It seems that after carefull scrutiny i can't find even a line in the bible that so much as HINTS what the age of the earth is. I know that by adding up the ages of all the characters in the bible the cactholics arrived at something between 6 and 12 thousand years, but that's under the assumption that the bible is a COMPLETE HISTORY of the earth. Does it claim to be that? (i don't know... im guessing not). Should my guess be correct, then is there ANYTHING at all in there that states the age of the earth?

I think that the Bible is just a story from the time Man appeared. And even then its off by oh 80,000 years or so.

Doesn't it start with "in the beginning"? Doesn't seem in medias res to me.

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

It seems that after carefull scrutiny i can't find even a line in the bible that so much as HINTS what the age of the earth is. I know that by adding up the ages of all the characters in the bible the cactholics arrived at something between 6 and 12 thousand years, but that's under the assumption that the bible is a COMPLETE HISTORY of the earth. Does it claim to be that? (i don't know... im guessing not). Should my guess be correct, then is there ANYTHING at all in there that states the age of the earth?



No, there is not information that will define the age of the earth in the bible.

No, The bible is not a history book - it's purpose is to assist people with getting right with God.

When we start trying to measure religion by science then that is where the troubles begin. These are spiritual issues - judgement isn't going to be on our "religion" it will be on our thoughts and deeds. God will judge the heart and mind and not our adherance to a dogmatic ritual.

Although, the study of the history of man has not disproven the claims of the events in the bible. Meaning, it does have historical credibility.

[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 08-20-2006).]

The Bible is more like a history book for the Middle East, North Africa, and Southern Europe rather than the Earth. The Bible only tells the story of a portion of the Earth, not the entire Earth itself.

quote:Originally posted by postdiluvium:

The Bible is more like a history book for the Middle East, North Africa, and Southern Europe rather than the Earth. The Bible only tells the story of a portion of the Earth, not the entire Earth itself.

I'm not sure how accurate the history is.

so basically no there isn't anything stating the age of the earth? Why do so many creationists get totally up tight trying to prove the earth is less than 10,000 years old???

I thought they measured the age of the earth by genealogy..

[This message has been edited by Deoz (edited 08-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Deoz:

I thought they measured the age of the earth by genealogy..





quote: Originally posted by Sarith:

I know that by adding up the ages of all the characters in the bible the cactholics arrived at something between 6 and 12 thousand years

quote:Originally posted by Iam:





/thread



[This message has been edited by Deoz (edited 08-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

so basically no there isn't anything stating the age of the earth? Why do so many creationists get totally up tight trying to prove the earth is less than 10,000 years old???

It's a good question...I think it has more to do with seeing how the idea of evolution opposes the idea of a God created universe. I don't believe it has as much to do with time lines but the idea that things are here under random circumstance and chance that evolutionists teach verse a intentional design of all things.

If evolution is true then the bible is wrong - God did not create all things with intention. If the bible is right then the idea of chance mutations of species and so on can not be true.

God did not create things with the potential of becoming something other then what he intended them to be. I believe in adaption where subtle changes occur in the species but I do not believe that a even over a billion years a fish can become anything other then a fish and I don't accept that the scientists have the proof to support the theory.

quote:Originally posted by Sarith

so basically no there isn't anything stating the age of the earth? Why do so many creationists get totally up tight trying to prove the earth is less than 10,000 years old???

Because the Bible gives enough information for one to come up with the approximate age of the Earth. Adam was created during the first week of the Earth's existance. The geneolgy from Adam to Jesus is recorded in the Bible. We know that Jesus was born 2038 years ago.

quote:Originally posted by Interest

I believe in adaption where subtle changes occur in the species but I do not believe that a even over a billion years a fish can become anything other then a fish and I don't accept that the scientists have the proof to support the theory.

Why specifically do you say that you don't accept that scientists have proof to support the theory? Are you educated on the topic of evolution enough to discredit the theory? Are you aware of the proof that science has brought forward? There is ample proof to support the theory which is why it is labled a scientific theory.

In science, a theory isn't just some guess, like when a detective has a theory. It takes tons of proof to be called a theory. The germ theory of disease is still and always will be labled as a theory, even though we are certain that microorganisms are responsible for thousands of diseases.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Because the Bible gives enough information for one to come up with the approximate age of the Earth. Adam was created during the first week of the Earth's existance. The geneolgy from Adam to Jesus is recorded in the Bible. We know that Jesus was born 2038 years ago.

