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

[MrStrife]

sure, everything just appeared out of nowhere one day.

[sdingfelder]

Category: Children's story
Once upon a time, a girl kissed a frog and it became a prince.

Category: evolutionary theory
After millions of years, rock soup became a living thing which eventually became a frog which eventually became a man.

As much as you'd like to scoff at "everything" appearing "out of nowhere one day", don't forget that even in the theory of evolution there was ONE DAY that life started and ONE DAY that it turned into a human. Where the theory says there's a huge, imaginary gap in time between them, the Bible says all of it happened in ONE day.

Bottom line is that it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than it takes to believe that God created it as described in the Jewish Scriptures.

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

Incredible.

First time in years I have seen this subject discussed online without including a link to this Scientific American article. In any case, I'll leave it here for you people to use as you desire.

Have fun with it.

[*T0rmented_Soul*]

Both theories have their points of ups and downs while the more religious type believe in the theory of creation where upon Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in the hidden garden and sinned against god. Thus making babies and such. While on the other hand Scientific Theory believes in Evolution where over time organisms evolved from bacteria to dinosaurs etc. Monkeys to gorillas to apes to humans etc. If you were to ask me I think I'd side more with the evolution theory maybe because I'm more of a scientific person and like to read about theries and what not. Also did you guys notice how the new generation is awfully shorter

[sdingfelder]

Consider the fact that every living organism has the following subsystems:

• Digestive subsystem
• Excretory subsystem

Notice that an organism cannot live without both of these at once (these two include plant life as well). I'll actually disregard the fact that there would have to be something in the non-plant organism that lets it know that it's hungry in order to trigger the need to get food. I'll even disregard the fact that if this organism receives the trigger to eat and searches for food, there must be food available. If it can eat, but can't process the sustenance, it dies. If it can eat and process the food, but it can't get rid of the waste, it dies.

• Reproductive subsystem

In order for this organism to have any effect after it dies, it must also have a reproductive system. Otherwise, when that organism dies, you'd have to wait another <enter your favorite number here> millenia for the next solitary organism to come about.

Now, for bacteria which split, the ability to split would have to be there. Consider, though, the most basic organism that requires a male and a female -- whatever that is. The theory of evolution says that after millions of years, there just happened to be a male that evolved and (just by coincidence) within its lifetime there was a female that showed up. Not only that, but she showed up in the same location !! If that didn't happen, the male would die off and it'd take another <how many> millenia for one to come around.

• Nervous subsystem

In order for a moving organism to survive, there would have to be the ability to move around -- esp. if food is to be found. Consider if there was a hot surface and the nerve endings hadn't been developed yet. That organism dies.

• Respiratory subsystem

This one's pretty clear. Air is a necessity. No air, death is inevitable.

So...
Which one of these subsystems came first ? Realize that an eating, reproducing, reacting, moving, and breathing organism MUST have all these in place in order to survive and procreate. The hand-waving of the theory of evolution says that all these subsystems happened not only all at once, but that all these subsystem happened multiple times in the same location. Remember even if the first male were to "evolve" and the first female were to "evolve" within his lifetime, they MUST be in the same location so they can produce more.

T0rmented_Soul, you say that you're "more of a scientific person". What do you think ?

[*I Shot JFK*]

Consider the fact that every living organism has the following subsystems:

• Digestive subsystem
• Excretory subsystem

Notice that an organism cannot live without both of these at once (these two include plant life as well). I'll actually disregard the fact that there would have to be something in the non-plant organism that lets it know that it's hungry in order to trigger the need to get food. I'll even disregard the fact that if this organism receives the trigger to eat and searches for food, there must be food available. If it can eat, but can't process the sustenance, it dies. If it can eat and process the food, but it can't get rid of the waste, it dies.

• Reproductive subsystem

In order for this organism to have any effect after it dies, it must also have a reproductive system. Otherwise, when that organism dies, you'd have to wait another <enter your favorite number here> millenia for the next solitary organism to come about.

Now, for bacteria which split, the ability to split would have to be there. Consider, though, the most basic organism that requires a male and a female -- whatever that is. The theory of evolution says that after millions of years, there just happened to be a male that evolved and (just by coincidence) within its lifetime there was a female that showed up. Not only that, but she showed up in the same location !! If that didn't happen, the male would die off and it'd take another <how many> millenia for one to come around.

