Do you believe the theory of Evolution to be true?

[Stu]

Hi Charity

++:How do you perceive this verse from preserved scrolls writings from BC where Apes are being transported by Humans or other more superior apes? Did not all evolve?
1Ki 10:22 For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.

Is their sience evendence to support Humans and apes exsisting together on earth? “

Well humans and OTHER apes coexist on Earth now. And don't forget that human slaves were given the status of apes by those who traded in them. I'm not sure about your quote from 1 Kings. You could say that every boat arrives carrying apes!

Stuart

[charity]

Quote (Stu @ July 29 2007,02:04)

Hi Charity ++:How do you perceive this verse from preserved scrolls writings from BC where Apes are being transported by Humans or other more superior apes?  Did not all evolve? 1Ki 10:22 For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks. Is their sience evendence to support Humans and apes exsisting together on earth? “ Well humans and OTHER apes coexist on Earth now.  And don't forget that human slaves were given the status of apes by those who traded in them.  I'm not sure about your quote from 1 Kings.  You could say that every boat arrives carrying apes! Stuart

hi stuart

Yes I agree, with the fact that a race of people could be an easy label with the name apes. Especially if the creature had been in existence or was still
Yet even so they may have shown some form resemblance in looks or mind, clueless in their behaviour perhaps. Even saying back then, apes were their ancestors themselves?
As they still do today?
Maybe this has been going on for ever on earth?

[NickHassan]

Quote (Stu @ July 28 2007,23:34)

That won't do, Nick.   How did your creator actually assemble DNA?  You don't know!  How did he hold the organelles (whatever they were) in place while he added the cytoplasm and membranes?  You've got not even intelligent speculation to offer.  I did not say that mitochondria were present in the first cell, if you read what I wrote.  You are suggesting that the first replicating chain of code was made of DNA.  This is almost certainly not true, but you seem to know otherwise.  That's mighty of you to admit that scientists are “helpful”.  I don't think you would have a single clue unless it had been laid out before you as I have tried to do, for your mockery. Do you know for certain that new species have not evolved since Darwin?  If you have the misfortune to be hospitalised then at least you won't be worried about MRSA, as according to you there are no new species.  How do you account for the billions of years-old ordered fossil sequence, the comparative DNA that exactly mirrors the fossil morphology, the appearance of new bacteria in response to the selection pressure of antibiotics or the constant stream of new, mutated cold and flu viruses?  If you really believe that evolution is chaos, randomness and chance over millions of years then you are more in need of education than I thought.  As I said much earlier, it is entirely your choice what you believe, but I'd counsel you against making your ignorance public, or misrepresenting what others have written.  From your perspective I'm surprised you don't take the commandment about False Witness a bit more seriously.  An eternity of toasting could await you! Stuart

Hi StU,
Is MRSA a new species?
Methicillin resisitant staphlococcus aureus
is still staphlococcus aureus.
Resistance does not create a new species so please be accurate.
You ask us to believe DNA assembled itself?
That is faith.

[Stu]

Hi StU,
++”Is MRSA a new species?

It could be, or I could be entirely wrong about it being officially classified as a new species. What does species mean when describing bacteria? Is it a strain? A new species? A new species in the evolving?
What difference does it really make to the point? Semantics? Selection pressure has produced a different organism.

++”You ask us to believe DNA assembled itself?

No. You keep saying that , and I never did.

In the absence of oxygen and presence of ammonia and other simple inorganic molecules, amino acids and other substances found in living things today are produced abiotically by what you might call “blind chemical processes”. A replicating molecule evolved by some kind of association of such substances. The behaviour of prions today suggest that it could have been a protein from association of amino acids that was the first replicator, with DNA coming much later.

Now, Nick, please will you speculate with the same level of detail on the mechanism used by your creator.

Stuart

[Stu]

Oop that should have started Hi Nick!

[NickHassan]

Hi Stu,
Not semantics but fact.
Staph aureus is still staph aureus.
You do demonstrate amazing faith in coincidence and serendipity.

We do not need to know the hows of creation.
That is a vanity in itself.
Suffice to know it was done by Him.

[Stu]

++”We do not need to know the hows of creation.
That is a vanity in itself.
Suffice to know it was done by Him.

So you have nothing to contribute.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ July 28 2007,14:24)

All scientific theories are waiting to be replaced. What replacement do you propose, and how is your explanation better?

I am not proposing the new scientific theory that will replace evolution, I simply am making observation from history. History shows that all preceding theories were superceded by a new one. You seem to have faith that Darwin's one is the correct one. A faith similar to those who believed in previous theories which in time were proven to be incorrect.

