RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4872
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 203 times
Been liked: 168 times

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

#1126

Post by abelcainsbrother » Mon May 01, 2017 5:08 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
crochet1949 wrote:We're in agreement on most of that. However -- it Does matter how long the process of creation took. There's a verse that says that to God one day is a thousand years and a thousand days is like a day. And that's where the Long days of creation come in for lots of people. God created 'time' for Our sake, not His. But in Genesis 1 -- 'and the evening and the morning' were the 1st day, etc. right down to the 6th day and then God rested. And He blessed the 7th day. God was setting up our 'work week' for us. The Saturday Sabbath which turned to Sunday after Christ rose again on the 1st day of the week. But I'm getting WAY off topic.
I think anyone has missed the purpose of Genesis 1-2:3 if they focus in on time -- often missing that it is about identifying and establishing Israel's God as the one true God of all creation.

I doubt you'll change your mind, however, here are three points I'd hope gives you pause to think.

1) On which day of creation do you believe the Sun was made? (Day 4, right?) Do you see any repetition on Day 4 that could point back to Day 1? ("night" and "day", separating "light" from "darkness"). There's repitition here, but why is Moses pointing back to Day 1? There are definitely the same, only more details presented on Day 4, right?

2) We know Genesis 1 comes to an end around around Genesis 2:3. One reason we know this is because it is written in different prose to Gen 2:4+. In the original Hebrew, there is a stylistic form used for Genesis 1, that is, the writer likely intended it to be sung as a hymnic chant (great for passing on orally, given printing press wasn't then had and most people couldn't read, such would lend itself well to an important oral tradition).

Some might not classify it as "poetry" which is often associated with rhyme today. Yet, "rhyme" wasn't so important important in Hebrew "poetry" (as you can tell by reading less controversial Scripture elsewhere, such as the Psalms). Rather, Hebrew poems commonly use repetition, chiasmus, parallelism, and the like. Note, NIV translation reproduce the text with hanging indentation to mark the poetic structure. To quote from a source, "Each section begins with an anaphora: "And God said . . ." Each section ends with epistrophe: "And there was evening, and there was morning--the . . . day." Likewise, after the first two days, we have the artistic repetition of the phrase "And God saw that it was good," leading up to a final crescendo, "and it was very good" in Genesis 1:31."

3) Should we understand Days 1-3 to be intended as literal days? I'm not talking 24-hours, I'm talking REAL literal days intended involving the Sun rising and setting in accordance to the "evening and morning" refrain at the end of Day 1, and Day 2, and Day 3. Yet, the Sun isn't made until Day 4. How is this possible?

Given, points 1-3 above, I believe there is strong justification to take a closer look at the literary structure, the way in which the author structured the writing, other than a straight top-to-bottom approach. Many writers orchestrate their writings into "frames" or in a certain way to serve their desired purposes, and given the form of writing used in Genesis 1 perhaps we can identify more to such? Here we shouldn't forget this whole Genesis 1 passage to Genesis 2:3 is about establishing Israel's God as the one true God of all creation. That's the objective Moses wants to achieve in whatever literary framework, style and form he adopts.

So then, what structure could there be? In addition to the "poetic" elements, many note a "parallelism" that exists between Day 1 where God separates the light from darkness, and Day 4 which contains this too as well as more information on how God separated the light from darkness, the Sun in the sky, stars for seasons etc. This can mean the two days actually cross into/are related to each other. If a parallelism is indeed a true structure adopted, then we ought to see this trend continue for the following days.

So lets look at Day 2 and Day 5, notice anything in common?
  • Day 2: 6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8 God called the expanse heaven.
    Day 5: Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”
Next, look at Day 3 and Day 6:
  • Day 3: Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”... Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.
    Day 6: Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after [ag]their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”
The parallelism here is impossible to miss, I'm sure it's not just coincidence that we have God setting up the different "domains" (or "kingdoms") on Days 1-3 and then providing greater details of their being populated on Days 4-6.

Then on Day 7 we have God resting and blessing the seventh day (the Sabbath which Israel were to keep). Keeping the Sabbath symbolised Israel's God as Lord of all creation, and so keeping it was a way for Israel to remember and honour their God as the One true God of all creation. Interestingly, the seventh day of rest isn't closed, but in Hebrews 4 we are encouraged to enter into "that rest" (God's), the Sabbath day of rest. So, a 7-day framework is very important theologically to Israel (and us today as Christians who enter into God's rest via Christ), so a 6-1 structure was most effective to adopt by Moses and God (given we accept divine authorship also). It's like the finishing touch, polish, divine seal of the whole creation story as that of Israel's God over all creation.