• Nervous subsystem

In order for a moving organism to survive, there would have to be the ability to move around -- esp. if food is to be found. Consider if there was a hot surface and the nerve endings hadn't been developed yet. That organism dies.

• Respiratory subsystem

This one's pretty clear. Air is a necessity. No air, death is inevitable.

So...
Which one of these subsystems came first ? Realize that an eating, reproducing, reacting, moving, and breathing organism MUST have all these in place in order to survive and procreate. The hand-waving of the theory of evolution says that all these subsystems happened not only all at once, but that all these subsystem happened multiple times in the same location. Remember even if the first male were to "evolve" and the first female were to "evolve" within his lifetime, they MUST be in the same location so they can produce more.

T0rmented_Soul, you say that you're "more of a scientific person". What do you think ?

Thas all fine and dandy, but that argument doesn't invalidate evolution, which is absolutely apparent to anyone without an inherent bias against scientific evidence.

All it does is ask a question of how the whole process began. Which could just as easily be from aliens dropping some bacteria on earth a billion years ago as it could be frm a mythological deity. Or, as many scientist stipulate, it could have begun with primitive amino acids and so forth developing into self-sustaining units such as you described. I won't pretend to have a full scientific understanding of the process, but it really doesnt seem any less reasonable than some deity waving a magic wand or what have you and kicking it all off

Bottom line is that it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than it takes to believe that God created it as described in the Jewish Scriptures.

no... the bottom line is that you HAVE the faith to believe in scripture. one can take either story as more feasible than the other... that's personal

[sdingfelder]

Thas all fine and dandy, but that argument doesn't invalidate evolution, which is absolutely apparent to anyone without an inherent bias against scientific evidence.

Interesting that you'd assume that I have a bias against scientific evidence. Science is based on finding truth. I'm all about finding truth. Consider these quotes from these "pillars" of the evolutionist community:

“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73) -- Sir Arthur Keith of Great Britain (this is the guy who wrote the forward to 100th anniversary edition of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, 1959)

"The reader must not think that I am an evolutionist so hardboiled that I insist on man being forever subservient to the tyranny of Nature." Sir Arthur Keith

"I wanted to believe the Darwinian idea. I chose to believe it not because I think that there was enormous evidence for it, nor because I believed it had the full authority to give interpretation to my origins. I chose to believe it because it delivered me from trying to find meaning and freed me to my own erotic passions." -- Aldous Huxley, Lewis on Evolution and Design

Or, as many scientist stipulate, it could have begun with primitive amino acids and so forth developing into self-sustaining units such as you described.

So, where did those amino acids come from ? Remember that what your talking about is the creation of something from nothing based on random chance. Science today, as it narrows its scope on trying to show evolution is feasible, is specifically trying to show that this randomness can create something from nothing. With that specific purpose, they cannot even create an amino acid from nothing in the lab where they control the variables !! Yet, evolution says that in the randomness of a big rock in space, something came out of the primordial ooze and that it could live long enough to create more of what it was. Otherwise, you're back at square one waiting for the next random occurrence.

The reason I mentioned all the subsystem earlier was not describe "how the whole process began" -- or, rather, could've begun. Understand that without those subsystems, the first organism / amino acid would end its existence and you'd start from scratch all over again. At some point in time, evolution says that this randomness was sufficient to have "evolved" something that was "on target" for everything it needed to survive and propogate -- all subsystems intact and functioning.

Consider something as "simple" as when you get a cut that bleeds. Consider how complicated it really is. Prior to getting the cut, there must've been something that caused the cut. Nerves say, "Stop doing that. Not only does it hurt, but LOOK !! I'm bleeding !" You move the part of your body that is being cut away. That blood has to clot. The skin begins to repair itself. White blood cells are needed in the area in order to combat infection. This is not a simple thing for all the subsystems in a body to coordinate to heal itself.

Let's say you walk down the street and you see 4 soda cans standing upright. They're lined up in a perfectly straight line with the same spacing between each. Do you walk away saying, "Cool ! I figure that those 4 cans were dropped on the street by some litter bugs and they made their way by themselves to be aligned so neatly. Glad I got to see that." Of course not ! Those cans would've had to have been placed there specifically. That order doesn't occur randomly.

