Creation or Evolution?, Which do you believe in? Options

[kesey]

I'm not sure if someone's said this point already, but frankly, I don't have the patience to read through 8 pages. Evolution isn't really a monkey turning into a man. They're just genetic defects that are preserved over a period of time. If it suddenly became an advantage to have one foot over two, one footed people would slowly populate the Earth, causing one-legged to be a standard characteristic of a human being.

So why can't it be both?

[oOyunieOo]

Evolution is all around us. But God couldn't tell people writing the Bible that. Which is why I believe that he gave us the message in a story form, like was done with most of the Bible. When the Bible was written the people didn't have any idea about evolution, cells, or biology in general, so explaining evolution to them would make no sense.

So, why do we know this now? Why would it make sense to us now? God could have explained cells etc... And how is evolution all around us if it happens so slow? God explained the truth, that he created the universe, and believing something else instead of the bible is putting science in front of the Bible. Make a decision. Which do you believe--- God or man?

Without god or religion in general thw world would be a much better place....all you need is to believe in your self.....not a childrens fairy tale

If every one believes in themself, you won't go anywhere after to die, it would gain you nothing. How would the world be a much better place? Without religion, there would be no decent morals or underwritten human standards. It would be mass chaos.... murders, wars, because all that would matte was money and power. We are finite (imperfect) creatures, so why should we think of ourselves so highly? There is a reason all people since ancient times have been seeking a divinity---- there really is a God out there.

I'm not sure if someone's said this point already, but frankly, I don't have the patience to read through 8 pages. Evolution isn't really a monkey turning into a man. They're just genetic defects that are preserved over a period of time. If it suddenly became an advantage to have one foot over two, one footed people would slowly populate the Earth, causing one-legged to be a standard characteristic of a human being.

There is no way something can just suddenly be better. Bad Mutations happen, and the chance that a good mutation would happen is very VERY small. Like if one chromosome is missing in an embryo, that person ends up with down syndrome (or something like that). Genetic defects have never proven good. Either they have no effect to the person, the person is deformed somehow for the rest of their life, or they die. The chances of preserved genetic defects is virtually impossible. We had to made one way from the beginning.

[queen]

first of all.. the evolution states human beings and apes have a common ANCESTOR - not that we HUMANS were derived from APES (as stryker already stated). although there are some loopholes in the theory of the MECHANISM of evolution (WHAT causes evolution to take place), EVOLUTION ITSELF is considered a FACT by biologists. there is NO DOUBT that evolution occurs. you're telling me that the modern day siberian tiger is not a descendent of the saber tooth? or that the modern day elephant is not a descendent of the mammoth? why would we even have animal classifications connecting animals with their "families", if evolution did not occur?

the common definition of evolution is CHANGE within a certain period of time. do you look EXACTLY like your parents? then i guess your family CHANGED over time? darwin's theory of natural selection has long been held as the best MECHANISM for evolution.. HOWEVER, the incorporation of GENETICS into the theory recognized the importance of MUTATION and VARIATION within a population. MODERN SYNTHESIS is the updated version of darwin's original theory...

The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:
- It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
- It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
- It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.

which is WHY the MECHANISM (can i not STRESS THIS ENOUGH?) for evolution is still in debate. in essence, evolution is a FACT (cause it POSITIVELY OCCURED AND OCCURS) and THEORY(because it cannot be proven yet exactly WHAT makes evolution occur).

seriously, some of you who automatically claim evolution is a bunch of hogwash should REVIEW THE THEORIES. how'd you like it if i came in here saying jesus was born through mary and joseph having intercourse? OF COURSE YOU'D FREAK OUT BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, "HE WAS BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY AND BECAME MAN."

[sammi rules you]

evolution.

see me and my friend magz have this little theory. god is like santa. if youre good, santa gives you presents. if youre good, god lets you go live in his castle in the sky!..and neither exist.

now i just switched the topic to sammi defending herself and everyone yelling at her, didnt i? gooo me.