What then of historical truth? Many want to discard, but I think such is throwing the baby out with the water. Evidently, this is also a story that talks of a historical origins, of cosmogony, the earth and creatures including ourselves. One can't just call Genesis 1 symbolic, there are clear historical literal truths being communicated. Unlike some, I also do not believe chronology should be entirely removed, for it seems clear to me the parallelism in Days 1+4 (especially these, since Day 4 reiterates Day 1 events), Days 2+5 and Days 3+6 -- that these days are to be joined together to form a type of joint chronology.

Thus, the basic order is three-fold (a Trinitarian foreshadowing even?) based upon kingdoms -- the heavens and stars, then seas and air and sea life and birds, and finally the land, vegetation and animals. Days 1-3 are an accounting of the kingdoms, and Days 4-6 an accounting of filling them out (luminaries and creatures), yet 1+4, 2+5 and 3+6 are to be taken together. Don't just take my word for it though, re-read Genesis 1 with these new insights.

Even if we interpret it like this.Notice on Day 6 "Then God said,"Let the earth bring forth creatures after THEIR kind:cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after THEIR kind."
This means this life had already existed before because they are being brought forth after their kind. So this life had already existed before in order for these to be brought forth after their kind.So we know this kind of life had already lived before.Then we might question why was it no longer living and needed to be made again? I don't think this matters whether the days were 24 hours or vast amounts of time.We just get even more time no matter which we go with. God is eternal though so it can be done.We can have as much time as we need for our particular interpretation/theory.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 9921
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 629 times
Been liked: 648 times

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

#1127

Post by Kurieuo » Mon May 01, 2017 6:22 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:Even if we interpret it like this.Notice on Day 6 "Then God said,"Let the earth bring forth creatures after THEIR kind:cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after THEIR kind."
This means this life had already existed before because they are being brought forth after their kind. So this life had already existed before in order for these to be brought forth after their kind.So we know this kind of life had already lived before.Then we might question why was it no longer living and needed to be made again? I don't think this matters whether the days were 24 hours or vast amounts of time.We just get even more time no matter which we go with. God is eternal though so it can be done.We can have as much time as we need for our particular interpretation/theory.
Confused how that is relevant to my post. And, I'm actually not quite sure what you're reasoning.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4872
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 203 times
Been liked: 168 times

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

#1128

Post by abelcainsbrother » Mon May 01, 2017 6:56 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:Even if we interpret it like this.Notice on Day 6 "Then God said,"Let the earth bring forth creatures after THEIR kind:cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after THEIR kind."
This means this life had already existed before because they are being brought forth after their kind. So this life had already existed before in order for these to be brought forth after their kind.So we know this kind of life had already lived before.Then we might question why was it no longer living and needed to be made again? I don't think this matters whether the days were 24 hours or vast amounts of time.We just get even more time no matter which we go with. God is eternal though so it can be done.We can have as much time as we need for our particular interpretation/theory.
Confused how that is relevant to my post. And, I'm actually not quite sure what you're reasoning.
As I read through your post it is something that I noticed so I thought I would mention it.I'm just trying to show how it points to former life that had existed,that is all.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 9921
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 629 times
Been liked: 648 times

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

#1129

Post by Kurieuo » Mon May 01, 2017 7:34 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:Even if we interpret it like this.Notice on Day 6 "Then God said,"Let the earth bring forth creatures after THEIR kind:cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after THEIR kind."
This means this life had already existed before because they are being brought forth after their kind. So this life had already existed before in order for these to be brought forth after their kind.So we know this kind of life had already lived before.Then we might question why was it no longer living and needed to be made again? I don't think this matters whether the days were 24 hours or vast amounts of time.We just get even more time no matter which we go with. God is eternal though so it can be done.We can have as much time as we need for our particular interpretation/theory.
Confused how that is relevant to my post. And, I'm actually not quite sure what you're reasoning.
As I read through your post it is something that I noticed so I thought I would mention it.I'm just trying to show how it points to former life that had existed,that is all.
If a valid insight, I think such actually doesn't pose much issue to the days being understood in parallel.

