Convinced is too strong of a word. My current beliefs are not that, no. But I am open minded and on a journey.
Fair enough. Do you have links on where this threshold is talked about more. The “difference” between Micro and macro evolution. Where they change “kinds” and can no longer produce fertile offspring with their former species they evolved from.
Not enough attention is spent on Ring Species. So read up on them… and it will (as investors sometimes say) into the project at a 45 degree angle!
I hope to be able to dig up more material on those genes that affect reproductive compatibility the most. I have been given some links on the topic… but I haven’t been able to sink my teeth into them quite yet!
Post deleted
First, the terms micro and macro evolution are inventions of YEC. They are both the same thing.
Second, the threshold is not a line drawn in the sand. If you will read up on ring species you will discover you can have 3 groups, let’s call them A, B, and C. A and B can produce fertile offspring. B and C can produce fertile offspring. But A and C can not produce fertile offspring. Sometimes the threshold is due to a genetic difference. Other times it is due to simple behavioral differences.
If you want some resources to help with the basics of evolution you can check out these BioLogos resources.
How Evolution Works, Part 1
How Evolution Works, Part 2
These also contain links to additional information.
Really, wow. I thought for sure you were pulling one of these https://youtu.be/rLDgQg6bq7o. And using a bunch of fake calculations and made up terms to show how stupid my theory was. That math is way above my head, but sorry for the mis-interpretations and kudus for that knowledge, but still even further above my head than some of those evolutionary terms.
Would you be able to work that formula out backwards and plug in 13.7 billions years and what would it give in place of that 6000 value?
Ok, I understand the ring species and speciation concept now…I think. So with a mountain cline, the lizard at the bottom of a mountain is a magenta species, then the first quarter mountain, the condition/environment changes so the lizards there are adapting and purple. And half way, same thing, so blue lizards, and at the top quarter, bark green lizards, and at the top, there is a light green lizards. The purple and magenta can interbreed, and the light green and dark can interbreed. But the light green and agents won’t be able to interbreed. Though in the mountain cline which is linear, they will never meet, so will never know they can’t interbreed, but in the ring cline, these costal species can and do meet (light green and magenta), but they still can’t interbreed.
But they are still lizards, or birds with the ring species. This still seems like the same type to me.
And if I understand right, do we have any evidence of this occurring enough times for a fish to spectate and grow arms and turn into a frog?
Like the wiki article said. “if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection then the ring species’ distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species.”
So if I am correct, we have no link( referred to as the missing link) that connect a type to another type. E. We have magenta fish and light green frogs, but we are missing the purple, blue and dark green species right? This is a theory to reconcile the observable micro evolution, and say this proves macro evolution. And hide it behind the fact that it’s a really long time 4.5 billion years. Being that modern man only lived 100,000 at lion is so unfathomable, making it seem plausible.
How long is the Larus gulls sceciation measured to have taken place. Because maybe in DNA that is a great change, but in the end result is really not THAT different. From a herring gull to a black-backed gull is such a minute change.
I just think it is still too large of a leap to go from a magenta fish to a light green fish, and a light green fish to a yellow frog (or whatever fish “turned” into.
I can’t list all of the types/kinds of animals. But a type or kind is for example, a canine, and a species would be a wolf, a beagle, Dalmatian maybe even a fox. Feline- lion, house cat, tiger, panther. Equine- horse, donkey, zebra, impala.
That is what I understand to be micro-evolution. But to make the jump from sea creatures only, to half sea and half land, to land creatures only. Or an even larger leap, from a few cells of and bacteria to a to an animal/fish etc.
Speciation I can get on board with. But the evolutionary theory that we evolved massive leaps in kinds/types…I don’t see enough evidence for that, nor does it sound that logical, not does it sound like interpretation error or literature type could sound remotely like that.
I can even see how a pakicetus could evolve to become a whale over 50 million years.
Just like you probably couldn’t fit every animal on the ark, but if you got the types, it wouldn’t be a problem, and afterwords when they go to different environments, they speciate to give us what we have today, some 3000- 4000 years later. Or is that not enough time for speciation to occur?
Part of the awkwardness of this model is that the oldest writings of scripture, like the book of Job for example describe creatures exactly in the modern sense besides a few debatable ones that may have gone extinct (like Behemoth/Leviathan). For example,
Or an entire archive of articles on hyper speciation required by the YEC model:
Hmmm, some good points there, thanks.
