Okay now that you are reading here is how I got there. According to people that believe in the religion of evolution; over the course of billions of years animals evolved from single cell organisms to the animals we have today. The problem with this belief is that we have this thing called volcanism and plate tectonics. Every few hundred million years the surface of the earth is replaced. New York one hundred million years ago was on the equator, the planet suffered an ice age that lasted a few million years. Suddenly 65 million years ago there was a sudden explosion of life on this planet. All the species we see today started 65 million years ago. If this evolution thing takes billions of years to happen the planet has not seen billions of years of a stable climate in order for this evolution thing to work.
There have been at least three ages or three separate climate changes on this planet over the last four billion years.
The first age:
The planet was molten and had a average global temperature of five thousand degrees. That is half the temperature of the surface of the Sun. I think you will agree that in this age there would be little chance of any cellular or microbial life of import.
The second age:
The Earth cooled and water suddenly appeared on the planet. Here is where we have the chance for life. The issue is that the atmosphere, the air is made up mostly of Nitrogen, Sulfur dioxide, Carbon dioxide. The water had so much carbon in it that the water was mostly carbonic acid. The animals that showed up then thrived on sulfur and carbon releasing the oxygen. Volcanoes produce the sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide in huge quantities. No species that is alive today could live in this environment. The problem with the animal life that lived in this age was themselves, they polluted the air so much that it became toxic to them killing them off. Well it killed most of all animal life, this life can be found at the bottom of the sea near volcanic vents where the conditions are like that near the surface when they were dominant. These animals are just like the ones we have near the surface but they adapted or “evolved” to the new environment. Crabs, lobsters, clams and other sea life thrive in this new toxic environment.
The third age:
The Earths orbit changed and the wobble of the Earth in conjunction with the volcanic actions caused an ice age that lasted at least two million years. This ice age covered the entire planet to a depth of two miles. This would prohibit most life we currently see on the Earth today. The tectonic plates are still moving around but only 65 to 200 million years ago did the ice melt. The sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide that were the dominant gases in our atmosphere suddenly became trace elements and the released oxygen became the dominant gas. Allow me to be clearer, the atmosphere is roughly 80% nitrogen all other gases make up the other 20% animal life cause that 20% to change depending on the surface conditions. Trees and plants like coral feed on carbon dioxide. The animals and plants that feed on sulfur are mostly gone. The carbon is dwindling now so we are going to start losing trees and plants. The current life on this planet is running out of fuel i.e. carbon dioxide. When that happens we will run into the next age of the Earth. Since the plants feed on carbon dioxide and the animals produce carbon dioxide the plants are consuming more that animals can produce. Because of this the ratio of carbon and oxygen is changing and the atmosphere will become toxic to the plants that sustain us.
What is happening now on our planet is that our oceans are boiling away from the heat of the Sun, and volcanism. This is not new; scientists have proven this back in 1972 with Apollo 17, if memory serves, hydrogen and oxygen is leaving the planet by the metric ton per second. With out that element we will not have water. As the Sun expands the Earth will get hotter, and more and more gases in the atmosphere will escape as it did on the planets Venus and Mars.
With the different ages happening just under every one and a quarter billion years how did this evolution thing happen? Evolution could not happen in less than a billion years according to the people that believe in evolution. For evolution to happen we need a stable environment for billions of years. Science has proven that we have not billions of years of a stable environment. Now if evolutionists wish to claim that it takes millions of years, for all life to evolve into different species then they might have a chance to be correct but scientific evidence does not support this. Man did not become the dominant species till ten or fifteen thousand years ago along with all the most all the species we see today. This happened after the end of the last big ice age. So now we have to have all species evolve in less than a million years.
Think it through and you will see that evolution as stated by Charles Darwin and his supporters and the numbers don’t work.
oh puleese....just like they did for all the rest of the hoaxes that have borne themselves out to be lies over the years? Every so many years they come up with a whole bunch of excitement that in the end becomes nothing but a hoax.
They're trying real hard to find this missing link arent' they? All these years. All these smarts and what have they got for hard evidence?
You'd be wise to set back and watch for a while before you jump on this brand new bandwagon.
It's no diff than those of the past who predicted the end of the world, sold all their worldly goods and waited....and waited....and waited before they crawled home ashamed.
From a Christian POV we are called to be harmless as doves but wise as serpents.
I like that and can completely understand why we are compared to "sheep" in scripture in lieu of other animals. We'll follow whoever and whatever to the ends of the earth even if it takes us over a cliff to our own demise.
How is that different than you following your God heder like blind sheep? Frankly KFC, with all due respect, you come across as narrow minded when it comes to any sort of science - save that which prooves your point.