[oOyunieOo]

first of all.. the evolution states human beings and apes have a common ANCESTOR - not that we HUMANS were derived from APES (as stryker already stated). although there are some loopholes in the theory of the MECHANISM of evolution (WHAT causes evolution to take place), EVOLUTION ITSELF is considered a FACT by biologists. there is NO DOUBT that evolution occurs. you're telling me that the modern day siberian tiger is not a descendent of the saber tooth? or that the modern day elephant is not a descendent of the mammoth? why would we even have animal classifications connecting animals with their "families", if evolution did not occur?

the common definition of evolution is CHANGE within a certain period of time. do you look EXACTLY like your parents? then i guess your family CHANGED over time? darwin's theory of natural selection has long been held as the best MECHANISM for evolution.. HOWEVER, the incorporation of GENETICS into the theory recognized the importance of MUTATION and VARIATION within a population. MODERN SYNTHESIS is the updated version of darwin's original theory...

The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:
- It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
- It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
- It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.

which is WHY the MECHANISM (can i not STRESS THIS ENOUGH?) for evolution is still in debate. in essence, evolution is a FACT (cause it POSITIVELY OCCURED AND OCCURS) and THEORY(because it cannot be proven yet exactly WHAT makes evolution occur).

seriously, some of you who automatically claim evolution is a bunch of hogwash should REVIEW THE THEORIES. how'd you like it if i came in here saying jesus was born through mary and joseph having intercourse? OF COURSE YOU'D FREAK OUT BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, "HE WAS BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY AND BECAME MAN."

I don't see evolution occuring now. How could one thing be fact and theory at the same time? We understand the theories, but can you prove that it happened? Every human looks different because the different base pairs and arranagements in our DNA, but they are not mutated genes. Everyone has individuality.

Genetic mutations (changes) are usually bad... to have the many many gentic mutations that are good (enable the creature to function and live) and cause the species to change is impossible. The genetic mutations would most likely kill them before they evolved into a new species. Also these mutations would have to have occured in the sex cells of the animal, because that is the only way to carry the trait on to another animal. When you add this all up there is no possible way all mutations could be good, have enough to make a new species, and be in the right cells.

Animals are classified according to their specific characteristics and traits, not because they evolved from one another.

Hey, and that was not very appropriate bringing Mary and Joseph into this. What does this have to do with evolution vs. creation? We don't make fun of you and your beliefs; we discuss them. We expect the same treatment from you.

[glit_gal]

creation

[queen]

I don't see evolution occuring now.  How could one thing be fact and theory at the same time?  We understand the theories, but can you prove that it happened?  Every human looks different because the different base pairs and arranagements in our DNA, but they are not mutated genes.  Everyone has individuality.

evolution is GRADUAL change.. it can take billions of years for all we know.

darwin's theory of natural selection (a mechanism for evolution) can ultimately lead to the formation of new species. "Sometimes many species evolve from a single ancestral species. Similarities in skeletal and muscular structure of Hawaiian honeycreepers led scientists to conclude that the 23 species of honeycreepers evolved from one ancestral species. Such an evolutionary pattern, in which many related species evolved from a single ancestral species, is called adaptive radiation. Adaptive radiation most commonly occurs when a species of organisms successfully invades an isolated region where few competing species exist. If new habitats are available, new species will evolve." that's one 'PROOF' for you, read here 'cause i'm too lazy to write it myself haha.

When you add this all up there is no possible way all mutations could be good, have enough to make a new species, and be in the right cells.

where did i say all "mutations" are for the BENEFIT of the species? it depends on the environment and several other factors how well the "mutation" would work for the species.

Animals are classified according to their specific characteristics and traits, not because they evolved from one another.

these "similar traits and characteristics" lead biologists to believe that they DID evolve. if you consider natural selection, it has a persuasive argument here.

Hey, and that was not very appropriate bringing Mary and Joseph into this. What does this have to do with evolution vs. creation? We don't make fun of you and your beliefs; we discuss them. We expect the same treatment from you.

it was an ANALOGY. people on this thread are falsely stating that humans "evolved from apes" when that is not the case. the same way if i suggested mary and joseph had intercourse, when THAT IS NOT THE CASE.. would you like to reread what i stated? how'd you like it if i came in here saying jesus was born through mary and joseph having intercourse? OF COURSE YOU'D FREAK OUT BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, "HE WAS BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY AND BECAME MAN."

and i haven't stated my beliefs on this thread, so no one could possibly "make fun" of them. i'm just discussing EVOLUTION as it should be discussed. it's not fair for people to disagree with a concept just because they do not understand it. that last statement i made was not to mock christianity. if you read it carefully, my intro has a direct connection to my conclusion.

[kesey]

synkro is stating it very clearly. I think you may have some misconceptions about evolution yunie.