The thing about it is, that evolution still fits my time warp theory perfectly. And I probably mentally cross the fence at times. It just has other holes/unexplainable challenges in it that bring me back to the other side.
But I that is why I think evolution should be its own thread, original purpose of this thread was the time warp theory, which again, has no beef with evolution.
Feel free to start a new thread, but could you summarize again for me:
what do you mean by time warp? The number of times I’ve seen Christians abuse Special Relativity has been too much to count
what kind of holes/challenges do you mean? All theories will always have some gaps. But what is most important is not whether gaps exist, because they always will but whether the idea explains the non-gaps well which evolution has done an amazing job at
Oh my, I can try to sum it up.
Basically God is outside of time, so time is whatever he wants it to be. So He assigned the time of 7 days to creation. However, from the time that we know and our reference, the universe was created in 13.7 billion years.
Like I can watch a tree grow over 5 years, in a 5 min time lapse. God “watched” the universe be created in 5 min, though, it grew over 5 years. Or, God created the universe in 7 days, though it grew in 13.7 billion years.
So every Big Bang event that scientist speak of of evolution happened as we measure it, same as EC believes, but it also only took a literal 7 days.
Like if a human was sitting next to God watching this happen, they would see plants whizzing around and colliding and explosions and God would be like superman or the flash when a bullet is fired where it is in super slow motion, able to effect the most minute details.
Some here called it time warp for lack of better term, I think time lapse theory sounds closer.
If want to believe in the genesis account not being literal, that makes sense in so many areas. But then you have parts like. Putting Adam to sleep to take a rib. If this was figurative or symbolic, why write a completely unnecessary detail like that.
Or if 900 some years is symbolic of age, they why set a limit on it later to 120 years.
There are so many (what seems to be) unnecessary details placed in there.
That is like saying " Pharos heart was hardened, so they hooked him up to a blood circulation machine" Using a symbolic thing, and then assigning literal detail to it confuses.
In Gen 6, if the flood was just a story or used hyperbole, I think it would be written " God told Noah to build an ark and to bring 2 of every animal". That is a story about what God told them to do and I could take that to be a hyperbole.
But it says " the Lord said to Noah, you do this, this will happen" and puts it in quotes, as if this is what God said. You dont tell a story with quotes from someone and add hyperbole within he quotes. At least in this literary society. Maybe there’s was different?
You make it sound that if something isn’t literal history it has no purpose in the narrative. I don’t think that is how the original audience would have approached things at all. Here are two old threads with some thoughts on the Adam’s rib thing, because I don’t have time at the moment to re-type all the things I and others said in those threads.
Thanks, that is reasonable to me. What about the flood ( as I added into my post above.)
Why change someone’s quotes?
Or the reason for a 120 limit? If ages were symbolic?
I should start a thread were I can lob one down and y’all can knock it out of the park and lob another one and you might just have a global to regional flood and evolutionary ‘convert’.
Yes, pick your favorite and start a new thread. 
You are reading it in English. I don’t believe Hebrew has the same concept of “quotes.” One of the regulars that knows Hebrew can correct me if I am wrong. In looking in an interlinear I noticed there were no quote marks.
That’s pretty much the opposite meaning of ‘literal’. A ‘subjective’ 7 days would be a better suggestion. Still, to a being outside of time, I suspect any experience of time passing would be a nonsensical concept.
Adding ornamental detail is exactly what you would expect with a story that people would otherwise conclude is Not a true story.
As for the rib story, there Jewish interpreters who think the answer is obvious: the rib story provides an etymological explanation for human anatomy!
A. Human males are known to be one of the few (only?) Group to not have a bone reinforcement for their masculine anatomy.
B. The word for Rib is obscure in that it can refer to a number of human parts.
They aren’t using quartz vibrations. You can read more about cesium atomic clocks here. These clocks can only tick at one speed in the conditions they are kept. You can’t just invoke some mystery factor that happens to change clocks exactly in keeping with Einstein’s equations without some evidence to back it up. Until such evidence is presented, the accuracy of these clocks stands.[quote=“still_learning, post:112, topic:36495”]
Sure one could argue anything…but why 5min? My time warp theory isn’t based on a random, " what if". It’s based on the other parallel uses of 7 days in the Bible and he literal interpretation of the genesis account.
