YECs

[Maeght]

Copy that. To clarify, I think it shouldn't be possible if their most recent common ancestor lived a couple of million years ago.

Thanks for that. So my next question is why shouldn't it be possible?

[Hope]

The Theory of Evolution might need tweaking a bit as our knowledge continues to increase, but it makes sense whereas the YEC position makes none whatsoever.

The  ToE has been vastly more than tweaked over the years, Floo.  Afriend of mine who is a diehard evolutionist tells me that nopt only would Darwin fail to recognise it its current format, but so would many pre-WW2 evolutionists.  He reckons it will continue to evolve at an ever-increasing rate over the next few decades.

[Hope]

Lord Richard of the Dawkins says the evlutionists have it right Tw______

Ippy

Which is, in and of itself, proof that they haven't, ip.   

[Hope]

The new bullshit filter that you had fitted to the R & E website is faulty. Ask for your money back.

I'd agree, Trent -  its letting the BS you post through   

Mods, you really do need to make sure that such rubbish can't make its way onto the board.

[Hope]

The irony is that the YEC concept is a YAP - a young aged philosophy.  Whilst Ussher is the famous name associated wth it, it only really began to appear in the 16th century AD.  As such, any Biblical/NT references to the creation story would be allegorical.

[Sebastian Toe]

any Biblical/NT references to the creation story would be allegorical.

are they though? Really?

[ad_orientem]

The irony is that the YEC concept is a YAP - a young aged philosophy.  Whilst Ussher is the famous name associated wth it, it only really began to appear in the 16th century AD.  As such, any Biblical/NT references to the creation story would be allegorical.

Be careful what you say here. Don't think that the Fathers, for instance, never thought Adam and Eve, as an example from the creation account, as anything other than literal.

[Spud]

Copy that. To clarify, I think it shouldn't be possible if their most recent common ancestor lived a couple of million years ago.

Thanks for that. So my next question is why shouldn't it be possible?

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. I will play YEC's advocate and list a few differences between lions and jaguars. Apart from the obvious colour differences:
Jaguars have shorter tails (?due to less tail vertebrae or same number of vertebrae but shorter ones?) shorter legs and no tail spur (unique to lions). Their jaw strength:body size ratio is higher than a lion's.
If there have been say 200,000 generations -as a rough guess based on one every 10 years - since the last common ancestor about 2mya, we might expect to find more differnces between the two species than we actually find. This seems enough time for many more mutations in the genome to occur. So we might expect the kinds of differences we find between a domestic dog and a lion (assuming the evolutionist's position that dogs and cats share a common ancestor).
Adaptation to new environments occurs rapidly- it has to to enable survival.
Probably you will be able to refute all that but it is just to explain why a hybrid after 2 million years would be surprising

[Gordon]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. I will play YEC's advocate and list a few differences between lions and jaguars. Apart from the obvious colour differences:
Jaguars have shorter tails (?due to less tail vertebrae or same number of vertebrae but shorter ones?) shorter legs and no tail spur (unique to lions). Their jaw strength:body size ratio is higher than a lion's.
If there have been say 200,000 generations -as a rough guess based on one every 10 years - since the last common ancestor about 2mya, we might expect to find more differnces between the two species than we actually find. This seems enough time for many more mutations in the genome to occur. So we might expect the kinds of differences we find between a domestic dog and a lion (assuming the evolutionist's position that dogs and cats share a common ancestor).
Adaptation to new environments occurs rapidly- it has to to enable survival.
Probably you will be able to refute all that but it is just to explain why a hybrid after 2 million years would be surprising

That is your theory, Spud, but what does the science say about this?

[Sassy]

I realise quite a few Christians believe in the creation story in the Bible to be factual. Out of interest how many on this forum believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old at most?

When I was a young teenager, I asked the YEC pastor of the Pentecostal church, I was unfortunate enough to attend, where dinosaurs fitted into his young earth belief. The man said that the deity had put them there as a test of faith! My faith took a serious nose dive after that ludicrous statement!

As I said God created an mature earth. He also made mature adults. At a day old Adam was a man of years.
It seems so weird how people fail to realise that the earths age physically does not represent the age by scientist.
Because the physical age was not the age it took to create it.