I understand bad mutations happen. But a mutation is a mutation because it is completely random, and unprecedented. Are you God? How can you predict that a random change will totally be for the worse. Let's say one of our ancestors had one eye. And a few people were born with mutations with two eyes. We would've *evolved* to be a species with two eyes, would we have not?

Like synkro said: Evolution is, by definition, change over time. Not what cartoons showed you on TV or whatever.

[oOyunieOo]

evolution is GRADUAL change.. it can take billions of years for all we know.

Yeah I know that, but if we can't see it, how can you be positively sure it happens now?

darwin's theory of natural selection (a mechanism for evolution) can ultimately lead to the formation of new species. "Sometimes many species evolve from a single ancestral species. Similarities in skeletal and muscular structure of Hawaiian honeycreepers led scientists to conclude that the 23 species of honeycreepers evolved from one ancestral species. Such an evolutionary pattern, in which many related species evolved from a single ancestral species, is called adaptive radiation. Adaptive radiation most commonly occurs when a species of organisms successfully invades an isolated region where few competing species exist. If new habitats are available, new species will evolve." that's one 'PROOF' for you, read here 'cause i'm too lazy to write it myself haha.

The Hawaiian honeycreepers started colonizing in Hawaii (obiviously). There are two hypotheses about what it's "ancestor" was-- the Eurasian rose finch, or the North American house finch. If one of these is their "ancestor," they either evolved (or began to evolve) originally in Eurasia, or North America; or, the ancestors travelled across the big PACIFIC ocean to Hawaii... Back then, according to evolutionists, it was before the time of man (a.k.a. 7 million years ago), so they couldn't transport them there. These birds look like finches right? Right. So, how likely would they be to travel across an ocean (the BIG Pacific Ocean) and colonize in Hawaii? Finches don't travel like that! Only albatross and other large birds do. The Hawaiian honeycreepers may look similar, but they were created different, and they were created to live originally in Hawaii.

where did i say all "mutations" are for the BENEFIT of the species? it depends on the environment and several other factors how well the "mutation" would work for the species.

You didn't. I did, becuase mutations are most likely not going to be good. So you are saying that the environment determines how well the mutation could be? Look at the giraffe. If it evolved, it obviously did not happen all at once. Well then, considering that, if that giraffe bent over, it's head would have exploded, wihich means there was not enough time for it to evolve the structure. No giraffes for us to see. You can't say, "Well the structure that keeps the blood from rushing to it's head came first, then it's long neck," because according to you, an organism must need a strucure to have it evolve. Without the long neck, the giraffe wouldn't need the structure. Therefore, the giraffe was created all at once with a specific design, by a specific creator.

these "similar traits and characteristics" lead biologists to believe that they DID evolve. if you consider natural selection, it has a persuasive argument here.

Common structures = common ancestry?

Darwin mocked the idea, proposed by Richard Owen on the dramatization, that common structures (homologies) were due to a common creator rather than a common ancestor. But the common designer explanation makes more sense. If there was no commonality, then we might think there were many designers rather than one. Under evolution, it’s genes that are inherited, not structures per se. So one would expect the similarities, if they were the result of evolutionary common ancestry, to be produced by a common genetic program (this may or may not be the case for common design). But in many cases, this is clearly not so.

One of the most commonly argued proofs of evolution is the pentadactyl limb pattern, i.e. the five-digit limbs found in amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. However, they develop in a completely different manner in amphibians and the other groups. To illustrate, the human embryo develops a thickening on the limb tip called the AER (apical ectodermal ridge), then programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the AER into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes). By contrast, in frogs, the digits grow outwards from buds as cells divide (see diagram, right). This argues strongly against the ‘common ancestry’ evolutionary explanation for the similarity.

Mammals, Amphibians... etc. are classified under different Classes, so how can be related... yet they have similar structures.

it was an ANALOGY.  people on this thread are falsely stating that humans "evolved from apes" when that is not the case. the same way if i suggested mary and joseph had intercourse, when THAT IS NOT THE CASE.. would you like to reread what i stated? how'd you like it if i came in here saying jesus was born through mary and joseph having intercourse? OF COURSE YOU'D FREAK OUT BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, "HE WAS BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY AND BECAME MAN."

and i haven't stated my beliefs on this thread, so no one could possibly "make fun" of them. i'm just discussing EVOLUTION as it should be discussed. it's not fair for people to disagree with a concept just because they do not understand it.  that last statement i made was not to mock christianity.  if you read it carefully, my intro has a direct connection to my conclusion.

