(November 14, 2009 at 12:42 am)Tiberius Wrote: Nowhere have I stated that I think one form of life suddenly appeared. I expect what happened was a natural process, panspermia or abiogenesis seem most likely.
Quite true you did not say that. Please tell me how non-life becomes life in such a manner that it is not sudden. It seems to me that no matter how you look at it, at one point the material is non-life and the next it is life. But you can tell me what your view is.
(November 14, 2009 at 12:42 am)Tiberius Wrote: I regret to inform you but we do see *organisms* changing; you even admit this. The fossil record shows this, and we've seen the same with bacteria in a lab.
Then there really is no need to regret informing me of something I already admit.
(November 14, 2009 at 12:42 am)Tiberius Wrote: Creationists always seem to accept that 1.0 + 0.01 = 1.01, but then are surprised when you show that if you add 0.01 enough you reach 2. Microevolution you accept, but to not accept macroevolution is to simply deny the fact that many small changes add up to larger changes, namely those that result in speciation.
Adrian, I do not even have a problem with speciation. One can certainly get new species by breeding/reproduction. Big deal. That is consistent with the variability provided in the first created kinds. However, even with the speciation we observe, a bacteria is still considered a bacteria and a dog is a dog. The kind of changes you need for molecules to man evolution is much more than that. Macroevolution requires the types of changes where, for example, a bacteria changes into something other than a bacteria or a dog into something other than a dog. Do we observe such things? Seems to me that the molecules to man evolution that you accept requires something we don't observe. Do you take this on faith?
Someone here said in one of the other threads that it is not fair to require such observations because macroevolution takes so much time. I do not think it is unfair. There are large numbers of different living things. Surely the evolution of one is not tied to another such that every million years or so everything changes into something else. So in all these years of observation, I think it is reasonable to expect that one would have observed some form of macroevolution occurring.
(November 14, 2009 at 12:42 am)Tiberius Wrote: But since you've brought up consistency, let me list some things that your view aren't consistent with:
1) The oldest fossils are those of small undeveloped creatures. As you go up through the geologic column, you find more and more complex forms of life preserved. If these organisms were all created at the same time, why are they separated like this?
I know I have seen pictures in textbooks that show this and people say it. How sure are you that it is always true? Are you relying on the books or have you seen the evidence yourself? Anyway, if the bulk of the fossil record is due to a global catastrophe, the simpler creatures would have had less ability to avoid being buried in sediment and would have been buried first and the complex ones would have more ability to avoid being buried in sediment and would have been buried later. It may also have to do with where the various creatures lived at the time, i.e., land vs. sea. So the fact that we see this generally is not inconsistent with my world view.
(November 14, 2009 at 12:42 am)Tiberius Wrote: 2) Nowhere in the fossil record do we see the sudden appearance of multiple forms of life. Indeed, the Cambrian "explosion" (which can be said to be the closest thing to this) took several million years.
That whole statement is based on an evolutionary/naturalistic view. It is like you are saying: "This is how it is and it is inconsistent with Biblical creation so please explain." My explanation is that I think you are wrong in your interpretation to begin with. So your interpretation does not affect mine. Your interpretation is certainly inconsistent with mine but your interpretation is not something that makes my interpretation internally inconsistent.
(November 14, 2009 at 12:42 am)Tiberius Wrote: 3) All dating methods confirm that the Earth is 6 billion years old, and that life first began around 4 billion years ago. The scientific estimate for the start of the universe is 13.7 billion years ago. How does this not contradict your view of a "young" Earth?
All? I don't think so. Maybe all the ones accepted by evolutionary scientists. There are dating methods by scientists who accept creation where the dates are much less than this. But I would guess that you would dismiss such methods because those scientists are bias. In any event, all dating techniques require one to make unprovable assumptions, such as the original levels of parent and daughter isotopes. If you want to believe that the unprovable assumptions provide an accurate picture of the real time frames involved, go for it. I do not. If you want to believe and put all you trust in men, who weren't there, and their abilities and guesses and reject the revelation of the One who was, that is up to you. So while the time frames you are talking about would be inconsistent with my world view, since they are based on unprovable assumptions, I do not accept them.
