100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Creation Versus Evolution | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Bottom line, we have a workable theory that has credible and factual evidence to support it. We have the completed sequencing of the chimpanzee genome (finished back in 2005) 3 million base pairs. We have successfully compared this with human DNA. We are also in the process of determining the full sequencing on a 38,000 year old Neanderthal bone found in a cave in Croatia. The preliminary mitochondrial DNA test results show that Neanderthal was divergent of Homo Sapien.
Let me know when you find the bones of Adam and Eve. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
arkdanimal
on
Mon 10/06/08 06:33 AM
|
|
Oh well, I guess that explains everything, now I can quit learning. gues some missed the par about "time" and that creation may have taken trilions of light years. thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have read the Christian explanation for the origin of humankind depicted in Genesis in the bible (both contradictory accounts) so I feel I am doing my part. Have you made an attempt to comprehend the theory of evolution?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have read the Christian explanation for the origin of humankind depicted in Genesis in the bible (both contradictory accounts) so I feel I am doing my part. Have you made an attempt to comprehend the theory of evolution? There is actually creationism as a theory, and it completely stands alone from the bible teachings. Then there are evolutionist who themselves admit that creation is a more likely scenario, but they are still hoping to find that missing link. The general public will sometimes roll their eyes when they hear "creation theory" but that is because they automatically associate it with the book of Genesis. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 10/06/08 12:26 PM
|
|
I have read the Christian explanation for the origin of humankind depicted in Genesis in the bible (both contradictory accounts) so I feel I am doing my part. Have you made an attempt to comprehend the theory of evolution? There is actually creationism as a theory, and it completely stands alone from the bible teachings. Then there are evolutionist who themselves admit that creation is a more likely scenario, but they are still hoping to find that missing link. The general public will sometimes roll their eyes when they hear "creation theory" but that is because they automatically associate it with the book of Genesis. If you have something outside of the bible that you feel is credible point it out. All I have had access to was the two creation myths depicted in Genesis. What I found there was an incredulous account of god blowing on some dirt and making humans, fully formed and ready to go. Then you have Cain and Abel of course and the mysterious "Mrs.Cain" who shows up out of nowhere and is totally nameless. Im not sure which scientists or researchers in the field of paleontology that actually concede "that creationism is a more likely scenario" That sounds like conjecture and wishful thinking on your part. Of course the theory of evolution does not have every last bit of physical evidence to support it because we are dealing with anthropogenic remains that are thousands of years old. What does the theory of Creationism have to substantiate it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't exactly reproduce everything I have read on this subject without going back to the library and digging. It is based mostly on statistics and point out the improbability of evolution. Some scientist have just exhausted themselves trying to find why there is a fossil with what appears to be partial flippers, and none with totally formed or even in the intermediate stages. That is of course a brief and tiny example, but they point out many more inconsistencies that arise. Therefore they have to simply state that creation as it stands, is the only logical explanation. Now a lot of these creation scientist are completely open to new evidence that the evolutionist have to offer, and would be more than willing to expound on those ideas if they deemed them credible. Now, I am sure it works both ways in this debate. But what what I gained from this info is that it is just as ludicrous to teach evolution as it would be to teach that creation is a fact. Neither one is known, so neither one should be treated as fact. Buy the problem is that this is not the case. All you have to do is turn on the discovery channel and see some guy telling you that this bird was originally a dinosaur or whatever. They don't know, so they should at least state that "Many scientist believe such and such." I don't have a problem with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 10/06/08 11:47 PM
|
|
I can't exactly reproduce everything I have read on this subject without going back to the library and digging. It is based mostly on statistics and point out the improbability of evolution. Some scientist have just exhausted themselves trying to find why there is a fossil with what appears to be partial flippers, and none with totally formed or even in the intermediate stages. That is of course a brief and tiny example, but they point out many more inconsistencies that arise. Therefore they have to simply state that creation as it stands, is the only logical explanation. Now a lot of these creation scientist are completely open to new evidence that the evolutionist have to offer, and would be more than willing to expound on those ideas if they deemed them credible. Now, I am sure it works both ways in this debate. But what what I gained from this info is that it is just as ludicrous to teach evolution as it would be to teach that creation is a fact. Neither one is known, so neither one should be treated as fact. Buy the problem is that this is not the case. All you have