Creation vs Theory of Evolution
-
umm I'm not sure ape and primate means the same. and also, that calculation was done in the 1800s so I dont think its all correct. I've read about it and i'm pretty sure earth is about the same age as the sun. infact all planets were formed at approximately the same period. if anything, they are probably slightly younger than the sun, which doesnt make a difference compared to the 45 billion years of the sun's age.Originally posted by stupidissmart:http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/ita/05_2.shtml
This age seemed reasonable, considering that the Sun should have burned out if it were much older, and that a planet should be younger than its star.
Star of solar = sun, planets= venus, mercury etc including earth
According to the theory on how the solar system is formed, the sun must formed first before the other planets such as earth.
Anyway for me, ape = primate... I used to thought tat apes r a group of animals tat resembles monkey, gorillas etc. I will take note of using the proper term now. -
The traditional Jewish understanding (before modern science) tells us the age before and the age after Adam was created is different.
?? from where in the scripture can they safely say tat ?
r u a jew ? -
I check the dictionary
primate means monkey-like animals
ape means monkey-like animals without tail
thus ape is a subset of primate.
To be safe, I guess i just use the word primate -
ok then, but humans did not come from apes in the sense that we used to be "monkey like animals" humans used to be homo erectus, which is human with a lot os hair and short legs and stuff and I think you can picture it, but thats not "ape". before that, we might have shared an ancestor with chimps. but chimps and monkeys are definitely NOT our ancestors.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I check the dictionary
primate means monkey-like animals
ape means monkey-like animals without tail
thus ape is a subset of primate.
To be safe, I guess i just use the word primate -
4.5, not 45.Originally posted by the.raven:if anything, they are probably slightly younger than the sun, which doesnt make a difference compared to the 45 billion years of the sun's age.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
From common sense? Let's use a most literal reading and put yourself in the shoes of a Bedouin wandering in the desert.
[b]?? from where in the scripture can they safely say tat ?
b]
Ask yourself these questions:
1. When was the sun created? No doubt you will say day one. Or day two. Or day three. It doesn't matter here actually.
2. Then read Genesis 1:14 - 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".
3. Hahahaha. Have a good laugh first. If there were nothing to mark "seasons and days and years", how come we see "And there was evening, and there was morning-the X day" three times before verse 14? -
The AnswerInGenesis site did explain about the legs of the whale and the myths surrounding it so it speaks for itself.
I don't think there is a literal leg coming out from the reproductive system. Although you said that there are toes like organs, i didn't read of the account in the 29+ evidence website. However, the 29+ evidence website does acknowledge that it is due to the genetic mutation not an evolutionary sequence. I am sure you come across people with finger like structure growing just infront of their ear right? Genetic yes. Evolution, dun think so.
I thought i seperated the tail and the tailbone into two seperate paragraphs to allow the differentation on the topic. Anyway, i pop by the site you recommanded and found this comment:
"A well-developed tail is characteristic of the human embryo in the second month. Ususally during the third month the tail regresses and disappears as an anatomic external feature. Occasionally the tail persists and grows with the rest of the body. Tails as long as 23 cm have been reported"
There's no account of this as an evolutionary evidence. Again this is genetic and thus it compiles to your theory that this mutation only falls on a certain line of family. But human were suppose to outgrow this "tail" during the embryotic stage, not removing it like you said.
If the Flood did happen, there will definately be seasonal changes.
I don't think any physics scientist will say the radioactive dating can give 99% accuracy.
They gave nobel peace price to Araafat but i dun think he created any peace. But i agree that carbon dating is a revelation but its accuracy is still contested, not only between evolutionist and creationist, but between scientists.
With so many loopholes in the theory of evolution, if you consider creationism as a religion, i think evolutionism can be classified as evolution.
One last thing, i think that even without the Theory of Evolution, biology, physics, chemstry, astonomy and all fields of science can still function and serve their purpose today. Remember all of them were started even before the Theory was brought about by Charles Darwin. -
Whether evolved or not, what is more important is to know that man was made in the image of God. And that we all should respect one another, because God lives in everyone of us.
-
Originally posted by fandango:
The AnswerInGenesis site did explain about the legs of the whale and the myths surrounding it so it speaks for itself.
