Evolution and Time

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Helen, Feb 15, 2007.

  1. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Despite the fact that so much evidence has been presented before, Galatian has asked for evidence that evolution cannot have occurred or, conversely, that creation did occur. Trying to do so in one thread is impossible. There is simply too much. In the net discussions I have had with evolutionists, however, it seems that there end up being some basic areas of discussion:
    time
    mutations
    natural selection
    chance
    speciation
    intelligent design

    At least those six. So I don't mind dealing with them one at a time.

    This thread, unless it gets hijacked, should be about evolution and time, OK? Now, my 'granddaughter' has a sleepover here tomorrow night and that will take preparation, watching over, and then cleaning up, so I will not be here as instantly as I would like, but I will keep checking back with this thread until it winds down or gets hijacked. Then we can deal with the other topics one at a time. There is no way, but NO way, I can deal with all the topics at once.

    There are a few basic arguments about time where evolution is concerned. The pro argument for evolution is that 3.5 billion years is a really long time and just about anything could happen in that amount of time.

    I disagree. I think when I have presented a little bit here, it will become evident that even if evolution was possible genetically, 3.5 billion years is exponentially too short a time for evolution from a proto-bacteria to an elephant or a fern or an ape to have taken place.

    First, it has been estimated by standard evolutionary interpretations of the fossil record that it took about one billion years for a single-celled organism to evolve into a multi-celled organism where the cells were somewhat specialized.

    There are two kinds of cells -- prokaryotic and eukaryotic. The first is considered 'simple' in that it does not have membrane-bound organelles inside. These are like bacteria. The second, eukaryotic, is considered more advanced, or complex, because it has an organized nucleus and membrane-bound organelles. There are arguments about which type may have been the first recognizable form of life here on earth.

    It doesn't really matter. What matters is something called 'generation time.' Generation time is the amount of time the mature cell starts to divide or bud until the resulting cells are mature enough to start replicating. For E.coli, a bacteria we hear a lot about, the generation time is about 20 minutes. That's one reason you can get sick pretty fast from that type of food poisoning. For a lot of insects, the generation time is a year. For apes, the generation time is about ten years.

    If the first cell, no matter what it was, could manage ten cell divisions in a 24 hour period, that would be much slower than E.coli, but much faster than most of the life we see around us today. Still, let's run with this slow generation time for this single celled organism, because it will be advantageous to evolution in the long run.

    Ten generations in a day is 3650 generations in a year. In a billion years, we are then talking about 3,650,000,000,000 generations (if I counted my zeros right...).

    That is what it evidently took for a single celled organism to become a multicelled organism. Over three and a half TRILLION generations. But now we have to get that multicelled organism to diversify into fish and frogs and ferns and butterflies and bears and apes and us. But our generation times are much longer. And we only have 2,500,000,000 years left to get all that done in.

    Evolution just ran out of time.

    Or consider this:

    We have been working with E.coli bacteria for well over a hundred years now. We have thrown every mutagent (mutation agent) in the book at them, singly and in combination, in various temperatures and environments. Given their generation time, that means we have dealt with over 2.5 million linear generations of these little guys. In 2.5 million generations, trying to get them to mutate any way we could, what have we gotten? Mostly dead E.coli. We got some that were fat, and when we disturbed one metabolic pathway (through intelligent human intervention), one population managed to find a way around that by constructing a new metabolic pathway and staying alive.

    But they were never anything but E.coli, dead or alive. In 2.5 MILLION generations.

    So, my evolutionist friends, how do you deal with the time issue?
     
  2. amity

    amity
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    You mean there are evolutionists on here? I am truly surprised.

    My one observation of evolution has to do with natural selection. I can evolve a MUCH improved and more resistant backyard flea population over the course of a single summer using just one insecticide. You can also deliberately select short legs and long backs in dog breeding and end up with a dachshund, etc.

    So that part of evolutionary theory seems pretty manifest. The question is, is that how life on earth came to be as diverse as it is?
     
  3. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes, there are evolutionists here and let's not derail the time issue! We can deal with mutations later. There's plenty of discussion for everything in its own time!
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    #1. Yes - there are believers in atheist darwinism here.

    #2. The fact that "the wind blows" is not "proof of ghosts". The fact that God made life capable of adapting within a species (poodle vs Wolf Hound) is not proof that rocks and water can give birth to living cells or that Single celled life forms eventually evolve into Elephants.

    #3. It is the ploy of evolutionists to equivocate between micro variations within a species and macro-leaps-of-faith needed to believe in the mythical "molecuel-to-human-brain evolution" story telling requiring "massive DECREASES in entropy" to push the story along.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Galatian?

