account shows that the expression “day” is used in a flexible sense. At Genesis 2:4, the entire period of six days described in the preceding chapter is spoken of as only one day. Logically, these were, not literal days of 24 hours, but long periods of time. Each of these epochs evidently lasted thousands, perhaps even millions of years. Since no humans were around to keep track of time, no one can know or even "assume" correctly how long each one was!

So, to conclude this segment of my post I leave you with THIS quote from molecular biologist Francis Collins on claims that the creative days were only 24 literal hours in length, “Creationism has done more harm to serious notions of belief than anything in modern history.”

This may all be accounted for by timelessness.

All the genius physicists all came to similar conclusions about time.

Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, and Stephen Hawking:

"...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one." ~Einstein

Feynman’s Sum over Histories theory led him to describe time simply as a direction in space.

Hawking's No Boundry Proposal: "The universe would be completely self contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE."

In this scenario God would walk through time like we walk into the next room.

We would be the only ones tethered by time.
 
Why dick? Since when vestigial legs are dick? Why you are calling tail of a girl in previous x-ray I posted a dick? I can't award you any points in this discussion if you are not taking it seriously and start throwing words like dick and "crazy ***" theory. You are not discussing it with serious arguments, you showing your weakness and losing it.
What bears have to do with whales? Is that some kind of creationist legend? Whales have nothing to do with bears, read and educate yourself about evolution of whales please.

Hate to break it to you but it is a Darwin Story:

In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.

If you don't think whales evolved from bears why are you getting so excited by an "atavistic" leg that looks like a whale dick?
 
yet there is not even a single evidence of that intelligent force directing it - now that is "crazy ***" story to me.

You already think "evolution" is a positive creative force moving towards humans as the most complex.

I remember Siro trying to talk you out of that, so you are pretty much on board this particular "crazy ***" story boat.
 
You already think "evolution" is a positive creative force moving towards humans as the most complex.

I remember Siro trying to talk you out of that, so you are pretty much on board this particular "crazy ***" story boat.

Nonsense.
 
Hate to break it to you but it is a Darwin Story:
If you don't think whales evolved from bears why are you getting so excited by an "atavistic" leg that looks like a whale dick?

Because they evolved not from bears - it may have been his speculation but fossil records show us completely different story. Atavistic legs proves whales evolved from 4 legged land animals ( google pakicetus for your own interest and see if it has anything to do with bears). Atavistic human tails is proof that we evolved from apes. Atavistic snake legs are proof that there were once lizards. All embrios of today's vertebrates have gills proving that we all evolved from fish. Just a few undeniable evidences from thousands which leads to simple truth - common ancestry and evolution. Why I even need to discuss grade 7 science with adults?
 
Because they evolved not from bears - it may have been his speculation but fossil records show us completely different story. Atavistic legs proves whales evolved from 4 legged land animals ( google pakicetus for your own interest and see if it has anything to do with bears). Atavistic human tails is proof that we evolved from apes. Atavistic snake legs are proof that there were once lizards. All embrios of today's vertebrates have gills proving that we all evolved from fish. Just a few undeniable evidences from thousands which leads to simple truth - common ancestry and evolution. Why I even need to discuss grade 7 science with adults?

If you haven't noticed bears are 4 legged land animals that look a lot like the artist renderings of "pakicetus." I find it just as ridiculous to speculate that whales evolved from those "bear-like" creatures as I do if you substitute actual bears into the story.

Why does ONE "atavistic" leg that looks like a whale dick "prove" that whales came from a 4 legged mammal. Why doesn't it prove that whales came from a retarded 1-legged mammal baby?

Those "Atavistic" human tails could be "proof" that humans are devolving.

Yes, there was once lizards and there are still some today. Speaking of snakes and lizards. Did the retarded lizard baby of the snake's lizard-like ancestor lose all it's legs at once or one at a time over millions of years?

I just love the Darwin fish to human story:

Assume a fish swimming around in the water. (we don't need to explain how the fish got there since we know fish exist duh)
Then a couple of fish have a retard baby.
And the retard baby was different so he got to live.
The retard fish goes on to have more retard babies.
One day retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands.
It has butt sex with a squirel or something and makes a retard frog squirel.
That then had a retard baby which was a monkey fish frog.
Then this monkey fish frog had sex with a different type of monkey.
Then that monkey had a mutant retard baby with another...

oh just look at our fake evolution chart to figure out the details

South_Park_Evolution.png
 
If you haven't noticed bears are 4 legged land animals that look a lot like the artist renderings of "pakicetus." I find it just as ridiculous to speculate that whales evolved from those "bear-like" creatures as I do if you substitute actual bears into the story.

You just show me that you have not spend a single minute learning about whale evolution because you already rejecting it. Why I am even discussing anything with you if you do not bother? Pakicetus was not bear like at all. If you so desperate to find closest relative to whale in today's animals look at hippo and other hoofed animals.

Why does ONE "atavistic" leg that looks like a whale dick "prove" that whales came from a 4 legged mammal. Why doesn't it prove that whales came from a retarded 1-legged mammal baby?

You are not paying attention again. Where did it said it was one atavistic leg? You never seen whale's dick right? Since when dick has femur, tibia, tarsus and metatarsal bones?

Those "Atavistic" human tails could be "proof" that humans are devolving.

You just giving up here as it does not explain your "designer". There is more then thousands living proof's of evolution and atavistic human tails are just one.


