Creation vs Theory of Evolution
-
Attached are an extract from a recent discussion between fandango and stupidissmart on another forum. This is ported here as it will enable discussion within Eternal Hope.
stupidissmart
============
U don't believe in evolution ? Strange, I thought even christian has accepted tat evolution is true. Even biologists have accepted evolution to be true and it is one of the most important theory for them. Let me ask u a few question then
If evolution do not exists, and if the bible is correct, then surely all men will be from Noah. But now, we see negroes, chinese and caucasians around in the world. How can tat be ? All men should be the same race if we r from a common decendent isn't it ?
If there is no evolution, surely there r million and million of species of animals now. Even for dogs, there r already hundred over species for it. If evolution do not exists, how could they have fitted into Noah ark ? The dimension is given in the scripture itself and it is proven tat just loading all the species of beetles required aan ark 10 times the size. How can tat be ?
If no evolution is around, then r u suggesting tat they pop up suddenly ? One moment before there is no such thing as peacock, suddenly "pop" a few hundred peacocks appeared ! Doesn't tat sound even more absurb ?
Animals have know to have change within their lifetime. U just look at the kind of different viruses around the world and u will realise tat they have the potential of evolving into having different characteristic. Some bacteria are foudn to have the capability of digesting nylon, a man made product only invented recently. u can even hear of news talking about bird flu and SARS an should probably know tat they do change over time, in fact in a very fast manner.
Medical science now have adopted the theory of genetic. If your family tree always have kidney diesease, then most probably u and your decendents will have a higher risk of kidney diesease. singapore have the highest proportion of myopia people in the world. If evolution is not true, then why will this diesease concentrate on a particular region or area ?
Looking at australia, one can realise tat they have a quite different animals there compared with the main land. SEA have almost the same climate and environment as australia isn't it ? Why will tat be the case ? If animals just pop out, then surely it should be normally distributed, with an equal number of koalas found in singapore of kangaroos in malaysia. Why does these animals only found in australia ? If evolution is true, then it will provide a rational answer to it because of the seperation of australia from the mainland. The animals evolved different for such a long time tat they can be seen as distinct species.
If we refer to ancient fossils, we can see tat the animals get more and more complex by time. In the very distant past, the fossils found r relatively simple creatures such as bugs etc. Gradually as the years go by, then do we see animals becoming more and more complex such as developing eyes or growing bigger. Isn't tat a really good evidence tat evolution exists ?
U want more example of evolution we can see in our lives ? BTW I had argues about tis principle in etrnal hope too. If u r interested u can go and read.
please refer to tis website too if u like
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html -
fandango
================
Christians do not believe in the Theory of Evolution. Only Catholics do.
Everyone decended from Noah. The seperation and spreading out of man occured during the Tower of Babel. You can read that in the bible. As for the different looks and features, this is due to the environment that the lived. Remember, by tracing to chronology based on the Bible, the earth is only 6000 years old. Its enough for people to gain sharper nose, deeper-set eyes socket, fairer skin, darker tones. For example, the ang moh have a high, sharp nose because of the cold climate they live in. If you compare Japanese and Singaporeans, Japanese also have sharper noses although we decended from the Chinese. This again attributed to climatic changes. In fact, if you had the chance to visit Africa, you can find native tribes that look exactly like Chinese only with black skin.
Noah, didn't bring ALL animals. He only brought a pair of each species -> bible said so. Also, although bible didn't say this, you may suspect that Noah brought babies instead of adults. Now, take the example of dogs, surely Noah would have only brought the ancestor of all dogs,wolves,fox. Again 6000 years was enough for THAT ancestor of all dogs to mirco-evlove to Chiwawa, Jack Russels, German Shepards, Grey Wolfs, Hunting Foxes. So, the dimension is enough. In fact, many believe that Noah loaded the dinosaurs as well. Baby dinosaurs? Maybe.
Technically, the animals really did popped up - just like that. God say so. For example - giraffe. Do you know that when giraffe drinks water by bowing, the pressure could actually burst their brain and skull. But they didn't. So if Evolution is true, surely as somestage, the kind of horse that giraffe came from (if there is such horse in the first place) would have all died because their head will all pop and all will die. That will mean we will not have giraffe today. But nope, we have giraffes today and we had giraffe since the days of Creation.
Yes animal do change. But thats micro-evolution. Christians accept micro evolution. Micro-evolution is different from evolution. Micro-evolution is the change of an animal to suit and accomodate its surrounding environment. Bacteria and Virus are good examples. So are different species of dogs, cats, horses, monkeys. NOTE THAT THEY STILL REMAINS THE SAME SPECIES. But Evolution is about changing into a different species. The theory stats that man came from:
a small bacteria->a kind of fish->a kind of amphibian->amphibian starts to walk->becomes a kind of mammal->becomes some kind of ape->ape becomes man.
The theory surrounds that at each stage, genetic information was gained and improved. Each '->' represent millions of years but we know that logically, all matter breaks down over time. This is secondary school science. So how could a small bacteria gained so much information to become human when they are supposed to lose information (break down) over time?
Singaporeans have myopia because of the education system and too much TV.