.

Does the Bible claim that the geneology from adam to jesus is COMPLETE? and if so, where?(just asking, i don't know)

Check this out:

http://www.hebroots.com/lul7_8.html http://www.nwcreation.net/biblechrono.html

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

Does the Bible claim that the geneology from adam to jesus is COMPLETE? and if so, where?(just asking, i don't know)

Yes, despite Jesus warning us about arguements in geneology and for reasons we are sure to learn soon, I will give you the scripture -

Genesis 4 - from Adam and eve came Cane and Able - and continues on to Noah

Genesis 5 Describes Adam to Noah

Genesis 9 describes repopulating the earth after the flood. It contains teh blood line from Noah to Abraham.

Matthew 1:1-17 describes the geneology from Abraham to Jesus .



I have to add that this speaks to the history of man on earth and does not answer the question of how old the earth and universe are. If you say that man has only been on the earth for 30,000 years then who is to say that the biblical account is wrong?

If dinosaur and plant fossils pre-date man then where is the error? The bible agrees that plants and animals were created before man.

If science says the earth is billions of years old then great - how does that disprove anything regarding God's creation?

[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 08-22-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Why specifically do you say that you don't accept that scientists have proof to support the theory?

Because I see a lot of the evidence is speculation - meaning speciation is proven by examples that are not widespread across all forms of life but they see a few chromosomes mutate into another form and they call it a new species...thus the theory of speciation is now true despite the lack of widespread evidence.

You would think that if the thoery were true as to how the many different species came to be then there would be widespread evidence everywhere and it would still be evident today. It is not - reality says they had to pull a serious "rabbit out of the hat" to support the idea. I'm sure the government paid a lot of money for them to provide proof. We can't let Uncle Sam down now can we. The evidence is tainted by what is motivating it's discovery.

I don't buy it...

quote:

Are you educated on the topic of evolution enough to discredit the theory?

Are you educated on God to discredit His creation?

quote:

Are you aware of the proof that science has brought forward?

I have been introduced to it and see it as a lot of bridges from one theory to the next with hopes of tieing it all together somehow in the mix..

quote:

There is ample proof to support the theory which is why it is labled a scientific theory.

I do not aim to change your views - if you gladly accept it then who am I to say anything different. Your belief is your belief and you see things the way you see them by reason and that reason is by knowledge and experience.

Your perspective in life is yours and mine is mine. I see that some of the theory's are in line with the biblical account. It is the patch work and assumptions that build the support for the complete idea of evolution I do not accept.

I don't disregard the theories as false, I just don't accept that they are pointing to a "by chance" evolution of species which bypass the very natural laws of God.

quote:

In science, a theory isn't just some guess, like when a detective has a theory. It takes tons of proof to be called a theory. The germ theory of disease is still and always will be labled as a theory, even though we are certain that microorganisms are responsible for thousands of diseases.

There are several categories and definitions of the word theory. The proven theory of the laws of physics are one thing. Where there is a great deal of proof with repeatable results. Then there is the theory that is unproven which stands to be true or false based on the investigation of the "proof". I believe the "theory" of evolution falls into the second definition whereas the theory of micro organisms being the root of many diseases would fall into the first definition.

As it is - I see it takes as much faith to believe in the "theory" of evolution as it does to believe in God.



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 08-22-2006).]

If you're looking for the age of the earth or any answer that is actually true, then don't look to the bible. Thank god for all those scientists and historians who proved the entire book to be false from front to back, or we would be way behind.

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

so basically no there isn't anything stating the age of the earth? Why do so many creationists get totally up tight trying to prove the earth is less than 10,000 years old???

Becasue they believe that everything in the Bible is right including the fact that there are only seventy six generations from Adam to Jesus, and people lived for hundreds of years so there is no way there could be any gaps. And unless you can disprove the existance of God there is very little hope of any of them changing their minds.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

If evolution is true then the bible is wrong - God did not create all things with intention. If the bible is right then the idea of chance mutations of species and so on can not be true.

