Evolution

[weaver]

I was a little conflicted to post this in the Science/Technology forum or here.. but I figure, hell - here is where the conflict will occur! Picking up from another thread to refocus it here.

What does everyone here think of evolution? If you disagree with it - please state your religious preference.

[weaver]

I sit in the middle ground between Science and Christianity. However - I am a fervent believe in Evolution.

[White-Pinnacle]

I dread the day when my oldest asks me the difference in Creation and Evolution.

Geological and archeological evidence indicates one thing. Archeological exploration in the Middle East supports biblical timeline and persons.

I'm totally confused!

White Pinnacle

[cpnichol]

It's the only credible theory that explains the amazing diversity we see around us and the things we find as fossils.

The apparent conflict between science and religion is mostly being driven by organisations like the Discovery Institute. They set out to "disprove" evolution and promote their own agenda.

If you apply the same logic to other observational theories, like gravity or general relativity, you'll also find they don't explain absolutely everything. They do make testable predictions and explain what we observe so we accept them as true, in the same way we do with evolution.

The theory of gravity for example, does not explain Mercury's orbit but there is no campaign to "teach the controversy". Perhaps this is because the bible has little to say with regards to gravity and if you tried telling people that gravity doesn't exist you'd get laughed at.

[Tracer]

Believing in unproven theories is always a bold step and one of blind faith

If man evolved from apes , as all evolutionist want you to believe , "Why are there still apes" ? Where are all these so called missing links ? We should have thousands of fossil records showing each minor gradual stage in evolution from ape to modern man , yet we are only shown fragments of creatures that resemble apes more then man .

Not taking into account some who participate in the WWE....

I find the Prophets explanation for mans creation much more easily believed .

Although my beliefs are continually challenged when seeing my next door neighbors wife's hairy legs.....

I have yet to see a fossil discovery of even an ape like creature that resembles a man in anyway ...The discovery of "Lucy" was big news ....but I have seen pictures of her and she looks more like a pieced together creature from the "Bride Of Frankenstien , then she does a modern women .

All other creatures that have supposedly evolved from other species , left that species behind as they reportedly "evolved into something faster, stronger, smarter, but not man apparently and this flys in the face of the "Theory Of Evolution" .

Just becasue a monkey can take a long reed and stick it into a termite mound , take it out and lick the termites off does not convince me of evolution .I know a lot of CSS players who would not have been able to figure that out......

So here we have both apes and man . Hmmmm ... Could it be that man is evolving into apes given our pension for killing one another ?

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by Tracer

If man evolved from apes , as all evolutionist want you to believe , "Why are there still apes" ? Where are all these so called missing links ? We should have thousands of fossil records showing each minor gradual stage in evolution from ape to modern man , yet we are only shown fragments of creatures that resemble apes more then man .

I find the Prophets explanation for mans creation much more easily believed .

Tracer you crack me up man. Either you don't read replys given to you or in a fundementalist way you just want to dismiss everything that you can't get a quote or a page out of the bible to cream an answer from.

Originally Posted by cpnichol

The chances of any particular creature becoming a fossil vary depending on many factors, but becoming a fossil is massively unlikely. The best I've heard this described is that one in a billion bones becomes a fossil, so out of 6 billion people alive today you would expect just under 6 complete human fossils (not necessarily 6 complete individuals). And then you'd have to find them and they could be buried anywhere on Earth.

What this means is that instead of having one example of every generation of every creature that ever lived you have a jigsaw puzzle consisting of who knows how many billion pieces, but most of them are missing. Sounds like an impossible jigsaw to complete? It is, but we don't necessarily have to complete it, you don't always have to complete a jigsaw before you know what the picture is supposed to be of.

I also gave you an explanation as to why there are still apes, in the best way I could after having read and done a little research.

Originally Posted by Rufus

We are not, and were not in direct competition with the apes around us today because they have taken a different evolutionary path. It goes without saying that the apes that inhabit the world today, will be different from the apes that they themselves have evolved from, as are we and yet we still share some traits with them. Like fingerprints for example.

You will I am sure accept the fact that there are many many different types of ape's, we have not decended or evolved from the apes you see today, these are for want of a better word, our evolutionary cousins.

