Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical Time Measurement Vs Modern Time Measurement
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 31 of 47 (248738)
10-03-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by nwr
10-03-2005 10:38 PM


Re: A Thought on the Age Issue
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 10-03-2005 10:38 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by nwr, posted 10-03-2005 11:07 PM GDR has replied
 Message 38 by Nuggin, posted 10-04-2005 3:41 AM GDR has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 32 of 47 (248741)
10-03-2005 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by GDR
10-03-2005 10:49 PM


Re: A Thought on the Age Issue
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by GDR, posted 10-03-2005 10:49 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by GDR, posted 10-04-2005 12:35 AM nwr has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 33 of 47 (248757)
10-04-2005 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by nwr
10-03-2005 11:07 PM


Re: A Thought on the Age Issue
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by nwr, posted 10-03-2005 11:07 PM nwr has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 34 of 47 (248766)
10-04-2005 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by TheLiteralist
10-03-2005 6:08 PM


Re: oh...it's a science forum?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-03-2005 6:08 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 35 of 47 (248767)
10-04-2005 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by TheLiteralist
10-03-2005 6:43 PM


Re: big stuff
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-03-2005 6:43 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 36 of 47 (248768)
10-04-2005 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by TheLiteralist
10-03-2005 6:58 PM


Re: no offense taken
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-03-2005 6:58 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-12-2005 4:04 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 37 of 47 (248769)
10-04-2005 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by GDR
10-03-2005 10:31 PM


Re: A Thought on the Age Issue
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by GDR, posted 10-03-2005 10:31 PM GDR has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 38 of 47 (248770)
10-04-2005 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by GDR
10-03-2005 10:49 PM


Re: A Thought on the Age Issue
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by GDR, posted 10-03-2005 10:49 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Nighttrain, posted 10-05-2005 8:46 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 39 of 47 (248825)
10-04-2005 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Heathen
10-03-2005 3:26 PM


It's not unusual
.
This message has been edited by Brian, 10-13-2005 02:40 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Heathen, posted 10-03-2005 3:26 PM Heathen has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 40 of 47 (249268)
10-05-2005 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Nuggin
10-04-2005 3:41 AM


Re: A Thought on the Age Issue
Hi,Nug. So we could say T-Rex was the Billy Gates of the dinosaur world? :-p

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Nuggin, posted 10-04-2005 3:41 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Nuggin, posted 10-05-2005 10:53 PM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 41 of 47 (249316)
10-05-2005 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Nighttrain
10-05-2005 8:46 PM


Re: A Thought on the Age Issue
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Nighttrain, posted 10-05-2005 8:46 PM Nighttrain has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 47 (251172)
10-12-2005 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Heathen
10-03-2005 7:10 PM


I was misunderstood a bit
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Heathen, posted 10-03-2005 7:10 PM Heathen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 10-12-2005 4:52 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 47 (251211)
10-12-2005 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Nuggin
10-04-2005 3:26 AM


hope this clears it up
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Nuggin, posted 10-04-2005 3:26 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 47 (251219)
10-12-2005 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by NosyNed
10-03-2005 9:12 PM


Re: shocked
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 10-03-2005 9:12 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Redshift, posted 10-17-2005 6:54 AM TheLiteralist has not replied
 Message 47 by NosyNed, posted 10-17-2005 10:16 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 45 of 47 (251227)
10-12-2005 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by TheLiteralist
10-12-2005 2:08 PM


Re: I was misunderstood a bit
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:
Paleoniscoid
Osteolepis
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by TheLiteralist, posted 10-12-2005 2:08 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024