A simple question

[Solomonthewise]

How do you know that we were not made by God using the process of evolution?

Have you ever really looked at the evidence for evolution, and especially human evolution?

Its simple Humans did not evolve in the words of mr darwin himself "I WAS WRONG"

how coud us tiny littl organisims ever have lived long enough to evolve reproductive organs to keep on going??

the list of flaws is very big i could go on if you like.

just remember how it was in the bible from the earth (dirt) god made man not from some swamp (yuck)

 

[gluadys]

The flood was world wide

This theory has been shown to be false.

as that is how the continental change took place

This theory has also been shown to be false. Continental change is much too slow to be explained catastrophically. All catastrophic theories on continental change have been shown to create so much heat they would have killed all life, including life on the ark.

history and the bible coincide to proove these facts,

Please show where history supports these "facts".

THE ICE AGE was the great flood,

If it was, the flood was not global, as the Ice Age was not. The Pleistocene Ice Age also lasted for over 50 million years with various warming periods within that time. Much longer than a 1 year flood.

yes dinosaurs were around then too but if god says dont go near the humans the dinosaurs would stay away, very simple ya.

You are making things up. There is no evidence for this or even any possible evidence for this. It is pure personal assertion.

that would be true as to why no human remains were ever found with any dinosaur remains! its all like a giant jigsaw puzzle once you start geting the pices right all the other ones just fall into place!

In the first place, it is not just that no human remains are ever found with dinosaur remains. No large mammal remains of any kind are found with dinosaur remains. Did God command dinosaurs to keep away from all cattle, deer, bears, lions, pigs, horses, elephants, etc. as well as humans? Did God tell carnivorous dinosaurs not to eat any of the above? And what about the fact that no fossil remnants of grasses are found with dinosaur remains? What were herbivorous dinosaurs eating? Why did none ever eat grass or die in a place where there were grasses?

Finally, it is not that these species and dinosaur fossils are not found in the same places. In fact,they are often found in the same places. But they are not found in the same strata. And that is true all around the globe, wherever dinosaur fossils have been found.

History, Science, Maths and the Bible all co-incide perfectly as without one none of the rest can work but its a matter of getting to combination right.

But you need to work on learning more history and science.

 

[Scholar in training]

just remember how it was in the bible from the earth (dirt) god made man not from some swamp (yuck)

If God created us from dirt, then why do humans and apes have such similar genetics? Dirt does not carry DNA.

 

[gluadys]

Its simple Humans did not evolve in the words of mr darwin himself "I WAS WRONG"

Source?

how coud us tiny littl organisims ever have lived long enough to evolve reproductive organs to keep on going??

A single organism does not need to live long enough to perfect sexual reproduction. Evolution happens to populations, not individuals.

the list of flaws is very big i could go on if you like.

I have probably heard all the so-called flaws before. Check out this site. If you can find a flaw in the theory of evolution not mentioned there, I would be interested. Or if you can find a flaw in the responses to the so-called flaws covered there.

just remember how it was in the bible from the earth (dirt) god made man not from some swamp (yuck)

I have never heard a scientist claim we were made from a swamp. But even so, what would make a swamp any more yukky than dirt. This is an argument from "Eewh!" It has nothing to do with science.

 

[Solomonthewise]

how much do you know about dna, the 80% similarity would be mearly features ie eyes, bone structure (differing because of the chromeasomes of course).

Look at it from the point of, all living things have dna there are alot of living things so naturally there will be similarities dont forget your comparing to human dna its making humans the sole view.

ask yourself how the eye managed to "EVOLVE" in each animal or creature its differant even from an ape to a human it differs. If we evolved from apes why have there been no recordings of monkeys evolving?

 

[Scholar in training]

Look at it from the point of, all living things have dna there are alot of living things so naturally there will be similarities dont forget your comparing to human dna its making humans the sole view.

Certainly, but similar DNA between two species is infinitely harder to come by than generic physiological similarities.

 

[Solomonthewise]

first off if you want to believe you came from a monkey then go for it.

Id rather take gods word for it thanks.

Always remember the key fact gods word is final if he says somthing it happens no questions asked!!!