I completely disagree, evolution is not at all in conflict with the concept of God or the concept of predestination or even the concept of intention as it would be God who evolved all things and what processes being selected were by the will of God and what we have become is by the will of God.

Where is the conflict?

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Becasue they believe that everything in the Bible is right including the fact that there are only seventy six generations from Adam to Jesus, and people lived for hundreds of years so there is no way there could be any gaps. And unless you can disprove the existance of God there is very little hope of any of them changing their minds.

God can't be proven by the Bible can be shown to be full of contradictions which I've listed numerous times.

quote:Originally posted by Interest

Because I see a lot of the evidence is speculation

None of the evidence is speculation, or it wouldn't be called evidence.



quote:Originally posted by Interest

they see a few chromosomes mutate into another form and they call it a new species

You should learn about evolution before you dismiss it. Classification of living organisms has nothing to do with the study of evolution. What classifies a species is a group of related organisms capable of interbreeding. "They" don't see a few chromosomes mutate into another form and call it a new species.



quote:Originally posted by Interest

You would think that if the thoery were true as to how the many different species came to be then there would be widespread evidence everywhere and it would still be evident today.

There is widespread evidence! Would you like me to recommend a book or website to educate you?



quote:Originally posted by Interest

I'm sure the government paid a lot of money for them to provide proof. We can't let Uncle Sam down now can we. The evidence is tainted by what is motivating it's discovery.

I don't buy it...

You are delusional.



quote:Originally posted by Interest

I have been introduced to it and see it as a lot of bridges from one theory to the next with hopes of tieing it all together somehow in the mix..

You need a new introduction. What bridges are yuo speaking of?



quote:Originally posted by Interest

It is the patch work and assumptions that build the support for the complete idea of evolution I do not accept.

What patch work and assumptions?

quote:Originally posted by Interest

I just don't accept that they are pointing to a "by chance" evolution of species which bypass the very natural laws of God.

Mutations are by chance. Most evoulution occurs through natural selection, which has nothing to do with chance.



quote:Originally posted by Interest

There are several categories and definitions of the word theory.

Correct. And in science, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence.

quote:Originally posted by Interest

The proven theory of the laws of physics are one thing.

A law isn't a theory that has been proven. The laws of physics were never scientific theories. The theory of evolution and the germ theory will never be laws.



quote:Originally posted by Interest

As it is - I see it takes as much faith to believe in the "theory" of evolution as it does to believe in God.

That is as ridiculous a statement as saying it takes as much faith to believe in the germ "theory" as it does to believe in God.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim

God can't be proven by the Bible can be shown to be full of contradictions which I've listed numerous times.

The contradictions that you have been pointed out have been shown to not be contradictions at all by Christian apologists who twist logic anyway they like to show that no contradictions exist. It is no different than what you have done on this board when shown that the Quran is full of contradictions and scientific inaccurracies.

It is pretty clear that there's no way in hell the Bible can be a perfectly litteral book right? I mean, in that sense, it's completely flawed. (for example god created light on day one in genesis but waited until day four to create any light sources). Assuming it's more metaphorical, we can't really take the 6 days of creation as 6 litteral days, most people already agree on that. Point is, if that's the case, can we interpret the geneology in our own units of time? If we can't, then that doesn't really help much in judging the age of the earth either...

quote:Originally posted by Sarith

Point is, if that's the case, can we interpret the geneology in our own units of time?

If we don't, then we would have to accept that these Biblical figures lived for hundreds of years and that Noah lived alot longer than 600 years. I don't see any other way around it.

Through the Bible, we can logically conclude that Adam (the first human) existed about 6 to 7 thousand years ago, where modern science tells us that modern homo-sapiens have been around at least 50,000 years. It blows my mind that people choose the Bible over science.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim

Where is the conflict?

The conflict isn't with the notion of a god, but with the stories of the Bible. Adam being created and not coming from earlier life forms, Adam being created less than 7000 years ago, birds coming into existence before land animals, the story of Noah and the ark, etc.

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

It is pretty clear that there's no way in hell the Bible can be a perfectly litteral book right? I mean, in that sense, it's completely flawed. (for example god created light on day one in genesis but waited until day four to create any light sources). Assuming it's more metaphorical, we can't really take the 6 days of creation as 6 litteral days, most people already agree on that. Point is, if that's the case, can we interpret the geneology in our own units of time? If we can't, then that doesn't really help much in judging the age of the earth either...