[b]oh my god, answers in genesis site, that website is full of BullShit, you got all your info from there?? Holy Shit. nothing from that site should be believed because it is totally unreliable and made-up.
I don't think any physics scientist will say the radioactive dating can give 99% accuracy.
so?
They gave nobel peace price to Araafat but i dun think he created any peace. But i agree that carbon dating is a revelation but its accuracy is still contested, not only between evolutionist and creationist, but between scientists.
what contested between scientists? all scientists accept it please.
With so many loopholes in the theory of evolution, if you consider creationism as a religion, i think evolutionism can be classified as evolution.
what loopholes? what classify as evolution??? make sense please. and speaking about loopholes, the things in the bible are more unbelievable.
One last thing, i think that even without the Theory of Evolution, biology, physics, chemstry, astonomy and all fields of science can still function and serve their purpose today. Remember all of them were started even before the Theory was brought about by Charles Darwin.
so? the purpose of studying science is to understand how things work. and theory of evolution is a good explaination for a lot of things. why would anyone want to do without the theory of evolution, its like "earth is in the center of the universe!!!! look at that lunatic saying that earth orbits the sun!"
[/b] -
ok then, but humans did not come from apes in
Homo erectus is a bot too near to human liao. Wat I meant is before human eretus. The ancient ancestors r believed to walk on 4, have a tail and damn lot of hairs. Chimps and monkeys r not our ancesters but u can picture it as something similar and bigger
the sense that we used to be "monkey like animals"
humans used to be homo erectus, which is human with a
lot os hair and short legs and stuff and I think you
can picture it, but thats not "ape". before that, we
might have shared an ancestor with chimps. but chimps
and monkeys are definitely NOT our ancestors.if anything, they are probably slightly younger
the order is the most important. Whether is it younger
than the sun, which doesnt make a difference compared
to the 45 billion years of the sun's age.
by even a day, it just meant the order is wrongAnd God made the two great lights; the greater
He specifically say tat he made the sun and moon on
light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule
the night: he made the stars also.
the fourth day. Before tat it is just light and
darkness. Now we r talking about sun, not lightThe AnswerInGenesis site did explain about the
I am asking u. Why will a whale without a leg grow a leg out ? Mutation can only occurs on body parts tat we have. U can grow a finger out of your eye or 1000 eyes on your face and it is mutation. U agree with me on tis part ? If u do not have this part or organ in part of your body, u can't possibly mutate it. If u grow a horn, fin or have a tail, which a human shouldn't have, it means tat these body parts r "hidden" from wat normal human look like. In other words, the most logical explanation is tat we human used to have these body parts in our genes before, tat is why it is possible to mutate it out in our body. Otherwise why will a whale have toes when it shouldn't have it in the first place ? A normal whale doesn't have a leg or foot, much less a toe isn't it ? A whale with a leg and toes appear it because it had mutate a body part in its body, which is the hidden leg in its gene doney years ago. Doesn't tat prove tat macroevolution exists ?
legs of the whale and the myths surrounding it so it
speaks for itself.Most of these examples are of whales with
U can find tis passage there. digits = toes if u want
femurs, tibia, and fibulae; however, some even include
feet with complete digits.
to know. Check the dictionary if u need"A well-developed tail is characteristic of the
Tat is the thing, why will men have tail ? It have a tail because it is again a hidden part of the body. Normal men don't have tails isn't it ? A tail appears out because somewhere in our line of evolution we r a species with tails
human embryo in the second month. Ususally during the
third month the tail regresses and disappears as an
anatomic external feature. Occasionally the tail
persists and grows with the rest of the body. Tails as
long as 23 cm have been reported"If the Flood did happen, there will definately be seasonal changes.
40 days can't make out a season for 4000 rings which need 4000 yearsThey gave nobel peace price to Araafat but i dun think he created any peace. But i agree that carbon dating is a revelation but its accuracy is still contested, not only between evolutionist and creationist, but between scientists
They certainly give out a lot of nobel prize accurately isn't it ? Most of the nobel prize for physics or chemistry or engineering is given to the right person. Nobel prize for peace is different because frankly politics is dirty. Just because it had given the wrong nobel prize to a person who perform the right deeds at tat time doesn't mean the whole nobel prize is flawed. His contribution at tat time is undeniable.