Answer me this if were supposed to evolve over thousands of years to become the "perfectly" formed humans we are today how long did it take to evolve to a point that we could reproduce.

if there were 10000000s etc of organisims all at the same time with a life span of oh say 100 years (genorous) and it takes 500,000,000, or what not for us to evolve to what we are now and have been for the last 10,000 years (roughly) at what point did we evolve reprodutive organs, cause if it takes that long to evolve i hav a slight feeling that all them organisims would have died out before there was any time to evolve that far.

 

[Solomonthewise]

dna is made up from chromeasomes correct, so all it means is that out of a strand of dna we have similar chromeasomes to that of a monkey.

every living organisim has an differant dna structure which is set it cannot change there for it can only change from the selected chromeasomes from the "parents" to combine and make the new "offspring".

Dna can only change when a mutation occurs which is not evolution but a "malfunction" or Deformity which is an error in the dna! nothing more.

If we evolved by a series of mutations there would be an abundence of evidence and proof, and we would not stop mutation it would be visable in the street every day.

But its not.

 

[Scholar in training]

if there were 10000000s etc of organisims all at the same time with a life span of oh say 100 years (genorous) and it takes 500,000,000, or what not for us to evolve to what we are now and have been for the last 10,000 years (roughly) at what point did we evolve reprodutive organs, cause if it takes that long to evolve i hav a slight feeling that all them organisims would have died out before there was any time to evolve that far.

Populations evolve over time, not organisms. As long as some of them reproduce (sexually or asexually) then the population (and, by consequence, the organisms in that population) will live on.

 

[Solomonthewise]

if we reproduced asexually then we wouldnt have had the need to evolve reproductive organs!!!!

 

[gluadys]

Answer me this if were supposed to evolve over thousands of years to become the "perfectly" formed humans we are today how long did it take to evolve to a point that we could reproduce.

We didn't have to evolve the ability to reproduce. We inherited it from our non-human ancestors. Who inherited it from their ancestors, who in turn inherited it from their ancestors,going back a long long way into Pre-Cambrian times. In fact, every single life-form present and past was able to reproduce. It is one of the defining characteristics of life. So all species have inherited the ability to reproduce for over 3 billion years.

 

[Solomonthewise]

if thats so then whats all this about asexual reproduction?

if we had more advanced ancestors than we would have evolved from them and if thats so then that means we would have been more advanced from the begining.

But then im left with the question how did those "ancestors" advance to the point of having reproductive organs?

then also how did we evovle a bone strcture it would have happend too slowly for us to hav a working joint of any sort of bone then the bone would inhibit movement, thus making reproduction even less likely. (logical?)

 

[gluadys]

if thats so then whats all this about asexual reproduction?

Asexual reproduction is still reproduction. You didn't specify sexual reproduction. But then sexual reproduction was developed in unicellular species too. There is even a form of sexual reproduction used by bacteria. Do a google on "bacterial conjugation" . You will even find some nifty animations of how bacteria exchange genetic material.

if we had more advanced ancestors than we would have evolved from them and if thats so then that means we would have been more advanced from the begining.

Exactly. Sexual reproduction goes back over 600 million years. We have a very long line of ancestors which preceded us at that game.

But then im left with the question how did those "ancestors" advance to the point of having reproductive organs?

This may answer some of your questions. Note that the salamander and several other species can reproduce both sexually and asexually. And some animals are hermaphrodites who have sexual reproduction, but not gender. Either one of a couple can be the male, or they may be males to each other in turn. Some hermaphroditic animals even fertilize themselves.

then also how did we evovle a bone strcture it would have happend too slowly for us to hav a working joint of any sort of bone then the bone would inhibit movement, thus making reproduction even less likely. (logical?)

I don't know if there is any bone unique to humans. We certainly inherited most of them. Just modified some for walking erect.

 

[Solomonthewise]

its not a question of inheiritance as if you inherit something it implys that youd have it straight off which means we couldnt have come from an organisim that evolved as we would have had bones to begin with wich means the theory is flawed.

Too many conradictions in your words, yes other organisims do reproduce in differant ways can you prove how they "evolved" to stay so "primative" in the reproductive side of things.

If evolution was true and based on the fact that things only evolve when there is a need for them then why havnt we seen any "evolution" from the time of recorded history theres not a single record of evolution plenty of records of mutation (dont get them confused) but thats mainly put down to inbreeding (lol).

Just another question: if you believe in god then how can you believe in evolution? where in the bible does it state "and so man was mad from evolved organisims rarara".

it sounds just like your another human who would like to believe that theyre in control of their life and their orogins.