If you study geography you will realised that if you lower depth of the water on the whole earth by 1km (if i remember correctly), you can actually walk from Alaska to Sydney via Europe, Middle East, India, Southeast Asia. So let say the flood in Noahs time ended and all animals are free to go. The kangeroos and koalas and platypus migrated to the then-know Australia because they like the food there as only Australia had that certain kind of trees and plants. Then the ice in the poles stated to melt and the animals see no point moving to other places and PRESTO!, they are found only on the big island of Australia.
I don't think scientist will find the fossils of dinosaours simple. And dinosaurs all HUGE!!! So your point about animals getting more complex and bigger is a non-issue.
Sure, i will like to see if you have more points about evolution. I hope i will be able to counter yours with the bible. -
stupidissmart
=====================
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech
And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter
And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth
And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city
Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth
The passage do not include the skin colors of men. From the passage it only states tat just because men build a tower, they decide to create confusion and mix up their langauage. Tis does not explain why negroes r negroes or chinese chinese etc
For your second part of the reply about people adapting to climate, isn't tat already evolution ? Climatic change bring about changes to men after a long period of time. Tat is evolution isn't it ?
The problem is no matter how u mix and match, u can never come out with chihuahua if u carry a species of bulldog. If they do not bring chihuahua over, they will become extinct. However in the second part, u seems to believe in micro evolution and not macro evolution. BTW, 6000 years is TOO SHORT for an ark of animal to evolve to this stage. Look at the chihuahua and the the biggest dog masttif, can they have evolved within 6000 years ? If tat is true, then how come u do not believe tat wolf or fox evolved to dogs when their physical difference appears to be smaller ?
look like u really do not know wat is evolution. If horse is to evolved into giraffe, they do not become giraffe instantly but over hundred of thousand of years. First the horse have a slightly longer neck whch has only a very slight pressure difference with normal horses, and as generations goes by, the neck become longer and longer and their body adapt more and more to the pressure. In the end they become the giraffe and there will be no "popping" of heads.
U really know little of evolution... bacteria will reproduce, and the changes their parents experience will be pass down to them. After tat this bacteria will experience its life again, adapt and then pass down its newly adapted genes to his decendents. tat is why living things reproduce. After millions of years, bacteria changes after much adaption and becomes a kind of fish. This fish will evolve and become amphibian and so on. If u already beleive in micro evolution, why is it so hard to believe in macro evolution ?
Is because of genetic U think HK people or English people will spend lesser time on education or TV ? Why r there people tat were born myopia then ? Do they watch TV in the womb ?
Frankly tat is pretty dumb... why doesn't the platypus grow on other places ? The soil and environment r similar to SEA, why don't they grow there too ? Anyway your assuptions is a bit hollow... not much water after noah's ark ? Who say tat ? I thought tat is just after the flood ? FYI, these animals do eat other plants other than platypus. Kanagaroo eat grass. Is there no grass in Asia or europe ?
Dinosaur is already a late product of evolution. When I say simple fossils, it is the kind of one cell bug found much before dinosaurs. If any found a dinosaur fossils tat was before the bug, then it can be proved tat evolution was worng. However there was no such evidence found. -
Thank you for listing the scriptures. Yes, the passage did not mention that there was a specific change of color in the skin. However, when you suggested the changing of skin between the europeans, chineses, negros is a form of evolution, i refer you my previous post that this is an example of micro-evolution. This is because there is no change in the species. They are still all man, human.
With regards to Chihuahua (thanks for correcting my spelling), i believe it is possible with cross breeding. You never know because you may event a new animal if you cross breed a Chihuahua with a ChowChow. As far as i know, that hasn't happened yet. You can try. As for the subject of whether wolves and fox came from dogs or the other way around, we may have to consult a zoologist. But i am sure that wolves, fox, dogs, dingoes all have a same ancestor. 6000 years may just be enough.
Back to the giraffe. Your stand is that giraffe came from horses from hundred and thousand of years. My stand is that both giraffe and horses was on the Ark. My question for you here is that if giraffe did micro-evolve (still the same ancestor species), why are they no in betweens now? A so called half giraffe half horse?
I think to believe that a small bacteria evloved to be a fish takes a greater faith than compared to believeing in the Bible.
I agree that some people are born with myopia. This could be a result in an error in the genetic structure caused by external sources throughout the generation of the parents - diet, radiation, sickness, parents with myopia, and so on. But honestly, to just saty on the discussion point, Singaporeans have the highest rate of myopia really is due to the education system and living environment. Imagine kids exposed to computer monitor in kindergarten and primary school. You don't see that so often in country like UK and US, not even less developed country like India, Nepal, Latin Nations, African Nations.
Concerning Australia, if you look in the first chapter in Genesis, you see that God created a firmament in the air. Hey whats that firmament? Here's the theory: Many believe that its like a super duper ozone layer but made with water bodies. (You can do some research here.) When Noah's flood was coming, the bible said that the water came from the sky and from the ground. The 40 days and nights rain could have came from this firmament. When the flood ended, the firmament became very thin and the earth was less protected by the sun like the ozone layer today. So the poles began to melt very quickly seperating the whole chunk of land into different continents. So what happened to the kangeroos and platypus and koalas? I think they would have been to buzy enjoying the food in the then-known australia to be cooncern with the flood.
