Did God use evolution to create life

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

This is what we expect from non Christians.

You sure seem nasty today. Does it make you feel better and superior?

"Nasty?" From you?

[pelathais]

Also, I never claimed "wiki supports the Bible." Try to get your train of thought back on track. I merely used Wikipedia because it's handy in a forum like this. The article itself does give evidence that a proper interpretation of Genesis is NOT at variance with the Bible's message.

Whether or not the Wikipedia Foundation "supports the Bible," you'll have to ask them.

[pelathais]

If we are supposed to understand Genesis 1:25, in a very literal fashion then donkeys and horses should be able to reproduce fertile offspring. Either that, or they should NOT be able to produce any offspring at all. They exist in a crazy "in between" realm that only an evolutionary model can explain.

Many YEC's and other "special creationists" have already come around to accepting this and other examples of "Micro-Evolution," though it does put one on the "slippery slope" toward "Macro-Evolution" as well.

All that's needed to rectify the conflict here is a simple application of hermeneutics that everyone already employs. Consider the "Sixth Day" in Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:24-31 at least appears to be in conflict with Genesis 2:15-25.

How do you reconcile this apparent contradiction? Did God create the man before or after the animals?

Most Bible believers will look at the Genesis 2, account and see it as being the same story as Genesis 1, just told from a different angle. When the writer says in Genesis 2:19, that the animals were created "from the ground" and present to the man they apply a more expansive understanding regarding the time frame.

Genesis 2:19, doesn't say "when" the animals were created. It simply says they were created, and this information is provided after the information concerning the creation of the man. There is only a contradiction here if we demand that every word and every thought be applied with an unreasonably rigid literalism.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Lets see, the Bible says 6 days, I believe it to be just that. 6 days to you means approximately 4.23 billion years. Hermeneutics?

The Bible also says "the day" singular (Genesis 2:4). Literally, which is it?

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

No, not a taunt, a warning. You are trading the widsom of God for the foolishness of the world.

Why do you think "the wisdom of God" is limited to a method of interpretation that only gained traction in 1648? How did the church get along before this great "illumination" of Fundamentalism?

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I haven't called you a non christian.

No, but you have insulted me.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I have not insulted you.

Wait a minute... what? "Ridiculous?"

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I have not taunted you, and I have not attacked you.

Denial is more than a river in Egypt, as they say. Because you have now chosen to ignore the reality of your own comments does not change that reality. It's sort of like listening to you say that the stars are not tens of thousand and millions of light years away. Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I have said you are doing violence to the scripture with your doctrine which is based on Darwin, and that you are erring in following wordly "wisdom" and rejecting the clear testimony of scripture.

Can you show me an example of anything Darwin even wrote on the subject of Bible hermeneutics or the "proper" interpretation of Genesis? I've actually looked and found nothing.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I have a problem with the doctrine you are promoting, not necessarily with you. But your sharpness is indeed disappointing.

I went out of my way to say nice things about you after you launched one of your acerbic salvos two nights ago. The rejoinder I received from you wasn't the words of a friend. It was mocking in tone and offered nothing to the overall discussion.


Really? What is the comment in reference to.

AFF has its typical liberals. They want freedom of speech, but then when someone states their more conservative opinion, all of a sudden they're a pontificating fool.[/QUOTE]

By adopting a very ancient outlook and applying it to a very ancient book I am a "liberal?" Yet when you adopt a novel teaching that popped up a mere 350 years ago you think you're a "conservative?" Not so my friend. You have adopted the "new ways."

You might as well wear a wig and high heeled shoes (like the Fundamentalists of 1648). Meanwhile, I will shave my head and grow my beard, don my loin cloth (okay, the wife says I have to at least wear the cargo shorts) and sit as a student of the ancient scribes, and listen to their voices.

[RandyWayne]

Atomic "skid marks":

Half Lives for Radioactive Elements

Radioactive Parent

Stable Daughter

Half life
Radioactive Parent - Stable Daughter - Half life
Potassium 40 -- Argon 40 -- 1.25 billion yrs

Rubidium 87 -- Strontium 87 -- 48.8 billion yrs

Thorium 232 -- Lead 208 -- 14 billion years

Uranium 235 --- Lead 207 -- 704 million years

Uranium 238 -- Lead 206 -- 4.47 billion years

Carbon 14 -- Nitrogen 14 -- 5730 years

[coadie]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Atomic "skid marks":

Half Lives for Radioactive Elements

Radioactive Parent

Stable Daughter

Half life
Radioactive Parent - Stable Daughter - Half life
Potassium 40 -- Argon 40 -- 1.25 billion yrs

Rubidium 87 -- Strontium 87 -- 48.8 billion yrs

Thorium 232 -- Lead 208 -- 14 billion years

Uranium 235 --- Lead 207 -- 704 million years

Uranium 238 -- Lead 206 -- 4.47 billion years

Carbon 14 -- Nitrogen 14 -- 5730 years

And you don't have the original values for these chemicals. You speculate and extrapolate to arrive at the original values.

