Creation vs Evolution

[halifaxchristian]

It seems to me that this thread has become little more than everyone trying to prove that they are right and the other is wrong. I really don't think either side is going to achieve that goal.And I must say I am rather ashamed at the lack of love shown from the Christian side.That said.......

  Nik I have always found the Laws of Thermodynamics interesting, if you wouldn't mind explaining them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Was Jesus not showing love when He rebuked the Pharissees??? Love has different applications, you know???

[NITE OWL]

Fossil evidence that supports your theory

http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/hominid.htm#Transitionals

You mean like these?

I'm not talking about lab experiments.

That's a shame, because that misses out a lot of evidence for common ancestry of man and apes - like endogenous retroviral insertions, for example:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/se...ml#retroviruses

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the info.

It'll take me awhile to absorb it all. I'm a slow reader.

But I'll be back.....someday

In His name.

[mrs]

Nik,

I am sure you already know this, but I am a young earth creationist so I would say that evolution is not science, and is inherently 'bad'.But that's another topic...

Another thread would probably be a good idea for the thermodynamics,thanks.

If you say to me "it's raining outside" and I look outside and don't see the rain nor do I see the ground wet then I have to say "according to the evidence you're wrong". This thread is about you (not you specifically) claiming that my evidence is wrong because your almanac says it always rains on Friday. You are argueing against the observable. So basically you are presented with facts and instead of providing facts to the contrary you simply deny mine.

That's how I see it anyway. 

Fog, my statement still stands.Irregardless of who is right and who is wrong it was turning into a thread with very little fact and much personal bashing.

Was Jesus not showing love when He rebuked the Pharissees??? Love has different applications, you know???

Halifax,

First, the Pharisees were religious hyprocrites, not agnostics or atheists.Second there is a difference between saying someone is wrong and pointing out why, and just dropping comments about them as a person.

I am not trying to single out the Christians for blame here, it is simply that as Christians we are supposed to hold to a higher standard of conduct.We know that God is the Truth and the truth always wins in the end, so there is not much need to get into circular arguments that go nowhere.

[Anne]

Halifax with regards to your first post,

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Your sister in Jesus Christ

Anne

[fenwar]

If they can tell me how and where everything came from, if they can explain to me creation and cause & effect, if they can explain to me intelligence from unintelligence, if they can explain to me the Laws of Thermodynamics and other Laws of Science, their application to their theories, how these "Laws" came to be, who or what designed them, and a million other questions...

I WILL RENOUNCE JESUS CHRIST AND THE BIBLE.

Only if they proved that "who or what designed them" is some entity other than his Father, I hope...?

Evolution should not give anyone cause for concern about the integrity of their faith. That's the whole reason I'm taking part in this discussion.

Those who want to take the Bible and say "God didn't really mean it when He said" are simply echoing Satan when he asked Eve, "hath God said?"

I'm saying "God didn't mean anything when Moses wrote about six days." Because it was Moses who wrote it... He is a Hebrew in the desert busy leading a disgruntled people and receiving the Law in the presence of God himself. He's got a lot going on. I don't think he really has time to compile much of a history. I think he takes what's important in order to show these people who this God is, how he relates to mankind as a whole and Israel specifically as a nation. And Genesis is still just as vital and true for us today in understanding this relationship.

-F

Edited August 20, 2005 by fenwar

[NITE OWL]

Your information was interesting. But as far as being proof, it falls short. Here's why.

The oldest skull in that collection was 3.3 million years old. The next oldest was 2.6 million years old. 700,000 years separate the two.

The youngest skull was said to be 30,000 years old. 15,000 years separates the youngest from the second youngest.

Does evolution speed up as the years pass? If that is the case, we should look different than the skull that is 30,000 years old.

Two skulls said to be 2.5 million years old look totally different from one another. Which one of those two belong to man? Two other skulls said to be 1.8 million years look nothing alike.

I'm seeing giant holes in your theory. Or fact as you like to call it.

Did the evolution of man only start 3.3 million years ago? Why does man's evoultionary trail only go back 3.3 million years?

I've seen fossils dating back as far as 380 million years. Full body skeletons of 3 inch creatures in stunning detail.

A full body skeleton of a dinosaur that is only 5 inches long and said to be 130 million years old.

How do explain these things? They can find a 3 inch fossil in beautiful detail that is 380 million years old but can't find a full body skeleton of our ancestor's that are only a few million years old.

I've seen fossils of ferns. Surely mans bone's are more rugged then that.

How do you explain soft pliable tissue in things that have dead for 70 million years? Shouldn't they have fossilized?

I'm glad you pushed me into this little expedition. It's been quite the eye opener.

I won't go any further. It would only be insulting you and that is not my intention.

As for fenwar, why do you hide behind the scriptures? If you do not believe we were created by God, come right out and say it. By trying to convince us that evolution is plausible, you are doing the work of the devil. The passage that says "you can not serve two masters" is not just about money. Think about it.

That's about all I have. If you feel the need to call me names, it's ok I understand.

Halifax be patient, I'm working on it. Maybe tonight.

Again as always...In His name.

[Bread_of_Life]

NITE OWL,

The oldest skull in that collection was 3.3 million years old. The next oldest was 2.6 million years old. 700,000 years separate the two.

Erm, not sure I get what you mean. If you look at the graphic labelled "Homonid evolution" (in pink), and the graphic above it, they give the proposed evolution of humans based on known fossil evidence. From what I can see, there are no large missing time gaps, other than a small one between Rudolfensis and Africanus. Other than that, it is a pretty unbroken lineage, with over 14 species discovered spanning a period of 4 million years. This is quite impressive as transitions go.

