[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Wellwe shall try to keep to Science to disprove the tenets ofevolution then.

1. Science is in agreement of my point 3 nearly all mutations (the theorized mechanism for mutation) are eithwer neutral or harmful almost 100% of the time.

2. As to dating methodologies- I would advise you to read the RATE research report that empiracally shows that dating methods are flawed

3. The missin glinks are still missing! Produce the series that shows the change from gill to ling. Or limbs to wings, or scales to feathers or mouth to beak. or fins to feet, or austrolopithecus to hominid. I could add other supposed proven vertical evolutionary traits but these will suffice. I keep track of fossils, and the scales to feathers produces ^maybe^one fossil in China that may have protofeathers but can`t be independently confirmed.

How about reptilian solid bone to avian hollow bone.

Give empirical data (not the formula of the theory) that actually shows that soemfo the radio darting methods actually measure billions of years. No scientist can they have only been dating things like this for around 55-60 years and they have continually testd these methods to prove the accuracy of the theorized constants.

I think you misunderstand my purpose here. I have no interest in debating the scientific merits of evolution with you. Primarily because I don't care. Whether evolution is true or not makes no difference whatsoever to me. I can think of very, VERY few things I care less about. It's somewhere above the color of Jesus' sandals and below Mark's middle name.

Secondly, I am not a biological, paleontological, anthropological or any other kind of scientist that might have authority to speak on evolution. The thought of two lay people debating evolution from a scientific perspective is as silly to me as two business people debating how I should write my software. I am the computer scientist. Those with no background in computer science (I use the term "science" loosely here) really have no business debating how software should be written. Those with no background in biological, paleontological, anthropological or other kind of science relating to evolution really have no business debating it. I understand this is going to sound lame, but oh well. It's the same reason why patients shouldn't tell their doctors what drugs they want prescribed. They don't have the background knowledge necessary to give an intelligent opinion on the matter. The most intelligent opinion I can give on evolution is, "a lot of smart people think it's true." That's enough for me. Why? See point 1.

[joshaber]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I think you misunderstand my purpose here. I have no interest in debating the scientific merits of evolution with you. Primarily because I don't care. Whether evolution is true or not makes no difference whatsoever to me. I can think of very, VERY few things I care less about. It's somewhere above the color of Jesus' sandals and below Mark's middle name.

Secondly, I am not a biological, paleontological, anthropological or any other kind of scientist that might have authority to speak on evolution. The thought of two lay people debating evolution from a scientific perspective is as silly to me as two business people debating how I should write my software. I am the computer scientist. Those with no background in computer science (I use the term "science" loosely here) really have no business debating how software should be written. Those with no background in biological, paleontological, anthropological or other kind of science relating to evolution really have no business debating it. I understand this is going to sound lame, but oh well. It's the same reason why patients shouldn't tell their doctors what drugs they want prescribed. They don't have the background knowledge necessary to give an intelligent opinion on the matter. The most intelligent opinion I can give on evolution is, "a lot of smart people think it's true." That's enough for me. Why? See point 1.

This post wins.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by David Carnes

I haven't read all the posts so somebody may have put these resources up. Below are two links for six-day creationist websites that have some very good materials answering arguments put up by evolutionists.

The Institute for Creation Research
Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

Hello friend. Welcome. Let me alert you that "I haven't read all the posts..." is not a good way to start your first post. This is a site for respectful discussion, and that means reading what other people are saying and responding to it. If you want to post these links, please do so either by going to a different thread or by engaging with the conversation as it stands.

Welcome again, and I hope you enjoy becoming a member of the community here!

[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Those with no background in biological, paleontological, anthropological or other kind of science relating to evolution really have no business debating it. I understand this is going to sound lame, but oh well.

I'm a biologist, and I don't even see the point in debating it. Mostly because there's no way I'll convince the proverbial "you" of my point, and there's no way "you" are convincing "me" either.

[Guitarman121319]

Originally Posted by David Carnes

I haven't read all the posts so somebody may have put these resources up. Below are two links for six-day creationist websites that have some very good materials answering arguments put up by evolutionists.

The Institute for Creation Research
Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

I love the Answers in Genesis site. I will have to check out The Institute for Creation Research.
_______

Rainer as far as the predators go: Just because they have sharp teeth does not mean they eat meat. (I know you did not say that I am just bringing it up.) Take the panda they have sharp teeth but they eat bamboo. Then the verse tells me that they did not eat meat before God commanded them.

Originally Posted by Genesis 9:1-4

1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands.3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

Why would God command them if they have already be know to do so?

