Age of the Oyth

[Timeline]

The intermediate species that linked us to other apes are extinct. But they do exist and we have a very impressive collection of fossils to prove it.

The reason we don't see more intermediate species alive today is because they have become extinct.

This would be a good point for you to start with, if you are serious about convincing me that evolution is real. You say that "we have a very impressive collections of fossils to prove it". This statement is not true. There are some fossils that are mysteries, but could just as easily have been a deformity, rather than evidence of evolution. For every or most deformed fossils that you show me there is something in the medical world that could explain it just as easily and more sensibly than evolution. You have heard of the elephant man - Not evolution, just a defect at the genetic level.

And as I asked before, "What happened to all of these "in between" species. Scientists are so smart; Do they have an explanation or not (Maybe a world flood - I joke. Evolution is plausible only in the imagination and not in reality)

1. Your statement is untrue. There's no reason to believe we should see many more variations of species of all kinds. Species evolve in groups, not individually.

This just seems nonsensical. I will have more to say when you elaborate enough for a response. How does a group evolve without the individuals being involved. The individuals would evolve along with the group - That is what a group is. It is a "group" of individuals.

2. Scientists don't just "say" we have similar DNA. We have observed DNA and tested thousands of samples.



View attachment 80050



No, they're answers to how we are here through observed evidence. Scientists aren't trying to concern themselves with whether or not God played a role or not. Again, you can just as easily argue that light refraction is a scientific theory used to explain how rainbows exist without God, or how germ theory is used to explain how people get sick without the cause being God, Satan, or demons.

This is what has happened. We understand how rainbows are formed, so it assumed that they are not from God. They are a natural occurrence, so the writers of the bible just made it up after they saw a rainbow. Our "understanding" which is misinformation built upon misinformation has lead "us" down the road away from God.

Not true. Many Christian scientists believe God was behind the Big Bang theory. The reason these scientists don't talk about God when they're discussing science is because God can't be tested through the scientific method, and therefore can't be scientifically verified.

Yes, I am aware of many Christians agreeing with Big Bang and evolution through theistic evolution. They have attempted to combine the bible with "science" (I don't have a problem with real science, as it is the study of God's work). It is quite tragic, in my opinion, that they are swayed and/or do not want to be disagreeable, and have accepted many things which are contrary to biblical truths. As I have said before, I do acknowledge that the bible does say that the earth was here before Day One of Creation, but is vague beyond that. So I will discuss "older earth", but evolution, on the other hand, is (as I see it now) in direct conflict with the bible. Maybe all of your "in betweens" didn't make it onto the ark, but that still doesn't explain the incredible lack of fossils that would exist if evolution were true.

What you said isn't true. Don't tell me what I do and do not know - especially if it's in complete contradiction with everything I've said.



So we should abstain from knowledge as to remain humble?

The reality is, arrogance is a personality trait. Knowledge is just as likely to trigger arrogance as it is to trigger humbleness.

No, we shouldn't "abstain" from knowledge, but we should test each piece of knowledge (even when we read it in the bible - because I have seen many things taken out of context) to see if it is true. Yes, arrogance is a personality trait but, as it is with many things, other factors can enhance traits that would otherwise be minimal.

I will go ahead and address the statement below ----> Ha Ha. Yeah, science has never assumed anything, like spontaneous generation. I am sure you know what I am taking about - the meat under glass that spontaneously generated maggots.



Science doesn't assume. In fact, science exists so we don't have to assume.

This is like saying, "Find evidence that evolution is real that doesn't contradict my statement: Evolution isn't real."

You're essentially telling me to find evidence that evolution is real, evidence that does not contradict the Bible. But that's the problem! The evidence DOES contradict the Bible, at least a literal interpretation. You say the Bible is more trustworthy, but the Bible isn't a book that gains authority through science - it gains authority through the assumption that it is the word of God.



Me and Larry just explained to you what a scientific theory is. If you still insist a theory is just an educated guess or a hunch, then you're merely revealing your lack of interest in what science really is and what science really suggests and that you're going to believe whatever you want, even if it's untrue (such as your false definition of a scientific theory), as long as it validates your belief in the Bible.

Yes, I am telling you to show me how evolution doesn't conflict with the bible. Larry doesn't think it does. Maybe he would be a better candidate to take this on. I agree with Larry about most of his interpretation of prophecy and it is disheartening that he believes in evolution. But if (< that's a big if) he is right, he would be the one to convince me. I have seen a lot of insight in Larry's interpretation of scripture, but his acceptance of evolution is, quite frankly, mind boggling.