to do is turn on the discovery channel and see some guy telling you that this bird was originally a dinosaur or whatever. They don't know, so they should at least state that "Many scientist believe such and such." I don't have a problem with that. I am not asking that you reproduce EVERY bit of information you have ever studied on the subject but anything outside of the bible. You make the claim that there was a "Theory of Creationism" that some nameless scientists seem to feel is more plausible than their current workable theories?. That is conjecture on your part unless you can substantiate this with the title of a book or a source for the information. You should at the very least be able to describe the theory if you have read and studied it I would hope. How does it differ exactly from the two contradictory accounts of Genesis found in the bible? How would statistical information "point out the improbability of human anthropogenesis"? So you are saying that you dont understand the concept of "transitional fossils" . According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight. Can you point out (give names) for the evolutionary scientists that do not have a handle on this concept? I would be curious. Creationism is an illogical conclusion to draw based on all available physical evidence to the contrary. I have never heard of a "creationist scientist." Where do they go to school? What are their credentials? As it stands now The Theory of Evolution is indeed considered to be a "Theory" It is taught in that context in public schools. If you are having a difficult time understanding why, I urge you to look up the "Scopes Trial" of 1925 online. It is often dubbed euphemistically "The Monkey Trial." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't exactly reproduce everything I have read on this subject without going back to the library and digging. It is based mostly on statistics and point out the improbability of evolution. Some scientist have just exhausted themselves trying to find why there is a fossil with what appears to be partial flippers, and none with totally formed or even in the intermediate stages. That is of course a brief and tiny example, but they point out many more inconsistencies that arise. Therefore they have to simply state that creation as it stands, is the only logical explanation. Now a lot of these creation scientist are completely open to new evidence that the evolutionist have to offer, and would be more than willing to expound on those ideas if they deemed them credible. Now, I am sure it works both ways in this debate. But what what I gained from this info is that it is just as ludicrous to teach evolution as it would be to teach that creation is a fact. Neither one is known, so neither one should be treated as fact. Buy the problem is that this is not the case. All you have to do is turn on the discovery channel and see some guy telling you that this bird was originally a dinosaur or whatever. They don't know, so they should at least state that "Many scientist believe such and such." I don't have a problem with that. I am not asking that you reproduce EVERY bit of information you have ever studied on the subject but anything outside of the bible. You make the claim that there was a "Theory of Creationism" that some nameless scientists seem to feel is more plausible than their current workable theories?. That is conjecture on your part unless you can substantiate this with the title of a book or a source for the information. You should at the very least be able to describe the theory if you have read and studied it I would hope. How does it differ exactly from the two contradictory accounts of Genesis found in the bible? How would statistical information "point out the improbability of human anthropogenesis"? So you are saying that you dont understand the concept of "transitional fossils" . According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight. Can you point out (give names) for the evolutionary scientists that do not have a handle on this concept? I would be curious. Creationism is an illogical conclusion to draw based on all available physical evidence to the contrary. I have never heard of a "creationist scientist." Where do they go to school? What are their credentials? As it stands now The Theory of Evolution is indeed considered to be a "Theory" It is taught in that context in public schools. If you are having a difficult time understanding why, I urge you to look up the "Scopes Trial" of 1925 online. It is often dubbed euphemistically "The Monkey Trial." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As mentioned, many current day Catholics (not sure about Christians and where they stand) actually do believe that anthropogensis was simply a mode of "creation" employed by god or some form of higher being or Creatrix. In a way this makes perfect sense and I can clearly see their satisfaction because it entails that humans developed SLOWLY over the millennial and diverged from their closest relative, the chimpanzee. It was an ongoing process and still is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Genesis 1:26
And God said "Let Us make man (Hebrew.adam,[no article] = Mankind). In Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Mankind created on sixth day Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man ( Hebrew - eth Ha adam,[with the article and particle = The Man Adam]the man to till the ground in Gen 2:5).of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man (eth Ha adam) became a living soul. I believe we were created by God and did not evolve from Apes or things that slithered out from underneath a rock    
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neither does the Theory of Evolution. The theory consists of an understanding that we DIVERGED form chimpanzee, referred to as "pan" at a point in time which is thought to be around 6 million years ago.