The apes we see today are still here for that very reason. The apes we have evolved from obviously are no longer around, because that is the whole point of evolution. What would be the point in evolving if what you were evolving from was left behind, negates the whole point of evolution, if that was the case, then direct competition would occur and the stronger more advanced would prevail. Either way, all you would see today would be what has evolved not what it has evolved from.

Just as penquins differ from every other bird on the planet, they're still birds yet they swim and don't fly. They eat fish and not nectar like the humming bird. Penquins are birds that took a different evolutionary path from humming birds, but yet, they are still birds. Man has simply evolved down a different path from the other apes around them.

There is no possible way we could find all the fossil links between any creatures that have evolved up to this point in time, that really is not possible. All we have to go on is what has been found and what is placed before us and which is real. You say in one of your posts, that you believe in the evolution of animals, why is the concept so hard to grasp when it comes to man.

Originally Posted by Tracer

Im not concerned about animals selecting the biggest and strongest breeding partners or the fact that animals over time can take advantage of their enviroment by growing longer legs like a stork to walk in deeper water for example or a longer bill like a hummingbird to get nectar from a certain flower in a particular area .

If you accept that animals do evolve over time, does that not put the bible into question, as Noah could not have had 2 of every flesh onboard the ark which is what the bible would have us believe.

Either he had two of every animal we see before us today, crammed onto a boat, or some of these animals have evolved since. To be honest, I don't think you can have your cake and eat it, you can't on the one hand say that the bible is absolute, and then say well it is appart from the bit about the animals.

And if it is wrong about the animals, why is it not wrong about man.

[Tracer]

Originally Posted by Rufus

If you accept that animals do evolve over time, does that not put the bible into question, as Noah could not have had 2 of every flesh onboard the ark which is what the bible would have us believe.

Either he had two of every animal we see before us today, crammed onto a boat, or some of these animals have evolved since. To be honest, I don't think you can have your cake and eat it, you can't on the one hand say that the bible is absolute, and then say well it is appart from the bit about the animals.

And if it is wrong about the animals, why is it not wrong about man.

I'm really unsure whether or not your above statement is worthy of a response but here goes anyway....

The Bible teaches that Noahs ark was about 6000 years ago and not even evolutionist would tell you animals evolve into anything different in such a short time span .

So yes the animals that went on Noah's Ark looked the same then as they do now taking into account variations in color that happen even in same species naturally...humans for example.

By the way "Micro-Evolution" is when for Example the exact same Bird remains the same bird but developes a longer beak for living in a certain vally where it's main source of food is long flowers in order to reach the nectar. 100 miles away the exact same bird has a stronger , shorter bill for cracking the seeds it finds on the mountain slopes where it lives .They are the exact same species but have developed different bills to take advantage of their enviroment .This actuall occurs in a bird in South America. I do not deny this happens .

What I do not accept however is that one completely different species of animal can evolve into another all the while not evolving and remaining the same species ....as with monkeys and men....

If you really beleive they do then the modern man remains found in Mexico and Egypt that are 8000 to 6000 years old and are identical to modern man found in the same region should look like monkeys or at least have a resemblance but they don't. They look exactly like men found in the same region now .There has been absolutely no change in 6000 years ..Just ask King Tut .

You see I beleive that over millions and millions of years animals have changed and adapted to their enviroment. You call it evolution or whatever you want.....and I as a Christian have no conflict believing that .

But man was made in God's image and he looks now exactly the way God made him....In God's own image....I personally don't belive God is a monkey ...

Also , will you please find that quote where I said the Bible is absolute...I would like to see it ....or is that just made up ?

I think you use evolution as a way to attack Christian beliefs , period . If not evolution then something else if it fits your purpose at a particular time .

The fact is , Evolution is an unproven theory and to you the Bible is unproven .You simply support evolution because it fits your agenda . Not because it is a proven fact but becasue it is in direct conflict with God and His claim that He alone created the Universe and everything in it . All your statements concerning Evolution are hearsay and conjecture and unproven by anyone yet you belive them , Why ?

At least the Bible has proven to be absolutely accurate on many fronts , by archeologist , by scientist using carbon data to date actual items from Bible times , like ostuaries , and wood with nails in it from parts of Roman Crosses...Not too mention Temple ruins in Israel exactly in the same place the Bible said they were 4000 years ago. Money found with Caesars image stamped on it just as the Bible says it was .That my freind is absolute fact not theory .