Wow, that's a little patronizing.
Of course they are - that's what they do. Then again, you try real hard to find and/or proove your beliefs, et al. What's the difference KFC?
Yet the bulk of you folks are pains in the butts, and nosey as heck. Sarcasm aside, it's particularly annoying when you respectfully ask a (in my case) Christian individual not to try and....help me. Yet they continue to; again and again.
I was referencing Evolution; the fact is it happens - things evolve. Does that mean they suddenly turn into other animals? No, they branch.
Ok. Show me where I'm narrow minded when it comes to SCIENCE. Don't confuse theories or opinions with Science.
I have no problem with true science. My son is about to get his doctorate in Science at the end of the year. He's being touted as one of the leading soon to be post-docs in his field. He's been published in scientific journals and is about to be published with another three more articles. One college already has done a seminar on his research. We talk alot about his research.
No, I'm not narrow minded when it comes to Science at all. I can be considered narrow minded when it comes to the truth meaning I believe there is one truth and only one when it comes to our eternal destiny. That I will acknowledge honestly.
47 million years? Can you prove this? Can they? But I'll bet you're buying this hook, line and sinker.
It's funny how anything that attempts to disprove God will be blindly accepted even later when found out to be a hoax but we are told, as Christians we are "blind" when it comes to following God ourselves.
I don't have a "blind" faith. I'm not following God blindly. The same skeptic nature you see of me when it comes to ET I brought to the table in the beginning of my walk with God. The diff being that he proved himself to me over and over again, until I had no choice but to believe him.
Can you, factually, without a doubt and without the use of a book (i.e. Say some archaeologists dig up Noah's Ark) - prove yourself? The same science that you push against when it comes to Evolution and other things, is the same science and process that you use to prove your point. Yet, I've yet to hear you acknowledge any sort of agenda for that science.
Do you get what I'm trying to say?
The fact that evolution happens and what it is; you've shown me and others time and time again you misunderstand it. I would have no problem if you at least showed that you understood it right.
Good for your son; what's his name? I'm interested in looking at his research, et al.
It is still blind; you accept what you accept without question. Until I see you say something like "This is what God says...but, I see this here...xyz," I'm skeptical.
Evidently you know something I don't.....I'm waiting to be enlightened. How and what from exactly did man "evolve"?
Lets add to this:
"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time."
So...
Origin of life =/= Evolution.
Got that? Alright, lets move on then.
Evolution of Man: http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm
interesting edict if supposedly issued by the being you claim to have directly created both doves (glorified pigeons with all the disease vector status that entails) and serpents (pretty much dumb as rocks).
if there is a god who personally created those two species, he must be rollin on the floor laffin his ass off everytime someone takes that nonsense seriously.
[quote]Evidently you know something I don't.....I'm waiting to be enlightened. How and what from exactly did man "evolve"?Lets add to this:"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time."So...Origin of life =/= Evolution.Got that? Alright, lets move on then.Evolution of Man: http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm[/quote]
Here are the last 3 paragraphs from that site.......let me say that upon reading this, coming up with scientific evidence is not looking promising for the true blue believers in Darwinism....that is, macroEvolution!
Evolution Of Man - Scientific EvidenceThe theory of evolution of man is supported by a set of independent observations within the fields of anthropology, paleontology, and molecular biology. Collectively, they depict life branching out from a common ancestor through gradual genetic changes over millions of years, commonly known as the "tree of life." Although accepted in mainstream science as altogether factual and experimentally proven, a closer examination of the evidences reveal some inaccuracies and reasonable alternative explanations. This causes a growing number of scientists to dissent from the Darwinian theory of evolution for its inability to satisfactorily explain the origin of man. One of the major evidences for the evolution of man is homology, that is, the similarity of either anatomical or genetic features between species. For instance, the resemblance in the skeleton structure of apes and humans has been correlated to the homologous genetic sequences within each species as strong evidence for common ancestry. This argument contains the major assumption that similarity equals relatedness. In other words, the more alike two species appear, the more closely they are related to one another. This is known to be a poor assumption. Two species can have homologous anatomy even though they are not related in any way. This is called "convergence" in evolutionary terms. It is now known that homologous features can be generated from entirely different gene segments within different unrelated species. The reality of convergence implies that anatomical features arise because of the need for specific functionality, which is a serious blow to the concept of homology and ancestry. Additionally, the evolution of man from ape-like ancestors is often argued on the grounds of comparative anatomy within the fossil record. Yet, the fossil record indicates more stability in the forms of species than slow or even drastic changes, which would indicate intermediate stages between modern species. The "missing links" are missing. And unfortunately, the field of paleoanthropology has been riddled with fraudulent claims of finding the missing link between humans and primates, to the extent that fragments of human skeletons have been combined with other species such as pigs and apes and passed off as legitimate. Although genetic variability is seen across all peoples, the process of natural selection leading to speciation is disputed. Research challenging the accepted paradigm continues to surface raising significant questions about the certainty of evolution as the origin of man.
