Could someone explain me evolution & Big Bang?

[Oncedeceived]

So, some will die, and some won't die, before his crucifixion.
Why do you think he told them that?

Because those that didn't see Him would taste death before they saw Him in heaven.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why so vague about something that you claim to have knowledge of? Is it a feeling? Did he speak to you? Did you "see" him in the beautiful nature around you? Did unexplainable coincidences convince you?

How is your knowledge of God so much more tangible than the examples of not-knowledge that you gave earlier in the thread?

It is a simple observation to determine who has knowledge of God's existence and those who only believe that God exists. I don't have to know someone's journey to know when they have experienced the revelation of God. As far as my own experience, it is a long many year discovery and revelation that really isn't relative to others and especially to those who don't believe in the first place.

 

[stevevw]

This site does not refute nor dismiss ToE. Learn to read.

This is NOT a science site it is a creationist site.

And the other site that says the same thing which is a science site. I can get more if you want. The table and info i pasted was from a paper on the subject. Do you think they falsified the DNA results showing that gorillas are not our 2nd closet ancestor. So we have several sites all saying the same thing some religious some science. Are you saying they all falified the data. A DNA test is a DNA test, thats the great thing about it you cant fudge the evidence with fossils and making out they are something when their not. It is black and white just like they use in forensics to prove the guilt of an offender.

PLOS ONE: Phylogenetic Resolution and Quantifying the Phylogenetic Diversity and Dispersion of Communities

Pegasoferae, an unexpected mammalian clade revealed by tracking ancient retroposon insertions


Platypus sex is XXXXX-rated - 24 October 2004 - New Scientist

"Problems with Characterizing the Protostome-Deuterostome Ancestor" by Marcus R. Ross and Paul A. Nelson

 

[Oncedeceived]

NICE! A lifetime of believing something for which is no evidence and that you won't actually get until after you're dead! In fact, there's pretty much no good reason to believe it at all, but please, just take your word and live a happy life believing in one of the 100,000 gods humans created! And by the way, you don't actually deserve it so feel a bit unworthy too. (atheist quiz, Bible contradictions)

Please if Yahweh is real, then why Zeus isn't?

Ah, Etheri's true colors revealed!
I knew it wouldn't take long. Slowly leaving the fold of Christianity....hahahahahahahahah How old are you really? Wouldn't it be nice to just let yourself be who you are and step out from behind your mask? Honesty is always the best policy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then your claim to a literal interpretation is strained, since that's not what the text literally states:

"And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day."

In the morning of the third day, God made the Earth produce fruit-bearing trees, and in the evening God looked at said trees and say "it was good".

But there's a larger problem. Even if we take a non-literal interpreatation and say that Genesis 1:10-13 is actually saying God made the first living proto-cell that would eventually yield trees, this still all happens prior to the existence of the Sun (the fourth day).

Genesis still says that life existed prior to the Sun, which contradicts science, which says the Sun is a billion years older than the first whiff of terrestrial life.


That explains how what happened? If you're referring to the March discovery of bacteria in oceanic crust, then you misunderstand my point - I'm not questioning how plant-life could have survived without the Sun, I'm saying the Sun preceeds plants (and, indeed, all life on Earth) by hundreds of millions of years. This contradicts Genesis, which says life is older.

So which came first: life, or the Sun? Genesis says life came first, science says the Sun came first. Who's right, who's wrong?

Give me evidence that the sun came before the earth and that life could not live without the sun.

We think we know much about the solar system and how the sun and planets formed but we don't and we are finding out that we don't.

Our Very Normal Solar System Isn't Normal Anymore : Krulwich Wonders... : NPR

 

[Oncedeceived]

And the other site that says the same thing which is a science site. I can get more if you want. The table and info i pasted was from a paper on the subject. Do you think they falsified the DNA results showing that gorillas are not our 2nd closet ancestor. So we have several sites all saying the same thing some religious some science. Are you saying they all falified the data. A DNA test is a DNA test, thats the great thing about it you cant fudge the evidence with fossils and making out they are something when their not. It is black and white just like they use in forensics to prove the guilt of an offender.