Why, then, would you look at any of Creation and think that the order therein is random ? Read up on some of the stats on the exact placement of Earth such that if we were a hair out of place from where we are currently, life could not be supported. Anywhere you see order in Creation, ask yourself why there wouldn't have been an "order-er" that created such order.

It wouldn't work in the soda can example and it doesn't apply in Creation, either.

[sweetangel2128]

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?

I think theres a possibility of the two. Ever think of this though...do you think theres a possiblity that God could of created Evolution??? I had this discussion with a spiritual friend of mine, not Christian, agnostic who believes that God could of created Evolution because we do have Evolution today.

[sdingfelder]

do you think theres a possiblity that God could of created Evolution

If that's the case, then why would you ever believe there was a god at all ? If this god you describe created evolution, then there's no evidence at all that this god ever existed because the Bible would have to be a complete lie. You wouldn't even be able to get through the first Book of the Bible without seeing that there's no evolution mentioned. Only one can be right. If this god you hypothetically describe created evolution, then the God of the Bible doesn't exist.

You can't put the Book of Genesis in "the box" of the theory of evolution which says that all Creation was created at once. The two do not mix. You have to either believe one and reject the other or reject the one and stick to the other.

because we do have Evolution today.

Please be more specific on this: We have variation today. This is evident. A bird may give birth to a bird with a variation. A cow may give birth to a cow with a variation. There is nothing that comes from these variations that is non-bird or non-cow, respectively.

There is no "evolution" today in terms of a dog giving birth to a non-dog. No evidence of a non-cat giving birth to a non-cat. This is the core of "evolution" in that at some point, an animal gave birth to something that was not that animal. This has never been observed. Never.

[sweetangel2128]

If that's the case, then why would you ever believe there was a god at all ? If this god you describe created evolution, then there's no evidence at all that this god ever existed because the Bible would have to be a complete lie. You wouldn't even be able to get through the first Book of the Bible without seeing that there's no evolution mentioned. Only one can be right. If this god you hypothetically describe created evolution, then the God of the Bible doesn't exist.

You can't put the Book of Genesis in "the box" of the theory of evolution which says that all Creation was created at once. The two do not mix. You have to either believe one and reject the other or reject the one and stick to the other.

Please be more specific on this: We have variation today. This is evident. A bird may give birth to a bird with a variation. A cow may give birth to a cow with a variation. There is nothing that comes from these variations that is non-bird or non-cow, respectively.

There is no "evolution" today in terms of a dog giving birth to a non-dog. No evidence of a non-cat giving birth to a non-cat. This is the core of "evolution" in that at some point, an animal gave birth to something that was not that animal. This has never been observed. Never.

I never said that I believed in Evolution I said theres a possibility, there is a difference. Sorry, but I am an open-minded person. I believe that God most likely created the earth more than I think evolution might of existed but I am just making a point, it is a possiblity but we don't know that for sure. When I say evolution exists today...I didn't mean dog and cat and all that...I meant we as people have evolved so yes evolution DOES exist.

[sdingfelder]

From Heath21:
...I meant we as people have evolved...

I'm sorry. I'm still not fully understanding what you're proposing. Please explain further what you're talking about by saying that "we as people have evolved".

[sweetangel2128]

I'm sorry. I'm still not fully understanding what you're proposing. Please explain further what you're talking about by saying that "we as people have evolved".

What I mean is that evolution is now, we have evolved...lets see our brain capacity is a lot more smarter than it used to be, we've created and found that we can do many things, things that we couldn't do before.

The thing that doesn't make sense to me is when someone says - "Evolution" most Christians thinks we mean that we originated from a pile of goop or that it means that a cat and a dog mated and a different creature came out...that's not evolution, that's cross breeding...evolution is when you take something such as a chemical, a stem cell and something else is created from that stem cell. There is a chance that human life was created by that, but of course we don't know that for sure.

Did you know a new species of turtle was created just about 5 years ago?

So basically, when I say evolution, I mean what it says...evolution....we could of been created by molecules in the water ect...I bet if you took a microscope to your drinking water from the faucet, you'd see a whole bunch of molecules and little bugs.

[sdingfelder]

What I mean is that evolution is now, we have evolved...lets see our brain capacity is a lot more smarter than it used to be, we've created and found that we can do many things, things that we couldn't do before.

