|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:12 pm
Hello all, just been thinking about theories of evolution, diddn't see and topic about it so decided to make one. I'm technically lutheran but very close to athiest now, also do Christan's believe in Dinosaurs? Where do they fit in the "Earth made in 7 days?"
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:23 am
Well, I'm christian, and I beleive in Dinosaur's. There's solid proof that they existed, so we can't deny it.
But I'm not sure of evolution. There isn't solid proof for it, but I'm not denying it, just not sure about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 4:25 pm
x_Silver_Starlight_x Well, I'm christian, and I beleive in Dinosaur's. There's solid proof that they existed, so we can't deny it. But I'm not sure of evolution. There isn't solid proof for it, but I'm not denying it, just not sure about it. ...
There is NO proof of God or basically any of the events of the bible.
So that's why I go with the evolution theory. It's more believable and reasonable to me then an almighty invisible creator of the universe as written by people who had a very poor, primitive understanding of the world and how it works.
So, yeah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 6:07 pm
AmErIcAnSyKo x_Silver_Starlight_x Well, I'm christian, and I beleive in Dinosaur's. There's solid proof that they existed, so we can't deny it. But I'm not sure of evolution. There isn't solid proof for it, but I'm not denying it, just not sure about it. ...
There is NO proof of God or basically any of the events of the bible.
So that's why I go with the evolution theory. It's more believable and reasonable to me then an almighty invisible creator of the universe as written by people who had a very poor, primitive understanding of the world and how it works.
So, yeah. then wouldn't alligators, anteaters,and sharks be proof that there is no evolution since they barley changed over millions of years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 6:09 pm
Whispend Hello all, just been thinking about theories of evolution, diddn't see and topic about it so decided to make one. I'm technically lutheran but very close to athiest now, also do Christan's believe in Dinosaurs? Where do they fit in the "Earth made in 7 days?" the thing is time isn't defintite ,so each day could been millions of years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:10 am
amigo bear AmErIcAnSyKo x_Silver_Starlight_x Well, I'm christian, and I beleive in Dinosaur's. There's solid proof that they existed, so we can't deny it. But I'm not sure of evolution. There isn't solid proof for it, but I'm not denying it, just not sure about it. ...
There is NO proof of God or basically any of the events of the bible.
So that's why I go with the evolution theory. It's more believable and reasonable to me then an almighty invisible creator of the universe as written by people who had a very poor, primitive understanding of the world and how it works.
So, yeah. then wouldn't alligators, anteaters,and sharks be proof that there is no evolution since they barley changed over millions of years Sharks didn't evolve? The best known earliest, most primitive shark was only about 1 meter long.
How did this shark from about 400 million years ago not evolve, if 340 million years later, the Megaladon shark came into existance?
Back on track here, most evolution occurs as random genetic changes followed by natural selection, which helps this change pass and live on through reproduction. Read this;
"Adaptations are structures or behaviors that enhance a specific function, causing organisms to become better at surviving and reproducing. They are produced by a combination of the continuous production of small, random changes in traits, followed by natural selection of the variants best-suited for their environment. This process can cause either the gain of a new feature, or the loss of an ancestral feature. An example that shows both types of change is bacterial adaptation to antibiotic selection, with mutations causing antibiotic resistance by either modifying the target of the drug, or removing the transporters that allow the drug into the cell. However, many traits that appear to be simple adaptations are in fact exaptations: structures originally adapted for one function, but which coincidentally became somewhat useful for some other function in the process. One example is the African lizard Holapsis guentheri, which developed an extremely flat head for hiding in crevices, as can be seen by looking at its near relatives. However, in this species, the head has become so flattened that it assists in gliding from tree to tree - an exaptation"
I'll continue if you'd like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:14 am
amigo bear Whispend Hello all, just been thinking about theories of evolution, diddn't see and topic about it so decided to make one. I'm technically lutheran but very close to athiest now, also do Christan's believe in Dinosaurs? Where do they fit in the "Earth made in 7 days?" the thing is time isn't defintite ,so each day could been millions of years If each day in the bible was millions of years, then the people in it would be older then the oldest samples of matter in the universe, since it says quite a few people lived to be hundreds of years old.