I understand that people misunderstood the man and ape thing. It was an inappropriate thing to suggest. People have made it clearly understandable, and to suggest intercourse was unreasonable. If you are taking sides with evolution, don't you believe it? What would be the point if you didn't? It does not matter what you meant but how people take it, so I ask respectfully to please refrain from things such as that.

synkro is stating it very clearly. I think you may have some misconceptions about evolution yunie.

I understand bad mutations happen. But a mutation is a mutation because it is completely random, and unprecedented. Are you God? How can you predict that a random change will totally be for the worse. Let's say one of our ancestors had one eye. And a few people were born with mutations with two eyes. We would've *evolved* to be a species with two eyes, would we have not?

Like synkro said: Evolution is, by definition, change over time. Not what cartoons showed you on TV or whatever.

I am saying that evolution can't be tested or studied in the lab, and when they induced mutatoins, it has never been for the good. Increasing the mutation rate does not increase the odds of good mutations coming together. Science is what man observes and what facts he gathers in the universe. If you can't produce evolution in the lab, how can you observe it?

[sunshinenaps]

I believe both theories of creation and evolution is extremely faulty because of the lack of evidence and the constant rebuttles between the two sides.

What do you think?

Well, while I can see why you would think there is a lack of evidence, there really isn't. Most evolutionists believe that everything "evolved" and there was no soverign God. Charles Darwin did not believe this, he said that all things were created by God, but that things adapted. This may have happened and it may not have. The first fault I find in the evolutionary theory is where did everything come from in the first place? For something to "evolve" you have to have something there, and if you don't admit God created the heavens and the earth, where did that something come from?
The second fault I find in the evolutionary theory or the uniformitarian theory is time. They estimate the average age of the earth by either determining the half life of radioactive elements and plugging it into a mathematical function that I am unable to write on here because I simply do not know how . Anyways, that doesn't really work because no one really knows the half life of radioactive elements. Also, they use the formula d=rt to determine the age because the universe is supposedly moving and the earth sinks at a certain rate, and using various unreliable instruments, they can somewhat determine the distance between the earth and other planets therefore finding the time. Well, the only problem with this formula is that if the earth was millions of years old, there wouldn't be anything left.
You see, the sun is the sun because of nuclear fusion. With each passing day, the sun shrinks, well, if it is the size that it is now, and around 300 million earths (at least that's what they say) can fit into it, the sun would have been so big that no planet would have been able to sustain life because it would have melted.
As if that isn't enough, the great flood which is foretold in the bible is said to have covered the entire earth by raining 40 days and 40 nights worldwide. It has been proven by scientists that trees and plants forced underground can in fact give us - yes they can - oil. Also, sea shells that have been found on top of mountains don't make a lot of sense in the evolutionary theory, but go perfectly with the bible.
I could go on and on about how much evidence there is, but I won't. I will say this, while evolution may have happened on a much smaller scale, God did create the earth.

[oOyunieOo]

Amen! And here's some more:

1. Did you know that orignally scientists claimed that the earth was about 100 million years old. Now they say that it is 65 billion years old so it will fit in their "explanation".

2. How can something come from nothing in the big bang? The big bang defies the laws of thermodynamics.

3. All of you people that have taken biology-----> evolutionists say that the simplerer life came first right? well, the simplest life there is, is a one-cell parasite. how could they survive initially without some other life?

4. All of the fossil finds that men have found of "missing links" have been largely made up. In fact, the one named Lucy's bones were found 2 miles apart with 200 feet depth separation. how could they belong to one organism.

5. The geologic time scale can not be found layer ofr layer in any part of the wolrd. The grand Canyon itself is missing about 150 milliong years.

6. There have been fossil finds of fish on Mt. Everest> explain that unless there wasn't a worldwide flood. Water dsplaces and finds its own level, so the only way for a fish to make it to the top of a mountian is for a world-wide flood to occur.

1. If the earth's magnetic field would have been so strong to end upto what it is today..... it would have fried all life. Or, if it was strong enough to still support life, there would be no magnetic field.

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:

that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)

usable energy is running out

information tends to get scrambled

order tends towards disorder

a random jumble won’t organize itself

ORDER FROM DISORDER????? it is like a book factory exploding and creating a dictionary.

3. Spontaneous generation is now been accepted as impossible. Louis Pasteur conducted an expreriment using flasks that proved this statement. Only biogenesis is possible.

