PROVE EVOLUTION

[Chi_Cygni]

but it can be proven that its only a few 1000 years old

No it absolutely can not!!!!


Why do you think 99.9%+ of geologists of all faiths the world over believe it is 4.5 Gyr old?

Do you think it is a conspiracy?

 

[Mirror]

Because they're scientist of some sort and most scientist naturally dont bellieve in GOD.
coal/oil is believed to have formed over millions of years. it has been proven that with the right amount of wieght and heat it can form in a few years.
sea-creature fossils have been found at the top of mountians. the Bible gives an acount of a flood that covered the world. dont you think it possible that that is exactly how they got there.
the grand-canyon is bellieved to have formed over thousands of years of erroding. water if realesed with allot of pressure can tear through 6ft of concrete in minutes.
Noahs flood said that great fountains of water were released from the Earth. evidence of an area (that had water) under the crust has been found.
Now if those areas were to rupture and break open they would bring large amounts of sediment. were did it go? let me answere that. It spreaded out covereing large amounts of the world. that would acount for the dinosours. in a mine that was built in the side of a mountain dinosour tracks have been found(the predators and their pray trying to escape the rising waters).my freind the earth isnt as old as you think.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Because they're scientist of some sort and most scientist naturally dont bellieve in GOD.
coal/oil is believed to have formed over millions of years. it has been proven that with the right amount of wieght and heat it can form in a few years.
sea-creature fossils have been found at the top of mountians. the Bible gives an acount of a flood that covered the world. dont you think it possible that that is exactly how they got there.
the grand-canyon is bellieved to have formed over thousands of years of erroding. water if realesed with allot of pressure can tear through 6ft of concrete in minutes.
Noahs flood said that great fountains of water were released from the Earth. evidence of an area (that had water) under the crust has been found.
Now if those areas were to rupture and break open they would bring large amounts of sediment. were did it go? let me answere that. It spreaded out covereing large amounts of the world. that would acount for the dinosours. in a mine that was built in the side of a mountain dinosour tracks have been found(the predators and their pray trying to escape the rising waters).my freind the earth isnt as old as you think.

Mirror,

You have been lied to - pure and simple.

I agree that more scientists are atheists than the general population but many are Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc etc.

It's a fact that almost all 'Creation Scientists' are not working scientists.

The material you mention about a 'Flood' is laughed at by geologists and physicists. The various flood methods just fall apart from a basic physics standpoint.

Also why are all these fossils well ordered yet if a huge flood was swirling about they should be jumbled.

No - you cannot make oil that way.

Why does the Grand Canyon meander around when a violent deluge would cut a much straighter line?

I see you are very young, I really advise you to learn some science before making silly statements.

The Young Earth Creationist view is held by only a small minority of Christians, primarily in North America. In most of the world these views are looked on as jokes.

 

[Bushido216]

That is perhaps the only respect in which I'll admit that the U.S. could be more like Europe.

LESS YEC's!

 

[notto]

Because they're scientist of some sort and most scientist naturally dont bellieve in GOD.
coal/oil is believed to have formed over millions of years. it has been proven that with the right amount of wieght and heat it can form in a few years.
sea-creature fossils have been found at the top of mountians. the Bible gives an acount of a flood that covered the world. dont you think it possible that that is exactly how they got there.
the grand-canyon is bellieved to have formed over thousands of years of erroding. water if realesed with allot of pressure can tear through 6ft of concrete in minutes.
Noahs flood said that great fountains of water were released from the Earth. evidence of an area (that had water) under the crust has been found.
Now if those areas were to rupture and break open they would bring large amounts of sediment. were did it go? let me answere that. It spreaded out covereing large amounts of the world. that would acount for the dinosours. in a mine that was built in the side of a mountain dinosour tracks have been found(the predators and their pray trying to escape the rising waters).my freind the earth isnt as old as you think.

None of the ad-hoc explainations prove anything. This is just typical creationist ad-hoc explaining of things that science already knows quite a bit about. What is avoided with these types of explainations is contradictory evidence and falsifications of these very things. Each of these has been falsified by mainstream science. You need to try to explain the evidence that is used to falsify each of these. Until that is done, these theories and explainations will remain falsified.

Things such as: Why do we find intact dinosaur nests with eggs arranged in circles in the middle of the sediments supposedly caused by the flood? Until this can be explained, we can be fairly certain that the sediments were NOT laid down by the flood and that the flood explaination is falsified. There is no known mechanism by which intact egg nests and eggs can be laid down in a flood in between sediments layers from the flood. The theory used by mainstream science can explain this evidence. The creationist theory cannot, therefore, the mainstream theory wins because it can explain more of the real evidence we find, including evidence that falsifies the young earth/flood theories.