What makes you think that our brain capacity is greater today ? Is there a chance that you're confusing technological advances with intelligence ?

The human brain capacity is unchanged 4000 years ago from what it is today. Look at the writings of the Bible to show you this. Look simply at the beauty of the writings ! Read the Psalms and see the poetry in it. Jump ahead in time to Shakespeare. Look simply at the beauty of his writings. Look at the poetry in it. Now, jump ahead in time once again to today's music. Of course, beauty's in the eye of the beholder, but just look to see if there's poetry at all in it.

Brain capacity is unchanged.

The thing that doesn't make sense to me is when someone says - "Evolution" most Christians thinks we mean that we originated from a pile of goop...

First of all, whenever the word "evolution" comes up, the underlying meaning is that you start with the big bang (of nothing) and everything just came into being. Then, after millions of years, something came out of rock soup and, after millions more, the first living thing came out. That's what most people mean by "evolution."

...a cat and a dog mated and a different creature came out...that's not evolution, that's cross breeding...

When you mention "a cat and a dog mated and different creature came out...that's not evolution, that's cross breeding..." I'd like to know where you get your definition of cross breeding.

Mirriam-Webster says "to cross (two varieties or breeds) within the same species."

Cross-breeding is a cocker spaniel and a poodle to make a cockapoo. You cannot get a cat and a dog to interbreed. Never happened. Never observed.

...evolution is when you take something such as a chemical, a stem cell and something else is created from that stem cell. There is a chance that human life was created by that, but of course we don't know that for sure.

If this were true, consider the following:
- A chemical evolving ?? Chemicals are simply combinations of elements. When then, is the periodic table of elements unchanged since 1951 ? There have been no changes nor modifications to any chemicals at all. We now have the technology to be able to determine new elements (the building blocks of chemicals) much easier than they did 50+ years ago. No new elements.
- Stem cells ? Why, then, is a stem cell specific to a particular organ ? Do you think that a stem cell which is "harvested" in order to make a liver will evolve into a fully independent, living being ? Save some time, take an already existing liver and sit and wait. Nothing's going to happen.

Bottom line is that if you believe human life came from something other than the account in the Bible, you confirm your lack of belief in the God of Creation.

Luke 10:16
"He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me."

Be careful. You've rejected the Jesus of the Bible in that you don't believe that He is the only way to get to Heaven (John 14:6) and you're rejecting the God of Creation.

Please don't harden your heart to Him.

Did you know a new species of turtle was created just about 5 years ago?

So, when you say that a new species of turtle was "created", can you give some more details ? Is it like the cockapoo ? Two different kinds of dogs to make a new type of dog ?? This new kind of turtle -- did it come from two other kinds of turtle ? That's not creation. It's not evolution. It's variation.

So basically, when I say evolution, I mean what it says...evolution....we could of been created by molecules in the water ect...I bet if you took a microscope to your drinking water from the faucet, you'd see a whole bunch of molecules and little bugs.

You're still talking about one kind of animal "evolving" from another kind of animal. To go from "a whole bunch of molecules and little bugs" to a human ?? That's classic evolution. Think about what you really believe. Earlier, you said implied that "evolution" is not that "we originated from a pile of goop", yet you describe drinking water and that molecules and bugs can become something they're not.

You ever heard the following: "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."

[*kryogenix*]

There is no "evolution" today in terms of a dog giving birth to a non-dog. No evidence of a non-cat giving birth to a non-cat. This is the core of "evolution" in that at some point, an animal gave birth to something that was not that animal. This has never been observed. Never.

A female horse can give birth to a mule.

Isn't evolution defined as "change over time?" What you're defining is speciation.

[sdingfelder]

A female horse can give birth to a mule.

So, just because the horse and mule differ in name and some characteristics, do you think that's evolution ? Just like I mentioned one kind of dog giving birth to a different kind of dog, we're still talking about the same kind of animal.

Isn't evolution defined as "change over time?" What you're defining is speciation.

I have no issue with change over time. This is the variation that says that one kind of finch can give birth to different kinds of finches.

Evolution preaches that a monkey/ape gave birth to a human. Very different.

Consider this:
What's the most expensive digital camera you can purchase ? What's its mega-pixel capability ? Let's give the benefit of the doubt and say that it's 12 MP.