One part of the bible said a 10 headed dragon with 7 horns on each head and 7 deities on each head sent a third of the stars crashing into earth. I think it went on to say it tried to eat baby Jesus, but god stopped it.

Luckily for us ancient Chinese astronomers show this never happened, because we never lost a third of the stars in the sky. If the part of the story we can check is wrong, why should I believe the rest, or the bible at all?

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

One part of the bible said a 10 headed dragon with 7 horns on each head and 7 deities on each head sent a third of the stars crashing into earth. I think it went on to say it tried to eat baby Jesus, but god stopped it.

Luckily for us ancient Chinese astronomers show this never happened, because we never lost a third of the stars in the sky. If the part of the story we can check is wrong, why should I believe the rest, or the bible at all?

Could you find the direct quotes and numbers for that story...

http://www.666beast.net/draghead.htm

More specifically, Revelation 12:1-9

quote:Originally posted by hespeaks:

More specifically, Revelation 12:1-9

I recall that dragon but was there something in there about the dragon attempting to eat baby jesus? That's the part I didn't remember...

The dragon is most likely a symbol from Zoroastrianism as Angra Mainyu, the Principle of Evil, the Satan of Zoroastrianism and the enemy of God, Ahura Mazda is represented as a gigantic serpent or dragon.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

That is as ridiculous a statement as saying it takes as much faith to believe in the germ "theory" as it does to believe in God.

There is way to much to respond to here...

I've seen enough to disagree with teh assumption all the ideas that surround and support the theory of evolution may not point to evolution at all.

Truth is truth - if it was true yesterday then it would be true today - if we are in the midst of evolution then we would see the chaos of "natural selection" today.

There is nothing in the fossile record that even hints at the idea that the hominid was anything but a hominid from the very begining.

If you say it takes millions of years for a species to "evolve" then we would see what gene pool the 2 legged ape man crawled out of.

I'm tired of everyone demanding that the evidence is there but there is none no matter how hard we stretch to come to the conclusion.

Usually when we see point A and point b we can start drawing a line at A and draw through B to come to a guess as to where C is and this is how evolution fundamentalists are teaching this.

We have C - humans - we have A - amoabic fossil but we don't have B - the missing link...but we are told it doesn't matter..just accept that this is how it happens despite not having the evidence that supports the theory.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

The conflict isn't with the notion of a god, but with the stories of the Bible. Adam being created and not coming from earlier life forms, Adam being created less than 7000 years ago, birds coming into existence before land animals, the story of Noah and

the ark, etc.

I agree with your response - that is what I was trying to say. However, my studies show that the theoligins (sp?) mark the great flood at about 10,000 years ago- That would only take us to Noah -

I'm not sure where the 7000 years to Adam comes from ..I have never heard that before.





[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 08-24-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

One part of the bible said a 10 headed dragon with 7 horns on each head and 7 deities on each head sent a third of the stars crashing into earth. I think it went on to say it tried to eat baby Jesus, but god stopped it.

Luckily for us ancient Chinese astronomers show this never happened, because we never lost a third of the stars in the sky. If the part of the story we can check is wrong, why should I believe the rest, or the bible at all?

If you are saying that the bible is not all literal you are right. There are many alagorical presentations throughout the scripture. The story in Revelations you are referencing is prophesy that has yet to be fullfilled -

The correct interpretation is that the dragon is out to make war with the offspring of the woman - this is reference to the church of believers of Jesus. Not Jesus himself. It is reference to the end times battles in the future.

It is a reference of humanism (666) vs the followers of God.

So you are right again - these events have not happened as they are yet to occur.

Faith comes through revelation - so let it be revealed.



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 08-24-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Interest

Truth is truth - if it was true yesterday then it would be true today - if we are in the midst of evolution then we would see the chaos of "natural selection" today.

There is nothing chaotic about natural selection, and we do see it today.

