Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

D

dragonzim

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/420#post_3492398
To be honest...I'm no math girl either...My 3 children so far have bloomed into 12 grandchildren....without trying. In Bible days they wanted children, as many as possible, and had multiple wives.
I don't buy into the Earth is only 6000 years old, since the sun and moon were created on the 4th day, I PERSONALLY just don't think the counting is the same we use. (my personal opinion disagrees with the religious leaders) However,...I don't think it isn't that impossible. In 433 years, look at the size of the Hebrew nation that originated from 70 people, and one of them was way to old to make anymore kids...I think a generation is a single human life span, which is approximately 80 years not 20....and in the Bible they say a life span is 120 years.
A generation is generally accepted as the time it takes for a child to be born and become old enough to have children of their own.. If it were a single human lifespan then you, your kids and your grandkids would technically all be of the same generation since you are still alive.
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonZim http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/440#post_3492402
A generation is generally accepted as the time it takes for a child to be born and become old enough to have children of their own.. If it were a single human lifespan then you, your kids and your grandkids would technically all be of the same generation since you are still alive.
Okay I understand what your saying...a generation are the children we generate. I thought it was a life span. .
Okay.... So in 433 years to create the nation of Isreal from 69 child bearing people (Isreal /Jacob was 125 years old, so he was done) was (drum roll) 433/ 20 = 21.65 generations...Each of his 12 sons had a thousands upon thousands of children by that short time frame. So I stay with my original statement that it is not all that impossible to populate the earth within the time frame you were asking about.
It's kind of like add a penny and double it each time you put more into the kitty. One day is 2 cents, the next is 4, then 8 so the population of 69 became so many thousands (and Jacob was a single human man with 12 kids...he was not alone in the world)...his family alone populated into thousands of thousands, which populated into even more thoudands and thousands and into the billions...I think 1/3 of the human race died from the plague, and look at the number of people we still have today....LOL..maybe we really evolved from bunnies and not apes.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonZim http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/420#post_3492394
Just curious here... According to the bible, all people are descended from Noah, correct? And also according to the bible people have only been on the earth for 6000 years, correct? If you assume that a generation is roughly 20 years, that gives us 300 generations since then. Is it even physically possible (I'm not a math guy) to get from a small handful of people to almost 7 billion people in that short a time frame? Also, is it possible, since we all supposedly descended from this one family, to have branched out into the various races of people we have on earth in that short a time frame?
This is not easy to calculate as the human growth rate is not constant. In the other thread we have on evolution (look for it if you want, I am too lazy to quote it)...I did a maths problem where I showed this. If the rate of reproduction for humans was the same throughout history (and equal to what it is now) then the entire human population could go from 2 people to what it is today. Of course I was using data over the span a century (which is all I could get my hands on). Nonetheless, it is abundantly clear that going from 2 people to what we have today could not be accomplished that such a time span. This is because the rate of reproduction and survival dramatically increased when we discovered antiseptics and it continued to increase with new medical advances. Then of course we have to factor in plagues and...it's a mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/420#post_3492381
An astoriod that may have killed off the dinosaurs could not have been the flood of Noah, since man and dinos were not alive at the same time. However, the good books tells us that the Earth had no rain, a mist would rise up and water the earth...like a terrarium. The bubble burst...only God knows why, he said he caused it to happen to cleanse the earth of an abomination mixture of man and angels...Noahs generations (blood lines) were pure. The waters came down and flooded the Earth, the natural evaporation where the rain clouds carry the water, I think began at that point. If only the family of Noah escaped the flood and mankind dispersed and spread all over the world, creating new settlements of people, it makes perfect sense that all cultures would have a flood story... and because knowledge was kept in song and taught to the children, it makes sense that small changes occured with the telling.
As for the second part of your post....it wouldn't make any difference if other creatures survived and we evolved from that...according to Darwin they still evoloved from a pool of mushy goo to start with, and all living things came from that, even if some survived to repopulate, the beginning is the beginning.
Seth, I know that....it was the middle of the night and I thought I was being funny. All kidding aside, each generation does get more evil. The prisons are over crowded, even little kids are back sassing their parents, it used to be just the teens....Just like the good book proclaims. We are regressing, and the more crowded the population, the worse it gets.
Ah yes, page 102 of On the Origin of Species. I love the part where Darwin claims that we evolved from a pool of mushy goo. The scientific community still uses that nomenclature to this day, I believe.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Do you all think the bible was using literal terms as far as timelines? I seriously doubt Methusila (sp?) lived to over 900 years old?