But what have you got to back up your theory of evolution concerning man evolving from monkies ,absolutely nothing , unless I'm mistaken then I apologize and can tell us about this proof you have in your next post.....

Your re-ocurring theme seems to be that evolution puts the Bible into question .Yet I have told you over and over that evolution is a non issue concerning the Bible because it is unproven and anyone beleiving in it has no right to question anyone believing in something different that they consider unproven even though educated men of our time have read about temples in the Bible and then went and saw them.......That is cold hard facts that you can dismiss all you want , but it won't make it untrue .

Animals change "evolve" over time but man has not and to date no findings can prove that . Neandrathal man lloks nothing like a man and more like a monkey and that species has simply died off because its brain was so small it kept sneaking up and trying to pet lions.............

What ape did we evolve from if it was different then the apes of today.....got any fossil records or proof of any kind that these different apes existed.....or is that just made up stuff ? is this the "Rufus Theory" that we evolved from different apes then the ones we see today .What were these different apes called ? Sloths ? My studies years ago taught us that apes are not even a close relative and rather the Orangutan is the closest primate there is to man . What ape do you think we evolved from ?

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by Tracer

.....or is that just made up stuff ? is this the "Rufus Theory" that we evolved from different apes then the ones we see today .What were these different apes called ? Sloths ?

First of all, I would appreciate it if you did not try to belittle or try to ridicule me. I have not made childish remarks regarding your explanations as to the origin of man or evolution, yet you seem to be incapable of extending this courtesy towards me.

Originally Posted by Tracer

Also , will you please find that quote where I said the Bible is absolute...I would like to see it ....or is that just made up ?

here you are....

Originally Posted by Tracer

So , first of we must have the courage to admit that the Bible is completely accurate from the first verse to the last unless someone comes along with evidence to the contrary.

and again....

Originally Posted by Tracer

Only God's word ..The Bible is worthy of proof and reproof ..In fact God's word is the only "truth" there really is....Everything else in this life is fallible .

and once more....

Originally Posted by Tracer

The Bible teaches us that "ALL WISDOM" comes directly from God.....in his written word ....everything else is bull%@# .

Quite clearly, my grasp on the English language is so poor that I have obviously got your statements I have quoted above completely wrong.

Because of your inabillity to accept anyone elses beliefs or even listen to anyones arguement against your own fundamentalist views without resorting to childish comments and discussing them constructivley , I shall no longer be replying to this thread.

[Tracer]

Originally Posted by Tracer ---Quoted by Rufus
So , first off we must have the courage to admit that the Bible is completely accurate from the first verse to the last unless someone comes along with evidence to the contrary.

Where is the word absolute my friend ??????? It simply was not used by me at any time .............

No where in that poor attempt at a quote did I say the bible was Absolute <---- That is the exact word you used however . I never used that word....You simple put that meaning of my statement in there....So that was made up....

I never meant to belittle you in anyway ..I just pointed out your inaccuracy and you tried to cover it up with a false quote....

You have belittled yourself my friend by stating untruths .....
It was a good try though ....

Doh Rufus : Come on now .....You said --->Because of your inabillity to accept anyone elses beliefs or even listen to anyones arguement against your own fundamentalist views without resorting to childish comments, I shall no longer be replying to this thread.
Is that a promise ...? Becasue saying people say things they don't is in poor taste and not worthy of debate......

I asked you to show me where I used the word absolute....you couldnt...you mis quoted..you told a lie Rufus...... Bad Rufus
As far as me being able to listen to your point of veiw .I have not only been listening but answering all your questions ....You are the one who doesnt accept my point of view and my right to an opinion and thus you resorted to telling a fib.......BAD Rufus

I'm not convinced about your grasp on the English language however ..... And I find your explanations weak , lacking and superficial .....What University did you say you graduated from again ????

Most of your post is quoting me ...lol ....How about your ideas dude ???

Checkmate

[Rufus]

absolute - definition of absolute by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

You may not have used the "word" absolute, but despite what you may think, I am intelligent enough to read what you have said, and the "poor attempts" at quotes are all taken from your previous posts. Please read the all the defintitions of absolute.

[Tracer]

I never used the word absolute ...so admit it....you mis-quoted me ....
Just be a man dude and admit you mis-quoted me ..That's simple enough...then we can carry on our discussion .....

I never used the word absolute...

I've had it man ..Ima gonna punch your lights out now ..in a Christian , gentle way tho....