Yes, there was once lizards and there are still some today. Speaking of snakes and lizards. Did the retarded lizard baby of the snake's lizard-like ancestor lose all it's legs at once or one at a time over millions of years?

Legless lizards exist today same as snakes with atavistic legs. Same as amphibians with no legs. You are being ridiculous with arguments about "retarded" animals taken from cartoon.
Question for you, what is this animal, snake or lizard?

14uxc2r.jpg


I just love the Darwin fish to human story:

Assume a fish swimming around in the water. (we don't need to explain how the fish got there since we know fish exist duh)

Evolution explained how fish got there very nicely. You do not even need fossils to know how they got out of the water - see this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4NzYY66cXk

You are defeated and reversing to gibberish cartoon videos in your argument. I am really disappointed in you.
 
....."design" comes from a "designer!" The more complex the design the more intelligent the designer! Thus the expression "evolutionary design" is extremely problematic!

I can't believe you typed two whole sentences I agree with on an issue not related to the Jazz in the 1990s. Yes, "evolutionary design" is something of an oxymoron. "Evolutionary development" would be a better description of the process.
 
Evolution is true, just don't believe this ******** that atheists like to put into their talking points that it contradicts god.

Most of the atheists I read would say that evolution can't disprove the existence of any possible interpretation of a god/God/the gods, but it does conflict with many particular interpretations of God.
 
So TBS "believes" in evolution now?

I would be very pleasantly surprised to find out that TBS is capable of changing his mind if confronted with enough evidence.

Confrontation is the worst way to change someone's mind.
 
Uhhh.

Yeah, like I said, "ape-like" ancestor is a meaningless concept when you refuse to even acknowledge your made-up continuum from ape-like ancestor to human.

If you say humans can't be any more ape-like than we currently are then we can just throw out your stupid "ape-like ancestor" concept all together, because if there is no change there is no theory of change. I'm good with that.

I don't have an "ape-like ancestor" concept to throw out; that's your concept. My concept is ape ancestry, that is, human ancestors that are apes, therefore we are apes. An ape always gives birth to an ape. Do you agree with that?

As for the continuum from a common ape ancestor between us and any other ape, it's not made up, but rests on a large amount of evidence.
 
For example even the most advanced fishes do not have blood that clots, but in the more advanced fishes, parts of the cascade are present. In the simple fishes, less of the parts are present.

1) There is no such thing as "advanced fishes". All present-day fishes have been evolving for the same amount of time.
2) I'm a fish (as is any vertebrate native to land), and my blood clots.
 
What bears have to do with whales? Is that some kind of creationist legend? Whales have nothing to do with bears, read and educate yourself about evolution of whales please.

Darwin once wrote that, if there were no whales, then a population of bears could have have descendants that would eventually fill the same niche and look much like the whales of today. Some have taken that to mean Darwin thought whales descended directly from bear-like ancestors, although I don't think he meant that, and if he did, he was wrong.
 
If you don't think whales evolved from bears why are you getting so excited by an "atavistic" leg that looks like a whale dick?

The current evidence is that whales have a much more recent common ancestry with hippos than with bears, and hippos also have legs.
 
You already think "evolution" is a positive creative force moving towards humans as the most complex.

Evolution can either make something more complex or more simple as time goes on. It has no preference in that regard. There is no drive to complexity. NOr are humans more complex than many other living things.
 
Its not metaphorical at all. I think people use the metaphorical card too much when a verse says something scientifically innaccurate. I only say things are metaphorical when it is blatant (like when Bible says jesus is the door, you don't look for hinges) or it is just how words evolved (like when I say lunatic, not literally mean struck by moon, disaster does not mean a star omen etc)

23:12 talks about the origin of man before they were men, abiogensis


the rest of it says "then"

In gods perspective there is no time. God is outside of time.

23:13 talks about how sperm goes up to a safe place (where the egg is located)
23:14 This sperm and egg mix and grow turning into a clump of flesh (morula). This morula eventually has bones and muscle that form immediately to one another.

Before we discuss what the verse is saying about embryology, I must ask what you mean when you say that god is outside of time. Please answer this logically, and not through the use of out of context quotes by Einstein or any other.

Actions only make sense in the presence of time. By its very nature, the word "creation" describes a temporal event. There was nothing/something and it changed into something/something else. The difference between the first state and the second defines time. If god is outside of time, it can not create anything. It cannot interact with anything (since interaction involves passing of information, an event that requires time).

In addition to defining what it means for something to exist outside of time, I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion. It seems like a big leap since the arrow of time and concepts of timelessness are very complicated, and well outside either of our mathematical expertise. That makes the use of it to justify a verse that wouldn't make sense otherwise quite the stretch.
 
1) There is no such thing as "advanced fishes". All present-day fishes have been evolving for the same amount of time.

yet there are fish which have advanced features to help them survive outside of water. You can call them transitional species if you want or living evolution happening in front of your eyes.
Plus we have fish like hagfish or coelacanth and it is obvious that they evolved millions of years before for example salmon or pike evolved.
 
yet there are fish which have advanced features to help them survive outside of water.

There are no such thing as advanced features. Different features are better adapted for different environments.

Plus we have fish like hagfish or coelacanth and it is obvious that they evolved millions of years before for example salmon or pike evolved.

The hagfish and coelacanth of today are as different from their tens-of-millions-of-years-ago ancestors as is any other fish descended from those same ancestors.
 
Top