Again, we need to ask a zoologist about the diet of Kangeroos and Koalas and Platypus. But from the 3 yrs that i was in australia, i learnt they this animals like the climate (4 seasons) and temperature and the bushlands as compared to the tropics in South east asia. So my idea of a correct order would be:
Noah's flood ended -> animals free to roam -> kangeroos, platypus, koalas settled in australia -> poles melting very quickly -> land divided into contigents -> VIOLA! kangeroos, koalas, platypus native to australia.
Logical right?
Now if you ask a geologist (I had!) about how to check the age of a particular bone you found, they will give you this answer:
"Ah, I must check the layer of the soil that it was dug from. From the age of the soil, I can tell you the age of your bones."
This is because layers indicate the years. The top most layer are of course the youngest, some layers are 1000 years old, some 4000 years old, those more than 6000years i really doubt it.
Now here's the amazing part.
If you ask a geologist (i had again) about how to check the age of a particular stone or soil particle you found, they will ask you:
"Ah, I must check the bones that are found in the same type of soil you had. From the age of the bones, you can know the age of your soil.
You see a circular reasoning here?
So what about carbon dating. The "so-called" MOST accurate technique? Nope, it is a fact today that carbon dating produces the most incoherrant dates. In an experiment done in my uni, 6 research groups produced different results in trying to carbon date a rock particle. It ranged from 200 years to a massive 40 million years. The professor said it is normal. He said the researchers will have to refer to a geologist to check the bones age to determin the rock's age. Errmmm.......
Over to you my friend. -
Thank you for listing the scriptures. Yes, the passage did not mention that there was a specific change of color in the skin. However, when you suggested the changing of skin between the europeans, chineses, negros is a form of evolution, i refer you my previous post that this is an example of micro-evolution. This is because there is no change in the species. They are still all man, human.
For ape to evolve into men, do u consider it to be macro or micro evolution ?With regards to Chihuahua (thanks for correcting my spelling), i believe it is possible with cross breeding. You never know because you may event a new animal if you cross breed a Chihuahua with a ChowChow. As far as i know, that hasn't happened yet. You can try. As for the subject of whether wolves and fox came from dogs or the other way around, we may have to consult a zoologist. But i am sure that wolves, fox, dogs, dingoes all have a same ancestor. 6000 years may just be enough.
Nope, u can't cross breed for a pedegree. No matter how u mix and match, only a chihuahua with a chihuahua will give birth to a chihuahua. Tat is why pedegree r more expensive
They all have a common ancester, but they have evolved into a new breed of animals. Since u believe tat micro evolution exists, and microevolution may already varies a lot, why is it hard to believe tat macro evolution occurs ? It is just how u calssified the group of anbimals isn't it ?Back to the giraffe. Your stand is that giraffe came from horses from hundred and thousand of years. My stand is that both giraffe and horses was on the Ark. My question for you here is that if giraffe did micro-evolve (still the same ancestor species), why are they no in betweens now? A so called half giraffe half horse?
FYI, when u see both giraffe and horses on the ark, it jus means the person drawing the comics picture tis scenario. For evolution, we do not really see in between. On most occasions, unless a group of tis species of animals get seperated from each other due to terrain, then will they be evolved differently. If they r not seperated, due to the many years needed for evolution and interbreed, the whole species of animal will evolved together, and no in between can be seen.I think to believe that a small bacteria evloved to be a fish takes a greater faith than compared to believeing in the Bible.
why not ? If life was to start without any supernatural intervention, it is natural tat it will start simple, like a bacteria. U acknowledge tat micro evolution can occur, and it can be drastic. Why will it be difficult to comprehend tat given time and manay many generation, a bacteria may become men.I agree that some people are born with myopia. This could be a result in an error in the genetic structure caused by external sources throughout the generation of the parents - diet, radiation, sickness, parents with myopia, and so on. But honestly, to just saty on the discussion point, Singaporeans have the highest rate of myopia really is due to the education system and living environment. Imagine kids exposed to computer monitor in kindergarten and primary school. You don't see that so often in country like UK and US, not even less developed country like India, Nepal, Latin Nations, African Nations.
It has been argued tat genetic do play a part in peopel being born myopia. If u do not want to mention myopia then I can still name 100 of diesease tat was shown to be genetic. U know wat is Thalassamia ? It is known to be genetic and a person will only have it if one of their parents have it. Isn't tat a clear proof of effects of genetic ? It is used to concentrate on the mediterrian sea region or hokkien province in china in the past, thus regionalise is true. Anyway tis is meant to illustrate evolution do occurs, but since u believe in it, then it is pointless to talk about itConcerning Australia, if you look in the first chapter in Genesis, you see that God created a firmament in the air. Hey whats that firmament? Here's the theory: Many believe that its like a super duper ozone layer but made with water bodies. (You can do some research here.) When Noah's flood was coming, the bible said that the water came from the sky and from the ground. The 40 days and nights rain could have came from this firmament. When the flood ended, the firmament became very thin and the earth was less protected by the sun like the ozone layer today. So the poles began to melt very quickly seperating the whole chunk of land into different continents. So what happened to the kangeroos and platypus and koalas? I think they would have been to buzy enjoying the food in the then-known australia to be cooncern with the flood.
Tat is very very very far fetch if u ask me... first the main idea of why there is a firmament is because god do not want to live on earth with us but in his heaven so he seperate his dwelling place from us. Tat is it ! I can also say the firmament can be air, can be space, can be toptosphere, stratpsphere, rain clouds, rainbow anything ! Unless u can see heaven on the other side of ozone, then it just doesn't link ! I have heard of a muslim saying tat is the scripture they mention something about ant sh!t and he say tat is the proof tat quran know about atom or molecule before science !