This is a continuation of this quote:

Originally Posted by Guitarman121319

I am in a hurry so I can't find the verse... But I THINK it says something like and they will eat meat. I wish I had time to find it or see if it is even there. lol

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Guitarman121319

Rainer as far as the predators go: Just because they have sharp teeth does not mean they eat meat.

The interesting thing is that some animals are obligate carnivores. What this means is that they do not have the necessary physiology to survive on plant matter. That's why some people believe that God miraculously changed these creatures at some point after the fall. However because this is found nowhere in scripture it may not be wise to accept it. Just something to keep in mind.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by slap_j

The interesting thing is that some animals are obligate carnivores. What this means is that they do not have the necessary physiology to survive on plant matter. That's why some people believe that God miraculously changed these creatures at some point after the fall. However because this is found nowhere in scripture it may not be wise to accept it. Just something to keep in mind.

really up until the fall, this is kind of implied, because the eating of meat requires the shedding of blood, and the life is in the blood. (since this is the Biblical concept of life and death, I think it rules out plants having "life" in the since the texts require.

Genesis 9, definitely contains the implications that beasts would now eat man. However, Abel raised sheep before the flood and killed and sacrificed them. Cain sacrificed veggies. I believe Abel was probably sacrificing food too.

Now if the fall was almost immediate, (as it appears in the text) I really do not have a problem here with it being a consequence of fall.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

really up until the fall, this is kind of implied...

Even if we accept that prior to the fall all extant creatures were immortal vegetarians then all we can be sure of is that at some point it ceased to be the case.

Now if the fall was almost immediate, (as it appears in the text) I really do not have a problem here with it being a consequence of fall.

I don't have a problem in the sense that I believe God could accomplish it. But I see no reason to believe this story over any number of others I could imagine.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Even if we accept that prior to the fall all extant creatures were immortal vegetarians then all we can be sure of is that at some point it ceased to be the case.



I don't have a problem in the sense that I believe God could accomplish it. But I see no reason to believe this story over any number of others I could imagine.

The problem is death. By man came death. That is the big problem here. Without that, you do end up with a really sticky issue, and unfortunately, THAT issue is tied up in salvation.

[Rainer.]

I must say, I am not completely sure about how animal death and plant death are unequal, except that, Bill, you said that the "Hebrew concept" of plant and animal death were different.

And what of protists or bacteria? Vegetative animals? Carnivorous plants?

If the difference is blood, what about animals without blood? Plant saps have a functionality very similar to animal blood...

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Rainer.

I must say, I am not completely sure about how animal death and plant death are unequal, except that, Bill, you said that the "Hebrew concept" of plant and animal death were different.

And what of protists or bacteria? Vegetative animals? Carnivorous plants?

If the difference is blood, what about animals without blood? Plant saps have a functionality very similar to animal blood...

In the Hebrew concept, life is in the blood. You can eat sap, not blood. It appears that you are approaching this as a modern guy. Scientifically, there is not much a difference. Culturally, with Hebrew, the line I think will be blood. Since God says the life is in the blood in Genesis.

[Rainer.]

I am definitely approaching this as a modern guy... seeing as I appear to be a modern guy.

My question was more specifically related to the idea of animals not eating one another (which I'm not entirely clear what your idea of this issue was, specifically, Bill). Would a pre-carnivorous world before the Fall result in a (actually quite miraculous) worldwide ecosystem overhaul?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Rainer.

I am definitely approaching this as a modern guy... seeing as I appear to be a modern guy.

My question was more specifically related to the idea of animals not eating one another (which I'm not entirely clear what your idea of this issue was, specifically, Bill). Would a pre-carnivorous world before the Fall result in a (actually quite miraculous) worldwide ecosystem overhaul?

My thought is no.

And there appears to be an eco-system overhaul at the fall with how things grow. Thorns, thistles, etc show up growing from the ground as part of the curse. It seems to me like the curse is real, vast, and changes the entire world.

The other reason is the descriptions of the new world where the lion lies down with the lamb. The world is on apocalyptic journey to Eden again. Those accounts tend to make me think that that was what was.

And yes, catastrophic, magical changes would be necessary here, but we are talking curses, not science.

[Guitarman121319]

Rainer,

I do not believe they ate meat, because of Gen. 9:3-4. Why would God say we can eat meat if we are already doing so?

Regards, Jamey

[tlj009]

Bill,

From scripture, it seems like the distinction is more of having the breath of life than it is in the blood. Is there a connection between the breath of life and blood or am I just reading too much into those verses?

Also, has anyone given thought to how God made the clothes of skins? I suspect that God killed animals for this purpose and showed Adam and Eve how to make them. What do ya'll think. Did God kill for this?