Which one of your points 'proves' that the earth is young? Can this proof be valid if we find dinosaur eggs and nests in the sediment layers or will it require a miracle or another ad-hoc explaination to explain it?

 

[Mirror]

ok then its youre turn to do somthing about it. you seem to know so much. prove the earth is billions of years old

 

[Justme]

Hi forum,

I have read thru this forum a time or two and I am amazed at what I see here.

Wherever did this theory of evolution ever come from that man evolved from apes?

How could man evolve from a species that is still on earth?

Evolution is a total absolute basic truth, it continues as we speak and how much archeological evidence do people need to notice that homo sapien, homo erectus, etc has slowly changed over the last 100000 years. Sheesh, I can't believe it. Have some of you never visited a museum or read a book on fossils and artifacts from the past?

Hawaii is the best place to look to understand this process which is still underway and is obvious even thru the darkest of colored glasses.

God couldn't have created man in just one day because to this day it remains a work in progress, exactly like the sabre-toothed tiger and the whatever big cat you want to look at. If you don't believe me just come back in 10000 years and you won't be able to name hardly any of the beasts that will be on earth at that time.

Justme

 

[DRIVEN]

How about this....

Explain why the human and the chimpanzee species share an overall 98-99% nucleotide sequence identity in DNA.

Because they have the same designer. GM uses the same designs in many different models, it would make sense that God would too.

 

[DRIVEN]

No it absolutely can not!!!!


Why do you think 99.9%+ of geologists of all faiths the world over believe it is 4.5 Gyr old?

Do you think it is a conspiracy?

Actually if you use the scientific method and throw out the extremes, it proves the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. Evolutionists rarely use the scientific method, they use extremes to try and prove their points.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Actually if you use the scientific method and throw out the extremes, it proves the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. Evolutionists rarely use the scientific method, they use extremes to try and prove their points.

So after this banal statement DRIVEN, you'll be more than happy to inform me of your scientific credentials and expertise to make such a sweeping statement.

Very few people believe a 6000 year old Earth, with a miniscule number of scientists holding such a view.

 

[Bushido216]

Actually if you use the scientific method and throw out the extremes, it proves the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. Evolutionists rarely use the scientific method, they use extremes to try and prove their points.

You do realize that the first person to realize that the earth was older than 6,000 years was a Christian, right?

Or was his faith wishy-washy like the rest of ours?

 

[faiththatbreathes]

Here's my two cents.

Forget the Bible verses; forget the age of the earth; forget even the contradicting evolutionary theories out there (my science book, for one, teaches man evolved from apes. then again, it's an old book.). My question is: how can anything evolve?
A sexually reproduced creature is formed from the combination of its parents' DNA. Its physical traits are defined by this DNA. How can a creature form new DNA, producing traits not found in either of its parents? Where would the genetic information come from? DNA cannot be found to randomly mutate within a species, unless from a birth defect, etc. which certainly do not promote species survival. New, formable cells (that great and conflict-forming term known as stem cells) cannot use logic to decide on desirable traits; the parents' DNA decides their role. If evolution is plausible, give an example wherein a modern animal has mutated, even the SLIGHTEST, out of character with its parents' DNA. Unless new information is given, no change can be made in a structure.

 

[notto]

Here's my two cents.

Forget the Bible verses; forget the age of the earth; forget even the contradicting evolutionary theories out there (my science book, for one, teaches man evolved from apes. then again, it's an old book.). My question is: how can anything evolve?
A sexually reproduced creature is formed from the combination of its parents' DNA. Its physical traits are defined by this DNA. How can a creature form new DNA, producing traits not found in either of its parents? Where would the genetic information come from? DNA cannot be found to randomly mutate within a species, unless from a birth defect, etc. which certainly do not promote species survival. New, formable cells (that great and conflict-forming term known as stem cells) cannot use logic to decide on desirable traits; the parents' DNA decides their role. If evolution is plausible, give an example wherein a modern animal has mutated, even the SLIGHTEST, out of character with its parents' DNA. Unless new information is given, no change can be made in a structure.

All reproduction causes mutation. You have mutations in you right now. This is well known. Some are 'defective', some are neutral, some are beneficial. The environment determines if the change is a birth 'defect' or a birth 'enhancement'.

A good example of this concept is the fact that in populations of elephants right now, there are more and more of them being born without tusks. This helps their survival because they are not targeted by poachers.

They did not choose this, it is just that in a population of elephants, a few of them have always been born without tusks. Now that there is selective pressure to favor the tuskless ones, they breed more, and pass this trait on to more of the population (they are not killed before they breed - unlike many tusked elephants).

This is an example of evolution in action, and a good example that it is the environment that selects what is 'good' and 'bad'. This can change as the environment changes - which is one of the drivers of evolution.