[/quote]
Where is the evidence to back it?[quote=“still_learning, post:112, topic:36495”]
Surely you don’t believe that do you? Gravity doesn’t make/effect time. Do those on the I.S.S age slower or not at all due to the lack of gravity?
Gravity could effect the way we measure time…like if we used an hourglass to measure time, sure. But it can’t/doesn’t effect time of happening.
[/quote]
Incredulity is not much of an argument. Another example is the GPS network of satellites. They have to constantly update the clocks on these satellites because they tick at a different rate than clocks on Earth, and that is due to their distance from Earth’s center of gravity. We know that time ticks at different rates depending on their position in a gravity well because we can measure those differences.
Also, no one is saying that people on the ISS don’t age. Their clocks are only ticking at a very slightly faster rate, something like nanoseconds per day. The same happens when you take a plane ride at high altitude, as was shown in the Hafele-Keating experiments which have been confirmed numerous times with modern technology.[quote=“still_learning, post:112, topic:36495”]
During. Constant conditions, you are correct, they “tick” /are measured at one speed/rate. But if you changed certain conditions, that rate would change.
[/quote]
What conditions are those, and where is your evidence that those conditions were changed in the experiments?[quote=“still_learning, post:112, topic:36495”]
So if the earth sped up and moved sun twice as fast…we wouldn’t age any faster. Sure our number age would go higher, but we would all live to 160 as opposed to 80. The time of happening doesn’t change, just the way we measure it. I believe the earth circled the sun 4.5 billion times in a few days according to the time of happening. Or that furthest galaxy/star that we see and measure red shift etc. that star actually travelled for us at at the speed of light for 13.7 billion years in a few days of happening.
[/quote]
The laws of physics allows planets to orbit the Sun at different speeds. It doesn’t allow cesium clocks to tick at different rates. You are comparing apples and oranges.[quote=“still_learning, post:112, topic:36495”]
I believe the earth circled the sun 4.5 billion times in a few days according to the time of happening. Or that furthest galaxy/star that we see and measure red shift etc. that star actually travelled for us at at the speed of light for 13.7 billion years in a few days of happening.
[/quote]
You are free to believe whatever you want, but reality is not forced to conform to your beliefs.
V[quote=“Bill_II, post:127, topic:36495”]
You are reading it in English. I don’t believe Hebrew has the same concept of “quotes.” One of the regulars that knows Hebrew can correct me if I am wrong. In looking in an interlinear I noticed there were no quote marks.
[/quote]
Their writings might not have had quotations in it. But I’m sure they understood that one could quote someone or write what someone else says and the importance of not distorting or changing what God told them to write. They say " the Lord says…". Sounds a lot like quotes, whether they actually used quotes or not.
True, somewhat subjective…as all time is subjective or relative…like I have been saying. When I say literal, I mean in the relative/subjective sense that days occur to humans today. I agree time is a nonsensical concept to God, but He wrote the Bible and made the universe for us humans, and thus created a subjective time for us.
I actually have grown in this area. I was thinking to myself, how would I write about a flood if I was telling a story. If I just said, a big boat…well how big, elephant size, football field size etc. now that I know we are talking football field size, I know you meant big, even if that used measurements to make a figure of speech. Obviuolsy they didn’t have football fields back then. Like if I was so hungry I could eat a horse…if you never saw a horse I would say, I was so hungry, I could eat a 7’ long by 6’ tall hunk of meat. Details make the story to emphasize how hungry I was.
So I am starting to look at some stories differently. Some unnecessary details become necessary for the story telling. But still some don’t, like limiting 120 days. I’ll open a new thread for that one.
The problem with usuing details to tell a story theory…is that you run yourself into the other biologos theory that is ruined by saying God is not deceptive. Where biologos believes that the earth could be ~5000 years old old 13.7 billion years of “false history” as you call it planted, which is ruled out because God is not deceptive.
But why is it deceptive for God to " plant false history" to tell a story, but it isn’t for man to " plant false details?
Can you elaborate on this? Are you saying females have this? Or what other animals? Muscles help or bones move, don’t reinforce, and fat cushions them, skin protects them. I’m not sure I know what you mean when you say reinforce them?
Not to measure time…but they are used in the atomic clocks, the quartz oscillators.
I am not debating the accuracy of atomic clocks it is an extremely accurate MEASUREMENT of time. But that is all it is doing, like an hourglass, measuring time. We just discovered that hour glasses measurements can be manipulated by different gravity, and we discovered a factor ( speed ) that changes the measurements of the atomic clock.