The accuracy is mostly accepted because it is a standard means of finding age of an old artifact. As said before if the age lies below 50,000, we can expect it to be right. If they found a pottery at a pyramid, wat do u think is the means to find the age of tat tomb ?With so many loopholes in the theory of evolution, if you consider creationism as a religion, i think evolutionism can be classified as evolution.
I don't really understand your english here. However so much evidence point to the fact tat evolution exists. It is considered science.
Strangely though... why does creationist spend so much effort to pull down evolution, a science yet do so little to find evidence tat prove creationism ?One last thing, i think that even without the Theory of Evolution, biology, physics, chemstry, astonomy and all fields of science can still function and serve their purpose today. Remember all of them were started even before the Theory was brought about by Charles Darwin.
No one say tat without evolution these science r not substantiated. U believe in science like physic and chemistry right ? Why not believe in evolution which is studied and debated for many years, very much like physics and chemistry, than believe in a book which not one can verify, prove or if it is found wrong, modified its content ? U have no complains against physics and chemistry just because it do not go against the bible ?Whether evolved or not, what is more important is to know that man was made in the image of God. And that we all should respect one another, because God lives in everyone of us.
Then god must have look like a... well... primate because we look like primate many years before. -
If all life evolved from a single cell, how did the variety flora come about?
If we assume the single cell needs to be water-based, surely it resides in the sea or river. How did it creep up to land? Why? With the abundance of water in it's environment, surely it does have a need to conquer land.
Evolution scientist has focus much of the work on the evolution of animals, yet the area of evolution of plants is hardly explored. Does evolution happen in plants? -
watever it is, its impossible to uncover the secret in our lifetime.
-
If all life evolved from a single cell, how did the variety flora come about?
By evolution lor. Start from a single cell, some of it becomes flora some becomes fauna after evolution.If we assume the single cell needs to be water-based, surely it resides in the sea or river. How did it creep up to land? Why? With the abundance of water in it's environment, surely it does have a need to conquer land.
Why not ? No one challenge the land before thus it is the best place to breed and feed isn't it ? U might as well ask why does some basteria feed on decomposing sh!t and not seek to eat good food like abalone or lobster ? It is because if they feed on decomposing sh!t, there r little competition for the same food. If an animal manage to survive on land, surely it will have a great advantage by not fighting for food with the many creatures in the sea. Heard of the mudfish ? They r a kind of fish tat can swim but when needed, they can climb out to land and last for 2 months there. This seems to be a good starting point for animals to move to land.
http://www.doc.govt.nz/Conservation/001~Plants-and-Animals/001~Native-Animals/Mudfish.aspEvolution scientist has focus much of the work on the evolution of animals, yet the area of evolution of plants is hardly explored. Does evolution happen in plants?
Scientist have worked on evolution on the plant too. It is wrong to say tat evolution of plants is hardly explored. -
by way science is the failure of all religions
-
i didn't ask why animals crawl to land leh. i asked why does plants want to grow inland?
flora evolve to fauna? has it happened before? got to show me proof.. i've not seen any discussion on this even on discovery channel. -
I didn't ask why animals crawl to land leh. i asked why does plants want to grow inland?
The answer is the same. Why not go to land ? The land account for 20-30 % of the surface area where the sun shine on it isn't it ?flora evolve to fauna? has it happened before? got to show me proof.. i've not seen any discussion on this even on discovery channel.
The first one cell bacteria before should be closer to flora than to fauna. They use sunlight as energy source. After tat it evolved and some become more animal like.
Show u proof ? This happened too long ago, much much older than dinosaurs etc. The size of it is too small too, man will find difficulty to show such evidence. Why don't u show me proof tat flora is created and not evolved then ? -
but if it's created, it's created.. of course by a supreme being. from christian point of view, it's recorded and written in the bible.. it just appears by divine creation.. how to prove? if you want proof, then must go seek the creator.. maybe one day he'll show you.
whereas evolution is a process, it's just too bad the evidence disappeared through time
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Show u proof ? This happened too long ago, much much older than dinosaurs etc. The size of it is too small too, man will find difficulty to show such evidence. Why don't u show me proof tat flora is created and not evolved then ?