More than half of patients arriving at emergency rooms with skin lesions have drug-resistant staph infections, and doctors aren't necessarily following all the steps to make sure they prescribe the correct antibiotic, a new study shows. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansa...on/15326903.htm



In 2004, the CDC reported that 7.8 percent of tuberculosis cases in the U.S. were resistant to isoniazid, the first line drug used to treat TB.1

- The CDC also reported that 1.0 percent of tuberculosis cases in the U.S. were resistant to both isoniazid and rifampin.2 Rifampin is the drug most commonly used with isoniazid. http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35815



Resistance to chloroquine - the former treatment of choice - is now widespread in 8O% of the 92 countries where malaria continues to be a major killer, while resistance to newer second and third-line drugs continues to grow. http://www.icp.ucl.ac.be/~opperd/pa...s/chq_res2.html



Picky female frogs in a tiny rainforest outpost of Australia have driven the evolution of a new species in 8,000 years or less, according to scientists from the University of Queensland, the University of California, Berkeley, and the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service.

The yet-to-be- named species arose after two isolated populations of the green-eyed tree frog reestablished contact less than 8,000 years ago and found that their hybrid offspring were less viable. To avoid hybridizing with the wrong frogs and ensure healthy offspring, one group of females preferentially chose mates from their own lineage. Over several thousand years, this behavior created a reproductively isolated population - essentially a new species - that is unable to mate with either of the original frog populations. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/...greeneyed.shtml



Excellent! We are agreed then. Since natural selection is going on today (yesterday too!), this must be truth, and so there is plenty of proof of evolution! I'm glad we could clear that all up and move on.



quote:Originally posted by Interest

There is nothing in the fossile record that even hints at the idea that the hominid was anything but a hominid from the very begining.

From someone who admits that he's only been introduced to evolution, that's a bold statement. It's also total bullshit! You haven't studied evolutionary theory at all, yet you make claims you that you have no idea are correct.

Of the various major hominid fossils we have (of which there are now thousands by the way), they split into distinct groups based on quite clear morphological differences which have distinct locales of prevalence at distinct time periods. The steady increase in brain-pan size over time, for instance, is undeniable.

The earliest hominids are undeniably more like ancestral apes than modern speices are. The overall direction of development is clear, the general ancestry is clear and no "missing link" is particularly necessary or expected to confirm this (future finds may nail down the very precise relationships between various species, or introduce new ones to the table, but they are simply not necessary to make the general conclusion solid). It's confirmed in so many different ways (from genetics to ecology and so on) already that it's a done deal.

And, not only are humans descended from apes. we are apes. If you try to define the concept of "ape" such that all gibbons, gorillas, chimps, and other major species that group together are included, and then define what makes them distinct from, say other primates, then the definition you get includes human beings in every respect.

quote:Originally posted by Interest

Usually when we see point A and point b we can start drawing a line at A and draw through B to come to a guess as to where C is and this is how evolution fundamentalists are teaching this.

We have C - humans - we have A - amoabic fossil but we don't have B - the missing link...but we are told it doesn't matter..just accept that this is how it happens despite not having the evidence that supports the theory.

You're asking for the "missing link" between humans and amoebas? Do you really think anyone is claiming that one day poof! an amoeba turned into a human being?!? I suppose the amoeba divided, and on the one hand, you had an amoeba, and on the other hand, you had a person.

The whole notion of "missing links", as popularly supposed, is pretty dubious anyway; the "Great Chain of Being" was more of a medieval concept that anything to do with modern biology. Amoebas, sponges, jellyfish, flatworms, sea urchins, lampreys, coelocanths, salamanders, lizards, platypuses, shrews, lemurs, baboons, chimpanzees, and people aren't "links", they're all twigs in the branching Tree of Life.

The National Geographic magazine recently checked Darwin and the evidence he had for evolution, then they asked and put this in the cover:

Was Darwin wrong?

Guess what the answer was?

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/



I'm not going to waste any more time explaining why you are totally wrong on your thoughts about evolution. If you want to learn, you'll pick up a biology journal on your own.

quote:Originally posted by Interest

I'm not sure where the 7000 years to Adam comes from ..I have never heard that before.

It's what we were discussing earlier in this thread. The Bible gives the genealogy from Adam to Jesus. It's impossible for the first human to have lived more than 7000 years ago according to the Bible.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

It's what we were discussing earlier in this thread. The Bible gives the genealogy from Adam to Jesus. It's impossible for the first human to have lived more than 7000 years ago according to the Bible.