Yet, "according to" (as found in ESV) is more accurate since there doesn't seem to be time implied in "after their kind" any more then we're created "after" God's likeness. Nor is time implied in the "after" with Noah taking onto the ark animals after their kind. (Gen 6:20) It is just a particular idiom being used to convey similar in kind.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

crochet1949
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1467
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:04 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Has liked: 177 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

#1130

Post by crochet1949 » Mon May 01, 2017 7:52 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:
crochet1949 wrote:ACB -- what pre-Adamic race are you referring to. What former world.
I've already explained this to you before.In order to have a world that perished you must have life and this world did not perish,which is why we are descendants of Adam and Eve,that would not be the case had this world perished in Noah's flood.Just like the life that lived in the former world is not related to the life in this world.

After reading some of the following posts, I Do recall some of the previous conversations on this subject. And it would appear that we still disagree on the subject. :esmile:

crochet1949
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1467
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:04 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Has liked: 177 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

#1131

Post by crochet1949 » Mon May 01, 2017 7:56 pm

Philip wrote:
crochet1949 wrote:
ACB -- what pre-Adamic race are you referring to. What former world.
:esurprised: :esurprised: :esurprised: :esurprised:

For the love of God, woman, don't get ACB started... :pound:

Oops -- sorry about that ;)

crochet1949
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1467
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:04 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Has liked: 177 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

#1132

Post by crochet1949 » Mon May 01, 2017 8:14 pm

Kurieuo -- I was able to print out your long post from May 1. I'm familiar with some of that from a long time ago.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 9921
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 629 times
Been liked: 648 times

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

#1133

Post by Kurieuo » Mon May 01, 2017 9:33 pm

crochet1949 wrote:Kurieuo -- I was able to print out your long post from May 1. I'm familiar with some of that from a long time ago.
I feel honoured that you took the time to print it out. If you're referring to my long time ago Sabbatical interpretation posted in my thread on the historical-grammatical method and hermeneutics, such really was only a "framework" or lens to look at the Genesis creation through.

There I reasoned for dual intention in meaning of days, which I remain convinced by. That is, Moses intended literal, truly ordinary days for Sabbatical intent, yet also evidently (with God) had much more in mind in their use (that REAL ordinary days could NOT be had on Days 1-3 prior to the Sun on Day 4 is one main reason I find particularly persuasive for a dual intention like found in prophecy). This best reconciles accepting Scripture at face value, but some obvious issues even Moses himself would have surely noticed (I remain unconvinced that the literary genius of Genesis 1 would talk of days existing prior to the Sun, evening and morning and all that, unless they had an ulterior motive and greater intention).

So then, I accept the Moses intended for Sabbatical intent to use truly ordinary days (more than merely abstracting a time period like "24 hours", but days with full "evening and morning" imagery), yet he also had a greater meaning in mind through using the Sabbath as a literary framework, which was to convey history on origins using a particular literary form (poetic, or I feel more comfortable with "oratory") and a literary structure that evidently displays parallelism.

Indeed, I see dual intentions and meanings pervade Hebraic scriptures, Messianic prophecies, foreshadowings (of Christ) and what-not. Why not Genesis? Moses was considered a prophet too. Perhaps this supports the fact (as we believe) there really are two authors at work rather than just one human author. Yet, in no way should the dual meanings contradict the each other, nor can the deeper revelation replace the former as intended by the original human author -- that is a rule of "single meaning" (for which there are very good reasons to embrace).

While I framed the Genesis creation in a manner that was neutral to both YEC and OEC interpretations, which seemed largely acceptable to Jac (as you'd know Jac is very much YEC), the question was always left open, of how we are to understand the actual historical details within. So Jac, while rather accepting of my Sabbatical "interpretation", given it was more of a framework of understanding Genesis 1, the question remained of what the "real history" might look like -- given I accept both literal and symbol are intended, rather then it being a case of either/or.

That, I had no response to, nor did I wish to entertain at the time. However, this last post of mine here that you printed, contains new developments and additional revealings of my position. It attempts to fill in, or untwine a little, what we can understand as real history mixed in with the evident Sabbatical intent and identifiable literary form and structure adopted.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4872
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 203 times
Been liked: 168 times

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

#1134

Post by abelcainsbrother » Mon May 01, 2017 10:35 pm

crochet1949 wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
crochet1949 wrote:ACB -- what pre-Adamic race are you referring to. What former world.
I've already explained this to you before.In order to have a world that perished you must have life and this world did not perish,which is why we are descendants of Adam and Eve,that would not be the case had this world perished in Noah's flood.Just like the life that lived in the former world is not related to the life in this world.