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
What I have observed about Bible literal-ist is that they pick and choose what they literally believe.
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/440#post_3492467
What I have observed about Bible literal-ist is that they pick and choose what they literally believe.
I am unsure who picks and chooses what they believe. I suppose you could be referring to the very confused and misguided "evolutionary creationists", but the Bible is a safe guide to creation. Whereas, no one yet has answered my first question of this thread: how did James Hutton come up with how old the paleo eras were and how can the circular (lack of) reasoning of aging fossils by sediment and aging sediment by fossils be considered sound science? Let's leave religion out of it. When anyone here who condemns Creation science as religious rubbish and evolution pure science can answer those two points(go ahead and hit google, even the "leading evolutionists" have said their "logic" can't explain it but they are really, really smart and don't need to), which is the very basis of evolutionary science, then you can claim intellectual superiority. Until then, all you evolutionists are taking by faith, as there is not one shred of proof, the word of men who are on the record as opposing not just Creationism, but Christianity itself-just like their original prophet, James Hutton.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Quote:
how did James Hutton come up with how old the paleo eras were and how can the circular (lack of) reasoning of aging fossils by sediment and aging sediment by fossils be considered sound science?
The scientific method is the basis of sound science.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
There are many ways to age the earth. When they correlate, an estimate of the earth's age is found. It is an estimate and will always be an estimate. Some dating techniques are better than others (ladies...), but we would be amiss if we did not test other people's findings in different ways. That's how you beat out large errors. I was always under the impression that index fossils were used for convenience. But I see how piling assumptions would affect these estimates. We also have to play off of the biggest assumption in physics and that is that the laws of physics have been constant over time.
How do I know that what I perceive as yellow, you don't perceive as green? Does chicken taste the same to me as it does to you? Sometimes we just have to say, "I have no reason to believe otherwise and furthermore, if it works then who cares?"
Do we have to have faith in science? Well, yes and no. How do I know that what I've learned in science is true? How do I know that the earth revolves around the sun? How do I know that the earth is a sphere? Simple, I've read books and so, in essence, people have told me these things to be true. So I can either do the experiment myself to see for myself or I can believe these people. So if I just believe these people, is that taking the information on faith? Some would say yes. But you have to ask yourself, "What is the probability that the earth being round is a huge conspiracy?" What is the probability that scientists are making this up? Well, it is essentially (but not entirely) zero. Appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy, but appeal to false authority is.
So yes, you do have to use faith in science, but I would argue that it is a very different type of faith. It is impossible to miss the discrepancy between this type of faith and religious faith.
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/440#post_3492483
The scientific method is the basis of sound science.
Nice try. How is the scientific method used to age the earth? If you think there is a rational evolutionary answer, please provide it. I can tell you with 100% certainty there isn't any. It is all "educated guesses". Go ahead and find it and post it. I know you won't, because you can't, because even evolutionary scientists say they can't apply the scientific method to dating the earth. It is all speculation, supposedly based on observation; ie, James Hutton.
p.s. The planets revolving around the Sun was proven using the scientific method long before we had satellites and powerful telescopes. That is the worst logic I have ever heard: some scientists are right about provable science, so I'm going to check my brain at the door when it comes to the most fundamental science there is-the creation of all we know. And I'm the non-thinker for believing God is the creator? Yeah, go ahead and throw stones from your glass house, while I rest in the solid safety of a loving Creator.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/440#post_3492491
Nice try. How is the scientific method used to age the earth? If you think there is a rational evolutionary answer, please provide it. I can tell you with 100% certainty there isn't any. It is all "educated guesses". Go ahead and find it and post it. I know you won't, because you can't, because even evolutionary scientists say they can't apply the scientific method to dating the earth. It is all speculation, supposedly based on observation; ie, James Hutton.
p.s. The planets revolving around the Sun was proven using the scientific method long before we had satellites and powerful telescopes. That is the worst logic I have ever heard: some scientists are right about provable science, so I'm going to check my brain at the door when it comes to the most fundamental science there is-the creation of all we know. And I'm the non-thinker for believing God is the creator? Yeah, go ahead and throw stones from your glass house, while I rest in the solid safety of a loving Creator.
You mixed my arguments, reread that paying attention to the gaps that were added. There is nothing logically wrong with my statements. Nor were there personal attacks.
 