And frankly, ozone is 03. It is formed when ultraviolet lights hit O2 or normal oxygen and it disintegrate to form O. It will react with another O2 and become O3. Water is not involved in it at all and water will not be formed from it either. Therefore your theory doesn't workAgain, we need to ask a zoologist about the diet of Kangeroos and Koalas and Platypus. But from the 3 yrs that i was in australia, i learnt they this animals like the climate (4 seasons) and temperature and the bushlands as compared to the tropics in South east asia. So my idea of a correct order would be:
They like the climate because they had evolved to suit the climate. Australia climate is not very special either, R u sure it cannot be found in other part of the world ?Noah's flood ended -> animals free to roam -> kangeroos, platypus, koalas settled in australia -> poles melting very quickly -> land divided into contigents -> VIOLA! kangeroos, koalas, platypus native to australia.
frankly... tat is pretty... never mind.. anyway Noah flood ended, animals free to roam, they can roam anywhere, climate in australia not tat special and it appears to be too far from the landing spot, why will they go there ? If they don't eat anything before they reach australia, they will starved to death. In fact kiolas is not suppose to travel on land, how could they have travel to australia ?
BTW if u say tat "firmament" is very thin during flood, then the poles should be water at tat time, because u claim tat temperature will be higher, making it lesser ice volume than normal. When the flood ended, the "firmament" should be back to normal, tmp drop and poles will start to be ice again, tat will reduce the water around further. No sudden surge of water can be found in your theory. Viola ! Your theory fails. And of course it is something u imagine out... people can come out with other crap theories u know... tat is why science believes in verification.Now if you ask a geologist (I had!) about how to check the age of a particular bone you found, they will give you this answer:
u have obviously found the wrong person to ask. To found out how to trace the age of bones, they use carbon dating.
"Ah, I must check the layer of the soil that it was dug from. From the age of the soil, I can tell you the age of your bones."So what about carbon dating. The "so-called" MOST accurate technique? Nope, it is a fact today that carbon dating produces the most incoherrant dates. In an experiment done in my uni, 6 research groups produced different results in trying to carbon date a rock particle. It ranged from 200 years to a massive 40 million years. The professor said it is normal. He said the researchers will have to refer to a geologist to check the bones age to determin the rock's age. Errmmm.......
Carbon dating is the still the most dependable method for assessing age up till 50,000 years of an artifact and it remains so till tis day. U can say tat certain events have triggered an inaccuracy of the readings of carbon dating, but improvement have been made to the system such as a calibration table and accelerator dating to reduce the errors. Further more the new events seems to have occured recently and does not affect things tat were dead before 1940. It can certainly prove tat fossils or dinosaur bones r more than 50,000 years old.
I don't know wat happened to your University, but scientist conduct carbon dating in a controlled environment, with a chart of figures and formula to compared with. If u say carbon dating do not work , they can rely on other radioactive material like Uranium-238, Thorium-232, and Potassium-40 to check its authencity. -
I am a creationist that believe in micro evolution. That is why we are all different from our parents. However, i dont believe man comes from monkey, which is macro evolution cos we are just different species. And most of the time, when we discuss evolution, it is the latter which i dont believe in.
-
firstlu, myopia being influenced by genetics is not fully proven. there are reports about myopia being influenced by environemnt too.
secondly, SEA and australia having the same climate?? SEA is tropics.. i don't think australia is..
anyway, back to the topic. there are many school of beliefs regarding evolution amongst Christians. some do not believe in evolution. some believe in creation and divine intervention in evolution. and a few others.
i personally belief that science has proven that animals adapt to the environment.
but i still belief in creation. if you belief in a god that is all-powerful.. then yes, things can just 'pop' out of nowhere upon his word. and he'd surely make living things to be dynamic enough to adapt to the ever changing environment. if we can't adapt or the animals can't adapt, then they'd go extinct.. just as some had become extinct.. -
if evolution works, why are there still monkeys?
-
those monkeys chose the 'do not evolve' box in the option form God gave them.Originally posted by the Bear:if evolution works, why are there still monkeys?
-
they forgot to shave?Originally posted by the Bear:if evolution works, why are there still monkeys?
-
the theory of evolution can co-exist with the presence of monkeys in our modern day history because man is not linearly descended from present-day monkeys but from an ancestral branch of the hominid family 2.5 million years ago in the afaransis region of africa, that is in the great rift area of tanzania. this is where micro-climatic changes to the environment altering predominantly wetlands to savanna grassland assisted the early hominids to descend from the trees and become hunter-gatherers. bipedalism arose on account of the fact that when foraging for roots and vegetation on the ground, bipedalism conferred an advantage in locomotion over distance and greater over-the-horizon capability than had humans walked on knuckles as orang-utans, bonobos and chimpanzees, the nearest human relatives, still do today.
therefore modern branches of the hominid family can clearly co-exist with related descendants who have not evolved if we can choose to use this word, to modern human form. however, do not think of evolution as a preordained path from lower to higher organism structure but as a blind watchmaker who has absolutely no control over the development of organism in the hyperspace of life. -
I am a creationist that believe in micro evolution. That is why we are all different from our parents. However, i dont believe man comes from monkey, which is macro evolution cos we are just different species. And most of the time, when we discuss evolution, it is the latter which i dont believe in.