PLOS ONE: Phylogenetic Resolution and Quantifying the Phylogenetic Diversity and Dispersion of Communities

Pegasoferae, an unexpected mammalian clade revealed by tracking ancient retroposon insertions


Platypus sex is XXXXX-rated - 24 October 2004 - New Scientist

"Problems with Characterizing the Protostome-Deuterostome Ancestor" by Marcus R. Ross and Paul A. Nelson

IT may be interesting to note as well that we are seeing that Orangutan's are possibly closer than chimps to humans and they fit with the fossil evidence better.

As I’ve mentioned previously, orangutans have a surprisingly strong claim to perhaps being humans’ closest living relative when looking at the morphological and reproductive similarities between the two species. It’s interesting, then, that so few people are even aware of this possibility. How does one account for these similarities if not by close relation? On the other side, genetic evidence proves strong support for a close chimpanzee-human relationship. How do the opponents of this hypothesis challenge DNA?

March | 2013 | Where The Wolves Once Roamed

 

[mzungu]

And the other site that says the same thing which is a science site. I can get more if you want. The table and info i pasted was from a paper on the subject. Do you think they falsified the DNA results showing that gorillas are not our 2nd closet ancestor. So we have several sites all saying the same thing some religious some science. Are you saying they all falified the data. A DNA test is a DNA test, thats the great thing about it you cant fudge the evidence with fossils and making out they are something when their not. It is black and white just like they use in forensics to prove the guilt of an offender.

How does this disprove ToE. Bonobos and Chimpanzees are our closest relatives. If this fact disturbs you then I am sorry but reality is hard sometimes.

PLOS ONE: Phylogenetic Resolution and Quantifying the Phylogenetic Diversity and Dispersion of Communities

Accepts ToE. How does this disprove ToE?

Pegasoferae, an unexpected mammalian clade revealed by tracking ancient retroposon insertions

Accepts ToE. How does this disprove ToE?

Platypus sex is XXXXX-rated - 24 October 2004 - New Scientist

Accepts ToE. How does this disprove ToE?

"Problems with Characterizing the Protostome-Deuterostome Ancestor" by Marcus R. Ross and Paul A. Nelson[/quote] Accepts ToE. How does this disprove ToE?

Really now don't you even read the articles?

 

[Etheri]

Ah, Etheri's true colors revealed!
I knew it wouldn't take long. Slowly leaving the fold of Christianity....hahahahahahahahah How old are you really? Wouldn't it be nice to just let yourself be who you are and step out from behind your mask? Honesty is always the best policy.

Hail FSM?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hail FSM?

Feel better now.

 

[EternalDragon]

Give me evidence that the sun came before the earth and that life could not live without the sun.

We think we know much about the solar system and how the sun and planets formed but we don't and we are finding out that we don't.

Our Very Normal Solar System Isn't Normal Anymore : Krulwich Wonders... : NPR

Thanks for the link. Very interesting.

Funny how the bible tells us we are a special and unique creation before we even knew any of that from the article.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Give me evidence that the sun came before the earth and that life could not live without the sun.

Notice that I explicitly stated that my point isn't that life cannot live without the Sun. What I actually said, was that the problem is the order of events: life is a billion years younger than the Sun, whereas Genesis 1 says life is older than the Sun (by about two days). Nothing to do with the Earth, nor life's dependency on the Sun. Simply chronology. So I'll repeat my question:

"[W]hich came first: life, or the Sun? Genesis says life came first, science says the Sun came first. Who's right, who's wrong?"

Again, I'm not talking about the Earth (though for the record, the evidence shows the Sun formed 4.57 billion years ago, while the Earth formed 4.54 billion years ago, making the Sun 30 million years older - not a small difference, even on geological timescales).

We think we know much about the solar system and how the sun and planets formed but we don't and we are finding out that we don't.

Our Very Normal Solar System Isn't Normal Anymore : Krulwich Wonders... : NPR

That new solar systems have unexpectedly close gas giants doesn't alter our solar system - if new data showed US people had atypical genetics, would that suddenly make you older than your mother? Obviously not. The solar system, it's turning out, is unusual, but not inexplicable. The data that show how old these things are still exist - the Sun is 4.57 billion years old, the Earth is 4.54 billion, life is 3.5 billion, flowering plants are 0.14 billion, etc.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Thanks for the link. Very interesting.

Funny how the bible tells us we are a special and unique creation before we even knew any of that from the article.

