|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biblical Time Measurement Vs Modern Time Measurement | |||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
nwr writes: Maybe length of life has evolved during the duration that homo sapiens has existed. But the change isn't likely to have happened in the last 6000 years. And it isn't likely to have been that large a change. I'm not a literalist so I'm not too concerned about the 6000 years. I'm prepared to agree that it might have been longer. As I understand evolutionary change it seems to stay realtively dormant for long periods and then it goes in spurts. I don't see ruling out the possiblity because of the length of time involved. Even if the stories are based on ancient myths it does seem strange that they are so specific about the ages. Obviously when it was written the writer believed it to be true. I'm just offering up a possible explanation which is, that a change in the longevity of humans occured as a part of the evolutionary process. Greg Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I'm not a literalist so I'm not too concerned about the 6000 years. I'm prepared to agree that it might have been longer.
6000 is too short for the age of the earth and other aspects of the creation story. However, it is about right for a written record, which include material transcribed from folk lore. Collective memories don't go back all that far.
As I understand evolutionary change it seems to stay realtively dormant for long periods and then it goes in spurts.
But it wouldn't go in the same spurts in China, in Africa, in Europe, in the middle east. There should be some human populations still existing where people live to almost 1000. Where are they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
nwr writes: 6000 is too short for the age of the earth and other aspects of the creation story. However, it is about right for a written record, which include material transcribed from folk lore. Collective memories don't go back all that far. I don't want to go too far with this as I agree that it is unlikely but if it was passed down through the oral tradition then who knows how far back it goes.
But it wouldn't go in the same spurts in China, in Africa, in Europe, in the middle east. There should be some human populations still existing where people live to almost 1000. Where are they? I never said this theory was perfect. This message has been edited by AdminJar, 10-03-2005 11:36 PM Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
If so, then how is the extreme giantism represented in extinct reptiles (and longevity required to reach such sizes?), Um, whales are quite large. Isn't the blue whale the largest animal ever? Additionally, just because some dinosaurs were large doesn't mean they lived a long time. A recent article (Im gonna say Discover magazine within the last three issues) pointed out that T-Rex went from hatchling to adult size in a remarkable fast period. (like 3 years or so). An additional, if somewhat off topic question for a literalist - Why do you think this? What I mean is this - in Faith's case, for example, she believes that the Bible is literally true because if even one letter of the Bible were a typo then her entire religious belief system would be completely destroyed. Therefore, she can not accept any information that contradicts anything within her belief system, as it is completely unadaptable. Interesting that those with beliefs that are unadaptable tend to believe that life itself is unadaptable. So, what's your deal?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Insect size is limited, I thought, by their particular method of respiration and the oxygen content/air pressure of the atmosphere. Insects in the past were not particularly bigger than insects of today. Look at bird eating spiders in Brazil, or the giant cave weta, or the madagascar hissing cockroach. Them buggers are big.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Today there are fish and amphibians. In the fossil record there are fish and amphibians. Yet, you accept that fish turned into amphibians, right? You're kidding right?You MUST know that ToErs don't say that ALL fish TURNED INTO amphibians. You don't honestly think that that's what Theory of Evolution is? Do you? No, seriously, do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
As evolution occurs due to genetic mutations, (as I understand it from reading this forum), then is it not conceivable that the evolutionary process, through genetic mutations caused the average life span to be considerably reduced from what it was a few thousand years back. But what would be the natural selection benefit of this? My understand of these biblical supermen is that they were able to have kids well into their 600s. Obviously the more time that you can have healthy kids, the more kids you will have, the more your genes will be passed on, the more likely future generations will live as long as you do. A vastly reduced longevity would be heavily selected against unless, in Noah's day, people didn't reach sexual maturity until they were 300 or so. In which case, new humans (or Rabbit People, or Rabbi-T people) would out breed them soundly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