Why is twin similar then ? god want to save trouble so he decide to cut and paste the DNA ? I am sure u have some of your mum and dad features too. Don't tell me u don't look like them at all... I am pretty sure your dad look like his dad and mum and so on and so forth. People have a higher probability of receiving certain organs like kidneys and liver from members of the same family too ? Why will tat be the case other than genetic ? U r different from your parents is just a good evidence tat he has sort of pass his evolved genes to u. Why do u think is the purpose of reproduction ? I am sure the bible do not really give a good explanation of it. Why don't god just pop out children from nowhere or let trees give birth to human from his fruits instead ? Why don't god just stop killing people and stop letting people give birth ? The number of people just stay constant ? If u r gonna tell me about adam story, then all I can say is tat story appaears to be pretty weak in explaining these situation, i.e. it seems more likely tat death and giving birth is here then they explain the reason by using those stories instead.
There r bones found on the different ages for evolution of men. Why don't u believe in it ? They even found a monkey walking upright now. Why is it unbelievable ?secondly, SEA and australia having the same climate?? SEA is tropics.. i don't think australia is..
I am sure australia climate is similar to new guinea or certain part of indonesia. I am sure some part of northen asia or north america, south america or africa has similar climate. It is not specialbut i still belief in creation. if you belief in a god that is all-powerful.. then yes, things can just 'pop' out of nowhere upon his word. and he'd surely make living things to be dynamic enough to adapt to the ever changing environment. if we can't adapt or the animals can't adapt, then they'd go extinct.. just as some had become extinct..
the question is do u believe in apes evolved into men ? Do u believe the origin of life start off with a single cell thingy ? -
nopeOriginally posted by stupidissmart:the question is do u believe in apes evolved into men ? Do u believe the origin of life start off with a single cell thingy ? -
I thought there is substantial evidence tat men were evolved from apes... why do u not believe in it ?
-
urm, i post somewhere b4, but the main point is this
man and apes share the same ancestor, not man evolved from apes..
I go find out more.... -
I suppose SIS mean homo sapien evolved from some ape-like creature.
-
substantial evidence?
there's still the so-called "missing link", no? -
Wat do u mean by the missing link ?
-
Apologies for the late reply as i wasn't able to commit a lot of time lately.
The first question that you posted was if i consider if it's micro evolution if ape is to evolve to man. My answer for this is that I do not believe it's micro evolution because they are two different species, Man and Apes. Micro evolution only occurs within the same species.
I think the both of us have come to a halting point with regards to our Chihuahua. Nonetheless within the dog, wolves and fox family, it is still a clear indication of micro-evolution. I agree that a pedigree is expensive and is of pure breed. Well, something came to my mind, something more local. We have this cat called the Singapura Cat. From my understanding it was cross bred from two different types of cats. But today we are able to produce a pedigree Singapura Cat.
My beliefs that the horse and the giraffe are on the Ark did not came from a picture drawn by an artist. In fact, i believe that the T-Rex and triceratops were with the horse and that giraffe on the ark too. Nobody seems to draw that anyway. Today, we still are able to see African Wild Horses along with the giraffes so i am not too sure why all the horses didn;t "evolve" into giraffe in the way that you explained.
For a bacteria to become a human, it should invlove alot of complex changes in the molecular structure right? I would like to know what became more complexed? The DNA? The Chromosomes? Need your opinion here.
Once again, i am not denying there is genetic inheritance. But this does not explain evolution right? Do correct me, but it seems like comparing apples with oranges.
Now, concerning the firmament, it may sound silly but this idea is not far fetched at all. Do consider Gen. 1:6&7, Psalms 148:4 and II Peter 3:5. If this "firmament" or the watery canopy (ozone layer) is true, it really explains everything. Let me list some of the interesting points.
1. In the bible, the 40 days and nights rain in Noah's Flood was the first time it ever rained.
2. Before the flood, the people lived really really looonnnngg...900+ years.
3. You know the biggest land dinosaur with the long long neck? It was found that it's nostrils is the same size as today's horse. Infact many huge dinosaurs have small nostrils. Wouldn't they suffocate?
4. There was virtually no mountains, no ocean before the flood. Maybe there was only 20% water on earth.
With the canopy, the air was excellent at that time. This would explain why people can live such long lives and dinosaurs can breathe with such small nostrils. When the flood came, water fell from the canopy and burst out from the ground (this would have cause the mountains, far fetched? maybe. Probable? Maybe.) You must understand this is a global flood not a local one. When the canopy is gone, the ozygen in the air became not so excellent, just like today, killing the dinosaurs, shortening the life span of human, and melting the ice poles. The melting of ice poles could have taken 200 years, enough time for the koalas to travel to Australia in a 100 years. You should see how active they are on the ground at night!
You say that my theory is crap because there is no verification, but you have to say evolution is crap too because there is no way to verify that as well. Where did the first living organism came from? Why don't we see any occurance of macro evolution today? In a sense, evolution totally defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I am sure you are aware that Carbon, and all other radioactive, dating methods are made with a lot of assumptions. One major assumption is that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.