After reading some of the following posts, I Do recall some of the previous conversations on this subject. And it would appear that we still disagree on the subject. :esmile:

Yes,we've discussed it before some and I want to be clear and make sure that you know my rant against YEC was not meant as an attack on you.It is just my view on YEC. I still don't see how you can claim the time between Adam and Eve and Noah's flood was a world that perished when you believe we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.I think YEC's don't know the difference between the words earth and world.Also you never adressed the craters in the moon and if God created the moon with craters in it to trick us and make us believe the earth is old and what biblical event caused the craters in the moon.We can tell that meteors have hit the moon and have put craters in it.Plus a few other things I brought up that are problems for the young earth interpretation.
Last edited by abelcainsbrother on Mon May 01, 2017 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4872
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 203 times
Been liked: 168 times

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

#1135

Post by abelcainsbrother » Mon May 01, 2017 10:51 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:Even if we interpret it like this.Notice on Day 6 "Then God said,"Let the earth bring forth creatures after THEIR kind:cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after THEIR kind."
This means this life had already existed before because they are being brought forth after their kind. So this life had already existed before in order for these to be brought forth after their kind.So we know this kind of life had already lived before.Then we might question why was it no longer living and needed to be made again? I don't think this matters whether the days were 24 hours or vast amounts of time.We just get even more time no matter which we go with. God is eternal though so it can be done.We can have as much time as we need for our particular interpretation/theory.
Confused how that is relevant to my post. And, I'm actually not quite sure what you're reasoning.
As I read through your post it is something that I noticed so I thought I would mention it.I'm just trying to show how it points to former life that had existed,that is all.
If a valid insight, I think such actually doesn't pose much issue to the days being understood in parallel.

Yet, "according to" (as found in ESV) is more accurate since there doesn't seem to be time implied in "after their kind" any more then we're created "after" God's likeness. Nor is time implied in the "after" with Noah taking onto the ark animals after their kind. (Gen 6:20) It is just a particular idiom being used to convey similar in kind.

OK,but I think if you read it in context you'll see that "after their kind" is referring to the beasts of the field,the cattle,creeping things,the beasts of the earth they were made after their kind. It is not saying "after God's kind" and this means this life had to have existed before and this life is based on this kind of life that had existed before,this life was brought forth after their kind. The context seems clear to me. The english is clear. But I digress.It was just something that I noticed as I read through it.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 9921
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 629 times
Been liked: 648 times

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

#1136

Post by Kurieuo » Tue May 02, 2017 12:32 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:Even if we interpret it like this.Notice on Day 6 "Then God said,"Let the earth bring forth creatures after THEIR kind:cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after THEIR kind."
This means this life had already existed before because they are being brought forth after their kind. So this life had already existed before in order for these to be brought forth after their kind.So we know this kind of life had already lived before.Then we might question why was it no longer living and needed to be made again? I don't think this matters whether the days were 24 hours or vast amounts of time.We just get even more time no matter which we go with. God is eternal though so it can be done.We can have as much time as we need for our particular interpretation/theory.
Confused how that is relevant to my post. And, I'm actually not quite sure what you're reasoning.
As I read through your post it is something that I noticed so I thought I would mention it.I'm just trying to show how it points to former life that had existed,that is all.
If a valid insight, I think such actually doesn't pose much issue to the days being understood in parallel.

Yet, "according to" (as found in ESV) is more accurate since there doesn't seem to be time implied in "after their kind" any more then we're created "after" God's likeness. Nor is time implied in the "after" with Noah taking onto the ark animals after their kind. (Gen 6:20) It is just a particular idiom being used to convey similar in kind.

OK,but I think if you read it in context you'll see that "after their kind" is referring to the beasts of the field,the cattle,creeping things,the beasts of the earth they were made after their kind. It is not saying "after God's kind" and this means this life had to have existed before and this life is based on this kind of life that had existed before,this life was brought forth after their kind. The context seems clear to me. The english is clear. But I digress.It was just something that I noticed as I read through it.
I think you're overlooking such being conceived of "in" God. All kinds of creatures were planned prior to creation, even Christ was planned to come and redeem humanity. Yet, it doesn't mean such were yet actualised in the world. God conceived of many different kinds of animals, and it was according to such, according to the kind of creatures God planned, that they were brought into existence.

