Evolution and Time

[BobRyan]

Now, even if you hold to the traditional authorship of Genesis, Moses was not an eyewitness to the Creation.

Christ said that Abraham was an EYE WITNESS to the days of the Messiah in John 8 "Abraham SAW MY DAY and was glad" -- are you discounting that KIND of eye witness? If so -- then you are right Moses was not an Eye Witness.

But God WAS an Eye Witness to what HE DID and according to 2Tim 3:15-16 HE TOLD Moses for "ALL SCRITPURE is given by inspiration from God".

However I do appreciate the point that TP is making here - you have to challenge the Bible ITSELF to swallow the false doctrines of atheist evolutionism.

That is a very good point sir.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
The only actual fact is that we have had "Advances" in the sciences listed -- but "offered insight" is merely propaganda language for "have been used in our story telling" but it does not mean "have SHOWN the evolution of endosymbionts into contemporary organelles in the lab"

Everybody KNOWS this.

Hint: This is the DEFINITION of "handwaiving": gloss over the detail that you have NOTHING SHOWING Prokaryotes forced/manipulated/observed to assemble into Eukaryotes -- and calling it "offerred insights"

UTEOTW simply hopes that his frantic handwaiving will encourage some to "overlook it"

UTEOTW responds -

I say that the author claims that "geochemistry, molecular phylogeny, and cell biology" provide evidence for the symbiotic origin of eularyotes. His actual words were "offers insight." Do you think that these really mean different things? Come on.

Then after some more rabbit trail obfuscation of the point UTEOTW adds a factual statement that actually applies here --

UTEOTW
When we come here and debate, we will of course use firm language even if it is not justified.

Thus justifying his true devotee style language defending the speculations of atheist darwinism "At all costs".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Alcott]

The first letter that came to be included in our New Testament was written within twenty years of the Resurrection. There were many eyewitnesses to the event, and many of those were known by Paul.

That's saying it is hearsay. So do you believe in heresay accounts of a physical impossibility?

At least half, if not all, of the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses.

What does that mean? Believe half of them, and 'move to strike' the rest of them as inadmissable? Even though this line of questioning may be partly comical, if you believe only what science can explain and throw out the impossible, why do you believe the resurrection? Besides, for eyewitnesses, was Jesus not one? He specifically referred to Noah and the flood as real? Or is this inadmissable because Jesus had to 'relearn' it [unless, of course, he remained all-knowing through his gestation, changings, nursings, et al]?

Now, even if you hold to the traditional authorship of Genesis, Moses was not an eyewitness to the Creation.

What was he then?-- A liar or just incompetent? Or if he didn't write Genesis, who are you claiming did? If you don't know, and/or you say it went through many editions and censorships, that's saying it as reliable as the legend of Romulus and Remus, or the Hopi tale of The Boy and the Eagle.

 

[tragic_pizza]

That's saying it is hearsay. So do you believe in heresay accounts of a physical impossibility?

Eyewitness accounts are not hearsay.

What does that mean? Believe half of them, and 'move to strike' the rest of them as inadmissable? Even though this line of questioning may be partly comical, if you believe only what science can explain and throw out the impossible, why do you believe the resurrection? Besides, for eyewitnesses, was Jesus not one? He specifically referred to Noah and the flood as real? Or is this inadmissable because Jesus had to 'relearn' it [unless, of course, he remained all-knowing through his gestation, changings, nursings, et al]?

Remove the red herrings. Eyewitness accounts are not hearsay.

What was he then?-- A liar or just incompetent? Or if he didn't write Genesis, who are you claiming did? If you don't know, and/or you say it went through many editions and censorships, that's saying it as reliable as the legend of Romulus and Remus, or the Hopi tale of The Boy and the Eagle.

No, it isn't saying that at all.

 

[El_Guero]

TP

Show some of that love . . .