Now look at the eyes that the Lord has created from which for you to see.

Roger N. Clark estimates human eye resolution to be equivalent to 576 megapixels (24000 x 24000 pixels) for a 120 degree field of view. Extensive background, assumptions, and calculations are available at http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html
Now, I don't know who this guy is. His research may be frought with error. I use his numbers as an approximation of what the human eye's resolution is.

Do you believe that it was a matter of chance that your eye "evolved" into what it is today. Here, we have men with technology on their side doing everything they can to increase the megapixel-age of digital cameras and all they've been able to do so far is 12 MP ??? Yet from the rock soup and millions of years of chance and coincidence, we have eyes that have an approximate resolution of 576 megapixels ??? That's 48 times greater resolution !!!

Maybe with a 12 MP camera already created, we can let it sit for a few million years and it'll "evolve" into one that has a resolution of 13 MP.

[*mipadi*]

Evolution preaches that a monkey/ape gave birth to a human. Very different.

No it doesn't.

[sweetangel2128]

Evolution preaches that a monkey/ape gave birth to a human. Very different.

Where's your proof? Did you find something about a monkey giving birth to a human. Evolution is simply change over time like the other person mentioned. Here is the definition of Evolution: "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." Another definition of evolution is: "The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. "

[sweetangel2128]

ScottD - Take a look at the word Evolution. Notice the word Evol? Short for Evolved...we have evolved and when I was talking about the human brain and it's capacity it has NOTHING to do with poetry, it has to do with how smart we've become as people...like for instance the people that figured out how to clone things...they haven't cloned people yet because of the fear of people starting to clone bad people such as "hitler" and also they are not sure if they want to risk a death...they have cloned animals and plants though and they have found in the animals that they don't live long...but cloning IS happening...long ago no one knew about this..so yes we have evolved...ummm look at lets see...okay the turtle..it was found in Africa by accident, they believe that it was created because of it's environment.

[sdingfelder]

No it doesn't.

Please, then, tell me your understanding of what the theory of evolution teaches with regards to how human beings came into existence.

The diagram like this one (http://www.ufoarea.com/pictures/ape-man.jpg) is an artist's rendition of the fairy tale called "evolution". More specifically, it's called "macro-evolution" as opposed to "micro-evolution" or "variation".

In order to support the idea of "macro" vs. "micro" evolution, Heath21 was kind enough to provide definitions:

1. Macro-evolution
"Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species."

2. Micro-evolution / variation
"The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. "

Please note that macro-evolution, by definition, would result in a new species. This has never been observed. Please also note that natural selection would require that any mutated type of animal would most likely be the one to die. What evolution is talking about, specifically, is a mutation from one generation to another that provides something beneficial. Where has this ever been observed outside the concept of variation within a type of animal ?? Yes, the beaks of birds are varied in that they can forage for food in different areas, but bottom line they came from birds. Any form of mutation where something that was different from the original type of animal has never been observed. Consider the recent news where a calf is born with an extra leg. What type of leg was it ? It was the same kind of leg that it was supposed to have -- just that it was only supposed to have 4 and not 5. Nothing new. Same kind of leg. Now, it that calf were being hunted by predators, first of all it would be prime pickin' since it's young. Second, if it were actually able to survive to adulthood, would that 5th leg help at all ? No. It'd most likely hinder it's ability to run as fast as the others in the herd and natural selection would mandate that it be picked out of the herd. Natural selection, by the nature of what it is, requires that mutation be taken out of the breeding pool.

Evolution says that over "successive generations", natural selection and "genetic variation" (aka mutation) resulted in a NEW SPECIES. Not canine to canine. Not equine to equine. It's saying that it went over successive generations from X to Y. Why has this never been seen ? If being human is the top of the food chain, why aren't those animals that haven't reached humanity yet not still "evolving" as we speak ??? Why isn't natural selection still working with them that they give birth to something closer and closer to resembling us ???

Even the turtle that was found (and not "created" as earlier stated) came from a turtle mother and a turtle father. The fact that it was "found" simply means that no one had ever seen it before. Does that mean that it's new ? Had every type of turtle ever in existence been completely known prior to this revolutionary discovery ? Of course not. We have no idea how many generations of this particular type of turtle's been around. Someone just recently found it is all.