But in doing all this your saying God is a lire in which he IS NOT!!!!!

 

[gluadys]

its not a question of inheiritance as if you inherit something it implys that youd have it straight off which means we couldnt have come from an organisim that evolved as we would have had bones to begin with wich means the theory is flawed.

You have some very strange notions about evolution. I don't think you understand it at all, as this observation makes no sense. Of course bones evolved at some point---sometime before the first fish came into existence, since they already had bones. The first tetrapods inherited their bones from their fish ancestors, the first amniotes inherited their bones from their tetrapod ancestors, the first synapsids inherited their bones from their amniote ancestors, the first mammals inherited their bones from their synapsid ancestors, the first primates inherited their bones from their mammalian ancestors, the first apes inherited their bones from their primate ancestor and we inherited our bones from our ape ancestor. All along the way, the bones were slightly modified in each successive stage of evolution. But with few exceptions the number and placement of the bones have not changed much since the days of the early tetrapods some 500 million years ago.

Too many conradictions in your words, yes other organisims do reproduce in differant ways can you prove how they "evolved" to stay so "primative" in the reproductive side of things.

Science doesn't provide proof. Science provides evidence. What makes other kinds of reproduction "primitive"? As long as the method is successful, one way of reproduction is just as advanced as another.

If evolution was true and based on the fact that things only evolve when there is a need for them then why havnt we seen any "evolution" from the time of recorded history theres not a single record of evolution plenty of records of mutation (dont get them confused) but thats mainly put down to inbreeding (lol).

Because recorded history is a very short time. And for most of recorded history no one was looking for evidence of evolution. In the less than one hundred years we have been looking for evolution the only sorts of species that we can actually see evolution happening in are very short-lived species such as bacteria, insects and the like. And we have observed evolution in real time in such species.

But we have plenty of evidence that only makes sense if all species evolve.

Just another question: if you believe in god then how can you believe in evolution? where in the bible does it state "and so man was mad from evolved organisims rarara".

The bible doesn't speak of evolution because the biblical writers knew nothing about it. Most Christians accept evolution and believe in God. Why do you see this as contradictory?

it sounds just like your another human who would like to believe that theyre in control of their life and their orogins.

How would evolution put me in charge of my life and my origins? Did I have a say in what genes I would inherit?

But in doing all this your saying God is a lire in which he IS NOT!!!!!

God is not a liar. That's right. So, since evolution is true, what does that tell us about God?

 

[Solomonthewise]

All the theory of evolution of mankind THEORY does is take the focus away from god as it matters not that the people writing the bible understood it as there would have been alot of things they didnt understand ie revalation and things yet to come but it was gods word so, the fact that they didnt unerstand doesnt mean anything!

If Darwin himself can admit he was wrong about his THEORY (admitted it on his deathbed!) it shouldnt be too hard to accept the fact that humans always like to have an answer for things that are "unexplained" just as humans must always blame someone.

Justification is assumtion and assumtion is a guess and a guess is nothing more than a random answer that seems right to the person who is trying to justify themself.

even a fool is passionate about what he believes in!

 

[gluadys]

All the theory of evolution of mankind THEORY does is take the focus away from god

Only if you choose to let it. Most Christians have no problem keeping their focus on God while they live with the fact of evolution. Sounds to me as if your faith is on a shaky foundation if a thing like evolution rattles it. Perhaps you need to get some encouragement from Christian evolutionists.

as it matters not that the people writing the bible understood it as there would have been alot of things they didnt understand ie revalation and things yet to come but it was gods word so, the fact that they didnt unerstand doesnt mean anything!

Oh, it matters very much. They would have to be automatons operating like dictaphone machines, recording whatever came into their head whether they understood it or not. Christian theologians have almost always rejected a literal dictation of scripture. And if you don't have a literal word-for-word dictation, then the writers' understanding influences the writing and chooses the words. If their understanding does not include evolution, then their writing will not include evolution.

If Darwin himself can admit he was wrong about his THEORY (admitted it on his deathbed!) it shouldnt be too hard to accept the fact that humans always like to have an answer for things that are "unexplained" just as humans must always blame someone.

According to members of his family, Darwin made no renunciation of his theory. This is a lie that has circulated ever since it was first told.