The one explanation that has been around since the beginning is that God created the cosmos. All other theories about the cosmos end up in the trash can, but belief in God predates them and will supercede them too.

[NickHassan]

Quote (Stu @ July 29 2007,11:15)

++”We do not need to know the hows of creation. That is a vanity in itself. Suffice to know it was done by Him. So you have nothing to contribute. Stuart

Hi Stu,
All we can know is in the bible.

[Stu]

The bible says that Kiwi managed to travel from Turkey to New Zealand after the alleged flood. Do you believe this to be literally true?

Stuart

[A4J]

Ughhh!!! ok first off, we breed dogs into different species
thats human selection… surely there is natural selection correct? hence the reason some animals die out, but you can breed fruit flys to have no
wings etc, to be larger or smaller and so on
so that part is true

the into a different species is also true

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin….778.DTL
there are examples of birds in from what i remember “loops” that are still in the same genus but they're not the same species and will not breed with each other, if you start at one end of the loop and examine the species of birds you find that they start to look more and more like the other ones and when you get back to the other then of the loop you have another species and it wont breed with the beginning species… its also that way with salamanders in some large lake in California and of course the classic example of the finches fluctuation's beak size also helps evolution

now if the origin of life you think is impossible… your wrong as well
http://users.rcn.com/jkimbal….is.html

http://www.science.siu.edu/microbi….fe.html

Oh and there are not really any gods of the gaps if you look hard enough!
http://video.google.com/videopl….index=4
i cant believe most of you do not believe in the theory of evolution.. the theory of gravity is only a theory but it landed a small rover perfectly where they wanted it to on mars…
theory in science has no proof against it and has proof for it!
the “theory” of creationism, is really a hypothesis! *proof?*
also natural selection is a fact, and that is part of evolution
hence evolution is also part fact!

[david]

Quote

Thank you for clearing that up. I assume you are happy that the order of creation events as depicted in Genesis is the opposite to what the evidence says. You are comfortable that plants were created an “epoch” before the sun? That there was evening and morning, “epochs” before the existence of the sun?

Actually, the evidence and the Bible agree perfectly. It is human understanding how they tend to interpret things that is horribly bad.

1 Light; division between day and night Ge 1:3-5

2 Expanse, a division between waters
beneath the expanse and waters above it Ge 1:6-8

3 Dry land; vegetation Ge 1:9-13

4 Heavenly luminaries become discernible
from earth Ge 1:14-19

5 Aquatic souls and flying creatures Ge 1:20-23

6 Land animals; man Ge 1:24-31

If you were to ask someone to describe very simply the order of events, you would find that science and the Bible agree here.

And the chances of getting these things in the right order, by accident?, of the Bible writer guessing them? Any ideas?

Genesis 1:1, 2 relates to a time before the six “days” outlined above. When these “days” commenced, the sun, moon, and stars were already in existence, their creation being referred to at Genesis 1:1. However, prior to these six “days” of creative activity “the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep.” (Ge 1:2) Apparently, a swaddling band of cloud layers still enveloped the earth, preventing light from reaching its surface.

When God said on Day One, “Let light come to be,” diffused light evidently penetrated the cloud layers even though the sources of that light could not yet be discerned from the earth’s surface. It seems that this was a gradual process, as is indicated by translator J. W. Watts: “And gradually light came into existence.” (Ge 1:3, A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) God brought about a division between the light and the darkness, calling the light Day and the darkness Night. This indicates that the earth was rotating on its axis as it revolved around the sun, so that its hemispheres, eastern and western, could enjoy periods of light and darkness.—Ge 1:3, 4.

On Day Two God made an expanse by causing a division to occur “between the waters and the waters.” Some waters remained on the earth, but a great amount of water was raised high above the surface of the earth, and in between these two there came to be an expanse. God called the expanse Heaven, but this was with relation to the earth, as the waters suspended above the expanse are not said to have enclosed stars or other bodies of the outer heavens.—Ge 1:6-8; see EXPANSE.

On Day Three by God’s miracle-working power the waters on the earth were brought together and dry land appeared, God calling it Earth. It was also on this day that, through no chance factors or evolutionary processes, God acted to superimpose the life principle upon atoms of matter, so that grass, vegetation, and fruit trees were brought into existence. Each of these three general divisions was capable of reproducing according to its “kind.”—Ge 1:9-13.

The divine will concerning luminaries was accomplished on Day Four, it being stated: “God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth, and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness.” (Ge 1:16-18) In view of the description of these luminaries, the greater luminary was quite apparently the sun and the lesser luminary the moon, though the sun and moon are not specifically named in the Bible until after its account of the Flood of Noah’s day.—Ge 15:12; 37:9.

Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ’ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·’ohr′, which refers to a luminary or source of light. (Ge 1:14) So, on the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer. Now, on the fourth “day,” things evidently changed.

It is also noteworthy that at Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew verb ba·ra’′, meaning “create,” is not used. Instead, the Hebrew verb ‛a·sah′, meaning “make,” is employed. Since the sun, moon, and stars are included in “the heavens” mentioned in Genesis 1:1, they were created long before Day Four. On the fourth day God proceeded to “make” these celestial bodies occupy a new relationship toward earth’s surface and the expanse above it. When it is said, “God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth,” this would indicate that they now became discernible from the surface of the earth, as though they were in the expanse. Also, the luminaries were to “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years,” thus later providing guidance for man in various ways.—Ge 1:14.

Day Five was marked by the creation of the first nonhuman souls on earth. Not just one creature purposed by God to evolve into other forms, but literally swarms of living souls were then brought forth by divine power. It is stated: “God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.” Pleased with what He had produced, God blessed them and, in effect, told them to “become many,” which was possible, for these creatures of many different family kinds were divinely endowed with the ability to reproduce “according to their kinds.”—Ge 1:20-23.

On Day Six “God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind,” such work being good, as were all of God’s previous creative works.—Ge 1:24, 25.

Toward the end of the sixth day of creative activity, God brought into existence an entirely new kind of creature, superior to the animals even though lower than the angels. This was man, created in God’s image and after his likeness. While Genesis 1:27 briefly states concerning humankind “male and female he [God] created them,” the parallel account at Genesis 2:7-9 shows that Jehovah God formed man out of the dust of the ground, blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul, for whom a paradise home and food were provided. In this case Jehovah used the elements of the earth in creative work and then, having formed man, He created the female of humankind using one of Adam’s ribs as a base. (Ge 2:18-25) With the creation of the woman, man was complete as a “kind.”—Ge 5:1, 2.

God then blessed mankind, telling the first man and his wife: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.” (Ge 1:28; compare Ps 8:4-8.) For humankind and other earthly creatures, God made adequate provision by giving them “all green vegetation for food.” Reporting on the results of such creative work, the inspired Record states: “After that God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good.” (Ge 1:29-31) Th
e sixth day having come to its successful conclusion and God having completed this creative work, “he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made.”—Ge 2:1-3.

Concluding the review of accomplishments on each of the six days of creative activity is the statement, “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning,” a first, second, third day, and so forth. (Ge 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) Since the length of each creative day exceeded 24 hours (as will be discussed later), this expression does not apply to literal night and day but is figurative. During the evening period things would be indistinct; but in the morning they would become clearly discernible. During the “evening,” or beginning, of each creative period, or “day,” God’s purpose for that day, though fully known to him, would be indistinct to any angelic observers. However, when the “morning” arrived there would be full light as to what God had purposed for that day, it having been accomplished by that time.—Compare Pr 4:18.

WE KNOW THAT THE BIBLE ISN'T TALKING ABOUT 24 HOUR DAYS HERE. Because later in the account, if we read on, all six days are lumped into one “day.” (Gen 2:4)
Dictionary: “day”: “epoch.”

I'd like to discuss this more, but I am short ontime.

[david]

What Does Genesis Say?

As with other things that are misrepresented or misunderstood, the first chapter of the Bible deserves at least a fair hearing. The need is to investigate and determine whether it harmonizes with known facts, not to mold it to fit some theoretical framework. Also to be remembered, the Genesis account was not written to show the “how” of creation. Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way, describing what things were formed, the order in which they were formed and the time interval, or “day,” in which each first appeared.

When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth. So it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth Genesis “day.” There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the sun appears to be a ‘greater light that rules the day’ and the moon a ‘lesser light that dominates the night.’—Genesis 1:14-18.

The first part of Genesis indicates that the earth could have existed for billions of years before the first Genesis “day,” though it does not say for how long. However, it does describe what earth’s condition was just before that first “day” began: “Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.”—Genesis 1:2.

How Long Is a Genesis “Day”?

Many consider the word “day” used in Genesis chapter 1 to mean 24 hours. However, in Genesis 1:5 God himself is said to divide day into a smaller period of time, calling just the light portion “day.” In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one “day”: “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day [all six creative periods] that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.”

The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.”1 This last sentence appears to fit the creative “days,” for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.

