Age of the Earth and Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter sealabeag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The study of population genetics lines up more and more with the biblical account.
 
Mishakel said:
I never said scientific papers proposing a thesis include these terms, yet it’s taught across all ages in text books.
Click to expand...
I’d be interested in a specific citation if you have one. High school level might be more appropriate as ideas for kids in elementary school are obviously simplified. These are still not scientific papers but I’ll agree materials for highschoolers should be ‘introductory level’ but accurate.

It’s still abiogenesis not evolution though. There is no functional model for abiogenesis, it’s a frontier of science. My guess is what you’re actually finding are discussions of current study.
 
Dan123 said:
And yes, scientists do question ideas and models all the time. Biological evolution is still around because the models keep passing tests. Even fields such as genetics which didn’t exist when the theory first began being seriously researched reinforced the principles in the scientific theory.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should browse the Royal Society site to see the current trend sin evolution. I have detailed these in other threads.
 
buffalo said:
Actually it is and was coined by an evolutionist.
Click to expand...
I spoke poorly. This passage better summarizes what I should have said.

" Within the modern synthesis of the early 20th century, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[9] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale."

Macroevolution is just a lot of microevolutions. But there’s no hard line, no scientists are sitting around going “hmm is this a microevolution or a macroevolution?” while wearing labcoats.
 

This is the kind of stuff I was referring to when I said the theory is being challenged more. Very interesting, worth a watch! And these guys are top level scientists.
 
Last edited:
Dan123 said:
I spoke poorly. This passage better summarizes what I should have said.

" Within the modern synthesis of the early 20th century, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[9] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale."

Macroevolution is just a lot of microevolutions. But there’s no hard line, no scientists are sitting around going “hmm is this a microevolution or a macroevolution?” while wearing labcoats.
Click to expand...
OK. That is the claim. However, we now know that macro-evolution does not happen.
 
Dan123 said:
It’s still abiogenesis not evolution though. There is no functional model for abiogenesis, it’s a frontier of science. My guess is what you’re actually finding are discussions of current study.
Click to expand...
I can provide plenty of school books on all levels that have these but I would rather pm you those as it’s really not topic related.

I understand you are saying the study of evolution is separate from the origin of life. Yet anyone who puts their faith or belief in evolution must have a starting point. It’s really that simple. If one believes everything we see was the result of random chance they must also believe that at some point life created itself. I’m speaking purely scientific. I know some people want to say perhaps God created the first cell and let nature or chance run with it. Scientists will not accept that model. It’s the Christian trying to fit their belief into the evolution theory.

People are free to believe what they wish. I believe in God and God’s truth. All scripture is indeed theopneustos. I trust God 100/100 times vs anything mankind comes up with. Doesn’t God claim “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God” and “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.” ??
 
whatistrue said:
Evolution does not automatically mean totally random.
Click to expand...
I’m speaking in broad terms. Evolution typically refers to random chance vs my faith in God which is the opposite. Everything happens on earth according to God’s will vs nature just running. Make sense?
 
You first. You made an unsupported assertion and I denied it. But if you insist, how about the contents of the Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian?
 
You say you were using broad terms, but the terms you actually used were very specific.
 
whatistrue said:
You first. You made an unsupported assertion and I denied it. But if you insist, how about the contents of the Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian?
Click to expand...
The fossil record show abrupt appearance, stasis and variation within,
 
Mishakel said:
I can provide plenty of school books on all levels that have these but I would rather pm you those as it’s really not topic related.
Click to expand...
To keep it to a minimum just pick the most egregious one, that way your point is made in specific terms but we don’t muddy up the thread.
Mishakel said:
Yet anyone who puts their faith or belief in evolution must have a starting point. It’s really that simple. If one believes everything we see was the result of random chance they must also believe that at some point life created itself. I’m speaking purely scientific. I know some people want to say perhaps God created the first cell and let nature or chance run with it. Scientists will not accept that model.
Click to expand...
You don’t need a starting point outside the theory. “We don’t know” is an acceptable answer, in many cases its the best answer. Science certainly would expect there to be an answer, which is why some scientists study that field to look for the answer. That doesn’t mean the evidence we do have is meaningless. It’s like we don’t fully understand gravity and why it does what it does, but we can still predict tides based on the moon’s position, we can still build airplanes and rocket ships. We don’t need a soup to nuts bulletproof explanation of an entire process to create working models from the data we do have.

Religious scientists will almost certainly accept that God created the first life, just as they believe God created the first Man. But just like believing God created man didn’t stop them from asking ‘how’, believing God created the first life still doesn’t prevent a curious mind from asking “how”. For many studying the world and how its put together is said to bring them closer to God and seeing the beauty of creation not just in the big picture but in the invisible processes as well.
 
Mishakel said:
I’m speaking in broad terms. Evolution typically refers to random chance vs my faith in God which is the opposite. Everything happens on earth according to God’s will vs nature just running. Make sense?
Click to expand...
“Random chance” is usually used as a dismissive term and it ignores non-random selection. It would be like saying a game of poker is strictly random chance, ignoring that there are non-random elements, in the case of poker the players, in the case of evolution natural selection, non-random mating, etc.
 
buffalo said:
What is your top piece of evidence?
Click to expand...
What you’d call “microevolution” is the best evidence for macroevolution, since macro is just many micros. Why wouldn’t many small changes add up to larger change?
buffalo said:
The fossil record show abrupt appearance, stasis and variation within,
Click to expand...
In geological terms ‘abrupt’ is typically millions of years.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top