Originally posted by Proper KnobAll life started fully formed and from that point on went about their daily lives with
[b]The day they were created
I could work that out. But you didn't answer my question, did all the animals that are alive today have the same 'starting point?[/b]
all the mutations and adaptations going on within them, as they were scattered
across the earth and their environment changed they adapted to suit their little
corner of the planet they found themselves in. All life was created during that
singular event and afterwards we get all the animals today from the ones that
began during the creation period.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayHow long ago did life start fully formed?
All life started fully formed and from that point on went about their daily lives with
all the mutations and adaptations going on within them, as they were scattered
across the earth and their environment changed they adapted to suit their little
corner of the planet they found themselves in. All life was created during that
singular event and afterwards we get all the animals today from the ones that
began during the creation period.
Kelly
Originally posted by Proper KnobI think it was a short time ago, thousands of years ago *belief*, but and it is a big
Roughly speaking then. I'm not after a precise date and time.
but I think there is room for doubt on that. Have you stopped worring about the
process of evolution now and want to end the debate on a disagreement about
time?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay“....I think it was a short time ago, thousands of years ago *belief*, but and it is a big
I think it was a short time ago, thousands of years ago *belief*, but and it is a big
but I think there is room for doubt on that. Have you stopped worring about the
process of evolution now and want to end the debate on a disagreement about
time?
Kelly
but I think there is room for doubt on that. ...”
But surely, from what you have so far said in this thread, for you, there must be more than mere “room for doubt on that”!!!
I keep pointing out the same inconstancy you have (see my last post on page 14 ) but you don't respond to my posts so I don't understand how you can see your belief as being logically consistent.
You have already stated that it is “highly likely” that wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes etc share a common ancestor.
But surely wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes etc are DIFFERENT SPECIES?
So we are not merely talking here about different breeds evolving ( similar to different breeds of dogs through selective breeding ) but different SPECIES evolving and surely you would agree that it would take a LOT longer to evolve a different species than merely a different breed? -right?
If it takes thousands of years just to evolve different breeds (and not species) then surely it is reasonable to assume that it takes millions of years to evolve different species?
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayhttp://christianity.wikia.com/wiki/Dating_creation
I think it was a short time ago, thousands of years ago *belief*, but and it is a big
but I think there is room for doubt on that. Have you stopped worring about the
process of evolution now and want to end the debate on a disagreement about
time?
Kelly
The Bible begins with the Book of Genesis, in which God creates the world, including the first human, a man named Adam, in six days. Genesis goes on to list many of Adam's descendants, in many cases giving the ages at which they had children and died. If these events and ages are interpreted literally throughout, it is possible to build up a chronology in which many of the events of the Old Testament are dated to an estimated number of years after the Creation.
Some scholars have gone further, and have attempted to tie in this Biblical chronology with that of recorded history, thus establishing a date for the Creation in a modern calendar. Since there are periods in the Biblical story where dates are not given, the chronology has been subject to interpretation in many different ways, resulting in a variety of estimates of the date of Creation.
Two dominant dates for Biblical Creation using such models exist, about 5500 BCE and about 4000 BCE. These were calculated from the genealogies in two versions of the Bible, with most of the difference arising from two versions of Genesis. The older dates are based on the Septuagint. This translation was used by some Jews until about 100, then by Christians until 405, then by the Byzantines until 1453, and is still used by the various Orthodox churches. The later dates are based on the Hebrew text of the Torah (the precursor of the Masoretic text), which is still used by Jews. Jerome translated it into Latin as the first book of the Vulgate in 405, then it was used by Western Christians, within both Roman Catholicism and later Protestantism, beginning in 1517. The patriarchs from Adam to Terach, the father of Abraham, were often 100 years older when they begat their named son in the Septuagint than they were in the Hebrew or the Vulgate (Genesis 5, 11). The net difference between the two genealogies of Genesis was 1466 years (ignoring the "second year after the flood" ambiguity), which is virtually all of the 1500-year difference between 5500 BCE and 4000 BCE.
...................................
According to my mainstream materialistic science backed model, the Flandrian Transgression, or Great Flood, began approximately 5500 BCE and ended about 4000 BCE.
http://athousandyoung.blogspot.com/2010/12/history-and-prehistory-of-everything.html
http://ldolphin.org/eden/
Originally posted by KellyJayJust to help your doubt along:
I think it was a short time ago, thousands of years ago *belief*, but and it is a big
but I think there is room for doubt on that.
Writing is believed to be at least 6000 years old.
Archeological evidence however shows human settlements around much of the world going back quite a bit further. Agriculture for example appears to be about 10,000 years old.
There are trees that are believed to be older than 5,000 years.
Genetic studies of humans suggest we have a common female ancestor about 200,000 years ago.
ice cores appear to show yearly climate cycles going back hundreds of thousands of years (and which match events from other data such as from geological sources.)
Other dating methods show far greater ages.
Originally posted by KellyJayHave you stopped worring about the process of evolution now.