And your evidence to substantiate that statement is? The Bible isn't evidence.

Tlll you have tried it, you can't say that. Show us evidence and concrete proof that the bible isn't evidence. Also prove it isn't evidence that God created a mature earth.
You can't so stop spouting nonsense. You haven't even read the bible.

[Maeght]

Copy that. To clarify, I think it shouldn't be possible if their most recent common ancestor lived a couple of million years ago.

Thanks for that. So my next question is why shouldn't it be possible?

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. I will play YEC's advocate and list a few differences between lions and jaguars. Apart from the obvious colour differences:
Jaguars have shorter tails (?due to less tail vertebrae or same number of vertebrae but shorter ones?) shorter legs and no tail spur (unique to lions). Their jaw strength:body size ratio is higher than a lion's.
If there have been say 200,000 generations -as a rough guess based on one every 10 years - since the last common ancestor about 2mya, we might expect to find more differnces between the two species than we actually find. This seems enough time for many more mutations in the genome to occur. So we might expect the kinds of differences we find between a domestic dog and a lion (assuming the evolutionist's position that dogs and cats share a common ancestor).
Adaptation to new environments occurs rapidly- it has to to enable survival.
Probably you will be able to refute all that but it is just to explain why a hybrid after 2 million years would be surprising

Thanks for that Spud but I'm afraid that that is full of the personal incredulity that I mentioned above (such as 'This seems' and 'we might expect'). The science does not support what you say or feel. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is a scientific theory and lives or dies based on the scientific evidence. You will need to provide some actual scientific evidence which invalidates the theory.

We are not talking about adaption here but changes in the gene pool over many generations due to genetic changes giving an improved chance of those modified genes being passed on to subsequent generations. Most genetic modifications will give no survival advantage and so will not be 'selected'. There is no standard 'rate' of evolution, it depends on environments and survival benefits so it is not at all surprising, if you uderstand the process, that animals such as Lions and Jaguars are similar enough to produce hybrids.

The fact that many species have gone extinct and many are now threatened with extinction shows that the slow evolutionary changes cannot respond rapidly to sudden changes in environment or circumstances.

[Sebastian Toe]

Also prove it isn't evidence that God created a mature earth.

Why don't you prove that God didn't create a mature earth last Thursday.
You can't so stop spouting nonsense.

[Hope]

any Biblical/NT references to the creation story would be allegorical.

are they though? Really?

Seb, the New Testament drew on the Jewish Scriptures and most Jews understood the creation story to be allegorical, or at least that is what I have been told by Jewish scholars, who have told me that the structure of the material in Hebrew is exactly what one woud expect from a allegorical piece of writing.  I realise that this is largely lost in translation into English, but in Englis there are certain clues - such as the repetitive format of God's daily actions and his deeming them 'good'.

The Jewish writers of the New Testament (the majority of the authors would have been Jewish, even if they were cosmopolitan with it - like Paul) woukd therefore have written their material with that understanding in mind.  There is nothing in Jesus' teaching to suggest that they oughtn't to.

As I said, the 'non-literal' reading of the material that Ussher et al exhibit didn't come into being until the 15th and 16th centuries.  I understand that something that Martin Luther wrote sparked the idea that eventully blossomed into Ussher's detailed calculations.  Exactly what Luther wrote, I'm not sure - I haven't read all his stuff.

[ippy]

any Biblical/NT references to the creation story would be allegorical.

are they though? Really?

Seb, the New Testament drew on the Jewish Scriptures and most Jews understood the creation story to be allegorical, or at least that is what I have been told by Jewish scholars, who have told me that the structure of the material in Hebrew is exactly what one woud expect from a allegorical piece of writing.  I realise that this is largely lost in translation into English, but in Englis there are certain clues - such as the repetitive format of God's daily actions and his deeming them 'good'.

The Jewish writers of the New Testament (the majority of the authors would have been Jewish, even if they were cosmopolitan with it - like Paul) woukd therefore have written their material with that understanding in mind.  There is nothing in Jesus' teaching to suggest that they oughtn't to.