We have fun with these dating schemes because it is like measuring the distance to the moon with a 12 inch ruler.

Who made the elements?

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by coadie

And you don't have the original values for these chemicals. You speculate and extrapolate to arrive at the original values.

We have fun with these dating schemes because it is like measuring the distance to the moon with a 12 inch ruler.

Who made the elements?

We know EXACTLY what the original "values" of these elements are because we (at least scientists) can see the actual element and know EXACTLY how it behaves.

And where were these elements created? The hearts of stars. Our own sun is a 2nd generation star.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

We know EXACTLY what the original "values" of these elements are because we (at least scientists) can see the actual element and know EXACTLY how it behaves.

And where were these elements created? The hearts of stars. Our own sun is a 2nd generation star.

Yes we can see how elements behave.
6.63 × 10−34 J-sec The fundie constant in quantum theory.

Actually you do not know..You think you know. We have no truthfull and accurate measurements back then and rely on Models. Estimates and linear regression equations were what i wrote programs for in my own research in the early 70's. Fortran is great for this. It has been a long time since I wrote programs in Fortran in grad school. And no, we do not know how rapidly the sun decreased in diameter and radiation over time Planks constant.

E = h * c / wavelength
h = 6.626 x 10^(-34) joules-sec
c = 299,792,458 meters/sec
wavelength = 9.7 meters
We are several equations away from getting joules and then go the way of net energy reduction from the sun and finally watts per m2 absorption on the earth. We have far too much heat for life to come from the primordial soup at temps under lets say 308 degrees Kelvin

You are still unable to tell us how matter and energy was created that formed stars.

The Earth's Magnetic Field
The magnet is thought to be formed by circulating electrical currents in the outer core, which would then decay as any other magnet would. [See Genesis 1:2]
The half-life of decay of the earth’s magnetic field is 1,400 years. The magnetic field has declined by 10% since 1829. The magnetic field is only 1/3 as strong as it was when Jesus walked the earth.
Current magnetic moment is 8.0 x 1022 amp-meter2
3400 AD = 4
4800 AD = 2
6200 AD = 1
7600 AD = 0.5
9000 AD = 0.25
This half-life would mean that 100,000 years ago, the earth’s magnetic field would have been comparable to a neutron star.
In 8,000 years there will effectively be no magnetic field.
A magnetic field protects the earth and its inhabitants from harmful cosmic irradiation.
Old earth advocates claim a perpetual self-exciting “dynamo” mechanism that would continually replenish the magnet exists.

Even with polar charge reversals, the ongoing recent reduction in magnetic field strength disallows life developing with out being fried as in the old Raytheon radar range.

I just touched on how the cooling earth would have cooked live in the old earth model.
Can you put all this together plus a few more and tell us how much energy hit the earth? Then calculate IR and we can get there.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Yes we can see how elements behave.
6.63 × 10−34 J-sec The fundie constant in quantum theory.

Actually you do not know..You think you know. We have no truthfull and accurate measurements back then and rely on Models. Estimates and linear regression equations were what i wrote programs for in my own research in the early 70's. Fortran is great for this. It has been a long time since I wrote programs in Fortran in grad school. And no, we do not know how rapidly the sun decreased in diameter and radiation over time Planks constant.

E = h * c / wavelength
h = 6.626 x 10^(-34) joules-sec
c = 299,792,458 meters/sec
wavelength = 9.7 meters
We are several equations away from getting joules and then go the way of net energy reduction from the sun and finally watts per m2 absorption on the earth. We have far too much heat for life to come from the primordial soup at temps under lets say 308 degrees Kelvin

You appear to accept Plank's Constant, but you appear to dismiss conclusions drawn from this.

You are correct in saying that "we don't [exactly] know how rapidly these processes took place." However, you must have been exposed to material which demonstrates the ranges of time that were involved. That's why "evilutionists" don't try and pin things down to exact dates and years. They're being honest. None of us has enough information to be that specific.

Compare this honesty, humility and candor to your good friend Bishop Ussher and his "extrapolation" that the earth was created on Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC.

Originally Posted by coadie

You are still unable to tell us how matter and energy was created that formed stars.

Google "quantum vacuum flux."