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/bible/timeline.html

To the OP: If you're really interested in the educated Christian answer, here it is.

http://www.practicalchristianliving.org/timeline.htm





[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 08-24-2006).]

Abrahim, again you respond to something I write with an unbelievably long web page. If you want to refute what I wrote, do it in your own words or pick a phrase or two or even a paragraph if you want to debate properly.

Ok, so...

Women was the last creature created, and before that man, on the last day, right?

and you say the gap between then and now is like, 10,000 years or something, but there was another -6- days before that, where the earth was still being created.

Maybe those days arn't meant to be literal "days" or "earth days", but yet god days, or universal days, which who knows... could have been millions of years.

Or maybe that part of the bible was mis-translated, and days really refer to -stage- in which the earth was created.

Meh, I don't know.. just what I think.

maybe the whole Adam & Eve thing is just a cute little story, meant for children mostly. You know, like a fairy tale to describe metaphorically the story of creation. If you believe the story is meant to be taken literally, I would ask you: Do you still believe in the Easter Bunny too?

quote:Originally posted by ollo:

maybe the whole Adam & Eve thing is just a cute little story, meant for children mostly. You know, like a fairy tale to describe metaphorically the story of creation. If you believe the story is meant to be taken literally, I would ask you: Do you still believe in the Easter Bunny too?

Ofcourse, because what a good bedtime story it would be right? after 24 hours of straight reading, you'd both fall asleep, what child in earlier times rather had the patience to read the full bible, or... could read at all?

quote:Originally posted by Ventured

Maybe those days arn't meant to be literal "days" or "earth days", but yet god days, or universal days, which who knows... could have been millions of years.

We aren't discussing the six days of creation. Whether or not the Earth was created in six Earth days, we have the genealogy from the first human to Jesus happening in under 7000 years.



quote:Originally posted by ollo

maybe the whole Adam & Eve thing is just a cute little story, meant for children mostly.

If the Bible didn't mean for Adam & Eve to be taken literally, it wouldn't contain the family tree from Adam & Eve to Jesus.

If we are to not take Adam & Eve literally, then we cannot take Cain literally, Enoch literally ,Irad literally, etc.

[This message has been edited by Martini (edited 08-24-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

You're asking for the "missing link" between humans and amoebas? Do you really think anyone is claiming that one day poof! an amoeba turned into a human being?!? I suppose the amoeba divided, and on the one hand, you had an amoeba, and on the other hand, you had a person.



of course not..that would be crazy to expect these scientists to support their theory...

I don't expect "poof" it just occured...

I want to see the evolutionary patterns they teach PROVEN outside of speculative reasoning -

quote:

The whole notion of "missing links", as popularly supposed, is pretty dubious anyway; the "Great Chain of Being" was more of a medieval concept that anything to do with modern biology. Amoebas, sponges, jellyfish, flatworms, sea urchins, lampreys, coelocanths, salamanders, lizards, platypuses, shrews, lemurs, baboons, chimpanzees, and people aren't "links", they're all twigs in the branching Tree of Life.

Have you taken a long hard look at this concept? A family tree is known by it's geneology right? I know it would not be possible to compare a genetic family tree to a chromosome family tree? Or would it?

If I have all my DNA attributed to all things that came before me then somewhere along the line I would be sharing the chromosomes of a plant or a bug or something if we all branched off from each other somewhere down the long line of evolution. Maybe it's all just to difficult for my simple mind to grasp.



quote:

The National Geographic magazine recently checked Darwin and the evidence he had for evolution, then they asked and put this in the cover:

Was Darwin wrong?

Guess what the answer was?

http://mag ma.nationa lgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/ (http: //magma.na tionalgeog raphic.com /ngm/0411/ feature1/)



I'm not going to waste any more time explaining why you are totally wrong on your thoughts about evolution. If you want to learn, you'll pick up a biology journal on your own.



I appreciate the time you took to post this - I really do - but the examples you provided do not convince me.

You basically said a frog turned into another species of frog -

OK...

so that means it is possible that a frog can turn into an ape?