Perhaps you can answer the old question, what gives a "cat" its catness or a dog its "dogness"? We have this ideal concept of what a cat or dog should be. Yet, when does it stop being such? If we cut off the whiskers, remove two legs trying to make them walk on two, or what is it exactly?
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

crochet1949
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1467
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:04 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Has liked: 177 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

#1137

Post by crochet1949 » Tue May 02, 2017 2:21 pm

A very quick response to your last paragraph-- a very good question -- had never thought about it -- but -- a 'cat' never stops being one -- but -- depending on where a person Lives -- a cat could be a domestic house cat / a neighborhood feral cat OR a cougar, lion, tiger, etc -- all part of the 'feline / cat' family. And the person who lives around tigers or cougars might Never see a cute little domestic house cat. But in the end of it all -- they were created by God and That is where they get their 'feline-ness'. And a cute little kitty cat Won't be mating with a cougar in any natural environment.

And just because I'm saying the above -- there's probably Someone who lives around cougars, etc and has a cute little kitty cat as an Indoor pet.

If a person DID try to 'cut off the whiskers, remove two legs.... someone would call that cruelty to the animal.

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8200
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 381 times
Been liked: 611 times

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

#1138

Post by Philip » Tue May 02, 2017 7:45 pm

Crochet: a 'cat' never stops being one
Funny, those who insist that evolution, given enough time for random, blind processes to work, will morph one specie, into an entirely different one. Well, actually, they'll not admit to a static form, as they believe all species are - or at least were - in slow transition. But if randomness could do this, why can't we seem to speed up the process through intentional, calculated breeding and bringing together diverse forms of a specie - forms that wouldn't even come into to contact in nature? Ever since man sailed the oceans, they have been collecting exotic cats and dogs from across the world. This has allowed the breeding of types within a species, that would never have otherwise encountered each other, due to geographic placements and separations by oceans, etc. So, through selective acquisitions, and very sophisticated calculated breeding, many has been able to produce a huge range of dog and cat types. Dogs, from tiny Mexican Hairless to Great Danes, St. Bernards, Dalmatians, Boxers, Pugs, etc. Huge range of cat types. Incredible what deliberate breeding and the ability to collect specimens from around the world can produce. Ah, but no one has eventually bread a dog to be anything other than, genetically, just a dog - no matter their wide ranging looks and body types. Same with Cats. Not cat breeding plan, after centuries, has produced anything other than other cats. But we're to believe, given enough time, that fish crawled onto land, etc. That apes eventually became men, etc. Apparently evolution is a lot luckier than selective breeding of species ever could be? y:-?
These users liked this post by Philip:
crochet1949 (Wed May 03, 2017 12:20 pm)

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 49 times

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

#1139

Post by hughfarey » Wed May 03, 2017 5:33 am

Philip wrote:Why can't we seem to speed up the process through intentional, calculated breeding and bringing together diverse forms of a species - forms that wouldn't even come into to contact in nature?
They can. A flying dog or a submarine cat which were both reproductively isolated from all the other dogs and cats would no doubt have been achieved by now if there had been any determined attempt to achieve one over the last thousand generations or so. Evolution does not happen without such selective pressure, natural or artificial.
Ah, but no one has eventually bread a dog to be anything other than, genetically, just a dog - no matter their wide ranging looks and body types.
Quite. But there has been no attempt to do so.
But we're to believe, given enough time, that fish crawled onto land, etc. That apes eventually became men, etc. Apparently evolution is a lot luckier than selective breeding of species ever could be?
Yes, you are.

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4872
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 203 times
Been liked: 168 times

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

#1140

Post by abelcainsbrother » Wed May 03, 2017 9:29 am

hughfarey wrote:
Philip wrote:Why can't we seem to speed up the process through intentional, calculated breeding and bringing together diverse forms of a species - forms that wouldn't even come into to contact in nature?
They can. A flying dog or a submarine cat which were both reproductively isolated from all the other dogs and cats would no doubt have been achieved by now if there had been any determined attempt to achieve one over the last thousand generations or so. Evolution does not happen without such selective pressure, natural or artificial.
Ah, but no one has eventually bread a dog to be anything other than, genetically, just a dog - no matter their wide ranging looks and body types.
Quite. But there has been no attempt to do so.
But we're to believe, given enough time, that fish crawled onto land, etc. That apes eventually became men, etc. Apparently evolution is a lot luckier than selective breeding of species ever could be?
Yes, you are.

How has natural selection ever been demonstrated to be a real force that works as evolutionists claim? IMO It is like angels and demons that we are told exist,they are mysterious beings and this seems to be what natural selection is a mysterious force that has never been demonstrated to be a real force but yet is used to explain things scientists don't know about when it comes to how life evolves.There are other things too that have not been demonstrated like speciation,mutations causing life to evolve,etc. These things are explained well but have never been shown to work like is said.I've seen better evidence for angels and demons being real.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

Post Reply