Genesis chapter 1 uses the expressions “evening” and “morning” relative to the creative periods. Does this not indicate that they were 24 hours long? Not necessarily. In some places people often refer to a man’s lifetime as his “day.” They speak of “my father’s day” or “in Shakespeare’s day.” They may divide up that lifetime “day,” saying “in the morning [or dawn] of his life” or “in the evening [or twilight] of his life.” So ‘evening and morning’ in Genesis chapter 1 does not limit the meaning to a literal 24 hours.

“Day” as used in the Bible can include summer and winter, the passing of seasons. (Zechariah 14:8) “The day of harvest” involves many days. (Compare Proverbs 25:13 and Genesis 30:14.) A thousand years are likened to a day. (Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8, 10) “Judgment Day” covers many years. (Matthew 10:15; 11:22-24) It would seem reasonable that the “days” of Genesis could likewise have embraced long periods of time—millenniums. What, then, took place during those creative eras? Is the Bible’s account of them scientific? Following is a review of these “days” as expressed in Genesis.

First “Day”

“‘Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.”—Genesis 1:3, 5.

Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first “day,” but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first “day,” and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights.

Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: “And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was “light diffused,” as indicated by a comment about verse 3 in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible.—See footnote b for verse 14.

Second “Day”

“‘Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.’ Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. And God began to call the expanse Heaven.”—Genesis 1:6-8.

Some translations use the word “firmament” instead of “expanse.” From this the argument is made that the Genesis account borrowed from creation myths that represent this “firmament” as a metal dome. But even the King James Version Bible, which uses “firmament,” says in the margin, “expansion.” This is because the Hebrew word ra·qi′a‛, translated “expanse,” means to stretch out or spread out or expand.

The Genesis account says that God did it, but it does not say how. In whatever way the described separation occurred, it would look as though the ‘waters above’ had been pushed up from the earth. And birds could later be said to fly in “the expanse of the heavens,” as stated at Genesis 1:20.

Third “Day”

“‘Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.’ And it came to be so. And God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas.” (Genesis 1:9, 10) As usual, the account does not describe how this was done. No doubt, tremendous earth movements would have been involved in the formation of land areas. Geologists would explain such major upheavals as catastrophism. But Genesis indicates direction and control by a Creator.

In the Biblical account where God is described as questioning Job about his knowledge of the earth, a variety of developments concerning earth’s history are described: its measurements, its cloud masses, its seas and how their waves were limited by dry land—many things in general about the creation, spanning long periods of time. Among these things, comparing earth to a building, the Bible says that God asked Job: “Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down, or who laid its cornerstone?”—Job 38:6.

Interestingly, like “socket pedestals,” earth’s crust is much thicker under continents and even more so under mountain ranges, pushing deep into the underlying mantle, like tree roots into soil. “The idea that mountains and continents had roots has been tested over and over again, and shown to be valid,” says Putnam’s Geology.2 Oceanic crust is only about 5 miles thick, but continental roots go down about 20 miles and mountain roots penetrate about twice that far. And all earth’s layers press inward upon earth’s core from all directions, making it like a great “cornerstone” of support.

Whatever means were used to accomplish the raising up of dry land, the important point is: Both the Bible and science reco
gnize it as one of the stages in the forming of the earth.

Land Plants on Third “Day”

The Bible account adds: “‘Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth.’ And it came to be so.”—Genesis 1:11.

Thus by the close of this third creative period, three broad categories of land plants had been created. The diffused light would have become quite strong by then, ample for the process of photosynthesis so vital to green plants. Incidentally, the account here does not mention every “kind” of plant that came on the scene. Microscopic organisms, water plants and others are not specifically named, but likely were created on this “day.”

Fourth “Day”

“‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.”—Genesis 1:14-16; Psalm 136:7-9.

Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ’ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·’ohr′, which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on “Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In ver. 3, ’ôr [’ohr], light diffused.” Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma·’ohr′ in verse 14 means something “affording light.” On the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth “day,” things apparently changed.

An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen—a requirement for animal life.

Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.” (Genesis 1:14) The moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing of solar years. The seasons that now “came to be” on this fourth “day” would no doubt have been much milder than they became later on.—Genesis 1:15; 8:20-22.

Fifth “Day”

“‘Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.’ And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.”—Genesis 1:20, 21.

It is of interest to note that the nonhuman creatures with which the waters were to swarm are called “living souls.” This term would also apply to the “flying creatures [that] fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse.” And it would also embrace the forms of sea and air life, such as the sea monsters, whose fossil remains scientists have found in recent times.

Sixth “Day”

“‘Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.’ And it came to be so.”—Genesis 1:24.

Thus on the sixth “day,” land animals characterized as wild and domestic appeared. But this final “day” was not over. One last remarkable “kind” was to come:

“And God went on to say: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.’ And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.”—Genesis 1:26, 27.