Forever skeptical~

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

It's what we were discussing earlier in this thread. The Bible gives the genealogy from Adam to Jesus. It's impossible for the first human to have lived more than 7000 years ago according to the Bible.

Based on what assumption?

The bible teaches that the first humans lived for hundreds of years - I wonder what the human skeleton would look like after the effects of life and gravity after 600 years.

Maybe hunched over with a low brow and protruding jawline?

quote:Originally posted by Interest

If I have all my DNA attributed to all things that came before me then somewhere along the line I would be sharing the chromosomes of a plant or a bug or something if we all branched off from each other somewhere down the long line of evolution. Maybe it's all just to difficult for my simple mind to grasp.

Obviously you have actually not bothered to even attempt to look into this subject. It has nothing to do with your 'simple mind to grasp', and everything to do with the fact you haven't even tried to grasp it.

Maybe not chromosomes as such, but you're on the right track.

Fruit flies obviously have completely different bodies than we do--six limbs instead of four (not to mention wings), a three-segment insect body, and of course their skeletons are on the outside instead of the inside. But if you sequence a fruit fly's genes and a human's genes and compare them, it turns out we share some of the same code, known as the homeobox. The homeobox genes control the development of the body in a very deep way. It obviously doesn't code for what kind of limbs, but it sets out the basic body pattern--this end is the head, this end is the tail--and alterations to the codes in the homeobox can cause limbs to grow in different places (or antennae to grow where a leg should normally go).

We share some genetic code with yeasts (yeasts are more closely related to us than they are to plants, despite appearances); more code with other animals (even fruit flies) than we do with yeasts; even more code with our fellow mammals; and quite a lot of code with chimpanzees, our close cousins. Note that we had already figured out that we are closely related to chimpanzees, less closely related to other mammals, still more distantly related to all other vertebrates (birds, reptiles, coelocanths, etc.), and very distantly related to fruit flies but more closely related to them than to oak trees before anyone discovered DNA. Once we figured out how to read DNA (and protein sequences) we discovered that the way we'd categorized the tree of life based on anatomy and the fossil record was correct the great majority of the time. (DNA did tell us many new things, of course--I do think the yeasts being closer to us than to plants may have come as a surprise.)

Here is a cite that talks about the DNA evidence...has a chart and everything. http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage13.html

"The Molecular Record

Traces of our evolutionary past are also evident at the molecular level. If you think about it, the fact that organisms have evolved successively from relatively simple ancestors implies that a record of evolutionary change is present in the cells of each of us, in our DNA. When an ancestral species gives rise to two or more descendants, those descendants will initially exhibit fairly high overall similarity in their DNA. However, as the descendants evolve independently, they will accumulate more and more differences in their DNA. Consequently, organisms that are more distantly related would be expected to accumulate a greater number of evolutionary differences, whereas two species that are more closely related should share a greater portion of their DNA."



quote:Originally posted by Interest

You basically said a frog turned into another species of frog -

OK...

so that means it is possible that a frog can turn into an ape?

Of course not. Really, if you are going to debate this stuff you should at least make a cursory study before doing so. Otherwise you look like a complete fool because its obvious you don't have a clue as to the subject. So, your 'skepticism' is silly...how can you look critically at something you obviously don't understand?? How can you judge and be skeptical when you are clueless about the subject? It would be like a high school drop out who has no aptitude toward math attempting to be skeptical of Quantum Physics, or General or Special Relativity. Their skepticism would be meaningless beause it would have no basis!

Here is a good place to start. Ok, you don't buy Evolution. Great. But at least know the frigging subject before attempting to debate about it. Know thy enemy and all that...[/quote] http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

quote:Originally posted by Interest

Based on what assumption?

The bible teaches that the first humans lived for hundreds of years - I wonder what the human skeleton would look like after the effects of life and gravity after 600 years.

Maybe hunched over with a low brow and protruding jawline?

Not based on any assumption. Not only does the Bible give the geneology from Adam to Jesus, but gives the years from generation to generation.

You would rather believe that all of the hominid fossils that we have found at various stages and dated in different ways and found in different layers of the Earth, incuding the child skulls and skeletons are modern humans that lived for hundreds of years and old age caused them to look like they do, eh?

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Not based on any assumption. Not only does the Bible give the geneology from Adam to Jesus, but gives the years from generation to generation.