Exactly, I can't remember who it was, but a Scientist said something about all we had to do was read the Bible and we would have saved a lot of time and effort with what we are finding now. I need to look that up again and see if I can find it. Regardless, science is finding out that the universe is looking more and more like the Bible claims it is.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

After seeing flaws in Christianity itself I'm slowly leaving it, but I'm not really going into atheism...Darwin was an Agnostic, same for Einstein. That's why I changed my icon to "Seeker". I don't know what to believe anymore. I don't know much about evolution and the explosion, so if someone could explain it to me in a simple way.

And if someone could explain these:

1. How can nothing create the universe.
2. Since the magnetosphere of the Earth is very young, how could there even be advanced life, because the magnetosphere protects us from solar radiation?
3. The missing links?

And the evidence for your claims. Thank you.

If you are interested you can check out this series of lectures entited "The Genesis Conflict"

Browse Media - The Genesis Conflict - English - Amazing Discoveries TV

 

[Etheri]

Exactly, I can't remember who it was, but a Scientist said something about all we had to do was read the Bible and we would have saved a lot of time and effort with what we are finding now. I need to look that up again and see if I can find it. Regardless, science is finding out that the universe is looking more and more like the Bible claims it is.

Especially that it is flat.

 

[mzungu]

Exactly, I can't remember who it was, but a Scientist said something about all we had to do was read the Bible and we would have saved a lot of time and effort with what we are finding now. I need to look that up again and see if I can find it. Regardless, science is finding out that the universe is looking more and more like the Bible claims it is.

The Bible was written by people who believed the world was flat. Knock yourself out if it pleases you but remember the next time you use the internet, computer, car, airplane, see a doctor, etc ad infinitum; you will in essence be enjoying the fruits of science and not of the Bible. Show me one scientific discovery the Bible has given us!

 

[PROPHECYKID]

The Bible was written by people who believed the world was flat. Knock yourself out if it pleases you but remember the next time you use the internet, computer, car, airplane, see a doctor, etc ad infinitum; you will in essence be enjoying the fruits of science and not of the Bible. Show me one scientific discovery the Bible has given us!

Isa_40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Job_9:9 Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south.

Job_38:31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

Amo_5:8 Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night: that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name:

Before science confirmed all these things they were already in the bible.

 

[Ginger123]

If you are interested you can check out this series of lectures entited "The Genesis Conflict"

Browse Media - The Genesis Conflict - English - Amazing Discoveries TV

It's a Christian website trying to make you think it's a scientific site.

 

[freezerman2000]

.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

It's a Christian website trying to make you think it's a scientific site.

No its not. Its a Christian website with a serious of presentations done by a scientist who taught evolution at a university level for many years and who was converted based on the scientific evidence.

You guys are funny. Once its a christian website it's automatically wrong right? All of a sudden the science does not matter.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Notice that I explicitly stated that my point isn't that life cannot live without the Sun. What I actually said, was that the problem is the order of events: life is a billion years younger than the Sun, whereas Genesis 1 says life is older than the Sun (by about two days). Nothing to do with the Earth, nor life's dependency on the Sun. Simply chronology. So I'll repeat my question:

"[W]hich came first: life, or the Sun? Genesis says life came first, science says the Sun came first. Who's right, who's wrong?"

Is life a billion years younger than the sun? What do you base that on? How do you know that is true?

Again, I'm not talking about the Earth (though for the record, the evidence shows the Sun formed 4.57 billion years ago, while the Earth formed 4.54 billion years ago, making the Sun 30 million years older - not a small difference, even on geological timescales).

We don't know how old earth really is exactly and it could be older even than the evidence shows because factors could change it even more than 30 million years.

That new solar systems have unexpectedly close gas giants doesn't alter our solar system - if new data showed US people had atypical genetics, would that suddenly make you older than your mother? Obviously not. The solar system, it's turning out, is unusual, but not inexplicable. The data that show how old these things are still exist - the Sun is 4.57 billion years old, the Earth is 4.54 billion, life is 3.5 billion, flowering plants are 0.14 billion, etc.

It is a scientific consensus that we don't know how old the earth is or what life might have been on the earliest surface. We have the first ancestors to the list of plant life in the Biblical account very very early in fossil evidence.