In humans, an example that shows these things is sickle cell anemia. In a normal population, it is not a benefit, but in a population that is exposed to malaria, it is a benefit and provides resistance. Just like the elephant population, in a human population that has been exposed to malaria, sickle cell anemia is more prevalent because it provided a benefit so more individulas with it survived to be able to pass it on to their offspring.

 

[DRIVEN]

So after this banal statement DRIVEN, you'll be more than happy to inform me of your scientific credentials and expertise to make such a sweeping statement.

Very few people believe a 6000 year old Earth, with a miniscule number of scientists holding such a view.

Way to skirt around the real issues. My credentials are irrelevant to the discussion. If everyone believed what the masses believed the world would still be flat!!!!

 

[DRIVEN]

You do realize that the first person to realize that the earth was older than 6,000 years was a Christian, right?

Or was his faith wishy-washy like the rest of ours?

Who ever said Christians were perfect. This issue has nothing to do with salvation. Its entirely possible for Christians and any other person to be wrong about this issue.

 

[brettnolan]

As you can tell, I'm new to CF and must be missing something. I thought this was a Christian-only section of the forums. So my question is, how can some of you so adamantly reject creationism and still claim to be Christians? How do you square your scientific beliefs and your religious beliefs? Are YOU deciding which the parts of the Bible are valid and which are not? OR, are you simply saying in your profile that you are a Christian but really are not, so that you can post in the Christian-only sections?

As a side note, I've been having a discussion on evolution and the existence of God with an atheist for a couple of months and his last e-mail to me just shocked me with his arrogance. It seems that many evolutionists believe that they are an extremely elite intellectual class. For some of you in this forum, if your Christian designation isn't just some sort of a ruse, that includes the implied belief that you are smarter than God himself.

I'm so tempted to argue some of the evolutionary questions, but my real interest first off, is to figure out Christians can also be evolutionists.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

As you can tell, I'm new to CF and must be missing something. I thought this was a Christian-only section of the forums. So my question is, how can some of you so adamantly reject creationism and still claim to be Christians? How do you square your scientific beliefs and your religious beliefs? Are YOU deciding which the parts of the Bible are valid and which are not? OR, are you simply saying in your profile that you are a Christian but really are not, so that you can post in the Christian-only sections?

As a side note, I've been having a discussion on evolution and the existence of God with an atheist for a couple of months and his last e-mail to me just shocked me with his arrogance. It seems that many evolutionists believe that they are an extremely elite intellectual class. For some of you in this forum, if your Christian designation isn't just some sort of a ruse, that includes the implied belief that you are smarter than God himself.

I'm so tempted to argue some of the evolutionary questions, but my real interest first off, is to figure out Christians can also be evolutionists.

It's funny I think just the reverse. How can people not use the brains God gave them and believe the Creationist nonsense.

 

[notto]

As you can tell, I'm new to CF and must be missing something. I thought this was a Christian-only section of the forums. So my question is, how can some of you so adamantly reject creationism and still claim to be Christians? How do you square your scientific beliefs and your religious beliefs? Are YOU deciding which the parts of the Bible are valid and which are not? OR, are you simply saying in your profile that you are a Christian but really are not, so that you can post in the Christian-only sections?

As a side note, I've been having a discussion on evolution and the existence of God with an atheist for a couple of months and his last e-mail to me just shocked me with his arrogance. It seems that many evolutionists believe that they are an extremely elite intellectual class. For some of you in this forum, if your Christian designation isn't just some sort of a ruse, that includes the implied belief that you are smarter than God himself.

I'm so tempted to argue some of the evolutionary questions, but my real interest first off, is to figure out Christians can also be evolutionists.

Evolution does not equal atheism.
Many (most) Christians understand that the world is older than a few thousand years and that animals and man were not created as a special creation all at one time.

As for your other comments, they are unwarranted and you might want to check into the beliefs of Christians who accept evolution and other mainstream science, especially ones that work in the field or teach it in our schools before you make such claims. If they study Gods creation and describe it though observation, how does that equate to them thinking they are smarter than God?

You might start here:
http://www.asa3.org/

 

[Mirror]

erlier i asked you to prove that the earth to be bvillions of years old. you have still not responded. would it be because you know youre wrong.us as christians at least have something to base our beliefs on. if the bible is false prove it. the bible tells of times to come. most of the profecies have come to pass. only a few are yet to happen.why is it that sicience is trying to prove? in Erope there came to pass one of the proviecies. it wass pitch black for 3 days. science is still to prove y? there is a world wide question that science is yet to provide an answere for. y are we here?

 

[faiththatbreathes]

uh... 0_o i thought this was a vaguely scientific discussion.

but anyways, notto, thats interesting. could you give me your sources?