Clearly the repeated assertion that we "evolved from apes" is something that is most often espoused by fundamentalist Christians who have not taken the time to actually research the theory because it does not support their belief system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
agreed in as much as Evolution is not in my belief system.
so how is we were created and did not evolve from any source, I'm sure you knew what I meant by evolved from apes analogy, so thought i would clarify it a bit, what's up Krimsa just spending a few moments online, thought i'd throw in a comment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
agreed in as much as Evolution is not in my belief system. so how is we were created and did not evolve from any source, I'm sure you knew what I meant by evolved from apes analogy, so thought i would clarify it a bit, what's up Krimsa just spending a few moments online, thought i'd throw in a comment I know it isnt. However, I am taking the time to read the bible. I do this off and on by the way. Then isnt it only fair and reasonable for you to offer the same time and effort for the study of evolution and anthropogenesis? We were not "created" but instead evolved. Do you understand the difference? I do know that people stating repeatedly that we "evolved from apes" is incorrect and invalid and is a mischaracterization of what the theory is attempting to demonstrate so I will continually call folks on it. Im doing good Sharp. How are you? I had a new cria (alpaca baby) born October 3rd. His name is Prince Charles. I am naming them all by English and French royalty both modern day and historical. I got the idea for that premise because the highway I live on here was once owned by the King of England and he used it to "steal" lumber from the colonists. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
agreed in as much as Evolution is not in my belief system. so how is we were created and did not evolve from any source, I'm sure you knew what I meant by evolved from apes analogy, so thought i would clarify it a bit, what's up Krimsa just spending a few moments online, thought i'd throw in a comment I know it isnt. However, I am taking the time to read the bible. I do this off and on by the way. Then isnt it only fair and reasonable for you to offer the same time and effort for the study of evolution and anthropogenesis? We were not "created" but instead evolved. Do you understand the difference? I do know that people stating repeatedly that we "evolved from apes" is incorrect and invalid and is a mischaracterization of what the theory is attempting to demonstrate so I will continually call folks on it. Im doing good Sharp. How are you? I had a new cria (alpaca baby) born October 3rd. His name is Prince Charles. I am naming them all by English and French royalty both modern day and historical. I got the idea for that premise because the highway I live on here was once owned by the King of England and he used it to "steal" lumber from the colonists. I'll try not to use the "evolved from apes" analogy when referring to the Theory and/or science of evolution. I do read quite varied and extensively though, just so you know. Love to read, it's a lost art these days it seems. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well its not really an analogy but a misconception. Thus the basis for my annoyance with it. Once we can get past that, Im kosher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it...Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory."
— Reverend Jimmy Swaggart "The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to the truth of the Bible and then the question of sin and finally introduced to Jesus." — Phillip Johnson, creator of the idea of 'Intelligent' Design "Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories] that contradict the Bible." — Biology for Christian Schools 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it...Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory." — Reverend Jimmy Swaggart "The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to the truth of the Bible and then the question of sin and finally introduced to Jesus." — Phillip Johnson, creator of the idea of 'Intelligent' Design "Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories] that contradict the Bible." — Biology for Christian Schools  Oh no!!!!!  NOT Jimmy Swaggart  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was Swaggart the one having gay sex with male prostitutes and selling Meth? I always get their criminal backgrounds confused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was Swaggart the one having gay sex with male prostitutes and selling Meth? I always get their criminal backgrounds confused. no, no...he said he thought she was a "protestant", not a prostitute...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was Swaggart the one having gay sex with male prostitutes and selling Meth? I always get their criminal backgrounds confused. no, no...he said he thought she was a "protestant", not a prostitute... That about sums it up, got caught twice I think. Ecclesiastes 7:13 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. |
|
|
|
|