4. Ok, i see your point,
But----
'The various australopithecines (the group in which Lucy was said to belong) are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been'.

In layman's terms, this group is not part of the missing links to humans

+tell me why men have sculpted an entire missing link out of a single tooth?? or when they put together a man nd a monkey and called it a missing link?

5. THE Flood... how else could a canyon like that be made?? That also is an eplaination for the 150 years. There are other places that weathering and erosion should not effect. There should be at leat one example, but there is not.

6. Ok, so why have there HUGE amounts of drift-fish fossils (fish that float along with current) found all facing the exact same direction and at the exact same layer of the earth (indicating the same time). THat means a MASSIVE current.... also fish fossils of fish with food halfway have been found all over.... they say that fossils form over 1,000 years.... i don't think that a fish would take 1,000 years to halfway their. There had to be Sudden pressure.

[stryker76]

Well, while I can see why you would think there is a lack of evidence, there really isn't. Most evolutionists believe that everything "evolved" and there was no soverign God. Charles Darwin did not believe this, he said that all things were created by God, but that things adapted. This may have happened and it may not have. The first fault I find in the evolutionary theory is where did everything come from in the first place? For something to "evolve" you have to have something there, and if you don't admit God created the heavens and the earth, where did that something come from?
The second fault I find in the evolutionary theory or the uniformitarian theory is time. They estimate the average age of the earth by either determining the half life of radioactive elements and plugging it into a mathematical function that I am unable to write on here because I simply do not know how . Anyways, that doesn't really work because no one really knows the half life of radioactive elements. Also, they use the formula d=rt to determine the age because the universe is supposedly moving and the earth sinks at a certain rate, and using various unreliable instruments, they can somewhat determine the distance between the earth and other planets therefore finding the time. Well, the only problem with this formula is that if the earth was millions of years old, there wouldn't be anything left.
You see, the sun is the sun because of nuclear fusion. With each passing day, the sun shrinks, well, if it is the size that it is now, and around 300 million earths (at least that's what they say) can fit into it, the sun would have been so big that no planet would have been able to sustain life because it would have melted.
As if that isn't enough, the great flood which is foretold in the bible is said to have covered the entire earth by raining 40 days and 40 nights worldwide. It has been proven by scientists that trees and plants forced underground can in fact give us - yes they can - oil. Also, sea shells that have been found on top of mountains don't make a lot of sense in the evolutionary theory, but go perfectly with the bible.
I could go on and on about how much evidence there is, but I won't. I will say this, while evolution may have happened on a much smaller scale, God did create the earth.

hmmmmm some people write so much and i commend them on that but what really sux is when some of the info is sightly wrong......

Well the sun isnt shrinking...as a matter of fact it is growing.....the nuclear fission between hydrogen and helium atoms on the sun cuz tonz of explosions forcing the area of the sun to increase. thus y all the planets are slowly heating up (Global Warming....not just from CO2 in the atmosphere) Also....Charles Darwin could not explain all the point of his theory because of lack of knowledge...e.i. Chromosomes and Mutations. there are sets to evolution that people in here dont seems to always understand.....When a mutation occurs at a genetic level...it is either favorable or not...if it favorable for the animal then it will survive and its offspring will also have that trait as well. Mutations are accidental adaptations. Evolution occurs after many adaptations have changed part of a species into an other animal....Mutations usually come from the separation of a species or from compition with another species.....Charles Darwin understood y things like that happened ....but could explain how.....well not until scientist discovered Genes, DNA, and chomosomes.
Also people say oh well where did everything come from in the first place then.....well that is easy to explain too. everything on earth is made up of the same basic elements. Carbon, nitrogen, Oxygen..etc. Well a few years back some scientist placed ONLY the basic elementes that where on early earth into a glass globe....they then placed to electric rods inside this globe to simulate Lightening....very prodominate on early earth due to the unstable atmosphere. Well the scientist then sent charges through the rods that where sealed in the glass globe with the elements.....after a few weeks of electrical shock the scientist opened the globe......now can ne one guess what they found.....SINGLE CELLED ORGANISMS.....yes life was fromed from lightening and basic elements......that is where life start.....Lightening still to this day makes it possible for us to live....it super heats O2 (oxygen) like really fast top make it bond with another oxygen molecule to make O3 making Ozone....oh yeah THE OZONE LAYER....we are here because of cosmic coincidence...nothing more...no all mighty god.....its childs tail and nothing more...sorry for those that cant execpt that....

