(December 5, 2008 at 6:14 pm)LukeMC Wrote: Forget about evolution for a second.
The genesis account isn't a possibility simply due to research in areas such as astronomy and geology. The age of the Earth is greater than 6-8 thousands years. If you aren'y denying this, then I'll carry on.
The Bible doesn't state the age of the Earth. There is no Biblical reason to dispute 4.5 million years.
(December 5, 2008 at 6:14 pm)LukeMC Wrote: Evolution is a simple fact. Variation occurs within a species. If an organism has the genes for a trait which increase its likelihood of reproducing, its genes are more likely to be reproduced (because of the advantageous nature of the gene, the organism can survive long enough to reproduce). The offspring which inherit this gene inherit the advantages (thicker fur, longer neck?) and these advantages help them survive long enough to reproduce, and the genes are successfully passed on again. Some of the offspring might not inherit these genes, and are in a disadvantageous position in comparison, and are less likely to survive long enough to reproduce. If they fail to reproduce, their genes cannot be passed on. The advantageous trait therefore is reproduced more often and will eventually make up a great proportion of the population.
Which doesn't disagree with the Bible. No problem.
(December 5, 2008 at 6:14 pm)LukeMC Wrote: But it doesn't stop there. If a mutation occurs which exaggerates this trait further (even thicker fur, even longer neck?) it will again be favoured. Imagine I was talking about a small mammal. A certain proportion of these mammals will have inherited the genes for longer necks, and these genes would be exagerrated and the necks grow longer and longer. Another proportion of the mammals may be benefitting from the thicker fur, and this trait will likely be exagerrated. Now from having a small mammal with a short neck and thinner fur, we have a proportion of furry mammals and a proportion of long-neck mammals. As they continue to diverge in traits (long necked mammal starts to grow longer legs, elongated mouth, taller ears, etc) their genes become different in so many different areas that their offspring (when breeding long necks and thick furs) is no longer fertile. When they can no longer interbreed because of the amount of variation, they are classed as seperate species. So from one species of small mammals, there have evolved a species of long necked, tall eared, elongated mouthed mammals, and a species of short and stubby, thick furred, streamlined, long tailed mammals (as an example).
In other words you have no evidence for this happening. You can point to an animal and say this animal is a product of that but you can't produce any evidence.
(December 5, 2008 at 6:14 pm)LukeMC Wrote: This is not up for debate.
Of course it isn't. That would be blasphemous.
(December 5, 2008 at 6:14 pm)LukeMC Wrote: Now, you could debate how long this has been going on for, and whether or not it originated from nonliving matter, but there is a consesus on that too. Fossils have been dated right back to the dinosaurs and beyond (throwing the 8k years hypothesis out of the window), and this fits perfectly with what geologists have found (an old earth) and what astronomers have found (an old universe). If fossils went back (for example) 60 million years, but we predicted the age of the universe to be 400,000 years old, then we'd have a problem. But this isn't what we see. We see an old universe, an old earth, and fossils which are very old, but not preceeding the predicted age of the earth.
What more do you want, Daystar?
I want to see some evidence. Something other than you telling me what you think might have happened.
EDIT: and as for abiogeneis (I forgot to outline that in my last paragraph), you may debate that as much as you like, there is no consensus as to how it happened, only that it probably did]
[/quote]