Logically, if radioactive dating gives so many mistakes, how would you know genuinely which one is correct and which is wrong. In fact, scientist no longer dates dinosaurs bone with radioactive dating because all the results that they got does not match the dates they were found based on the "which layer of soil was the bone found" theory. This is really a big question mark. -
The first question that you posted was if i consider if it's micro evolution if ape is to evolve to man. My answer for this is that I do not believe it's micro evolution because they are two different species, Man and Apes. Micro evolution only occurs within the same species.
Then how do u explain the bones tat were found of a period of time where ape formed from men ?I think the both of us have come to a halting point with regards to our Chihuahua. Nonetheless within the dog, wolves and fox family, it is still a clear indication of micro-evolution. I agree that a pedigree is expensive and is of pure breed. Well, something came to my mind, something more local. We have this cat called the Singapura Cat. From my understanding it was cross bred from two different types of cats. But today we are able to produce a pedigree Singapura Cat.
Singapura cat is not a pedegree. Since u believe major change can occur for animals, why can't u believe tat macro evolution can occur ? Does the cat and dog differs greatly ? Know of an animal called hyena ? It appears to be something between a wolf and a leopard.
http://www.nature.ca/notebooks/english/hyena.htm
The changes from a leopard to a hyena to a wolf appears to be lesser than the changes of a chihuahua to a pit bull terrier.
If u believe in microevolution, u r close to believe in macro. Why ? Because the only difference is how u classify the animal.My beliefs that the horse and the giraffe are on the Ark did not came from a picture drawn by an artist. In fact, i believe that the T-Rex and triceratops were with the horse and that giraffe on the ark too. Nobody seems to draw that anyway. Today, we still are able to see African Wild Horses along with the giraffes so i am not too sure why all the horses didn;t "evolve" into giraffe in the way that you explained.
T rex or triceratops of watever dinosaurs r not suppose to be found together with human. Dinosaurs extinct before men r found.
If it is not drawn by an artist, then where do u get the idea of giraffe being part of the ark ? Does the bible says giraffe is part of the ark ?
As I said before, when the animals get seperated or isolated geographically, then they will evolved into different animals themselves. U believe in microevolution isn't it ? Then why doesn't the chihuahua evolved into pitbull terrier ?For a bacteria to become a human, it should invlove alot of complex changes in the molecular structure right? I would like to know what became more complexed? The DNA? The Chromosomes? Need your opinion here.
I am not really a scientist here but I do believe the DNA will change over time and generations. HOwever some fundamental portion of the DNA remain the sameBefore the flood, the people lived really really looonnnngg...900+ years.
And so the bible claims. But men have never lived for more than 900 years scientificallyYou know the biggest land dinosaur with the long long neck? It was found that it's nostrils is the same size as today's horse. Infact many huge dinosaurs have small nostrils. Wouldn't they suffocate?
Men and dinosaurs don't live in the same age. Only after dinosaurs extinct then does men start appearing. On the fact whether does dinosaurs have small notrils, maybe u can direct me to a website tat I can read upon. If it is true, why doesn't other animals or men have small nostrils too ? BTW worms (worm breath through their skin) and cockroach have small nostrils too. Do they die here ?There was virtually no mountains, no ocean before the flood. Maybe there was only 20% water on earth.
Who says so ? There r many evidence tat mountains or the sea r there for more than 10,000 years.With the canopy, the air was excellent at that time. This would explain why people can live such long lives and dinosaurs can breathe with such small nostrils.
I got to reiterate tat dinosaurs r never found alive with men. And whether the air was excellent or not is your own... theory... No scientific fact points to tis either.When the flood came, water fell from the canopy and burst out from the ground (this would have cause the mountains, far fetched? maybe. Probable? Maybe.)
No probable at all. The mountains r already much older than the flood.You must understand this is a global flood not a local one. When the canopy is gone, the ozygen in the air became not so excellent, just like today, killing the dinosaurs, shortening the life span of human, and melting the ice poles.
Tis again is your assumption or theory. Has air becomes worse after the flood ? No such envidence r present. It only get worse after the industrial revolution. Does small nostrils kill dinosaurs ? Impossible too since the lungs or oxgen-drawing organ r more important than the size of the notrils. Shortening of life span ? Noah seemed to live till very old too. Melting ice poles ? Why will icepoles melt in 2000 years and not 2 months ? If conditions requires ice poles to melt it should almost instananeous. Who ever say tat it need a long time ?The melting of ice poles could have taken 200 years, enough time for the koalas to travel to Australia in a 100 years. You should see how active they are on the ground at night
Koalas never leave the encalyptus tree. They can't travel at all.You say that my theory is crap because there is no verification, but you have to say evolution is crap too because there is no way to verify that as well. Where did the first living organism came from? Why don't we see any occurance of macro evolution today? In a sense, evolution totally defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
U r right, your theory is crap and there is no verification. Evolution is not since they had provided the necessary evidence and symptoms. From start of civilisation till now, it is a mere 2000 years compared to the necessary millions. There have been observed changes in the fauna or flora of the world since them. New species of creatures r being founded now and then too. Maybe if human civilisation last for another million years, then u will start to see macroevolutionI am sure you are aware that Carbon, and all other radioactive, dating methods are made with a lot of assumptions. One major assumption is that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.