My own take is:

And all this science I don't understand
It's just my job five days a week
A rocket man, a rocket man

And I think it's gonna be a long long time
Till touch down brings me round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home
Oh no no no I'm a rocket man
Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone

What did you do with the other "coadie?" The cranky one? Anyway, I like you better.

Again, you appear to accept Plank's Constant, but you appear to dismiss conclusions based upon it. Your good buddy Sir Fred Hoyle demonstrated (along with Chandra W.) that the Plank Constant could be utilized to determine the movements of interstellar dust and to project its behavior under different conditions such as collapsing to form a star.

From there, Chandra W. and Hoyle accurately projected the life cycle of stars of various masses and the elements that would be transmuted at different stages before the star "died."

Their collaborator, William Fowler (along with his Hindu counterpart Chandrasekhar) went on to win Nobel Prizes for this work. All of this was begun as deductions from the Plank Constant. The Nobels were not handed out until after several years of observation and testing confirmed their hypothesis in the early 1980s.

Originally Posted by coadie

The Earth's Magnetic Field
The magnet is thought to be formed by circulating electrical currents in the outer core, which would then decay as any other magnet would. [See Genesis 1:2]

hmm... I can't find the word "magnet" in Genesis 1:2, nor anywhere in my Strong's... but I will allow you to extrapolate because, Hey! I'm a pretty swell guy.

Originally Posted by coadie

The half-life of decay of the earth’s magnetic field is 1,400 years. The magnetic field has declined by 10% since 1829. The magnetic field is only 1/3 as strong as it was when Jesus walked the earth.
Current magnetic moment is 8.0 x 1022 amp-meter2
3400 AD = 4
4800 AD = 2
6200 AD = 1
7600 AD = 0.5
9000 AD = 0.25
This half-life would mean that 100,000 years ago, the earth’s magnetic field would have been comparable to a neutron star.
In 8,000 years there will effectively be no magnetic field.
A magnetic field protects the earth and its inhabitants from harmful cosmic irradiation.
Old earth advocates claim a perpetual self-exciting “dynamo” mechanism that would continually replenish the magnet exists.

Even with polar charge reversals, the ongoing recent reduction in magnetic field strength disallows life developing with out being fried as in the old Raytheon radar range.

I just touched on how the cooling earth would have cooked live in the old earth model.

Ah, no. You gave a brief break down of the equation known as Plank's Constant, and then you misrepresented conclusions that could be based upon it. You then completely ignored the highly publicized and much celebrated conclusions that Sir Fred Hoyle (and others) had made using the Plank Constant - and that after quoting Sir Fred as an authority on other matters just yesterday.

Originally Posted by coadie

Can you put all this together plus a few more and tell us how much energy hit the earth? Then calculate IR and we can get there.

"Hit the earth?" When? When our Mr. Sun first "ignited" the fusion engines at its core? Yes, that would have fried even the 7-11 burritos on Pluto. However, it was a "flash" of energy at a time when the earth itself hadn't even completely formed yet. It would have blasted lighter elements far out into the depths of the solar system and left the planetary nebulae closer to the sun (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars along with the asteroid belt) quite rocky and barren.

And then, the rocky material would have continued to aggregate forming new planets (or not as in the case of the asteroid belt which is too close to Jupiter's gravitational tides). Subsequently, large doses of those "lighter elements" would return to the inner solar system deposited by comets and other debris. Somehow, for whatever "reason" - those comets today are still a rich source of amino acids - just ask Sir Fred.

The magnetic field is also interesting... to save eyestrain I will deal with it in another post... after I run a couple of errands.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

We know EXACTLY what the original "values" of these elements are because we (at least scientists) can see the actual element and know EXACTLY how it behaves. And where were these elements created? The hearts of stars. Our own sun is a 2nd generation star.

We know exactly how they behave?

Yikes.

Jenkins and Fischbach guessed that the culprits in this bit of decay-rate mischief were probably solar neutrinos, the almost weightless particles famous for flying at almost the speed of light through the physical world – humans, rocks, oceans or planets – with virtually no interaction with anything.

Like i said earlier, how do we know the velocity of decay rates and the initial starting values.

Then, in a series of papers published in Astroparticle Physics, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research and Space Science Reviews, Jenkins, Fischbach and their colleagues showed that the observed variations in decay rates were highly unlikely to have come from environmental influences on the detection systems.

Reason for suspicion

If the mystery particle is not a neutrino, “It would have to be something we don’t know about, an unknown particle that is also emitted by the sun and has this effect, and that would be even more remarkable,” Sturrock said.

I posed this question in this thread.

As the researchers pored through published data on specific isotopes, they found

– odd for supposed physical constants.