Evolution Of Man - The ScrutinyThe theory concerning the evolution of man is under increased scrutiny due to the persistence of gaps in the fossil record, the inability to demonstrate "life-or-death" determining advantageous genetic mutations, and the lack of experiments or observations to truly confirm the evidence for speciation. Overall, the evolution of man pervades as the accepted paradigm on the origin of man within the scientific community. This is not because it has been proven scientifically, but because alternative viewpoints bring with them metaphysical implications which go against the modern naturalistic paradigm. Nevertheless, a closer examination of the evidence reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more reliant upon beliefs, not proof.
Again Lula, you're using a RELIGOUS based site to prove science. It's like using Richard Dawkins to sell bibles. Not to mention that your argument is a straw fallacy.
soooooo I guess you never took a walk thru Psalm 2?
guess again. least now we both know at whom and why he's laffin derisively: folks who judge animals by their covers.
Alderic,
Please re-read your post #181....do you see the site you recommended?.....Evolution of Man: http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm
Now please reread my post 183 and you'll see I used the site you recommended and posted the last three paragraphs from the first one on that cite....
Once more I'll ask....I'm waiting to be enlightened ....Exactly, How and what from did man "evolve" or "branch" if you like that word better? For anyone who knows the answer, please tell me...don't send me to a website....if you find one that tells you, read it yourself and then summarize the answer.
*sigh*.....ok time for school. You ready? Got a pencil?
First of all it was Christ who spoke those words in Matt 10:16. Not me. So if you have a beef......take it up with him. Don't shoot the messenger.
Second of all, there was a reason why he used serpents and doves as his illustration and it makes perfect sense.....if you're willing to think about it.
In Egyptian hieroglyphics, as well as in much ancient lore serpents symbolized wisdom. (hmmmm wonder where that came from?). They were considered shrewd, smart, cunning, cautious. So at least as far as that goes Christians are to emulate serpents. So I guess it was a compliment when Daiwa called me "shrewd."
Doves represent being pure or innocent which is another characteristic of the disciples of Christ. Doves are harmless and gentle of birds.
So we have wisdom and innocence, cunning and gentleness working inside the obedient Christian.
Make sense now? Jesus called as to be wise as serpents and harmless as Doves.
You sure you read it?
That's what I was thinking as well. *scratching my head* on that one!
D'oh, my bad; I got my threads crossed. Time to eat crow.
~A
if, in fact, matthew wrote every word in the volume bearing his name, your claim would still be hearsay.
which might be all for the best iif what you're really saying here (as you so very clearly appear to be doing) is that jesus' teachings are drawn in any part from egyptian mythology
whether or not it's ancient lore or old wive's tales, in fact snakes are among our least intelligent vertebrate family members and dowes are as harmful as any other pigeons. their plumage doesn't protect them (or us) from being infested by lice and their feces is splattered indicriminately around, dries to dust and contaminates the air you breathe.
beyond that, why is this statement open to interpretation? off the literal record or ?
Ha, chuckling from ear to ear.....
I'm with you on having threads crossed...seems there are 3 or 4 going on this topic....
It's coming up on summer corn...that'd be better than crow!
I doubt that will happen in your current lifetime. Beyond the one you've already experienced, that is. Peace by with you.
Indeed, there are many, and yes, corn would be much better than crow.
Sorry I was gone so long but my computer took a dump. It seems that the people that believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution will not accept any religious views because they are not scientific. The people that believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution also don’t accept science from non-religious sources because they disagree with them who cares about science. All the information I used came from non-religious sites from former scientific supporters of Darwin.
Since the science is not accepted then I have to logically conclude that the supporters of Darwin are doing so for religious reasons. This will be argued forever because it is religion not science and you only have agreements when people of the same religion chat.
As I had pointed out early in the discussion whenever a discovery is made by someone outside the accepted field it is put down and ridiculed for a few decades before anyone really takes a look at the data. The Atlantic conveyer was discovered by accident by a paleo-entomologist because his field of study was old dead bugs and not weather it took 30 years before it was looked at and found to be correct.