As I understand evolutionary change it seems to stay realtively dormant for long periods and then it goes in spurts. This is punctuated equilibrium. It's not so much that evolution stays dormant, it's that there are few available spots to be taken up. Think about it like this. In the early 1990s there weren't that many new businesses because, unless you invented a brand new product or service, there was already someone out there doing whatever it is you do. You, as a pizza guy, have to compete with established chains, etc. However, when the Internet Boom came along, suddenly a vast new area of resources opened up. The number of new businesses went through the roof. Some were adaptations on existing businesses (Amazon.com) others were completely new (ivillage.com). Some succeeded massively, many many others failed. It's much the same with evolution. The dinosaurs were doing well and mammals barely had a foothold. Then, whammo Asteroid, dinosaurs take a powder and mammals have access to the resources. Suddenly, even a minor evolutionary change, gives Mammal A access to some untapped resource. Where as in the past, that resource would have been already being consumed by Dinosaur A. This doesn't need to be trigger by disaster either. Say Animal B developes a way to consume plastic as food. Suddenly, dumps are a gold mine for this creature. We'd expect it to really take off and do well. We'd also expect that different versions of this creature would evolve. Perhaps one that digs very well. Or one that is better at eating plastic bottles. Or one that's better at finding plastic trashbags. Etc. Hope all this makes sense, because WOW, I've really gone off topic. Sorry, back to Bible Time
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4958 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
.
This message has been edited by Brian, 10-13-2005 02:40 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Hi,Nug. So we could say T-Rex was the Billy Gates of the dinosaur world? :-p
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
hehe sort of, but T-rex, while a very impressive skeleton isn't necessarily a super-species.
Termites, rats, aligators - these guys are the true Bill Gates of hte animal world
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TheLiteralist Inactive Member |
Hi Creavolution,
(I know the topic is a bit stale now, but I just noticed your reply to me...and how you had interpretted my comment...so just to try to clear up what I meant...as you were not the only one to misunderstand me, apparently). In response to my comment about fish turning into amphibians, you write:
BTW It's not so much "turned into" as evolved from. i.e. at some point a fish mutated (albeit very slowly over many small steps) to become an amphibian. This doesn't require that fish stop existing. merely that a new form of life began to evolve. Right. I know how evolution is proposed to work. At least in a general way. I didn't mean that I thought evolution was proposing that all the fish magically turned into amphibians...but simply that fish were the ancestors of amphibians. I also was attempting to point out that, AFAIK, there is no evidence whatsoever of the "many small steps" that supposedly occurred. You believe in these "many small steps" between fish and amphibians, but do you have evidence of them? --Jason AbE:And, to be sure, I am not meaning to turn this topic into an "evidence for amphibian evolution" discussion. I was merely trying to point out that I think you are accepting certain (and major?) ToE ideas without evidence. And, the purpose of this post is to clear up what the original post meant. This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 10-12-2005 04:18 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TheLiteralist Inactive Member |
Hi Nuggin,
You write:
You MUST know that ToErs don't say that ALL fish TURNED INTO amphibians. You don't honestly think that that's what Theory of Evolution is? Do you? No. That's not how I view the ToE's explanation of how amphibians came about. I've been posting on EvC since Nov 2004 with some regularity, and, I guess, I was assuming that folks were familiar with my understanding of the ToE. My above response to Creavolution should clear this misunderstanding up a bit. --Jason
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TheLiteralist Inactive Member |
Hi NosyNed,
I'm not actually sure how my comment shocked you. Does my "clarification" post to Creavolution (above) fix the "shocking" nature of my post...or were you concerned about something else? --Jason
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You believe in these "many small steps" between fish and amphibians, but do you have evidence of them? Here are some orders of fish/amphibian transitionals, in a sort of chronological order: PaleoniscoidOsteolepis Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion Panderichthys, Elpistostege Obruchevichthys Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega Labyrinthodonts I was merely trying to point out that I think you are accepting certain (and major?) ToE ideas without evidence. There's no idea in evolutionary science, or in any science, that is accepted without evidence. And where do you keep getting this idea that we don't have transitional fossils?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024