So that wouldn't make any sense at all, much like the rest of that book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:16 pm
AmErIcAnSyKo amigo bear Whispend Hello all, just been thinking about theories of evolution, diddn't see and topic about it so decided to make one. I'm technically lutheran but very close to athiest now, also do Christan's believe in Dinosaurs? Where do they fit in the "Earth made in 7 days?" the thing is time isn't defintite ,so each day could been millions of years If each day in the bible was millions of years, then the people in it would be older then the oldest samples of matter in the universe, since it says quite a few people lived to be hundreds of years old.
So that wouldn't make any sense at all, much like the rest of that book. no i meant the 'seven days" was a metaphor of how the earth came to be and remember they didn't really have and exact calender
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:11 pm
Which is why I don't believe a word in the bible.
If the most known passages in the bible, such as Noah's Ark, and the seven day creation, are false, then why believe anything else in the bible. If a massive flood, flooded the world, then there would be proof in the rocks, all over the world. But there is no such evidence. So Noah's Ark, in the bible, is written falsly, and therefor, the story is incorrect.
And you can tell how primitive the people who wrote the bible were. Read this passage from Genesis, 1:3-
3Then God said, "Let there be light," and then there was light. 4And God saw that it was good. Then he seperated light from the darkness. 5God called the light "day" and the darkness "night." Together these made up one day.
And then down further in Genesis, 1:15-
15"Let their light shine down upon the earth." And so it was. 16For God made two great lights, the sun and the moon, to shine down upon the earth.
Now, an elementary school student can tell you that the source of day and night is the sun. How is it that in the bible, God made day and night before the sun??
Can you understand, now, why I'm so hesitant to believe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:05 pm
Well you don't see it from a Cristian's point of view, to cristians what God says is rule, law, and fact. So if god told them that he created night and day before the sun and moon, then it is so. And it doesn't say that there wasn't another light source for day before the sun was created.
And as for the flood, it only lasted fourty days, so if there was any evidence is is a small, teeny tiny scrap of rock layer. I mean, the layers of rocks were created over several thousand to several millions of years, so a couple of months wouldn't show that well in the rock layers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:39 pm
Irish_boy132 Well you don't see it from a Cristian's point of view, to cristians what God says is rule, law, and fact. So if god told them that he created night and day before the sun and moon, then it is so. And it doesn't say that there wasn't another light source for day before the sun was created. And as for the flood, it only lasted fourty days, so if there was any evidence is is a small, teeny tiny scrap of rock layer. I mean, the layers of rocks were created over several thousand to several millions of years, so a couple of months wouldn't show that well in the rock layers. No. They don't. The church itself recognizes the facts science brings forth, such as the fact that the sun is the source of light, and the rotation of our planet being the cause of night and day. Why? Because we have undisputable proof that it is so. What you say is making Christians around the world seem uneducated and ignorant, which they are not.
The bible says it flooded the entire world, up to 20 feet higher then the tallest peak of the tallest mountain.
First- If there was enough percipitation in the air to cause a storm that flooded the entire world, Noah and all of the animals onboard the ark would litterally drown from breathing.
Second- They've detected floods in rock layers on other parts of the earth, much more minor, flooding maybe only a few hundred miles. We're talking about the ENTIRE WORLD. There would be signs EVERYWHERE. Read this-
"A global flood would also have certain implications that differ from collected evidence. Ice cores from Greenland have been recovered and examined and show no evidence of a world wide flood. A world wide flood would leave air bubbles, changes in salinity and a layer of sediments. This flood should also have broken up the polar ice caps, yet they still exist."
Third- Noah could never get 2 of every species on the planet. Why? Read-
" There are many different types of animals from all over the world. Noah could not gather all of them together into his Ark. Some species, like penguins, can’t even travel on land very fast. Many species lived in different climates and could not have survived the climate change. Other species, like Koalas, require a special diet to survive. All the animals could not have possibly lived near Noah. Even if the environment had been suitable to all animals (which, to date, no such an environment has ever been found) the increased competition from all the different species would have driven some extinct "
Fourth- Read-
"The people in the Ark would have had to be extremely sick. Otherwise all the diseases would have died off. Measles, smallpox and typhus are among the diseases that would have had to be carried by humans. Otherwise these diseases would have become extinct. Other animals must have suffered from specific diseases as there are other diseases that attack specific animals only"
I think this is sufficient enough to prove that Noah's story, in the bible, is false.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:07 am
Well as I said, that's a Cristians point of view. And who knows what spiecies of animals were around when the flood happened. It doesn't specificly say when it did happen. It was way before the year 1 B.C.(or B.C.E.) because it is in the old testamate of the Bible and most of that was taken from the Jewish holy books. And the bible was writen durring the last part of the Roman empire, so they wouldn't have all the experiance and technlogy that we have today. And the floods they detected lasted for how long? And were they anual floods? I mean, the Nile floods every year, so it would be easy to track the floods because it come almost every year and leave a ton of sediment.