:1_grouphug:

 

[Alcott]

Eyewitness accounts are not hearsay.
Remove the red herrings. Eyewitness accounts are not hearsay.
No, it isn't saying that at all.

Then do you have doubt about Paul's explanation of the 'elements' of the Lord's supper? (he wasn't there) Matthew's account of the star and the wise guys? (he wasn't there) Or whoever wrote that Moses died and was buried by God himself somewhere in the Moab valley? Of course, if you do believe in the resurrection of anyone you may believe Moses himself still wrote that; or perhaps was given a reprieve, as maybe God woke him up and said, "Okay, you got a half hour to write you're dead and in the grave; so write it and jump back in-- and I'll cover for you." Regardless, if that is true, it was not written by an eyewitness otherwise, unless Moses wrote it and threw it out when he still had one hand above the dirt.

As to Genesis not being comparable to Romulus & Remus or the Hopi tale of the Boy and the Eagle-- how it is not comparable?

 

[BobRyan]

Bob to TP -

Christ said that Abraham was an EYE WITNESS to the days of the Messiah in John 8 "Abraham SAW MY DAY and was glad" -- are you discounting that KIND of eye witness?

If so -- then you are right Moses was not an Eye Witness.

But God WAS an Eye Witness to what HE DID and according to 2Tim 3:15-16 HE TOLD Moses for "ALL SCRITPURE is given by inspiration from God".

However I do appreciate the point that TP is making here - you have to challenge the Bible ITSELF to swallow the false doctrines of atheist evolutionism.

That is a very good point sir.

In Christ,

Bob

I don't think I ever saw an answer to this -

 

[Helen]

Well, it's been interesting. UTE could do nothing but rail against the idea that there is no actual evidence that prokaryotes become eukaryotes.

Galatian, who had challenged me in another thread to present something specific never checked in at all, although I'm sure he has read some of this.

In short, from what is represented here, evolution has no answer to the time problem when it comes to generation times.

This problem becomes far worse when mutations and natural selection are considered, but that is for later.

 

[UTEOTW]

Declaring victory without ever having addressed the objectionsmade, eh?

It ws pointed out, as has been before, that your OP is a strawman. Far more genetic diversity has been developed by all those prokaryotes, while remaining single celled, than has been developed by eukaryotes while going from singled celled to oaks and elephants and humans. Your argument about the number of generations was nothing but a strawman that ignores what science really claims happened.

It was suggested, based on the current understanding of science, that what took so look, instead, was how long it took for the eukaryotic cell to form by symbiosis of prokaryotes. You could only say that there is no evidence for this, a naked assertion, and then hand waved and ignored the evidence, such as from molecular phylogeny, that shows that the eukaryote organells really are the remains of symbiotic prokaryotes.

It is strange to simply declare victory when you have never really dealt with any of the arguments presented.

 

[BobRyan]

This just seems appropriate at this point --

UTEOTW
When we come here and debate, we will of course use firm language even if it is not justified.

Thus justifying his true devotee style language defending the speculations of atheist darwinism "At all costs" and ignoring the "inconvenient details" where it has been pointed out time after time that UTEOTW is over inflating the claims and case for atheist darwinism.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is UTEOTW's quote again

Quote:
Sabrina D. Dyall, Mark T. Brown, Patricia J. Johnson, Ancient Invasions: From Endosymbionts to Organelles, Science 9 April 2004: Vol. 304. no. 5668, pp. 253 - 257

The acquisitions of mitochondria and plastids were important events in the evolution of the eukaryotic cell, supplying it with compartmentalized bioenergetic and biosynthetic factories. Ancient invasions by eubacteria through symbiosis more than a billion years ago initiated these processes. Advances in geochemistry, molecular phylogeny, and cell biology have offered insight into complex molecular events that drove the evolution of endosymbionts into contemporary organelles. In losing their autonomy, endosymbionts lost the bulk of their genomes, necessitating the evolution of elaborate mechanisms for organelle biogenesis and metabolite exchange. In the process, symbionts acquired many host-derived properties, lost much of their eubacterial identity, and were transformed into extraordinarily diverse organelles that reveal complex histories that we are only beginning to decipher.

