Choosing a faith

Hi Candle2]Yes according to the text and the grammar of the text. Day one (First Light period that was eternal in the past) has nothing to do with anything that transpires after the light has been turned off when God created darkness. I would say Noah's flood took place somewhere in the last 6,000 years more or less. Only God's wrath can bring about destruction. The devil had to have God's permission to do what he did to Job. The devil was created for a specific reason and that was to give mankind a choice. I would say he is doing a perfect job.When the war in heaven takes place it will be a momentary duration in existence. Genesis 1:1 Describes God creating the heavens and the earth along with the generations (history) of that day recorded in Genesis 2:4-4:24. I will get to that history later.He did not create anything on the fourth day. He only made the sun, moon, and stars visible to a person if standing on the dry ground as the land mass was all in one place. I put that if in there because there was no modern man at that time.

Hi Paul, There have been 5 extinction events so far and we are experiencing the sixth right now.# 1 85% of organisms perished.
# 2 75% of organisms perished.
# 3 96% of organisms perished.
# 4 80% of organisms perished.
# 5 76% of organisms perished.Now you are trying to tell me that with 412% of the organisms that have lived on this planet that you have a record that will support evolution?There is evidence of punctuated equilibrium.
There is also evidence that changes caused by the environment are not passed down which is Somatic mutation.You can cut a rats tail off and it makes no difference how many generations you go through you won't get a bobtail mouse.You can also teach the a rat to come to get food at the ringing of a bell. But it don't matter how many generations you go through the rat will not acquire the trait of coming at the ringing of the bell even though that is the only way to get food. He has to be trained to do so.

Hi Candle3, Even Darwin believed that according to the first printing of Origins of the species.God Bless,

Yep.We haven't got them all, of course, but enough from most to document the flows and the patterns and the reality of the modern synthesis.Go ahead, tell me how we cannot study an Ammonite fossil from 300 million years ago because they're all dead now. A major share of the fossil record is older than your god. And like kids in a candy store we have access to it and we get to dig up more every day.Science is magic like that. We can study dead thing. Yes, there is. It is a statistical bump in the ebb and flow of population numbers in a specific geography. This is further evidence of evolution. The only mutations passed from parent to child is through the germ cells. Somatic cells do not undergo meiosis and cannot form gametes.We are finding that the environment can alter gene expression but it does not alter the DNA of an individual's germ-line cells except in rare circumstances like chemical poisoning. That's right. Lamarckism does not work. We know this. We have known this for a century or so. That also fits with the modern synthesis.What does this have to do with the discussion?If you were making some kind of point I'm afraid I missed it. All I see is you presenting more evidence of evolution, which is fine. We like that.

So did Newton. They were both wrong.

Well then use your computer! Don't waste your time hindering yourself by insisting on using an inferior tool. That's like trying to do serious woodwork but restricting yourself to a Swiss Army knife saw blade (my knife that I bought in West Germany had one). Hindering yourself like that goes way beyond stupid.Seriously, what is wrong with you? So must theists, who also believe that life came from nonlife; eg, Adam being formed from dust, all other lifeforms being formed by Nature where no life had existed before.In addition, since theists usually ascribe the creation of life with the actions of a god, then theists must also prove which god had dunnit.Which one of the estimated 288,000 gods that have ever existed?If you choose the "Christian God", then again you must prove which one. There are an estimated 45,000 versions of Christianity that have existed, an estimated 200 different versions in the USA alone, each with its own version of "God". So which one? Since you undoubtedly assume that it must be your own version of "God", then you must prove that.In addition, do you believe that it would "disprove God" when we do find the natural processes which formed the first life? Why should the formation of life through natural processes constitute any kind of evidence against "God"? Why would you believe such a thing?Anyone who believes that God created the Creation, which is the natural world/universe, would also believe that God also created the natural processes through which the natural universe operates.But we also know that creationism denies the Creation, teaching that the Creation disproves the Creator, and seeks to disprove the Creation.As for Dr. Tour, what you describe shows him to be a typical creationist albeit of the Discovery Institute variety. In Message 3175 you wrote: It certainly appears that he is making the typical creationist mistake of presenting abiogenesis with having to prove that modern cells formed spontaneously in one massive step, described as a tornado spontaneously assembling a 747 in a junkyard. Nobody but a creationist would propose such an idiotic and blatantly false "model for life". Then to use the creationist debate model, which is designed for deception just seals the case. He's just yet another creationist.

Hi Paul, Can you show me one fossil that shows Transmutation in progress? You can study any fossil that exists. The one you can not study is the one that does not exist or has not been discovered yet. My God exists eternally in the past. He provided the energy for the creation of the universe and all the energy to hold it together. It is more evidence that new species were added to the population. So, the environment and adaption to it does not have anything to do with an organism evolving. Maybe you missed it because I was not trying to make a point.I was just reaching for the evidence you talked about.Then I gave you some roadblocks to the TOE.God Bless,

No roadblocks, Reverend. Only your misinterpretations of the facts. I don't suppose you care to offer any evidence of this? Without evidence there is no "my" god or any other flavor of god. Rejected. Yes it is. They evolved as daughter populations over a few thousand years.You were hoping it was an instantaneous replacement with a fiat creation?Sorry to disappoint you. That is not what the record shows. The daughter populations quickly (a few thousand years) out competed their parents. That was an ass response, Reverend.You should know how Natural Selection works. Lamarckism is not Natural Selection and you were stupid trying to confuse the two.Do you practice this kind of deliberate subterfuge in your sermons? Don't do it here.The environment does not produce adaptation. It kills all who do not adapt. If your genome doesn't hit on a survivable body for your environment you will not live. You will die, probably still in the womb.Populations being what they are, there usually are some new variants already evolved in some of the population that better survive a changing environment. Over time, these new populations with their more adaptable genes become the dominant population. The unadapted others will become extinct. That is where most extinctions come from, not from some big honking space rocks (though they have kicked life in the kahunas pretty hard at times).The ecosystem does not create genes. It just smiles on those who can play and reproduce and kills those that can't. In this way the environment controls all of evolution without direct input to the genome. Survival of the fittest.