The rate of decay is confirmed constant. There is never any observation tat it do not do so. The increase is due to industralisation, but tis does not affect beings dead before 1950. Tat is why they need to use tables or plot to refer to it. There r other radioactive materia tat can be used too. Wat r wrong with them ?Logically, if radioactive dating gives so many mistakes, how would you know genuinely which one is correct and which is wrong. In fact, scientist no longer dates dinosaurs bone with radioactive dating because all the results that they got does not match the dates they were found based on the "which layer of soil was the bone found" theory. This is really a big question mark.
Even christians tat were against radioactive dating method cannot deny it is accurate for at least 50,000 years. Although we cannot say dinosaur bones r millions of years, we can safely say they r at least 50,000 years old. Noah flood occur at 6000 years. -
Ever considered that the so-called bones of the apes are hoax. Lucy, one of the more pominent missing-link, was certified as a hoax. The skeletons were collection of different animals, skull of a ape, jaw bones of a pig, skeletons of human. Even the Peking Man is a hoax. So technically, there is still no evidence of a evolution in-between of a ape and human.
Again, technically the Singapura Cat is not a pedigree in it's origin. But today you can buy a pedigree Singapura Cat. This is a fact.
The link you provided didn't mention anything about hyena evolving from leopard. From all the angles, the hyena still looks like a wolf/dog to me. To change a leopard to a hyena, that's macro evloution because you are changing an animal from a Cat species to a Dog species. But a Chihuahua from a Pit Bull Terrier is more probable. Dog to Dog. Micro Evolution. Christians will agree to that.
I think there are evidence of human existing with dinosaurs. Human footprints have been found walking alongside dinosaur footprint. Chihuahua will be hard to micro evloved to a pit bull because the Chihuahua will not be able to gain genetic information. Once again, in micro evolution or mutation, you can only lose genetic information, you cannot gain. Pit Bull is a closer relative to the wolf as Chihuahua is really at the bottom of the family chart.
I am not a scientist too! But really to change from an ape to a man needs a change in DNA. But Evolution stats that we become more intelligent. I did a little search and found that human have 46 chromosomes. Our so-called closest relative, the Chimps have 48 chromosomes. So did we became more intelligent than the chimp? Are the chimp more evolved than us? In fact the chicken is even more evloved than us and the chimp based on chromosomes count - 78, almost twiced as intelligent. You see the controversy?
80% of Tribal people living in the ranges of Himalayas live past 105 years old. Human do have the capability to live to grand old age.
Many sites contains information about the very strange fact that dinosaurs have such nostrils relative to their size and their lungs. you can google it if you have the time. Again earthworms and croaches can still live because of the relative to their size.
Hmm...proof that mountains are 10,000 years old?
Noah was already very very old when the flood occured. We are seeing the poles melting today too but not at a very fast rate. Yet it is still melting. i found information about how deep the ocean need to drop in depth to allow us to walk all over the world, its only 100 feet.
Nope the rate of decay is not constant. And although something can measure an age of something up to 50,000 years, it doesn;t mean that there has to be something which is 50,000 years old. -
Dear all,
There will be a Creation Seminar on the coming Saturdays of August held at Singapore Post Conference Room Level 5.
Speaker is Dr Vincent Chia
7pm - 9pm.
Topics discussed:
1) The young earth 7th August
2) Evolutionary Biology and Genetics 14th August
3) Geology and Biblical Flood- 21st August
4) Human Evolution and dinoraur 28th August -
thanks ahtong! i think that'll be useful =)
-
First I will put in this part of reply which fandango had missed out
Someone comment before tat there was no bones for evolution between the ages. he is wrong. One of the most documented species tat had bones to show the different stages of evolution is human. Haven't u seen the news where bones of semi-man semi-ape bones being dug out ? In fact one can see the difference in the skull over the ages.
http://www.chineseprehistory.org//pics2.htm
http://www.chineseprehistory.org//pics3.htm
http://www.chineseprehistory.org//pics5.htm
http://www.chineseprehistory.org//pics6.htm
So when apes evolve to men, is it micro evolution or macro evolution ?
There are also transition bones found for reptiles evolved till birds too.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html#fig3.1.1
They even found several flightless dinosaurs covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds)
In fact bones for transitional stages has been found for reptiles tat evolved to mammals. They even found many bones transtition tat whales r actually evolved from land mammals.
If evolution is false, then if a set of bones which do not fit into the period of evolution, like a late stage of human was found older than an early stage of human, then the whole theory of men evolved from apes will be thrown off. Up till now, these human-ape bones are found to follow the timeline tat was plotted by scientists.
Another argument is anatomical atavisms. Wat is tat ?
An atavism is the reappearance of a lost character specific to a remote evolutionary ancestor and not observed in the parents or recent ancestors of the organism displaying the atavistic character. Atavisms have several essential features: (1) presence in adult stages of life, (2) absence in parents or recent ancestors, and (3) extreme rarity in a population In short, there r some occurances of mutation where a part, which should belong to previous evolution stages start to appear on him. As a hypothetical example, if mutant horses occasionally displayed gills, this would be considered a potential atavism, since gills are diagnostic of taxa
One example is the appearence of atavism on whales. Hind limb is found on living whales. In fact many instances were found on whales having hindlegs since 1930. Human too have been found to have "tails"
Another good evidence tat proves human was evolved from apes is the location where the early hominid bones were found. Why does almost all the early human fossils found in africa, where great apes were located. We do not expect to ever find any Australopithicus, Ardipithecus, or Kenyanthropus fossils in Australia, North America, South America, Antarctica, Siberia, or on any oceanic islands removed from Africa. Any such findings would be catastrophically problematic for the theory of common descent. However no such fossils were found
In fact I get most of the technical ideas from the below website, named 29 evidence of macroevolution. please refer to the website for more details
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1 -
Ever considered that the so-called bones of the apes are hoax. Lucy, one of the more pominent missing-link, was certified as a hoax. The skeletons were collection of different animals, skull of a ape, jaw bones of a pig, skeletons of human. Even the Peking Man is a hoax. So technically, there is still no evidence of a evolution in-between of a ape and human.