2quills

2quills

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/440#post_3492491
Nice try. How is the scientific method used to age the earth? If you think there is a rational evolutionary answer, please provide it. I can tell you with 100% certainty there isn't any. It is all "educated guesses". Go ahead and find it and post it. I know you won't, because you can't, because even evolutionary scientists say they can't apply the scientific method to dating the earth. It is all speculation, supposedly based on observation; ie, James Hutton.
p.s. The planets revolving around the Sun was proven using the scientific method long before we had satellites and powerful telescopes. That is the worst logic I have ever heard: some scientists are right about provable science, so I'm going to check my brain at the door when it comes to the most fundamental science there is-the creation of all we know. And I'm the non-thinker for believing God is the creator? Yeah, go ahead and throw stones from your glass house, while I rest in the solid safety of a loving Creator.
I think it gets a little sketchy the further back in time we try to go when thinking in terms of accuracy over millions or even billions of years. However, I do think the method of dating ice cores for instance going back hundreds of thousands of years is based on some pretty plain and simple logic. If we can literally see layers of ice being formed and can easily calculate the rates in which they are formed and track that progress over the course of a few human life times then it seems fairly logical to me that we can accurately date ice cores. Or tree rings. Or the rate of decomposition of carbon for that matter. I don't take it all as gospel but I do put at least some faith into certain accepted logic (by some). Because these are things that can be observed in our life time. So I think that some data can be reasonably extracted through theory coupled with tracking of method and viewing results.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/440#post_3492491
Nice try. How is the scientific method used to age the earth? If you think there is a rational evolutionary answer, please provide it. I can tell you with 100% certainty there isn't any. It is all "educated guesses". Go ahead and find it and post it. I know you won't, because you can't, because even evolutionary scientists say they can't apply the scientific method to dating the earth. It is all speculation, supposedly based on observation; ie, James Hutton.
p.s. The planets revolving around the Sun was proven using the scientific method long before we had satellites and powerful telescopes. That is the worst logic I have ever heard: some scientists are right about provable science, so I'm going to check my brain at the door when it comes to the most fundamental science there is-the creation of all we know. And I'm the non-thinker for believing God is the creator? Yeah, go ahead and throw stones from your glass house, while I rest in the solid safety of a loving Creator
Why do you keep saying I'm throwing stones? You're the only one doing that here.
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I should get in the middle of it and try and fix it or not....but It's been a great debate and I hate to see things go sour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/440#post_3492491
Nice try. How is the scientific method used to age the earth? If you think there is a rational evolutionary answer, please provide it. I can tell you with 100% certainty there isn't any. It is all "educated guesses". Go ahead and find it and post it. I know you won't, because you can't, because even evolutionary scientists say they can't apply the scientific method to dating the earth. It is all speculation, supposedly based on observation; ie, James Hutton.
p.s. The planets revolving around the Sun was proven using the scientific method long before we had satellites and powerful telescopes. That is the worst logic I have ever heard: some scientists are right about provable science, so I'm going to check my brain at the door when it comes to the most fundamental science there is-the creation of all we know. And I'm the non-thinker for believing God is the creator? Yeah, go ahead and throw stones from your glass house, while I rest in the solid safety of a loving Creator.
Friend,
A little word of advice. You don't need get on the defensive, instead get in the books and study to show yourself approved. Learn to debate your beliefs instead of getting angry when you feel challenged. While it's true one belief or the other can't be concluded as proved, it doesn't mean your thoughts on the subject are invalid if another person disagrees.
So please do rest on the solid belief of a loving Creator, and pray for the "doomed to hell fire" that doesn't know him the way you do. Bang Guy is a fellow believer in God, and you snapped at him because he was trying to make a point that you disagreed with. You need a thicker skin, and more confidence if you are going to make a stand and try to argue your point. In a debate if someone makes a point, it isn't throwing a stone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/440#post_3492514
Why do you keep saying I'm throwing stones? You're the only one doing that here.
Your glass house means you have no more conclusive proof of science than he does of his religion. Throwing stones means you made him feel threatened, or unable to argue his point any further, he has declared he will rest on his faith. It falls in the line of ...lets agree to disagree and ...or when I say, As for me and my house we will serve HaShem.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/440#post_3492477
I am unsure who picks and chooses what they believe. I suppose you could be referring to the very confused and misguided "evolutionary creationists", but the Bible is a safe guide to creation. Whereas, no one yet has answered my first question of this thread: how did James Hutton come up with how old the paleo eras were and how can the circular (lack of) reasoning of aging fossils by sediment and aging sediment by fossils be considered sound science? Let's leave religion out of it. When anyone here who condemns Creation science as religious rubbish and evolution pure science can answer those two points(go ahead and hit google, even the "leading evolutionists" have said their "logic" can't explain it but they are really, really smart and don't need to), which is the very basis of evolutionary science, then you can claim intellectual superiority. Until then, all you evolutionists are taking by faith, as there is not one shred of proof, the word of men who are on the record as opposing not just Creationism, but Christianity itself-just like their original prophet, James Hutton.
I already posted this once. It's called radiocarbon dating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top