As I said, the 'non-literal' reading of the material that Ussher et al exhibit didn't come into being until the 15th and 16th centuries.  I understand that something that Martin Luther wrote sparked the idea that eventully blossomed into Ussher's detailed calculations.  Exactly what Luther wrote, I'm not sure - I haven't read all his stuff.

This post reminds me of the Spanish bullfight as the bull charges it's diverted by adept use of the cape, there still seems to be a lot of gored bullfighters.

Oh no that's just a metaphor, oh no it was only a small part of the Middle East that got flooded not the whole of the world, oh no he didn't really walk on water and on and on and on______yea yea yea.

Something like politicians that don't answer the questions or answer with something that has nothing to do with the original question; you're all full of it, I think bullshit is the word.

ippy

[Spud]

Thanks for that Spud but I'm afraid that that is full of the personal incredulity that I mentioned above (such as 'This seems' and 'we might expect').

Yes I realize that. Here is perhaps a better example:
http://serious-science.org/60-million-years-is-not-enough-to-keep-two-ferns-apart-2455
Would you say that the reproductive compatibility of such distantly related species is due to punctuated equilibrium- a small degree of rapid evolution followed by a long period of evolutionary stasis?

[Harrowby Hall]

Copy that. To clarify, I think it shouldn't be possible if their most recent common ancestor lived a couple of million years ago.

Just a little bit of Googling would have told you:

Lions can breed with tigers.

Horses can breed with donkeys

Polar bears can breed with grizzly bears.

Dogs can breed with wolves.

Goats can breed with sheep.

Domestic fowl can breed with peafowl.

In most cases, however, their offspring may not be fertile, but sometimes - just sometimes - the union produces something extraordinary ...

[Spud]

Hi Harry, yes but if lions and tigers diverged 2 m y a that means 2 m years of evolutionary stasis. No significant change in approx 200,000 generations.

[Hope]

This post reminds me of the Spanish bullfight as the bull charges it's diverted by adept use of the cape, there still seems to be a lot of gored bullfighters.

Oh no that's just a metaphor, oh no it was only a small part of the Middle East that got flooded not the whole of the world, oh no he didn't really walk on water and on and on and on______yea yea yea.

Something like politicians that don't answer the questions or answer with something that has nothing to do with the original question; you're all full of it, I think bullshit is the word.

ippy

This reminds me of the wikipedia articles that are written by people who have no understanding of what they are writing about, ippy.

[Spud]

Or at least, no changes significant enough to prevent them producing hybrid offspring. The young earth/global flood model explains the data better.

[Gordon]

Or at least, no changes significant enough to prevent them producing hybrid offspring. The young earth/global flood model explains the data better.

It doesn't, Spud, since the Earth ain't young.

[ippy]

Quote from: Hope on Today at 12:35:47 PM
Quote from: Sebastian Toe on October 30, 2015, 09:00:21 PM
Quote from: Hope on October 30, 2015, 06:54:52 PM
any Biblical/NT references to the creation story would be allegorical.

are they though? Really?
Seb, the New Testament drew on the Jewish Scriptures and most Jews understood the creation story to be allegorical, or at least that is what I have been told by Jewish scholars, who have told me that the structure of the material in Hebrew is exactly what one woud expect from a allegorical piece of writing.  I realise that this is largely lost in translation into English, but in Englis there are certain clues - such as the repetitive format of God's daily actions and his deeming them 'good'.

The Jewish writers of the New Testament (the majority of the authors would have been Jewish, even if they were cosmopolitan with it - like Paul) woukd therefore have written their material with that understanding in mind.  There is nothing in Jesus' teaching to suggest that they oughtn't to.

As I said, the 'non-literal' reading of the material that Ussher et al exhibit didn't come into being until the 15th and 16th centuries.  I understand that something that Martin Luther wrote sparked the idea that eventully blossomed into Ussher's detailed calculations.  Exactly what Luther wrote, I'm not sure - I haven't read all his stuff.

This post reminds me of the Spanish bullfight as the bull charges it's diverted by adept use of the cape, there still seems to be a lot of gored bullfighters.