From Heath21:
but cloning IS happening...long ago no one knew about this..so yes we have evolved

So, when did the "evolution" occur ? When the first cloning was successful ? Or was it when the first scientist attempted the first failure that led to the first success ? Or was it when the first scientist came up with idea ? Or was it when the first science fiction writer wrote about it ?

It is the human imagination that has led to many (if not most) of the technological advances we experience today. Just look at old Star Trek episodes (the original with Shatner) to see that they wrote those things as "way out futuristic" concepts. We have a lot of those things in our world today.


So, y'all are completely okay with the concept that the human eye has "evolved" into a piece of flesh that can not only get ~576 megapixel resolution, but can also adjust to light and distance faster than any man-made device ? There are guys sitting behind cubicle walls where their only job is to push the envelope on how to increase the resolution of the digital camera their company produces and they can't come close to the eye's capability !! If that's the case for you -- if you reject what the Bible says in that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" -- you have an incredible amount of faith in the religion of evolution.

[sweetangel2128]

Please, then, tell me your understanding of what the theory of evolution teaches with regards to how human beings came into existence.

The diagram like this one (http://www.ufoarea.com/pictures/ape-man.jpg) is an artist's rendition of the fairy tale called "evolution". More specifically, it's called "macro-evolution" as opposed to "micro-evolution" or "variation".

In order to support the idea of "macro" vs. "micro" evolution, Heath21 was kind enough to provide definitions:

1. Macro-evolution
"Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species."

2. Micro-evolution / variation
"The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. "

Please note that macro-evolution, by definition, would result in a new species. This has never been observed. Please also note that natural selection would require that any mutated type of animal would most likely be the one to die. What evolution is talking about, specifically, is a mutation from one generation to another that provides something beneficial. Where has this ever been observed outside the concept of variation within a type of animal ?? Yes, the beaks of birds are varied in that they can forage for food in different areas, but bottom line they came from birds. Any form of mutation where something that was different from the original type of animal has never been observed. Consider the recent news where a calf is born with an extra leg. What type of leg was it ? It was the same kind of leg that it was supposed to have -- just that it was only supposed to have 4 and not 5. Nothing new. Same kind of leg. Now, it that calf were being hunted by predators, first of all it would be prime pickin' since it's young. Second, if it were actually able to survive to adulthood, would that 5th leg help at all ? No. It'd most likely hinder it's ability to run as fast as the others in the herd and natural selection would mandate that it be picked out of the herd. Natural selection, by the nature of what it is, requires that mutation be taken out of the breeding pool.

Evolution says that over "successive generations", natural selection and "genetic variation" (aka mutation) resulted in a NEW SPECIES. Not canine to canine. Not equine to equine. It's saying that it went over successive generations from X to Y. Why has this never been seen ? If being human is the top of the food chain, why aren't those animals that haven't reached humanity yet not still "evolving" as we speak ??? Why isn't natural selection still working with them that they give birth to something closer and closer to resembling us ???

Even the turtle that was found (and not "created" as earlier stated) came from a turtle mother and a turtle father. The fact that it was "found" simply means that no one had ever seen it before. Does that mean that it's new ? Had every type of turtle ever in existence been completely known prior to this revolutionary discovery ? Of course not. We have no idea how many generations of this particular type of turtle's been around. Someone just recently found it is all.
So, when did the "evolution" occur ? When the first cloning was successful ? Or was it when the first scientist attempted the first failure that led to the first success ? Or was it when the first scientist came up with idea ? Or was it when the first science fiction writer wrote about it ?

It is the human imagination that has led to many (if not most) of the technological advances we experience today. Just look at old Star Trek episodes (the original with Shatner) to see that they wrote those things as "way out futuristic" concepts. We have a lot of those things in our world today.
So, y'all are completely okay with the concept that the human eye has "evolved" into a piece of flesh that can not only get ~576 megapixel resolution, but can also adjust to light and distance faster than any man-made device ? There are guys sitting behind cubicle walls where their only job is to push the envelope on how to increase the resolution of the digital camera their company produces and they can't come close to the eye's capability !! If that's the case for you -- if you reject what the Bible says in that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" -- you have an incredible amount of faith in the religion of evolution.

Evolution happend long ago when the earth was first created. It doesn't mean the turtle is new but it's new to us and just because you disagree doesn't mean it wasn't created. You were not there to know that.