Another factor that can not be ignored. We know that fossil evidence is sporadic at best and that some life forms that were thought to be arriving on the scene through the fossil evidence is found later to refute that time line and it is found that they were present millions and millions of years earlier than thought.

Which Came First: Bees or Flowers? Find Points to Bees


By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Published: May 23, 1995

• Sign In to E-Mail
• Print

BEFORE time turned them to stone at least 220 million years ago, the fossilized logs of the Petrified Forest in eastern Arizona stood as tall trees in a tropical environment. Many of them, scientists have now discovered, still bear traces of insect nests the trees once harbored. The logs are riddled with holes containing little chambers strung together in lines or clusters, nearly everything about them resembling the nests of modern bees.
The problem is that flowers date from only half as long ago. Could bees have lived before flowers? The very idea, once unthinkable, is upsetting traditional theory about the early history of bees and their supposed co-evolution with flowering plants, or angiosperms.
If confirmed by further research, the new findings at the Petrified Forest mean that bees were buzzing around some 140 million years earlier than previously thought. The oldest known fossil of a bee is an 80-million-year-old specimen trapped in amber from present-day New Jersey. Scientists now must be on the lookout for fossil bees to fill that huge time gap.

Which Came First: Bees or Flowers? Find Points to Bees - New York Times

Web address:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/
131001191811.htm
New Fossils Push the Origin of Flowering Plants Back by 100 Million Years to the Early Triassic

enlarge


Flower-like pollen from the Triassic. (Credit: UZH)

Oct. 1, 2013 — Drilling cores from Switzerland have revealed the oldest known fossils of the direct ancestors of flowering plants. These beautifully preserved 240-million-year-old pollen grains are evidence that flowering plants evolved 100 million years earlier than previously thought, according to a new study in the open-access journal Frontiers in Plant Science.
Flowering plants evolved from extinct plants related to conifers, ginkgos, cycads, and seed ferns. The oldest known fossils from flowering plants are pollen grains. These are small, robust and numerous and therefore fossilize more easily than leaves and flowers.
An uninterrupted sequence of fossilized pollen from flowers begins in the Early Cretaceous, approximately 140 million years ago, and it is generally assumed that flowering plants first evolved around that time. But the present study documents flowering plant-like pollen that is 100 million years older, implying that flowering plants may have originated in the Early Triassic (between 252 to 247 million years ago) or even earlier.
Many studies have tried to estimate the age of flowering plants from molecular data, but so far no consensus has been reached. Depending on dataset and method, these estimates range from the Triassic to the Cretaceous. Molecular estimates typically need to be "anchored" in fossil evidence, but extremely old fossils were not available for flowering plants. "That is why the present finding of flower-like pollen from the Triassic is significant," says Prof. Peter Hochuli, University of Zurich.
Peter Hochuli and Susanne Feist-Burkhardt from Paleontological Institute and Museum, University of Zürich, studied two drilling cores from Weiach and Leuggern, northern Switzerland, and found pollen grains that resemble fossil pollen from the earliest known flowering plants. With Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy, they obtained high-resolution images across three dimensions of six different types of pollen.
In a previous study from 2004, Hochuli and Feist-Burkhardt documented different, but clearly related flowering-plant-like pollen from the Middle Triassic in cores from the Barents Sea, south of Spitsbergen. The samples from the present study were found 3000 km south of the previous site. "We believe that even highly cautious scientists will now be convinced that flowering plants evolved long before the Cretaceous," say Hochuli.
What might these primitive flowering plants have looked like? In the Middle Triassic, both the Barents Sea and Switzerland lay in the subtropics, but the area of Switzerland was much drier than the region of the Barents Sea. This implies that these plants occurred a broad ecological range. The pollen's structure suggests that the plants were pollinated by insects: most likely beetles, as bees would not evolve for another 100 million years.


So we can see that fossil evidence can be at least 100 million years wrong and perhaps even longer. Science is restricted to known in the hand fossil evidence that can be extremely unsatisfactory. One can not claim that the Biblical scenario is not within time frame that "science says" when science obviously is wrong about the time frame by at least 100 million years if not more. It is reasonable to even imagine that life began on earth with plants that even included flowering plants and then all was wiped out except Cyanobacteria. Who knows. We don't have fossils that go back to the earliest time on earth.