[ppl_love_me]

Here is some thing to help, If u think about it, being created is the best evedence we have of god, if any. But maybe God didn't want ppl to PROVE his existance, it had to be chalenging, and we had to find within ourselves god and the holy spirit. So to make it chalenging I think he gave animals the ability to evolve, knowing that it would give scientists a reason not to belive.

Its like our reason to live, is to prove our hearts that god is there without and physical evedance, other than the bible.

Just think about that one.

[oOyunieOo]

Also people say oh well where did everything come from in the first place then.....well that is easy to explain too. everything on earth is made up of the same basic elements. Carbon, nitrogen, Oxygen..etc. Well a few years back some scientist placed ONLY the basic elementes that where on early earth into a glass globe....they then placed to electric rods inside this globe to simulate Lightening....very prodominate on early earth due to the unstable atmosphere. Well the scientist then sent charges through the rods that where sealed in the glass globe with the elements.....after a few weeks of electrical shock the scientist opened the globe......now can ne one guess what they found.....SINGLE CELLED ORGANISMS.....yes life was fromed from lightening and basic elements......that is where life start.....Lightening still to this day makes it possible for us to live....it super heats O2 (oxygen) like really fast top make it bond with another oxygen molecule to make O3 making Ozone....oh yeah THE OZONE LAYER....we are here because of cosmic coincidence...nothing more...no all mighty god.....its childs tail and nothing more...sorry for those that cant execpt that....

So your saying life from non life is true andd has been proven ture? HTe news would have had something huge on that. About the expirement, I know one way it could have happened without the charges---- they were transported through the air when they opened the container, or they did not seal the container and bacteria got in. Can you supply a website that proves this expirement?

[oOyunieOo]

Here is some thing to help, If u think about it, being created is the best evedence we have of god, if any. But maybe God didn't want ppl to PROVE his existance, it had to be chalenging, and we had to find within ourselves god and the holy spirit. So to make it chalenging I think he gave animals the ability to evolve, knowing that it would give scientists a reason not to belive.

Its like our reason to live, is to prove our hearts that god is there without and physical evedance, other than the bible.

Just think about that one.

But you are putting science above the Bible. If God did that, He would have it the Bible... if you look at the major evidence, creation actually makes more sense than evolution. I wrote some of that in an earlier post on this page.

[sadolakced acid]

6. There have been fossil finds of fish on Mt. Everest> explain that unless there wasn't a worldwide flood. Water dsplaces and finds its own level, so the only way for a fish to make it to the top of a mountian is for a world-wide flood to occur.


there is not enough water in the world. if all the ice melted, and all the water in the atmosphere and animals and everything, and all avalible hydrogen and oxygen bonded, you couldn't even flood one contenent's worth of land.


the probabity that we evolved is like the probablility that a tornado happens and sweeps through a junkyard and when it leaves, an F-16 is built.

actually, it's the probablitliy that in a small puddle of water, some chemicals came together to make RNA, a self replicating molucule.

now, let's see... that probablility that the circumstances are right is like, one in a trillion.


so there are how many stars out there? now, each of those stars can have planets.

it's very hard to imagine that it would happen anywhere.
but one in a trillion means there is sitill a change.

there are enough stars. enough planets. it just happened here.

who started it? who knows. chance? perhaps. a higher being? then who's made them?

[oOyunieOo]

there is not enough water in the world. if all the ice melted, and all the water in the atmosphere and animals and everything, and all avalible hydrogen and oxygen bonded, you couldn't even flood one contenent's worth of land.

Most say that there was a water vapor canopy that covered the top of the atmosphere. With that, the world wide flood would have occured. It was a long time ago, and there was probably more water.

[queen]

If you are taking sides with evolution, don't you believe it? What would be the point if you didn't?

lol, i understand this is the debate forum, but people shouldn't assume what one believes in if it's not even stated in text. i had edited that post i wrote on evolution.. before that i wrote a post on how religion and faith in a higher being might actually prove to be better for humankind. i didn't want to double post, unlike a lot of people on this thread, and i also wanted my post to be based on one main idea... so i decided to delete it. if you had seen what i wrote about god, would you have assumed i was pro creation? ;o

It does not matter what you meant but how people take it

what should matter is what we write. if i had stated i was for evolution, then people should "take it" as i'm for evolution. if i said that roses are red, people should "take it" that i said roses are red, NOT that i like roses ;x