I believe that evolution is POSSIBLE I didn't say it's the only thing I believe in...I also believe God could of created and most likely probably did create the earth. But I am an open-minded person and I believe "both" ideas are possible.

oh and I have Faith in myself, NOT evolution.

I have a question though..."Why are you ALWAYS quoting what the Bible says?" Not everyone believes what the Bible says...and why don't you give us some PROOF instead of looking to the Bible for answers. Show me.

[*mipadi*]

Please, then, tell me your understanding of what the theory of evolution teaches with regards to how human beings came into existence.

This is most definitely something you can look up on the Internet, or read about in a book in most any library. I suggest you do so—especially since I'm not going to offer more than a brief summary, since the information is so readily available online and in any library.

Evolution does not say that monkeys suddenly gave birth to humans. Evolution and genetics work hand in hand. The nature of genes is that they sometimes are copied incorrectly, resulting in a mutation in an organism's genetic code (this is a really basic summary of how genetic mutation occurs, but suffices for this discussion). Maybe the mutation causes the organism to have a shorter tail, or sharper teeth. The mutation is most likely passed on to offspring. If the mutation is positive (in the sense that it increases survivability of that organism), it is likely passed on; if the mutation is negative (it makes it easier for the organism to die), then the organism probably won't live long enough to pass it on. In this manner, good mutations continue down the line, and bad mutations are filtered out.

There are numerous examples of this even today, but one striking one can be found in the higher prevalence of sickle-cell anemia in people of African descent. Sickle-cell anemia, a genetic disease, actually acts a protection mechanism, in a way, against malaria; thus, over time, Africans inflicted with sickle-cell anemia were most likely to survive against malaria and produce offspring, which also had the disease.

[sweetangel2128]

I found this on a PBS site, it explains EVERYTHING about evolution including how we evolved and if we came from the monkey. Here you go:


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/

[sdingfelder]

From mipadi:
If the mutation is positive (in the sense that it increases survivability of that organism), it is likely passed on; if the mutation is negative (it makes it easier for the organism to die), then the organism probably won't live long enough to pass it on. In this manner, good mutations continue down the line, and bad mutations are filtered out.

I don't think you're quite getting the difference between "macro" and "micro" evolution. The mutations you're talking about here are minor changes, not huge changes.

You see, evolution has a problem in that at the beginning of the theory, they said that there must be "missing links". Animals that slowly changed from one to another -- not micro-evolution, but macro. That means a cat becoming a dog, for example. There were no missing links found. All the "missing links" found so far have been debunked as hoaxes. There's plenty of information on the web out there for you to research for yourself.

So, the theorists have had to change their view of how things "evolved" and said that, perhaps, these mutations happened within one generation -- since there are no missing links. Please realize that if there were millions of years of these minor mutations, there should be countless number of missing links available over this period of time.

From mipadi:
Sickle-cell anemia, a genetic disease, actually acts a protection mechanism, in a way, against malaria; thus, over time, Africans inflicted with sickle-cell anemia were most likely to survive against malaria and produce offspring, which also had the disease.

So, do you really think that a change in the blood from one human with a greater concentration of melanin in their skin to another being passed down to the next is an indication that we slowly evolved from a non-human to a human ?

Why do you keep denying the following: There had to have been a point in time, according to evolution, that the first human being was born. That means that prior to that, this first human being's mother was NOT a human being. That's simply by definition.

Then, you believe that this first human being mated with something that was NOT a human being (since this one was the FIRST) and that "mutation" into a human being "stuck" with his/her child. Unless, of course, you follow the side-theory of evolution that there was more than one mutation of the same exact kind at the same exact time in the same exact location. Statistically speaking, the chances of that happening are impossible.

Heath21:
Please read the website you provided more carefully. Realize that this reference you provide is talking about fairy tales...

"Sometimes, individuals inherit new characteristics..."
Again, "new characteristics". This is the lie of the theory.

"Non-genetic changes that occur during an organism's life span, such as increases in muscle mass due to exercise and diet, cannot be passed on to the next generation and are not examples of evolution."
So, how are there really large animals in the world ? Elephants ? Whales ?? So, a pygmy elephant slowly gave birth to successively larger elephants ? Why, then, are there still pygmys ? Wouldn't they all have a desire for "natural selection" and get bigger ?? Please read "evolution's" own disclaimer and look at the Creation for the variety of life that He's created !