If you're not willing to learn what evolution is, then stop talking as if you do understand evolution.

If it is real, I want to learn, but as I already said, someone needs to give me something that spikes my interest. And telling me that God doesn't exist, certainly is not the way to start.

I don't believe that I have said anything that is untrue about evolution. Your example is lacking, because I would just show you the part of the story that said it was water and we would go from there. Give me something to start with and we will see where it goes. Just posting some obscure pictures of skulls is not going to do it.

I deleted the rest because it was in response to someone else.

Imagine if I came on this site stating, "The Bible isn't true. Just look at the story of Noah. Noah built a giant wooden boat that sailed on a sea of lava. A wooden boat can't sail on a sea of lava!"

You would probably respond, "Before you criticize Noah and the great flood, make sure you actually understand the story first. Noah didn't sail on a sea of lava, he sailed on an ocean of water."

Now, imagine if I responded, "Well, convince me Noah's boat survived the sea of lava. And don't suggest I read stuff about Noah's flood since I have no interest in wasting my time learning about it."

This is what you're essentially doing to me with the theory of evolution.

Yeah, and I've seen the same thing done to Christians in regard to historians that were not Christians, but supported things that are in the bible. How much documentation shows that Jesus was alive around 4BC - 50AD (that general area - as they didn't use the Gregorian Calendar)? Did you shoot that down or did you look into it? How much documentation shows that the Church originates from that approximate time period? Does this sway your opinion at all? And yes, there is documentation for the beginning of other faiths that believe in a "Supreme Being". We know that the men that started these beliefs lived and that many of them took at least some of their beliefs from the bible.

You read things like, "[SUP]3 [/SUP]When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. [SUP]4 [/SUP]Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. [SUP]5 [/SUP]So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died." and you decide that it can't be true. I understand that. I also know that most of what I have heard and read about evolution seems unbelievable. We are in similar situations, but on opposite ends of the spectrum (in regard to believing the unbelievable).

 

[Larry_Stotle]

The intent of the thread was not to discuss evolution - that said, I don't mind it being part of the discussion.

There is a common confusion between evolutionary theory and abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is a theory of how natural processes by which life might have arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.

If I remember rightly Darwin did speculate a little on abiogenesis, although that was not his main thesis.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Consider: Is the Chemical Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) a Realistic Scenario?

Abiogenesis is a theory of how natural processes by which life might have arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.

 

[jdbear]

Originally posted by Percepi,
Darwin was already an atheist before his daughter died.

That may be, but misunderstanding God through death (especially of loved ones and children in particular) may have killed any belief Darwin may have had that God does exist. In any case, you must be aware that your beliefs are atheistic.

Originally posted by Percepi,
There is always conjecture in science. This is why we resort to multiple means of testing. We have verified the theory of evolution through the fossil record...

Name just one.

DNA...

Living creatures which are very dissimilar have DNA which is very similar, which indicates God used the same materials in creation.

observation of existing species...

Observation shows one species never evolves into another completely different species.

testing of micro-evolution...

Has shown mutation is always harmful or neutral, never helpful.

We know species evolved because we have successfully used science to make predictions about the fossil record that turned out to be true.

See paragraph two above.

 

[Fishbait]

Radiometric Dating​

A Christian Perspective


Dr. Roger C. Wiens​

Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

First edition 1994; revised version 2002.

Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them.

It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers.

Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.


This is well worth the read.

Soyce and full text at:


Radiometric Dating






​

"such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers"? Do ice cores prove ages?

Read this 'paper': Do Greenland ice cores show over one hundred thousand years of annual layers? - creation.com

 

[posthuman]

Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
(Job 38:4)

none of us can really speak from a position of knowledge.

 

[Cycel]

... Darwin was a good science fiction writer....

A statement without substance.

[Darwin] totally missed the the overall picture.... [He] didn't have access to the tremendous amount of information and evidence we have today that does indeed point strongly to the fact that the Bible is spot on.

I see the opposite as true. Can you name a specific point that Darwin got wrong? What he did was marshal a great deal of data in support of his theory. What data did he get wrong?

