where did we come from?
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
That's fine, I just didn't mean to sound rude towards you. I respect all possible approaches to religion and science.
I really wanted to ask whether there were lots of creationists outside the US.
I really wanted to ask whether there were lots of creationists outside the US.
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
Yeah, I'll try do some research then. So are you one?
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
Re: RC
Sure I know. I now understand many things, then.
Anya1982 said:
Sure I know. I now understand many things, then.
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
I just could find that there'a roughly 1 million creationalists in the US (among which are 5% of the national scientists).
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Who's to say God didn't create evolution?
A strange belief with many people is that things by God must go *poof!* and not neccessarily make any logical sense. Why's that? If anyone understands the need for things to develop over time, it should be an Eternal Being of all things.
From a a bunch of protein into wonderful, fascinating creatures and eventually when the time was right, people themselves.
Why not? Why is this a problem? Why is it that some people take these "days" in the bible litterally?
I believe it is by design.
A strange belief with many people is that things by God must go *poof!* and not neccessarily make any logical sense. Why's that? If anyone understands the need for things to develop over time, it should be an Eternal Being of all things.
From a a bunch of protein into wonderful, fascinating creatures and eventually when the time was right, people themselves.
Why not? Why is this a problem? Why is it that some people take these "days" in the bible litterally?
I believe it is by design.
jasonparker
Active member
The Ever-missing Links
According to the theory of evolution, every living species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.
If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms".
If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:
If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.23
Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realised that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties of the Theory":
…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.24
The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found.
Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionist paleontologists have been digging up fossils and searching for missing links all over the world since the middle of the 19th century. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. Trying to prove their theory, evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.
A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.25
Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:
A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.26
These gaps in the fossil record cannot be explained by saying that sufficient fossils have not yet been found, but that they one day will be. Another American scholar, Robert Wesson, states in his 1991 book Beyond Natural Selection, that "the gaps in the fossil record are real and meaningful". He elaborates this claim in this way:
The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.27
According to the theory of evolution, every living species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.
If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms".
If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:
If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.23
Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realised that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties of the Theory":
…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.24
The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found.
Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionist paleontologists have been digging up fossils and searching for missing links all over the world since the middle of the 19th century. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. Trying to prove their theory, evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.
A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.25
Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:
A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.26
These gaps in the fossil record cannot be explained by saying that sufficient fossils have not yet been found, but that they one day will be. Another American scholar, Robert Wesson, states in his 1991 book Beyond Natural Selection, that "the gaps in the fossil record are real and meaningful". He elaborates this claim in this way:
The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.27
SwordFish_13
Active member
Hi,
It's a Theory Given my Charles darvin on how Life begain and came to current form as we see it now ................ it's one of the many Scientific theories but this theory has more support that any other till date .................you can read about it here ----> Evolution By Charles darvin
ok back to Topic ..............I am still Very Much Against the theory my take against the theory of Evolution
It is no way perfect theory ...........
-=SF_13=-
atheer said:amm what is evloution..?
It's a Theory Given my Charles darvin on how Life begain and came to current form as we see it now ................ it's one of the many Scientific theories but this theory has more support that any other till date .................you can read about it here ----> Evolution By Charles darvin
ok back to Topic ..............I am still Very Much Against the theory my take against the theory of Evolution
- Natural selection the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order"........My Dog will be a Dog no matter what it breeds with .
- Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world............we still havent able to recreate it ...........we cannot create a Living organism form other non-living matter.
- The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
- why didn't All Monkey (Ape) Evolve?
- The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all..........it is contradictory that they were our ensesters then
- Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.
It is no way perfect theory ...........
-=SF_13=-
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Of theories that cannot be 100% proven, this is one of the strongest casees. Evolution, in ways, can be observed in our own world. You know bacteria do it all the time? It's fascinating to watch them undergo some level of evolution because their life spans are short and they can simulate in days what would happen over thousands of years for the rest of us.
Now one problem with identifying evolution is that with complex creatures, it takes a very long time to happen. Also it requires the right level of near-extermination. Unfortunately people tend to be so good at killing off species that they don't have a chance to evolve before they're wiped out. But before, when there were more natural predators, when a species was under threat of extinction and a few of their genetically varied kind were able to survive because of their genetic differences, that set the stage for evolution into a different species.
I think for the little "problems" the theory of evolution has, the case to back it is too strong to deny.
By the way, no one who really knows what they're talking about says humans came from chimpanzees or apes. But they do feel there was a common ancestor way back. Notice, Apes, Chimpanzees and gorillas are not mixable either.
Now one problem with identifying evolution is that with complex creatures, it takes a very long time to happen. Also it requires the right level of near-extermination. Unfortunately people tend to be so good at killing off species that they don't have a chance to evolve before they're wiped out. But before, when there were more natural predators, when a species was under threat of extinction and a few of their genetically varied kind were able to survive because of their genetic differences, that set the stage for evolution into a different species.