Mammals, Amphibians... etc. are classified under different Classes, so how can be related... yet they have similar structures.

reptiles evolved from amphibians during the Carboniferous
i'm too lazy, so read this, too

[oOyunieOo]

Mammals, Amphibians... etc. are classified under different Classes, so how can be related... yet they have similar structures.


reptiles evolved from amphibians during the Carboniferous
i'm too lazy, so read this, too

People interpret things different ways. What I'm saying is, can you give a site that says why? They state "reptiles evolved during Carboniferous" but they don't explain how or why. And on that other site that you gave, they are saying that can totally recontruct a fossil skeleton based on one fragment... actually one of the most real complete fossil skeletons is 40% real. If you completely make a skeleton from one fragment, it leaves a lot for artistic influence. What I'm saying is that the many "missing links" like the Nebraska Man and Lucy and the Neanderthal Man can't be real because they were constructed from a fragment.

From the website that you gave me:

Does that look like a very good thing to base the history of man on? "Of course, there are gaps in the record and minor uncertainties of interpretation. " Minor????? I'd say pretty major. First germ---->then somewhere there were some bugs---->then man came sometime later. Doesn't seem very good to me. And I can go on.

[stryker76]

Ok well you ask for all these websites....well here i want you to show me a freakin website that proves EVERYTHING the bible says to be tru.....you cant because none of it is......oh and that experiment i explain...yeah it was done...Watch Nova its a science program.....or look in some old Biology books it should be in there....i had to learn in my bio class.

Oh and you say that there could have been more water back during that "great-flood" ummmm no the water you drink everyday is the same water dinosaurs pissed in long ago...water recycles it self....ever hear of the water cycle....if there was more then where did it all go?????? its not from us drinking it because well we pee and we sweat so it goes right back in to the water again......

I was sayin earlier that yes things can come from nothing......drop you hand in some dry ice......it will start to freeze your hand and fuse with you hand becasue it is carbon.....and we are carbon based life forms......High to low consitration....basic chemistry........or for the bio freaks...Diffussion. Besides how do bacteria get into something when you are in a VACCUM......it cant or it wouldnt be taught in schools....

[oOyunieOo]

Ok well you ask for all these websites....well here i want you to show me a freakin website that proves EVERYTHING the bible says to be tru.....you cant because none of it is......oh and that experiment i explain...yeah it was done...Watch Nova its a science program.....or look in some old Biology books it should be in there....i had to learn in my bio class.

Oh and you say that there could have been more water back during that "great-flood" ummmm no the water you drink everyday is the same water dinosaurs pissed in long ago...water recycles it self....ever hear of the water cycle....if there was more then where did it all go?????? its not from us drinking it because well we pee and we sweat so it goes right back in to the water again......

I was sayin earlier that yes things can come from nothing......drop you hand in some dry ice......it will start to freeze your hand and fuse with you hand becasue it is carbon.....and we are carbon based life forms......High to low consitration....basic chemistry........or for the bio freaks...Diffussion. Besides how do bacteria get into something when you are in a VACCUM......it cant or it wouldnt be taught in schools....

Here's your website: Answers in Genesis
I never learned it in Biology Class, and you never said it was a vacuum. Quote from PBS.org talking about Antonie van Leeuwenhoek: "His discovery made him famous worldwide and debunked the then popular notion of spontaneous generation." What does diffusion have to do with spontaneous generation? Yeah and I know about the water cycle. I'm not stupid! There were land shifts, and some land wasn't as high as it is now, the water vapor layer that canopied the atmosphere supplied enough water. Some water we can't see, like underground springs.

[SasukeNaru]

Creation and evolution r both just theories in this vast world. Who knows lol

Religion states one and minute evidence says the other. Chicken or the egg.. which came first?

[queen]

People interpret things different ways. What I'm saying is, can you give a site that says why? They state "reptiles evolved during Carboniferous" but they don't explain how or why.

which is why the MECHANISM of evolution is still in debate o;

[ur_my_sweety20]

i believe that God created us. You don't need proof. just faith

i don't know if you're catholic^^ but i am and i don't care what people say about me or my religion...i live for what i think is true...

[oOyunieOo]

which is why the MECHANISM of evolution is still in debate o;

What I'm saying is that I'm not going to believe most things that people tell me until I investigate for myself. It states that Reptiles evolved from amphibians, but I would want to know what their proof is.... "they did because we had this evidence." See what I'm saying?