 

[johnluke]

Originally posted by Tintin
We should welcome the compromising positions of theistic evolutionists, why exactly? We shouldn't celebrate when the Church decides to side with the world, we should be disturbed and mourn such a tragedy. I think we can see the repercussions of the belief in theistic evolution in the Church today. At the very least, those that believe in theistic evolution seem to have a low opinion of the authority of the Bible and have to create many non-biblical theories, based on eisegesis (instead of practicing exegesis) and therefore they don't seem to be all that confident about anything, except 'science' (eg. evolution).

You know that eventually, the church and science will fit together like a hand in a glove? God knows everything there is to know on a scientific level. He will teach those that sit with him in His throne all that he knows, including all things scientific.
Those who sit with Him will eventually gain all knowledge of how things are done, even to be able to create as He does.

 

[JackH]

Evolution was invented my Satan in a seance and the witch was told to inform charles Darwin he would be a good candidate for the perpetration of the satanic theory that would envelope the world, for satan would give all his evil angels power to hypnotize wherever evolution is taught.
documented fact on internet go search

Julia Roberts is starring as the witch in the movie, and it will be her most significant role since the hooker in Pretty Woman.

Your reference to "my Satan" is quite revealing, and don't even try to chalk that one up as a Freudian slip

 

[GodIsSalvation]

A statement without substance.


I see the opposite as true. Can you name a specific point that Darwin got wrong? What he did was marshal a great deal of data in support of his theory. What data did he get wrong?

What Darwin got wrong? That's easy. There is no "missing link" to Man Kind. There is no transitional fossils at all, animal Kinds cannot morph into another Kind. Man Kind is unique and is not an animal, and there is no amoebanation from which all life originated.

All life was blessed to be created in the name of the Lord whom created in separate Kinds with great genetic variety.

And just to be fair to our favorite 1800s naturalist, here is some useful things Darwin got right which when coupled with more scientific studies of biology like Mendellian genetics can give you a lot of insight; genetic populations can be isolated thus their offspring retain certain characteristics, different environments can affect species by either providing ideal conditions for the species to flourish or detrimental conditions in which a species perish (natural selection), and all animals and people have common ancestors (though Darwin erred in believing they all had one common ancestor when in fact all lifeforms have a common ancestor unique to each lifeform, but this theory was at least useful to lay the basis for later studies and theories of genetics that prove Darwin wrong, but thus is science is it not?)

 

[Fishbait]

A statement without substance.


I see the opposite as true. Can you name a specific point that Darwin got wrong? What he did was marshal a great deal of data in support of his theory. What data did he get wrong?

Before we defend someone we must know a little something about that person before defending him. One answer to your question :What data did he get wrong? Answer: Darwin was wrong about the human kind. Darwin was a raciest.

Now, don’t get the idea that evolution is the cause of racism Sin is the cause of racism. But Darwinian evolution fueled a particular form of racism by giving individuals and the masses a scientific excuse to pursue this godless philosophy by using evolution as justification for discrimination, abuse, and even mass genocide.

Darwinian evolution was (and still is) inherently a racist philosophy. It teaches that different groups or “races” of people evolved at different times and rates. According to his theory, some groups are more like (and closer to) their ape-like ancestors than others. As a natural extension of this belief, the Aborigines of Australia were considered by some as missing links between the ape-like ancestor and the rest of mankind—obviously having a great bearing on the terrible prejudice and injustice in the world today and in the past.

As a result of Darwinian evolution, many people started thinking in terms of the different people groups around the world representing different “races,” but the term meant something different within the context of evolutionary philosophy. This has resulted in many people today, consciously or unconsciously, having ingrained prejudices against certain other groups of people. It’s one of the fruits of Darwin’s garden and no one should be surprised by it.

Evolution is a lie and Charles Darwin was a lier. Just as Satan tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden with a lie resulting in sin and death, the lie of evolution is resulting in a continuation of the same things.

Read more on Charles Darwin: https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/the-human-kind/

 

[Fishbait]

 

[Fishbait]

 

[RedTent]

We know when science says they know more than God, they are wrong. When Christians say that everything science finds out about God is wrong, they are wrong. Wouldn't it be better to look at what science thinks it discovers about how God created things, compare it to what we think Scripture says to check our interpretation of scripture? We did that when science discovered the earth was round, when Christians said the bible said it was square. Many Christians did that when it seemed to be a fact that the earth was old----they looked at the first day of creation and saw it said there was something here when God added "owr", or His essence to it.