I think for the little "problems" the theory of evolution has, the case to back it is too strong to deny.
By the way, no one who really knows what they're talking about says humans came from chimpanzees or apes. But they do feel there was a common ancestor way back. Notice, Apes, Chimpanzees and gorillas are not mixable either.
r031Button
Active member
SwordFish_13 said:Hi,
atheer said:amm what is evloution..?
It's a Theory Given my Charles Darwin on how Life begain and came to current form as we see it now ................ it's one of the many Scientific theories but this theory has more support that any other till date .................you can read about it here ----> Evolution By Charles darvin
ok back to Topic ..............I am still Very Much Against the theory my take against the theory of Evolution
- Natural selection the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order"........My Dog will be a Dog no matter what it breeds with .
- Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world............we still havent able to recreate it ...........we cannot create a Living organism form other non-living matter.
- The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
- why didn't All Monkey (Ape) Evolve?
- The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all..........it is contradictory that they were our ensesters then
- Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.
It is no way perfect theory ...........
-=SF_13=-
Where is the flaw in natural selection? Those that are fittest are more likely to find mates, and more likely to produce healthy offspring that are capable of surviving due to superior traits.
Homids are a genus of the Primates, Monkey's and Apes are different genus, we didn't evolve from monkey's, we evolved at the same time as them along different paths.
All apes have evolved, simply along diverging paths. Apes are well suited to their enviroments; a result of evolutions.
The Fossil record is incomplete. It does however provide us with samples of early human like species. Is it conclusive? No, it is however, evidence that there were other species of homids, possibly our ancestors, that walked up right and used tools.
Also, evolution is a fact. You cannot argue it does not occur every dentist who's had to take out wisdom teeth knows that our jaw is shortening; if we weren't changing they wouldn't have to come out. Also, natural selection can be proven with the peppered moth in England; species before the industrial revolutions was white as the trees were predominately that colour. However as the industrial revolution covered the trees with black soot, the white members of the population became prey and were eaten, thus they could not reproduce. The small percentage of darker moths were able to become dominant as they were able to reproduce and their traits were passed on.
wow man, becareful saying evolution is a fact, lots of ppl dont believe it
actually lots of ppl dont even believe world is over 10000 years old
last day i phone an auction company to ask about dinosour egg.....i called a wrong number then i just started to ask about dinosour egg....the man there silent for a few sec, then he asked me "wut dinosour", i said "those creatures exsited hundreds of milliions of years ago", then he said" do u believe that?"
do u believe that earth is over 10000 years old?
actually lots of ppl dont even believe world is over 10000 years old
last day i phone an auction company to ask about dinosour egg.....i called a wrong number then i just started to ask about dinosour egg....the man there silent for a few sec, then he asked me "wut dinosour", i said "those creatures exsited hundreds of milliions of years ago", then he said" do u believe that?"
do u believe that earth is over 10000 years old?
r031Button
Active member
Evolution is a fact. We can see it around us; how and when is occurs is the topic of debate.
Of course i believe the earth is over 10,000 years old. Carbon 14 and K/Ar dating gives us scientific data showing specimens far older then that. Which hold more ground; the ideas presented in a book that's 2000 yeears old, or modern scientific data?
Of course i believe the earth is over 10,000 years old. Carbon 14 and K/Ar dating gives us scientific data showing specimens far older then that. Which hold more ground; the ideas presented in a book that's 2000 yeears old, or modern scientific data?
Whispering Death
Active member
Yeah, you can believe that the earth is still the center of the universe if you want to, it doesn't make it the turth.
Evolution is a FACT because it is a slow, gradual devlopement or change over time. Can we all agree that Homo sapiens have changed over time? Do all of us believe that humans and plants and animals and any other living thing has changed over time to surive as time progresses? I agree to those statements.
One last thing, Charles Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution; he created the Theory of Natural Selection. No where in Darwin's theory states that humans evolved from apes and if it does do show me.
Here's the quicky version of Darwin's theory.
!. A species reproduces more offspring that can live in an environment so the species can survive.
2. Species constantly struggle to survive.
3. Organisms in a species vary.
4. Those best adapted to survive. NOT "the survival of the fittest" but the survival of the FIT.
5. Organisms that survive pass traits to offspring.
One last thing, Charles Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution; he created the Theory of Natural Selection. No where in Darwin's theory states that humans evolved from apes and if it does do show me.
Here's the quicky version of Darwin's theory.
!. A species reproduces more offspring that can live in an environment so the species can survive.
2. Species constantly struggle to survive.
3. Organisms in a species vary.
4. Those best adapted to survive. NOT "the survival of the fittest" but the survival of the FIT.
5. Organisms that survive pass traits to offspring.
r031Button
Active member
You can't win iwth your pastor. All you could say is that it is not scientificly possible for the world to be younger then 10000 years. To believe that would require a belief is the super natural; and scince does not deal with that, it's limited to the natural world.