And when the bible was created, humans though that the universe revolved around the Earth, so that is the time when God's word was rule, law, and fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:13 pm
Irish_boy132 Well as I said, that's a Cristians point of view. And who knows what spiecies of animals were around when the flood happened. It doesn't specificly say when it did happen. It was way before the year 1 B.C.(or B.C.E.) because it is in the old testamate of the Bible and most of that was taken from the Jewish holy books. And the bible was writen durring the last part of the Roman empire, so they wouldn't have all the experiance and technlogy that we have today. And the floods they detected lasted for how long? And were they anual floods? I mean, the Nile floods every year, so it would be easy to track the floods because it come almost every year and leave a ton of sediment. And when the bible was created, humans though that the universe revolved around the Earth, so that is the time when God's word was rule, law, and fact. I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this.
Noah lived 950-some years. The flood happened in his 600th year of life, correct? Moses was only a couple generations after Noah, right? Moses, in his 120 year life, wrote Genesis in 1450-1410 B.C.
So you can say that the story of Noah's Ark happened anywhere around maybe 3000-2500 B.C.
That's only around 6,000 years. I doubt that would be much of a difference between the species of then and now.
Considering that we have hundreds of thousands of dinosaur species fossils, I'm quite sure there was no shortage of animals in Noah's time.
You're correct. I that time, they did not have the technology we have today. Well they did a study on building an ark. The ark in the bible is 450 ft long. With our advanced technology today, we could only make an ark of 300ft.
That doesn't make sense, now does it?
Wether someone chooses to believe God makes the sun revolve around the Earth or not, doesn't matter. There is undenyable scientific proof, therefor making it fact, that the Earth revolves around the sun. Belief and faith can NOT stand up to fact, and I'm sure you know this, you're intelligent enough to understand that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:49 pm
Yes I am. But I may base most of what I do in scientific fact, I am a Cristian, so I though that it could use a Cristian's point of view. The ark doesn't make sence, I see what you mean. But you have to think of it this way, they could of had something back then to help them build it than what we have today. And don't say that isn't possible. Look at plumbing and sewers, for instance. The first plumbing appered around 2000 B.C.E. in India. After the Indus river civilazation fell, it was lost until about 500 B.C.E. when the Romans discovered how to make a sewer and plumbing. After about 900 C.E. plumbing was lost to the fall of the Roman empire and the start of the Dark Age. Plumbing wasn't redicovered until the late 19th century. So they could of had something back then to help make an ark bigger than what we can today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:13 pm
Irish_boy132 Yes I am. But I may base most of what I do in scientific fact, I am a Cristian, so I though that it could use a Cristian's point of view. The ark doesn't make sence, I see what you mean. But you have to think of it this way, they could of had something back then to help them build it than what we have today. And don't say that isn't possible. Look at plumbing and sewers, for instance. The first plumbing appered around 2000 B.C.E. in India. After the Indus river civilazation fell, it was lost until about 500 B.C.E. when the Romans discovered how to make a sewer and plumbing. After about 900 C.E. plumbing was lost to the fall of the Roman empire and the start of the Dark Age. Plumbing wasn't redicovered until the late 19th century. So they could of had something back then to help make an ark bigger than what we can today. Even if they did have something back then to make an Ark bigger, the size of the Ark itself is not large enough to hold every species of animal on the planet.
Not to mention that it was made of wood.. We have ships with metal framing and steel walls, and yet, we still have leaks. Ships have to constantly be pumping water out of them continueously because of it.
Think of WOOD. In 40 days of rough storms, and around 150 days total, afloat.
neutral
The chances of the boat sinking because of something like a leak or wood-rot are ridiculously high.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