"Individual organisms don't evolve. Populations evolve."
What ? Of course an individual organism within a population evolves. Again, "populations evolve" implies that the same exact mutation occurs in the same exact location at the same exact time. Statistically impossible. These are MUTATIONS. They don't happen simultaneously. And, yes, you could site the "peppered moth" example, but that's already been proven as a hoax.

"A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct."
Really ? Is this what happened with gravity ? How about with conservation of energy ? How about with motion and angular momentum ? These are LAWS. They've moved on from hypothesis to theory to law. These are observable and testable.

A theory is something that's supposed to be proven correct. A theory only lives as long as those who want it to survive. That's right: A theory will live only as long as there are proponents who keep it alive. There were those who had the theory that the Earth was flat. While technology couldn't show that this was true or false, both theories had validity. But, in today's world -- believe it or not -- there are those who still believe it. But, these are only those who will not let go of their ridiculous theory and look at all the information. The same is true for the theory of evolution.

I'm sure you've seen these quotes from a couple of pillars of evolutionary doctrine:

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable."
(Sir Arthur Keith--he wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of, Origin of the Species).

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future."
(Malcolm Muggeridge, Journalist and philosopher, Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Canada.)

"Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record."
(Time magazine, Nov. 7, 1977.)

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth?"
(Charles Darwin, Evolution or Creation, p.139.)

Still none have been found that haven't been shown to be fraudulant.

"If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark."
(Richard Leakey, paleo-anthropologist.)

[*mipadi*]

I don't think you're quite getting the difference between "macro" and "micro" evolution. The mutations you're talking about here are minor changes, not huge changes.

There's no clear indication that there is a distinction between so-called "micro-" and "macroevolution". Assuming that by "macroevolution" you really mean "speciation", then many biologists consider "microevolution" to be the driving force behind speciation, not something completely separate.

You see, evolution has a problem in that at the beginning of the theory, they said that there must be "missing links". Animals that slowly changed from one to another -- not micro-evolution, but macro. That means a cat becoming a dog, for example.

No, that is not quite it. Unless you're using specific animals in an attempt to make a very general example about evolution, in which case you really shouldn't use your bad example in an attempt to debunk the whole theory.

So, the theorists have had to change their view of how things "evolved" and said that, perhaps, these mutations happened within one generation -- since there are no missing links.

I don't think there are any prominent evolution researchers contending that speciation happens over a single generation. If there are, please point me to them.

So, do you really think that a change in the blood from one human with a greater concentration of melanin in their skin to another being passed down to the next is an indication that we slowly evolved from a non-human to a human ?

Straw man argument. I never said that. I was citing an example of Darwin's theory in action to illustrate how evolution occurs, not a specific piece of evidence of how earlier organisms evolved into humans. But yes, the mechanism is similar in both cases.

Why do you keep denying the following: There had to have been a point in time, according to evolution, that the first human being was born. That means that prior to that, this first human being's mother was NOT a human being. That's simply by definition.

I'm "denying" it (your words, not mine) because what you state is simply not true. Humans didn't simply develop in a single generation. Evolution theory does not state this at all. I suggest you read up a bit on evolution, because you don't seem to even have a basic understanding of how it works.

Then, you believe that this first human being mated with something that was NOT a human being (since this one was the FIRST) and that "mutation" into a human being "stuck" with his/her child.

No, I don't, and again, I never said that. You're using a straw-man argument again. You're trying to make me look stupid, but the only person who looks foolish is you, since you not only don't understand evolution, but you can't even follow a person's simple, clear, and concise argument.

Unless, of course, you follow the side-theory of evolution that there was more than one mutation of the same exact kind at the same exact time in the same exact location. Statistically speaking, the chances of that happening are impossible.

No, statistically speaking, it's not impossible; it's merely improbable. Statistics rarely, if ever, makes statements about impossibility. And while I won't dispute that the same genetic mutation could arise at the same place at the same time, I don't recall stating in my previous argument that such an occurrence was crucial to evolution or even likely to occur. Straw man argument, once again.

[sweetangel2128]

heres a pretty cool video on evolution - http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-the...ution-video.htm the site has some other things on it too that are interesting.