I believe there r tons of bones out there which r not hoax. I expected some people to come out with bogus bones for thsi evolution, but then the other few huindreds r genuine. So because of a hoax set of bones u decide to knock down all the claims of the others ? Technically, a link has been formed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html
here is more about lucy if u r interested in itThe link you provided didn't mention anything about hyena evolving from leopard. From all the angles, the hyena still looks like a wolf/dog to me. To change a leopard to a hyena, that's macro evloution because you are changing an animal from a Cat species to a Dog species. But a Chihuahua from a Pit Bull Terrier is more probable. Dog to Dog. Micro Evolution. Christians will agree to that.
The link I provided is just to show a picture on how hyena look. The difference between the look of a hybrid between a leopard and a wolf appears to be like hyena than the look between a chihuahua and a pit bull. If u believe tat evolution brought the difference between the pitbull and chihuahua, then why is it difficult to visualise tat leopard may evolved to become more wolf like, which is hyena before they evolved into leopards ?
BTW I put in the example of hyena because u r asking for in-between evolution for horse and giraffe. I give u an example of an in-between for a leopard and wolfI think there are evidence of human existing with dinosaurs. Human footprints have been found walking alongside dinosaur footprint. Chihuahua will be hard to micro evloved to a pit bull because the Chihuahua will not be able to gain genetic information. Once again, in micro evolution or mutation, you can only lose genetic information, you cannot gain. Pit Bull is a closer relative to the wolf as Chihuahua is really at the bottom of the family chart.
http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/footprints.htm
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htm
Because of this evidence the film Footprints in Stone was removed from circulation. Dr. John Morris wrote Impact article 151 (1986) stating "none of the four tails at the Taylor site can be today regarded as unquestionably human."
In here they say tat the print found in one of the site is hoax.. it is declared to be dinosaur print, just tat the 3 toes prints have been washed by erosion. It appears to be too large for men too. In part of the trails which they say r "men" it is found tat sudden appearence of dinosaur digit are found on it. Why will tat be the case ?
I do not say tat these 2 (chihuahua & pitbull) will evolved into the same kind, but whether have they come from the same ancesters. If both pitbull and chihua comes from same ancesters, then why do u think the leopard and dog do not come from the same ancesters too.I am not a scientist too! But really to change from an ape to a man needs a change in DNA. But Evolution stats that we become more intelligent. I did a little search and found that human have 46 chromosomes. Our so-called closest relative, the Chimps have 48 chromosomes. So did we became more intelligent than the chimp? Are the chimp more evolved than us? In fact the chicken is even more evloved than us and the chimp based on chromosomes count - 78, almost twiced as intelligent. You see the controversy?
No one says tat having more chrosomes = more smarter. No one says tat being tat were more evolved will turn out to be smarter either. In the survival for fitness, the cockroach may be more evolved than a dodo, but it still has a smaller size than dodo isn't it ? Living things evolved differently to a different direction. Not being as smart as human just means human has taken a different step compared with the other animals. Birds can fly and fish can swim, does it means flying animals r more advance than swimming one ?80% of Tribal people living in the ranges of Himalayas live past 105 years old. Human do have the capability to live to grand old age.
Is there any tribal men tat lived beyond 200 ?Many sites contains information about the very strange fact that dinosaurs have such nostrils relative to their size and their lungs. you can google it if you have the time. Again earthworms and croaches can still live because of the relative to their size.
earthworm breath through their skin and the ration on the size of pores on their skin is smaller compared with the ration of the size nostrils for dinosaursHmm...proof that mountains are 10,000 years old?
since u r not going to believe in radio dating, then how about tis one
In spite of MorrisÂ’ heroic effort to reinterpret the Petrified Forest of Yellowstone Park, the evidence is clear that a nearby volcano buried 27 forests on top of each other. Some of the trees have up to 400 rings. It took about 20,000 years for this to form (Weber 1980, 2
. Noah was already very very old when the flood occured. We are seeing the poles melting today too but not at a very fast rate. Yet it is still melting. i found information about how deep the ocean need to drop in depth to allow us to walk all over the world, its only 100 feet.
Noah lived for another 350 years after the flood isn't it ?
It is melting due to men, not natural. Tat is why there is the issue of global warming or ozone depletion isn't it ? If we consider only natural effect, then it takes million of years, not 2000 for the ice to melt to cover 100 feet.Nope the rate of decay is not constant. And although something can measure an age of something up to 50,000 years, it doesn;t mean that there has to be something which is 50,000 years old.
It is constant... it can measure things up till 50,000 years, after which it will be less accurate. Even though we cannot confirm the exact figures for dinosaur bones, it is still greater than 50,000.