It wouldn't matter if Darwin did recant though. He would be wrong. The evidence for evolution does not depend on Darwin's opinion.

Justification is assumtion and assumtion is a guess and a guess is nothing more than a random answer that seems right to the person who is trying to justify themself.

even a fool is passionate about what he believes in!

I have no idea what this is all about.

 

[Solomonthewise]

The wrighters of the bible didnt understand what revalation was all about but its still in the bible!

Darwins theory is just that a theory not 100% scientificly proven fact.

If there was any notion of evolution then it would have shown in the bible at some level especilly in the book of genisis but there isnt.

there is no Evolution in any life on earth only mutation but a mutation doesnt change what the thing was or is from the begining.

finally that is a bit of a personal blow questioning my faith, its not your place to say such a thing.

ive gotta go for now but ill go do some reasearch n get back to you with facts and verses for ya to look at cya

 

[gluadys]

The wrighters of the bible didnt understand what revalation was all about but its still in the bible!

What evidence do you have of that? Are you seriously suggesting that Paul and Luke and Isaiah and Jeremiah were not aware of what they were writing and didn't understand their own compositions?

Darwins theory is just that a theory not 100% scientificly proven fact.

All this tells me is that you don't know what a scientific theory is. No theory is 100% proven fact, because science does not deal in proof. Science deals in evidence. Apparently you don't know the difference between proof and evidence either.

If there was any notion of evolution then it would have shown in the bible at some level especilly in the book of genisis but there isnt.

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

there is no Evolution in any life on earth only mutation but a mutation doesnt change what the thing was or is from the begining.

There is not just mutation. There is also genetic drift, gene flow, assortative mating and differential reproductive success (aka natural selection). There is allopatric and sympatric speciation and phyletic gradualism, all of which lead to new species. All of these have been observed.

finally that is a bit of a personal blow questioning my faith, its not your place to say such a thing.

Just trying to help someone who seems to be in distress over evolution when it is so needless.

 

[GenemZ]

Ok. I gave the place and date of the earliest known H. sapiens fossil.

I do not know where you did that. No message number?

Ok. Do you have any estimated date of the most recent creation? And where in the bible would the dividing line be between this creation and the destruction of the one immediately prior to it?

I think you are asking the wrong question. For, in a prior creation there was a humanoid creation that the Hebrew uses a generic term used for mankind. Here is an English translation of a passage revealing this. I heard it taught by a Professor of Ancient Languages who taught at Harvard. He said this Hebrew word is a generic term to discribe a humanoid. Jeremiah was warning rebellious Israel of God's fierce judgement. In doing so he uses the same Hebrew words to be found in Genesis 1 that describes the destruction of this planet just prior to its new creation. I will highlight those words in red (rarely used words in the Bible) that also appear in Genesis 1.

Jeremiah 4:23-27 niv
" I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty;
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone.


I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.

I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away.

I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the LORD, before his fierce anger.
This is what the LORD says:
"The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely."


Jeremiah was having a prophetic view into the past. He was reliving those famous words to be found in Genesis 1:2'''"Tohu wa bohu" The world was a chaotic wreck and an eerie emptiness was present over the earth. The KJV lamely translates it "without form and void." God utterly destroyed that last creation. The humanoid creation of that time was wiped out. No "man" was to be found. No animal life. either.


I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away.

I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the LORD, before his fierce anger.


This generic humanoid was more like a super intelligent animal than like the man we see today. For man today was created in "God's image." That other creation apparently was not. For if it had been, this feeling for being a generic creation would not have been expressed. And, it says that no more of these "people" were to be found. God wiped out that creation and the earth was a quivering mass.

I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.

Jeremiah was warning Israel from insight into past prehistoric history (which was located in Genesis 1:2) that when God judges their rebelliousness, it will be final and no one will escape who is guilty.

The world was "Without form and empty", was Shakspearean politeness that muddled up the true meaning of "Tohu wa Bohu." If you read through those references I gave, you will see that scholars knowing the meaning for these words (long before Darwins day) saw that this planet had gone through a major destruction and ended up a chaotic mess with a sense of eerie emptiness blanketing the planet. That is what triggered their interest. Genesis 1:2 was not simply a stage in creation. For, in the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth. God would not begin with something being disordered and with a deep sense of eeirie emptiness. God was not Dr. Frankenstein.


Grace and peace, GeneZ