I know this, this proves what I am saying. So do Hafele-Keating experiments.
There are many many factors that our age is a measurement of and so many can be manipulated. The theory of relativity says basically, the faster you go, the slower time goes. The time of happening doesn’t slow, just the time measurement that you are relative to. Atomic clock measurements slow, your aging slows, every measurement we know of slows, effectively time is slowing…but not the time of happening.
If you traveled a year at 95% speed of light, you would age 1 year, but the people of earth would have aged 3.2 years. 3.2 years is the time of happening.
To extrapolate this to my theory. God created the universe in 3.2 years, but in the time of happening, it only took 1 year. Or 13.7 billion years, it 7 days.
Again, not using the proper terminology from my first post has confused this some I believe. I should have used relative time and happening time from the beginning.
The reason an atomic clock moving faster ticks slower is because for it, time is slowing down, but it is really just the atoms slowing down, as it measures atomic oscillations. But the eaths revolutions around the sun didn’t slow, the time of happening didn’t slow, just the relative time to the object at that speed. Our time is relative to speed, and since on earth, we are basically all moving at the same speed, our time is the same. But even if you traveled 99% the speed of light, and relative time moved slower for you, the time of happening doesn’t change.
We are subject to a relative time, as our planet, our solar system, and even our galaxy is moving at a speed. But God is outside of time and relatively, He is in the realm of time of happening. The beginning happened, the creation of the universe happened regardless of the earth revolving around the sun, regard
Less of an hour glass sands of time falling, regardless of a quartz oscillating, regardless of a cesium atom oscillating with a quartz oscillation feedback, time happens, history happened.
I know it is sci-fi, but you will never be able to time travel. You can go into the further possibly…by traveling fast enough that your relative time slows and when you stop the future is here, but you can never go back into the past, it happened. I would even guess that God cannot go into the past. But since He is outside of time and has no relative speed, And being all knowing, could have manipulated the past (when the past was present) to get the future outcomes He wanted. He can slow and probably stop time, but I don’t think He can affect the past or change the time of happening. I see plenty of evidence of Him manipulating relative time, but not one of Him changing the time of happening or the past. Relative time as we know it began when In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and all the laws of physics and relativity and energy as we know them today.
I absolutely agree, it is just my time lapse theory. I am fine if you don’t believe in my theory. What I am more trying to explain is that you are not understanding my theory. I am debating you that time is relative and that atomic clocks measuremeasure relative time, not time of happening. Hafele-Keating experiments Prove that.
But again sorry, that is probably my fault for not using proper terminology to begin with.
What factors are changing the rate at which atomic clocks tick?[quote=“still_learning, post:131, topic:36495”]
The theory of relativity says basically, the faster you go, the slower time goes.
[/quote]
That is false. If you got in a rocket ship and sped up to 0.5 times the speed of light you would not measure any change in the passage of time while on the ship.[quote=“still_learning, post:131, topic:36495”]
To extrapolate this to my theory. God created the universe in 3.2 years, but in the time of happening, it only took 1 year. Or 13.7 billion years, it 7 days.
[/quote]
I still don’t see how this relates to relativity. If you accelerate the Earth then it will be younger than the rest of the universe. However, the Earth appears to be older, not younger, according to your model.[quote=“still_learning, post:131, topic:36495”]
The reason an atomic clock moving faster ticks slower is because for it, time is slowing down, but it is really just the atoms slowing down, as it measures atomic oscillations.
[/quote]
You only see a difference in the passage of time between frames of reference, not within a frame of reference.
That was the standard way of saying “What I am about to tell you comes with the Lord’s authority”. Doesn’t mean they quote God verbatim. And if you go back to what we were talking about originally you will notice there is no “Thus says the Lord” in sight.
The passage is time is different when measured in different frames of reference. Atomic clocks measure the passage of time in their frame of reference. Are you aware of the twin paradox? There are two twins. One leaves on a space ship that can travel at .5 c. When the ship returns the twin left on earth has aged more than the twin on the space ship. Each twin experienced a different passage of time due to the two different frames of reference.
For your theory what are the frames of reference and how fast are they moving relative to each other? The passage of time is only different if the frames are moving relative to each other.
It’s called the os penis aka penis bone, baculum, etc. George is right; human males don’t have that bone but many animals do, such as dogs. (I took animal Anatomy and Physiology.)
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.