Oh no that's just a metaphor, oh no it was only a small part of the Middle East that got flooded not the whole of the world, oh no he didn't really walk on water and on and on and on______yea yea yea.

Something like politicians that don't answer the questions or answer with something that has nothing to do with the original question; you're all full of it, I think bullshit is the word.

ippy

Quote from: ippy on Today at 02:10:56 PM
This post reminds me of the Spanish bullfight as the bull charges it's diverted by adept use of the cape, there still seems to be a lot of gored bullfighters.

Oh no that's just a metaphor, oh no it was only a small part of the Middle East that got flooded not the whole of the world, oh no he didn't really walk on water and on and on and on______yea yea yea.

Something like politicians that don't answer the questions or answer with something that has nothing to do with the original question; you're all full of it, I think bullshit is the word.

ippy
This reminds me of the wikipedia articles that are written by people who have no understanding of what they are writing about, ippy.
Report to moderator     Logged

So much better in full, don’t you think Hope?

ippy

[Maeght]

Thanks for that Spud but I'm afraid that that is full of the personal incredulity that I mentioned above (such as 'This seems' and 'we might expect').

Yes I realize that. Here is perhaps a better example:
http://serious-science.org/60-million-years-is-not-enough-to-keep-two-ferns-apart-2455
Would you say that the reproductive compatibility of such distantly related species is due to punctuated equilibrium- a small degree of rapid evolution followed by a long period of evolutionary stasis?

I wouldn't say. I don't work in the field and see that those who do are debating and studying this in order to find out.

[Maeght]

Or at least, no changes significant enough to prevent them producing hybrid offspring. The young earth/global flood model explains the data better.

There has still been significant evolution since they 'split' but there are still sufficient similarities to enable interbreeding and the production of infertile hybrids. This really isn't surprising.

Oh, and the Flood model certainly does not explain the data better. if you look at all the data from all scientific fields of investigation the flood doesn't work whereas an old earth and evolution does.

[Red Giant]

any Biblical/NT references to the creation story would be allegorical.

are they though? Really?

Seb, the New Testament drew on the Jewish Scriptures and most Jews understood the creation story to be allegorical, or at least that is what I have been told by Jewish scholars, who have told me that the structure of the material in Hebrew is exactly what one woud expect from a allegorical piece of writing.  I realise that this is largely lost in translation into English, but in Englis there are certain clues - such as the repetitive format of God's daily actions and his deeming them 'good'.

The Jewish writers of the New Testament (the majority of the authors would have been Jewish, even if they were cosmopolitan with it - like Paul) woukd therefore have written their material with that understanding in mind.  There is nothing in Jesus' teaching to suggest that they oughtn't to.

Whoever wrote Genesis 1 knew it wasn't true.  But the later Pharisaic understanding was that God dictated the whole Torah to Moses on Sinai. 

Your Jewish friends are taught the official line and peddle the official line.  It's a religion, remember.

For an authentic take, see the Book of Jubilees.  This was very popular in the 1st century, and many copies were found at Qumran.

It was the rabbis who first calculated the date of the Creation, and they still use it as the basis of Jewish year numbering.

[torridon]

I realise quite a few Christians believe in the creation story in the Bible to be factual. Out of interest how many on this forum believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old at most?

When I was a young teenager, I asked the YEC pastor of the Pentecostal church, I was unfortunate enough to attend, where dinosaurs fitted into his young earth belief. The man said that the deity had put them there as a test of faith! My faith took a serious nose dive after that ludicrous statement!

As I said God created an mature earth. He also made mature adults. At a day old Adam was a man of years.
It seems so weird how people fail to realise that the earths age physically does not represent the age by scientist.
Because the physical age was not the age it took to create it.

And your evidence to substantiate that statement is? The Bible isn't evidence.

Tlll you have tried it, you can't say that. Show us evidence and concrete proof that the bible isn't evidence. Also prove it isn't evidence that God created a mature earth.

That's not evidence in the modern sense. If the Bible is evidence, then so is the Qur'an, so is the Book of Mormon, so is the Bhagavad Gita and countless others tomes.  These works are evidence of the multitudinous beliefs that humans have entertained over the years. Beliefs are not evidence.