You would rather believe that all of the hominid fossils that we have found at various stages and dated in different ways and found in different layers of the Earth, incuding the child skulls and skeletons are modern humans that lived for hundreds of years and old age caused them to look like they do, eh?

I do accept that the homosapien is apart from the early apes we "evolved" from.

I know this may be splitting hairs but when do we draw the line and say homosapiens with the knowledge of good and evil appeared on earth? I mean we share this rock with modern apes and I suppose according to the evolutionist we share the same geneology.

The bible speaks to the homosapien that had knowledge of good and evil..not to the apes that lived a million years or whatever before us.

Also, when the evolutionist talks about the weeding out of the weaker species - I'm assuming it means that eventually the species we "evolve" from will no longer exist as the perfected species will triumph? right?

If that is true - then how can we coexist with the apes the evolutionist says we came from? Wouldn't the ape disapear through the process of natural selection? or am I still not getting it?

quote:Originally posted by Interest

Also, when the evolutionist talks about the weeding out of the weaker species - I'm assuming it means that eventually the species we "evolve" from will no longer exist as the perfected species will triumph? right?

If that is true - then how can we coexist with the apes the evolutionist says we came from? Wouldn't the ape disapear through the process of natural selection? or am I still not getting it?

The problem here is that evolutionists aren't claiming we're descended from chimps, gorillas, bonobos, or the primates that currently exist, but that us as well as the current other primates are all descended from some common source - a more "primitive" primate that does not longer exist.

That's not to say however that a species from which another species has evolved has to die out. If a population of a species is seperated - so that it experiences different evolutionary pressures - one of those seperated groups can evolve in one way and the other another. And if one of those populations is exposed to no or little exolutionary pressure, then it will stay more similar. Sharks and armadillos, for example, aren't all that different (comparitively) from their ancestors.

Evolution isn't about "weaker" and "stronger" species, ones "better" or "worse" ones. It's about those species which are BEST ADAPTED TO THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THEY FIND THEMSELVES. That can vary. Under one set of circumstances, being larger and stronger may be an advantage; under another set of circumstances (or the same circumstances, different niche) being smaller (and necessarily weaker) is of more use. Large animals require greater quantities of food than small ones, and when food resources are scarce are at a disadvantage. Also, smaller animals tend to have briefer life cycles, which means they have more generations in a given unit of time, which means that they can adapt more quickly.

Strength is not the only virtue a species can have. As I mentioned above, being the biggest and strongest isn't always an advantage. Furthermore, the advantages of having a bigger brain, opposable thumbs, and language can easily outweigh it. Any healthy gorilla can devaste any healthy human in an arm wrestling match, or take anything it desires from the human if that human is bare-handed. But the human's greater intelligence gives it the ability to create tools, or to use better strategy with its fellows than the gorilla can devise, to out-compete the gorilla in a thousand different ways.

Non-human apes ARE disappearing, largely because humans are encroaching on their territories--that is, out-competing them.



quote:Originally posted by Interest

I know this may be splitting hairs but when do we draw the line and say homosapiens with the knowledge of good and evil appeared on earth?

It's very difficult to. And we can't even assign the knowledge of good and evil to homo sapiens; it's possible homo neanderthal or even primates farther back than those two had such concepts. It's certainly been much longer than the Bible's 7000 year ago creation of Adam & Eve. Besides, Adam & Eve had no parents, so we certainly can't look to the Bible for where man came from (if we're going to be rational).

quote:



It's very difficult to. And we can't even assign the knowledge of good and evil to homo sapiens; it's possible homo neanderthal or even primates farther back than those two had such concepts. It's certainly been much longer than the Bible's 7000 year ago creation of Adam & Eve. Besides, Adam & Eve had no parents, so we certainly can't look to the Bible for where man came from (if we're going to be rational).

I found this very intersting - so there has to be a defined set of parents in the species for evolution to be true?

When did that occur and how did the male and female come to be in order to procreate an offspring?

Is it to difficult to determine so we have to accept that it did without the physical evidence?

IS there any evidence to show the split of a single species into male or female or did they just evolve that way? Are we going back to the question what came first the chicken or the egg?



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 08-25-2006).]