Hi Paul, I got no problem with survival of the fittest.I do have a problem with transmutation of one critter producing another kind of critter.A mule is a cross between a horse and a jack but two mules can not produce a mule.Is there a fossils that shows transmutation?God Bless,

Then you are in luck. Evolution happens to populations over many generations. There is no instant transmutation of one species to another. No. No transmutation or fiat creation. The "god poofed it from his nose" scenario is not shown in the record. The things the universe shows is evolution only. No fantasy religious majik.So you now support the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution?

ICANT, I will reply to your posts, but I must do so little at a time.
Besides doing volunteer work, I am also currently working to
supplement my income. One of my sons needs my financial
help.You mentioned that the New Jerusalem is already here.Somebody is pulling leg.The new heavens and the new earth, as well as the New
Jerusalem, is found in Revelations 21.Read this chapter very carefully. Notice that this occurs
after the 1000 year millennial reign of Christ.Both the Father and Jesus are in the New Jerusalem. This
will be headquarters of the entire universe.I want you to pay close attention to the size of New
Jerusalem, in verse16.15. And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure
the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.16. And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the
breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand
furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.Notice that the height of NJ is the same as the L and W.All three dimensions are equal. The H is 12,000 furlongs.
The L is 12,000 furlongs. The H is 12,000 furlongs.A furlong is 660 feet. Do the math. NJ will be 1500 miles
deep; 1500 miles wide; and, 1500 miles high.Even if we use stradia as measurement, the size is still
roughly 1400 x 1400 x 1400.Show me where this exists right now.NJ will also be inhabited by spirit sons of God.

It's amusing that you bring up horses and asses when talking about this. They are an example of evolution where two branches of an earlier horse ancestor split off, probably because they became isolated from each other and evolved enough differences in their genes such that they produce sterile offspring. Over a greater period of time it would be likely that they wouldn't be able to reproduce at all. Why can't you understand that this IS evolution?

While showing some sanity (eg, you disagree with YECs, you realize why abiogenesis and evolution are separate and not dependent on each other, both as per Message 3168), you also seem to share some of the same misunderstanding of evolution which fuels the YECs' stranger misrepresentations. What is this "transmutation" of which you speak? How do you think it happens (eg, the observed process of transmutation instead of the mechanisms for it -- IOW the "what happens" instead of the "how it happens")? Do you think it happens to individuals or to the population? Do you think that it happens during an individual's lifetime or during embryonic development?Also, there's that niggly little question that has still not been properly defined: "What is a 'kind'?" And what is it supposed to mean for "one critter [to produce] another kind of critter."?The creationist (which term we use for one who opposes evolution using the false claims of YEC and its "creation science"; for one who properly believes in Creation unsullied by YEC falsehoods there is no term that I know of so I will usually say "actual creationist" opposed to the YEC false creationists), while incapable of or unwilling to define his terms, seems to think that "kinds" were all established arbitrarily from the beginning. In contrast, the branching bush model for evolution leads to clades wherein an existing species is both its own clade and also is still a member of all the clades of all its ancestor species; hence we are both human, primate, placental mammal, mammal, amniote (egg bearing), tetrapod (bilateral symmetrical body plan with four limbs), chordate (has a spinal cord), etc. In addition, as our descendants diversify into separate species, even to the point of ending up very different (such that a creationist would consider them to be of "another kind"), they will still be members of the same clade as that currently existing species. IOW, one kind does not change into another, but rather a current clade will give rise to other clades.Hence YECs would consider the "bird kind" to have always existed, whereas the evolutionary history of birds shows them to be a new clade originating from the clade of certain theropod ("beast foot") dinosaurs. YEC: "BUT THEY'RE STILL DINOSAURS!!!" Yes, they are. No "critters changing into different kinds", but rather the formation of a "new kind" (here trying to equate "kind" with "clade" in an attempt to figure out what a "kind" could be). What do you think that would look like? As in "how would you even recognize one if it came up and bit you?" Are you leaning towards the infamous Crocoduck? From that Wikipedia article:

Crocoduck:

---

Kirk Cameron held up composite pictures of what "we imagined would be genuine species-to-species transitional forms. They called one a 'crocoduck' and another was called a 'birddog'." The "crocoduck" was an animal with the head of a crocodile and the body of a duck, the "bullfrog" was an animal with the head of a bull and the body of a frog, and the "sheepdog" was an animal with the head of a dog and the body of a sheep. These pictures were used as a straw man argument to ridicule the theory of evolution as represented by Cameron and Comfort.

​

This claim was widely publicized and ridiculed as an example of creationist misconceptions.

---

So in all earnest, what are you talking about? That would include what you think evolution is and how you think it's supposed to work?Gotta go. I'm late for a monthly skeptics breakfast meeting.

Hi Kjsimons A mule is the product of selective breeding, being the oldest known hybrid and the hinny is the second oldest hybrid.The mule has been deliberately bred by man since ancient times.They were produced in Egypt about 3000 BC to be pack animals.
The horse has 64 chromosomes and the donkey has 62 chromosomes so the mule and hinny end up with 63 chromosomes which keeps them from reproducing.God Bless,

Your response in no way addresses the point of my post. I don't care about mules but found it amusing that you point out that horses and asses can reproduce but their offspring can't which is gives us hints about how different species arose from common ancestors. The only relevant information in your post was the information about the different chromosome count between the two which points to a definite gene mutation at some point in the past further separating these two species.