Chapter 2 of Genesis apparently adds some details. However, it is not, as some have concluded, another account of creation in conflict with that of chapter 1. It just takes up at a point in the third “day,” after dry land appeared but before land plants were created, adding details that were pertinent to the arrival of humans—Adam the living soul, his garden home, Eden, and the woman Eve, his wife.—Genesis 2:5-9, 15-18, 21, 22.

The foregoing is presented to help us understand what Genesis says. And this quite realistic account indicates that the creative process continued throughout a period of, not just 144 hours (6 × 24), but over many millenniums of time.

How Did Genesis Know?

Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: “No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe” and the myths “are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis] 1-2.”3 Regarding Babylonian creation legends, the trustees of the British Museum stated: “The fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different.”4

From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only “according to their kinds.” The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it indicates that each “kind” appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous “kind,” as required by the evolution theory.

All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished Moses, the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis. Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who was there.

The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.
–Evolution or Creation, page 36.

[Stu]

Hi A4J

++”Ughhh!!! ok first off, we breed dogs into different species
thats human selection… surely there is natural selection correct? hence the reason some animals die out, but you can breed fruit flys to have no
wings etc, to be larger or smaller and so on
so that part is true
the into a different species is also true

Yes, A4J as demonstrated by Nick, creationists have no actual answers but instead must impose on themselves nonsense semantics like the word “kind”, because it is biblical. Some will say “micro-evolution” can happen up to the self-imposed barrier of a species level or kind (whatever that means), but that change is somehow impossible beyond this (citing no evidence and ignoring the fossil record). If dogs, which are currently considered a sub-species of wolf, become unable to interbreed then you have a new species. Fruit flies with no wings may or may not have an advantage that will result in speciation. Fruit flies do not remain the same species of fruit flies. Although you might not expect school lab UV experiments to produce a new species (one new mutation and wait and hour just isn't going to do it), Drosophila melanogaster populations evolved reproductive isolation as a result of different microenvironments within a canyon. Human-selection has already given us the domestic cat which is now reproductively isolated from wildcats and is a distinct species.

Stuart

[NickHassan]

Hi Stu,
So while Darwin produces a theory that might lead to greater numbers of species
all we have seen is the opposite?

[A4J]

[/QUOTE]Hi Stu,
So while Darwin produces a theory that might lead to greater numbers of species
all we have seen is the opposite?

Ok way to set yourself up… thanks for asking stupid questions… there normally easier to answer
first of all.. you said might?
so the theory doesn't actually say there will be more species or does it?… i mean you surely know a lot about evolution so tell me does it or does it not?
alright now there are with the birds and salamanders that will not breed with each other… new species? more species?
YES!
also its natural SELECTION and SURVIVAL of the fittest?
SO…does this not also say that animals will go extinct?
if it cant evolve faster then the environment/predators/diseases are changing of course they are going to die!
also its important since man has been around we have been killing a lot of species and they simply haven't had enough time to evolve.. or we just killed them because are methods are significantly more advanced then any other animals?

Alright, so… why would god get rid of his own creators?

[Stu]

Nick,

Over 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.

What this tells you about evolution is that it must be gradual and happen over a long period of time (which is consistent with a billions of years-old planet).

What it tells you about the (alleged) creator is that he is incompetent.

Stuart

[NickHassan]

Hi Stu,
I will keep an eagle eye out for a new species.

[Stu]

Hi Nick

Humans have been the same species for tens of thousands of years. How long have you got?

Stuart

[Stu]

t8, a while ago you wrote:

++”I am not proposing the new scientific theory that will replace evolution, I simply am making observation from history. History shows that all preceding theories were superceded by a new one. You seem to have faith that Darwin's one is the correct one. A faith similar to those who believed in previous theories which in time were proven to be incorrect. The one explanation that has been around since the beginning is that God created the cosmos. All other theories about the cosmos end up in the trash can, but belief in God predates them and will supercede them too.

The ancient Greek philosopher Democritus popularised the concept of the atom. His theory is still in use today. It has certainly been added to over the centuries, but he was right way back then.

The same applies to Darwin. If he is wrong, he is wrong and evolution goes out the window. However, the track record for evolution is exactly the same as for atoms. Darwin has been demonstrated to be right time and again. Evolution is a theory that explains what we observe. Despite the lies of creationists, no evidence has come to light that contradicts Darwin, so far.

I believe in science, not necessarily in Darwin. He just has the best current explanation.

The Judeo-Christian creation myth explains absolutely nothing.

Stuart

[Author]

Posts