The careful, objective, critical thinking-mind will instantly note that the only actual fact provided in UTEOTW's quote is that we have had "Advances" in the sciences listed -- but "offered insight" is merely propaganda language for "have been used in our story telling" but it does not mean "have SHOWN the evolution of endosymbionts into contemporary organelles in the lab"

Everybody KNOWS this.

UTEOTW simply hopes that his frantic handwaiving will encourage some to "overlook it"

(sorry UTEOTW - this just never get's old)

 

[tragic_pizza]

Then do you have doubt about Paul's explanation of the 'elements' of the Lord's supper? (he wasn't there) Matthew's account of the star and the wise guys? (he wasn't there)

No, I have no doubt at all, because, as I said, the writings of Paul and Matthew were contemporary with the generation of eyewitnesses to these events.

Or whoever wrote that Moses died and was buried by God himself somewhere in the Moab valley? Of course, if you do believe in the resurrection of anyone you may believe Moses himself still wrote that; or perhaps was given a reprieve, as maybe God woke him up and said, "Okay, you got a half hour to write you're dead and in the grave; so write it and jump back in-- and I'll cover for you." Regardless, if that is true, it was not written by an eyewitness otherwise, unless Moses wrote it and threw it out when he still had one hand above the dirt.

This is a tougher one, because there's no way to know where the account originated. I lean toward the idea that someone who was a participant in the events having written something, which was later redacted into the Penteteuch. I argue for these books existing much earlier than Kings and Chronicles, which appear to have been compiled following the return of the Jews from exile.

In any case, it harms my faith not at all to accept the account of Moses' burial as factual.

As to Genesis not being comparable to Romulus & Remus or the Hopi tale of the Boy and the Eagle-- how it is not comparable?

The short answer is that the Genesis creation accounts are theological narratives. True, they have the form of explanatory fables, but there is more to Genesis 1-3 than "How the Elephant Got His Trunk." Not being familiar with Hopi mythology, I can't comment on it, but I can say that the legend of Romulus and Remus concerns itself simply with the origins of Rome, and not with theological matters.

 

[El_Guero]

A blind friend was in a hurry to get across campus, and I volunteered to lead him.

We came up to the door, and I pushed it. He said, "Doesn't the door say 'pull'?"

When we got to the other side of the building, I pulled the door. He said, "Doesn't this door say 'push'?"

A degreed expert can miss all the signs in the world - if his (her) prejudice tells him to not acknowledge the obvious.

God has been explicit. He has revealed things that until recently NNE knew to be true. And you ask me to trust someone because they have a degree in the field AND choose to not believe God . . .

I am not an expert and never claim to be.

The problem is, none of us are experts. Furthermore, and my point with Bob, is virtually all of the advocates of YEism are not experts in the areas they criticize either. There are a handful. But largely you have lawyers and engineers and mathematicians criticizing things that they have never formally studied, areas where they are not experts and areas where they are not abrest of what the latest science really says about these things.

Just look at any one of those lists of "scientists who deny evolution" that you see and count how many have relevent degrees. Fractions of the numbers in bold at the top of the list.

The few YE guys with an appropriate education have had no ability at all to convince their peers. So they must be doing something wrong.

And then you get guys like Behe who have a degree that is closely related enough to count for something. And you know what, even though he quibbles with the mechanisms, he ACCEPTS universal common descent. (Well, says he has no problem with it at least.)

 

[El_Guero]

Further,

I am a professional theologian - school trained.

And from a theological perspective - GOD created. That is clear and unequivocal.

NNE has EVER proven what God revealed in Genesis WRONG. NNE.

And almost EVERYONE that has tried - died trying . . .

I would rather die trying to serve God then to die trying to prove HIM wrong.