I think it was a short time ago, thousands of years ago *belief*, but and it is a big
but I think there is room for doubt on that. Have you stopped worring about the
process of evolution now and want to end the debate on a disagreement about
time?
Kelly
Worrying?? There's no worrying going on this end.
I think it was a short time ago, thousands of years ago *belief*, but and it is a big
but I think there is room for doubt on that.
I also think there is room for doubt on that. Room enough to fit VY Canis Majoris in it (the largest known star in the universe).
So if life has only been on the planet for a few thousand years, where do the dinosaurs and all the other 250,000 species in the fossil record fit into this 'scheme'?
Originally posted by Proper KnobWe might as well get all the cards dealt, so I will quote somebody who played the Satandidit card:
[b]Have you stopped worring about the process of evolution now.
Worrying?? There's no worrying going on this end.
I think it was a short time ago, thousands of years ago *belief*, but and it is a big
but I think there is room for doubt on that.
I also think there is room for doubt on that. Room enough to fit VY Canis Majoris in it (t ...[text shortened]... the dinosaurs and all the other 250,000 species in the fossil record fit into this 'scheme'?[/b]
"Dinosaurs fossils were planted by Satan to throw us on the wrong track, and away from the Lord. "Dinosaurs" never roamed the earth, and they never breathed. They only exist in the fossil state. Do not let Satan lead you away from the unaissailable truth the the Bible, which is God's unfaillible word."
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=2;t=5004;st=0
Reportedly, others believe God did it as a test of faith. Does anyone in this thread consider these to be genuine possibilities?
Originally posted by Proper KnobThey were alive then they died, and they died in such a way where a large number
[b]Have you stopped worring about the process of evolution now.
Worrying?? There's no worrying going on this end.
I think it was a short time ago, thousands of years ago *belief*, but and it is a big
but I think there is room for doubt on that.
I also think there is room for doubt on that. Room enough to fit VY Canis Majoris in it (t ...[text shortened]... the dinosaurs and all the other 250,000 species in the fossil record fit into this 'scheme'?[/b]
of them became fossils. If my "beliefs" about the age of the earth are correct than
it isn't that we see fossils that are part of the issue, but how we date them. So have
we now left the ability of evolution to cause life to change and are you now moving
into the date issue of this discussion? As far as I'm concern I can be wrong about
time so I don't spend a lot of time worring about it, the issue I have with what
people give evolution credit for I think does not matter if you have millions or
billions of years to do it, it isn't going to happen.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm aware of those things we have been down this road before, my responce was
Just to help your doubt along:
Writing is believed to be at least 6000 years old.
Archeological evidence however shows human settlements around much of the world going back quite a bit further. Agriculture for example appears to be about 10,000 years old.
There are trees that are believed to be older than 5,000 years.
Genetic studies of humans sugge ...[text shortened]... from other data such as from geological sources.)
Other dating methods show far greater ages.
and is still the same, you are dating objects in away that can only be accepted or
rejected, it cannot be verified. You can look at several tests that show the same,
dates, that shows you have several tests that show the same dates, it does not
add up to mean they are right. You can test your blood sugar levels with several
different monitors and seeing a lot of monitors agree does not mean they are
right, what you should do is get the doctor to confirm what is right and go from
there. With dating methods that speak about millions or billions of years, there is
no source to go to confirm it is telling us the truth or not, all you get is a bunch
of numbers and if they mean what we think....that is debate.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut it does add up to them being almost certainly right. It is, in fact, a probability argument that does have mathematics to back it up (unlike your argument against evolution).
You can look at several tests that show the same,
dates, that shows you have several tests that show the same dates, it does not
add up to mean they are right.
If we date something by annual weather cycles - eg tree rings or ice cores - then either we are reasonably correct or the earth went around the sun much faster in the past or something else made the cycles different.
If we date the same thing using what we know about nuclear decay and find the same date, then either both are correct, or not only did nuclear decay operate differently in the past, but the amount it differed by exactly matches the difference int he speed the sun went around the earth, and that is highly improbable. If we add a third dating method, then it becomes so improbable that they all match that you might as well believe anything.
You can test your blood sugar levels with several
different monitors and seeing a lot of monitors agree does not mean they are
right, what you should do is get the doctor to confirm what is right and go from
there.
How does the doctor know?
With dating methods that speak about millions or billions of years, there is
no source to go to confirm it is telling us the truth or not, all you get is a bunch
of numbers and if they mean what we think....that is debate.
Kelly
There is never a "source to go to" for any measurement. If I ask you to measure a pencil and you do, what source will you go to to see if your ruler is telling the truth? There is no such source.
Originally posted by JS357Forget about it. It is simply not true. It's like the
We might as well get all the cards dealt, so I will quote somebody who played the Satandidit card:
"Dinosaurs fossils were planted by Satan to throw us on the wrong track, and away from the Lord. "Dinosaurs" never roamed the earth, and they never breathed. They only exist in the fossil state. Do not let Satan lead you away from the unaissailable truth th ...[text shortened]... as a test of faith. Does anyone in this thread consider these to be genuine possibilities?
theory of evolution, not true.