As I pointed out the timelines don’t fit for any evolution to occur sooner than 250 million years ago with man only being the dominant species the last 10k years. There is no real record of man being here during the time of the dinosaurs and they died out 65 million years ago. So all the species that are around today evolved in the last 65 million years. With that being the case, we should be seeing evolution still running amuck, yet we have not documented any species evolving only species going extinct.
I am told by followers of this religion that it takes millions of years for a species to evolve into a new species. We have good fossil records above the KT boundary and no proof of evolutionary changes over the last 65 million years. With the last ice age ending about 15k years ago and it lasted for 2 million years or so. We only have the last 10 thousand years for evolution to have taken place because the Earth was covered in ice as much as 3 miles thick in some places. Not much time for evolution to have taken place under the ice for land animals. Where did they all come from? I do not know, but I do know that Mr. Darwin made a good guess and in the end was wrong.
I must say in fairness that the people that still believe the earth is flat have a following of 2 million people and even the followers of the religion of Darwin scoff at them. Yet those people still hold fast to their beliefs.
Since the science is not accepted
You are confusing "not accepted" with "not understood by Creationists".
The science behind Darwin's theory is well accepted. It's just slightly too difficult* for Creationists to understand, apparently.
*I base this assumption on the fact that all Creationists I know and all Creationist publications I have seen appear to have trouble understanding that Darwin's theory does NOT claim that "one species changes into another" and cannot grasp the concept of species branching into two.
This is what I mean by religion of Darwin. You took what I wrote and misrepresented it in order to go back to your religious mantra. It is the Darwinist that is the religious fanatic. I never used any creationism in my argument yet you bring it up automatically.
The current science contradicts much of the THEROY of evolution as espoused by Mr. Darwin. You still ignore the timelines involved and the science that contradicts most of the theory. The facts still stand that there are huge holes in the theory of evolution.
Professor Einstein’s theory of general relativity had huge errors in it. It is widely accepted but in this case the scientists admit that there are errors and the theory is adjusted to accommodate the mistakes made. This has not happened with the theory of evolution. You also ignored the fact that none of the data I used came from creationist but from accredited scientists that formerly accepted evolution. An example would be man made global warming. It was the accepted theory, but as scientist looked at the data it is no longer accepted because it was proven incorrect. Too many flaws in the data.
Ian JohnstonMalaspina University-CollegeNanaimo, BC
As posted on JU By AldericJourdain Posted April 3 this year in the article Evolution
We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.
Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).
Leauki, it was this article that caused me to write my article. Whether it is a single species that transforms or a species that branches the change is still the same. There is still no fossil record to support this change and the timeline is short enough for man to have documented a change in the lifespan of our species. I understand the theory of how species branch out into other species and remain unconvinced because we still don’t have any transitional species to point to that support the theory. Genetic mutation might work but for it to transform into a new species you would have to have a living mating pair to continue that mutation. What is it that I am missing?
This is what I mean by religion of Darwin. You took what I wrote and misrepresented it in order to go back to your religious mantra.
No. I didn't mispresent what you wrote.
I just happen to know that you don't understand evolution based on what you write about it. You can hardly tell me that this means "misrepresenting" what you said.
It's possible.
But that doesn't make evolution a religion. It just means that there could be a better theory yet.
Nevertheless I have yet to see an article criticising evolution and claiming that "Intelligent Design" is closer to the truth that even makes an effort to represent Darwin's theory correctly.
Whether it is a single species that transforms or a species that branches the change is still the same.
That's the point. It's not.
One is a Creationist fantasy; the other is Darwin's theory.
One is, according to Darwin, impossible; the other happens all the time.
One hole in Darwin's theory is that IF one species would indeed turn into another, Darwin's theory would be proven wrong (and would henceforth only explain a subset of events we see in nature). The theory would remain useful, just like Newton's theory is today.
You obviously don't understand the significance of the difference. Otherwise you wouldn't even argue that it is "still the same".
Uh oh, looks like I inspired something,lol.
That's where I think you're getting things crossed; a fish into a cow? More likely the fish would evolve into something that is more adaptive of their changing enviroment.
Be well, ~Alderic
You are both wrong, but Alderic is a bit closer.
What happens in fact is that the fish always remains a fish, but what a "fish" is changes over many many generations. There is NEVER a point when the "fish" becomes "something else".
Repeat after me: There is no species border. There is no species border. There is no species border.
Once you understand that simple principle, Darwin's theory might still not make sense; but at least you will know what it is and why any "arguments" against it based on the idea that "species borders" cannot be crossed are nonsense.
It's easy for me to understand because I have a thing for languages and languages evolve in the same way. No language ever turned into another language, yet English and German are two distinct languages descended from a common ancestor.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