    One of these days, he is gonna wake up and say: "Ya' know . . . God gave me the pleasure of moving to Texas and I can see that it was so I could become a little more conservative - let me give that a college try for 2 or 3 years . . . "

    I just hope he does so soon.

    If'n ya'll convince him, let me know.

     
  6. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    This artificial distinction between macro and micro evolution is just a ploy by creationists, since they cannot deny change occurs. If a small amount of change occurs in a small amount of time, it is reasonable that a large amount of change can occur in a longer amount of time...in fact, it would be surprising if it did not. Evolution is just change over time, which we observe happening. Nothing micro or macro about it.

    Since creationism is religion and not science, why not just accept what the Bible says as literal if that is your belief, rather than trying to wrap religious belief in the language of science? Science deals with the natural world. The creation story in Genesis is supernatural, therefore outside the realm of science. Even if it were true, science is not needed, as it deals with natural phenomena. Just say, "I believe it because I think Genesis is a literal account, end of story."
     
    #6 Magnetic Poles, Feb 16, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 16, 2007
  7. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Excuse me, but quit trying to derail the thread. What are the evolutionists going to do about the time issue?
     
  8. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are the only choices between an evolution free of Divine origin and an absolute, six-day, Genesis-style creation?
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I like your suggestion that we are free to imagine other solutions besides God's "Genesis style Creation".

    It is after all - just God in that genesis-style solution whereas atheist darwinism is championed by actual atheists themselves!

    Surely you have to admit that given a choice between atheist darwinist evolutionism, Intelligent Design Evolutionism, and God's Genesis style creationism -- the atheist really only has ONE choice.

    Agreed?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  10. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    where ever you go there are going to be people who do not beleive God, even on a christian board.
    I know, I was shocked too the first time I saw it here.
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Attempts to "gloss over details" and "equivocate" between MICROS evolution WITHIN a species contrasted against the gross saltatation-leaps up the Taxonomic hierarchy required in modern atheist darwinism -- is the daily fare of true believers in atheist darwinism as they seek to pass off junk-science based religion as if it were actual science.

    How "unnexpected" of MP to use it!!

    Alchemists of the dark ages would have LOVED to have used the argument "CHANGE occurs THEREFORE you can make gold out of lead"

    MP assists them --

    There you have it friends -- rats from rags, gold from lead -- you just need chemical "change over time" -- as long as "Change over time" happens even the "easter bunny" is blessed "science".

    The true believer in atheist darwinism confirms himself daily as the new alchemist with those kinds of gross-equivocations!!


    This is an amazing statement!! Why should you EXPECT "The invisible attributes of God to be CLEARLY SEEN by PAGANS in the THINGS that have been Made" Romans 1 -- just because God said it??

    Why not take the atheist darwinist approach instead "the FACT that God DID something should NEVER actually be SEEN to be true" ?

    Indeed MP argues for it as best as such a transparently failed argument COULD be argued!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you sprain your ankle when you made that logical leap, donnA?
     
  13. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    I had a feeling this would get derailed and hijacked and altered and ignored, but I didn't think it would be so fast!

    EVOLUTIONISTS, WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT THE TIME PROBLEM?????

    AND WOULD YOU OTHERS WHO ARE NOT DEALING WITH THE OPENING POST PLEASE TAKE YOUR ARGUMENTS SOMEPLACE ELSE?

    Rant over.
    Thank you.
     
  14. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Answer my question.
     
  15. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    In the long run, the answer is yes. Either naturalism is the rule of things, or God is. If God is, then He told us how He did it.

    But let's just look at the OP right now. It is not about beginnings, but about what has happened since. The way I see it, from what evolutionists themselves have stated as well as what we have seen in labs around the world, there is not enough time for evolution to have happened. Is this true or not?
     
  16. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    My thought is "not." However, to limit God to having acted within the confines of one of two literary/oral traditions is a bit short-sighted.
     
  17. grahame

    grahame
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's no good Helen. Most people cannot stick to one thing. I've tried it many times. It's nigh impossible to teach people to think methodically. Hey you guys. Helen asked a simple question to evolutionists. At this point in time she is not interested whether they are atheists. Nor does she want to deal with mutation at this moment in time.
    So I also would be interested to here an answer on the time issue as well. :praying:
     
  18. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    To Tragic: I respect your thoughts on that, but that is not the subject of the thread.

    Does evolution have enough time, given what we looked at in the opening post? THAT is what this thread is supposed to be about.

    We are on the second page of this thread and so far no one has even touched the question raised by the OP.
     
  19. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just did. I said "no."
     
  20. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    "No" that evolution does not have enough time? I was not sure if your 'no' referred to origins or not before.

    I apologize for misunderstanding you.
     

Share This Page

Loading...