Isaiah 55:9
As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
All His Creation is for good, because God saw it is good and He created them. -
it's recorded and written in the bible..
Just because it is written by a book doesn't make it "proven". Harry Potter talk about a school called hogwarts. Is there such a school in existence ?
If u wanna find prove tat animals just pop out, u just try to find evidence tat the first pair of the pop out animals have the same age ? Difficult to find ? How about evidence tat suddenly a large number of a particular species of animals suddenly dissappear because they r eaten by the newly pop out animals ? Difficult to find again ? How about evidence tat there r a lot of same species of animals during a period which suddenly reduce in numbers to a pair (noah ark) ? Hard to find ? Everyday new species r being discovered. Why don't u guys show prove of an animal which have a completely different DNA compared with other animals ? Or a new speices that was totally new, like an aligator like animal which can fly or ultramen's monster or something ? No such beings found ? How come the new founded animals appears to resembles the olden kind of animals, and not something new ? God lost his imagination ?
If u want evidence, then it can be seen from the DNA structure, again found in 29+ evidence of macroevolution.According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life. Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendents are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree.
Anyway u can read on if u want. But the basic fact is all lives appears to have similar function regarding to the 4 basic characteristic of lives. If there is one species tat was found without adherring to any of these basic characteristic, then it can be a strong evidence against evolution. However too bad no such beings r found.
If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion). Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes.
Anyway there r a lot of evidence tat shows all lives seems to be have diverge out from a single cell. If u ask me, it seems to be a better evidence than the bible which has lost its credibility with its many contradiction and mistakes. -
If u wanna find prove tat animals just pop out, u just try to find evidence tat the first pair of the pop out animals have the same age ? Difficult to find ? How about evidence tat suddenly a large number of a particular species of animals suddenly dissappear because they r eaten by the newly pop out animals ? Difficult to find again ? How about evidence tat there r a lot of same species of animals during a period which suddenly reduce in numbers to a pair (noah ark) ? Hard to find ? Everyday new species r being discovered. Why don't u guys show prove of an animal which have a completely different DNA compared with other animals ? Or a new speices that was totally new, like an aligator like animal which can fly or ultramen's monster or something ? No such beings found ? How come the new founded animals appears to resembles the olden kind of animals, and not something new ? God lost his imagination ?
even science can't prove the exact age of fossils found. it's all approximated. so how to prove exact age of same species created at the same time?
all creation is created within the six days, so there won't be new species popping out to eat old ones.
there won't be new species created after the six days because it's been done and completed. sign, sealed, delivered. i don't deny that animals can adapt to the environment. they may develop longer limbs, etc.. i.e. things can be created yet still dynamic to adapt.
anyway, if there are new speices formed. then it's in the area of evolution, not creation.
p.s. if DNA are exactly the same, they are the same species. fishes and men have different DNA. so to prove animals with a different DNA makeup is actually quite easy. -
er.. if the earth is 6000 years old, how do u fit the dinosaurs in tis earth?
-
hi ratty81
young earth creationists believes the earth be 6000 years old or so.
But old earth creationists, believes the earth to be more than that.
if you have time, do read THE BIBLE AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH
[PART I]
THE BIBLE AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH
[PART II]
THE BIBLE AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH
[PART III]
[mod edit]changed URL reference
note: make your own conclusions
-
who told u evolution in plants is hardly explored????Originally posted by sillyme:If all life evolved from a single cell, how did the variety flora come about?
If we assume the single cell needs to be water-based, surely it resides in the sea or river. How did it creep up to land? Why? With the abundance of water in it's environment, surely it does have a need to conquer land.
Evolution scientist has focus much of the work on the evolution of animals, yet the area of evolution of plants is hardly explored. Does evolution happen in plants?
.... -
Originally posted by sillyme:
flora evolve to fauna? has it happened before? got to show me proof.. i've not seen any discussion on this even on discovery channel.[/b]
it's so funny whenever some bible believer says "got to show me proof" -
maybe it is. but hardly publishedOriginally posted by the.raven:who told u evolution in plants is hardly explored???? ....