Also, I think you might be under the mistaken impression that these finds are just one skull a piece, or one fossil a piece. They arn't. Many hundreds of fossils were found to class Autralopithecine Afarensis (Lucy) alone - not just one skeleton, or a few bones. I have a picture I could put online of such finds, just to show you how many and how significant these finds were.

Two skulls said to be 2.5 million years old look totally different from one another. Which one of those two belong to man?

Neither, as you can see from the second graphic on the page, homo-sapiens (us) only appear 50 - 100 thousand years ago. As you can also see, not all the transitional fossils led to us - some likely led to dead ends - Australopithecine Robustus left no surviving descendants, for example - it died out.

Did the evolution of man only start 3.3 million years ago? Why does man's evoultionary trail only go back 3.3 million years?

Firstly, no, our evolution started 3.7 billion years ago, along with the evolution of everything else on the planet. Clearly we're not going to have an unbroken fossil record going all the way back to then!

Secondly, there is a specific reason why we havn't found many fossils of ancient simians - it's because they mostly lived and died in forests, and forests are not the more fertile ground for fossils to be created. Only when those forests receded, forcing our ancestors out onto the plains and shorelines do we start finding many more fossils.

I've seen fossils dating back as far as 380 million years. Full body skeletons of 3 inch creatures in stunning detail.

A full body skeleton of a dinosaur that is only 5 inches long and said to be 130 million years old.

How do explain these things? They can find a 3 inch fossil in beautiful detail that is 380 million years old but can't find a full body skeleton of our ancestor's that are only a few million years old.

Did you know that 99% of the fossil record is of clams and seashells? Why? Because they fossilise more easily, and live on the seafloor.

In fact, most of the remaining 1% are marine fossils - because that is where fossilisation most readily occurs. Unfortunately, this is just a fact of paleontology - the fossil record will never be perfect or complete.

But fortunately, to prove evolution, we don't need it to be complete. In man's case, we have 4 million years of transition fairly well preserved - more than enough to disprove creationism - and more than enough for any fair minded person to conclude that evolution did occur for human beings, and that our ancestors were arboreal (they lived in trees). This along with the other evidences that for some reason you exclude are more than enough to convince anyone of the course of human evolution, anyone with an open mind that is.

How do you explain soft pliable tissue in things that have dead for 70 million years? Shouldn't they have fossilized?

Could you link me into a peer reviewed paper describing this occurence, and then I'll be able to comment on it? By the way, I have asked this many times on this and other Christian forums, and never ever have I got linked into a peer reviewed paper. Could you be the first?

I'm glad you pushed me into this little expedition. It's been quite the eye opener.

For a more detailed look at this, you may want to read "Ape Man" by Robin Mckie, which gives an illustrated tour of human evolution with detailed explanations at each stage, and photographs of major finds.

When I said I could supply photos of the size of finds, this is where I was going to scan the photos from. I'm sure that would be even more of an eye-opener, keep an eye out at your local library for it.

[justme7]

This isn't the order presented in Genesis.

The bible says:

"Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day."

"

Apparantly, that's the first sort of life that came about. One problem, the land wasn't colonised by vegetation until 440 million years ago, in the Ordovician and Silurian ages. That's a full 3.4 billion years after life appeared, and well after fishes.

"And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate

the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."

But hang on, God made vegetation on the third day - but according to the bible the sun was only visible on the forth day. Yet, science would have it that the sun was perfectly visible by 440 million years ago, in fact, it was visible billions of years before that.

And how could the plants survive on the third day without sunlight? After all, plants photosynthesise - surely this means it could only that been a literal day? Whatever the outcome, this order is incorrect according to scientific discovery.

And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

Hang on, sea creatures were first (3.7 Billion years ago) - only to be followed by land vegetation (450 millilon years ago), and then land creatures (400 million years ago), And birds came last of all (170 million years ago)!

At the moment, the bible has it:

Land vegetation -> Sunlight and the moon and the stars -> sea creatures and birds

whereas science has it:

Stars and Sunlight -> Sea creatures -> The moon -> Land vegetation -> Birds

This is totally out of order.

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

And land animals came last? No they didn't, they came before birds, yet here they're on the next day! We have land animals in the fossil record for about 230 million years before the first avian appears - what's up with this?

And by the way, what about Whales? They only appear 55 million years ago - after pretty much everything else? Indeed, Genesis has it that all the creatures of similar habitats appeared in the same age - yet jawed fish appear only after land animals - and Whales and Dolphins are almost modern - evolving from land mammals. How does that fit in?

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Finally, the bible got one thing right - humans did appear last. But it took it long enough. The rest of the order is completely out.

See why people have to do real acrobatics to try to turn this round - or just read the bible non-literally?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

dear atheist,

as much reasoning as one could try to apply to the theory of evolution there remains always one tail-tail fact: apes and monkeys are not currently turning into people; land mammals are not currently turning into sea animals.....if the evolution theory was ever correct, it would also have to be consistent. it doesn't matter who found what fossil, where, and when. the real fact to consider is that men are fallible whereas GOD is not. all the wisdom of mankind pulled together cannot match or touch the all knowing wisdom of GOD.

[NITE OWL]

Just type in "soft tissue/dinosaur" or "latest scientific discoveries" on any search engine. You'll have 100s of 1,000s of websites to choose from. Every major news organization including the BBC covered these stories about the tissue that was found.

Type in "Mary Schweitzer". She's the one how made the discovery.

Anyway, I think I'm done here.

It's been real.

In His name.

[artsylady]

Name a single evolutionary theory (ex dinos to birds) that all evolutionists agree upon.