Evolution vs Creationism

[Ariel82]

According to this source, the process started about 130,000 years ago.

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Dog

150 years to create at least 150 breeds according to your website....

"From Pekingese to St. Bernard and greyhound, dogs come in such startling variety it's easy to forget they belong to the same species. The profusion of breeds today -- at least 150 -- reflects intense, purposeful interbreeding of dogs in the past 150 years. "

 

[Percepi]

It is fascinating how we as humans can figure out we have ape men from 5,000 gazillions of years ago but we want to reference it to science only 600 years old. Makes perfect sense to me LOL

I guess this means you can't ascertain the age of your father since you're only 37 and your father would clearly have to be older than that.

And why hundreds of gazillions of years? Can't be bothered learning what evolution ACTUALLY suggests?

The argument of the evolution THEORY scientists.

Oh, wonderful, another person who doesn't know what a scientific theory is. Watch the video I embedded that has the word "Evolution" as its thumbnail. It clears your common misconception about the word up almost right away.

A theory, in science, doesn't refer to a hunch or guess. That's why we refer to certain scientific topics as germ theory and the theory of gravity.

You take a bowl of soup. Keep on stirring for 100,000 years. Eventually and Apple i-pad will form from the stirring.

No, it wouldn't.

1. The theory of evolution doesn't deal with the formation of life. That's the study of abiogenesis.
2. The formation of life happened in a particular environment suitable for such an event. Abiogenesis doesn't suggest life can come from anything.
3. Why would a non-organic iPad come from soup? That's like saying you can't bake dough into baked cookies because when you pull the pan out of the freezer, it doesn't produce a pizza. Why did I use "freezer" in the analogy and not "oven"? Because you compared the early years of Earth's environment to soup, two entirely different environments.

Like I said before, makes perfect sense to me when I say it out loud LOL

Your sarcasm is ironic because you're not even referring to evolution, you're trying to refer to abiogenesis. Of course, the irony doesn't end there since you show a total lack of understanding of the field. It's like listening to someone go on about how germs and viruses don't cause illness because there's no way to know how one squiggly microscopic object effects another rounder microscopic object. If you witnessed someone making this argument, you would conclude that they clearly know next to nothing about germ theory. This is what it feels like reading your comments, but evolution instead.

150 years to create at least 150 breeds according to your website....

"From Pekingese to St. Bernard and greyhound, dogs come in such startling variety it's easy to forget they belong to the same species. The profusion of breeds today -- at least 150 -- reflects intense, purposeful interbreeding of dogs in the past 150 years. "

You are right. I don't know how I skimmed past that part. But do keep in mind these different breeds are still of the same species. Regardless, it is something I will have to look further into. The breeds of dog we see today didn't just pop up within the last 150 years since we have examples of the same breeds or similar breeds dating further back than 150 years. (Though it's possible some breeds developed from wolves much quicker, while others took much longer to develop. I'm still questioning the source I linked and I'll keep looking for something more reliable to either confirm the claim or invalidate it).

You should look up the evolution history of different animals though such as horses or even whales.

 

[Percepi]

I searched "how many generations from wolf to dog" and stumbled upon this hilariously asinine article.

How Did Wolves Become Dogs?

I know some of you may run into it if you're also looking for an answer. I just want to note that the article states that the evolution of dogs doesn't stem from mutations. It then does literally nothing to prove this claim. It goes on to talk about how foxes were quickly bred to be friendly towards humans, but this doesn't mean there were no mutations.

"Instead, changes in gene regulation must have caused these trait variations. That's not evolution by mutation, but variation by design. Thus, according to this research, dogs could have become "man's best friend" in three dog generations from a wolf ancestor simply by selective breeding in the recent past."
-ICR

Gene regulation occurs in conjunction with mutations. Even a scientific illiterate should see the flaw with this articles statement. It's a total nonsequitur.

(So far, all sources are pointing towards 15,000 years. I'm wondering if the original article I linked simply contradicted itself)

 

[Gandalf]

I guess this means you can't ascertain the age of your father since you're only 37 and your father would clearly have to be older than that.

And why hundreds of gazillions of years? Can't be bothered learning what evolution ACTUALLY suggests?

So if I follow your logic correctly you are trying to tell me that scientist know the earth is 5,000 gazillion years old because they can follow their roots that far back? Like I said, you make perfect sense LOL

Evolution suggest that if you can’t prove it with the first 60 million years you just add another 60 million and another and another… (that is the reason I use 5,000 gazillion (Sarcasm) because they will keep on adding until we get to that)

 

[hopesprings]

I guess this means you can't ascertain the age of your father since you're only 37 and your father would clearly have to be older than that.

And why hundreds of gazillions of years? Can't be bothered learning what evolution ACTUALLY suggests?



Oh, wonderful, another person who doesn't know what a scientific theory is. Watch the video I embedded that has the word "Evolution" as its thumbnail. It clears your common misconception about the word up almost right away.

A theory, in science, doesn't refer to a hunch or guess. That's why we refer to certain scientific topics as germ theory and the theory of gravity.

A scientific theory is not a fact....it is an explanation of the facts. Also....a scientific theory can change depending on newly discovered evidence.
Gravity is usually spoken of as being the Law of Gravity, because laws rarely change.

just so everyones clear

 

[Jamal]

A scientific theory is not a fact....it is an explanation of the facts. Also....a scientific theory can change depending on newly discovered evidence.
Gravity is usually spoken of as being the Law of Gravity, because laws rarely change.

just so everyones clear

If they could put a fact to Evolution, they'd call it a law. Like, "The [statistical] Law of Evolution": whereby a species in a non-shrinking population accumulates constructive mutations over time... such as given enough time, the descendants of an amoeba population will eventually gain the ability to build I7 microprocessors."

 

[Percepi]

So if I follow your logic correctly

You're not following anything.

Evolution suggest that if you can’t prove it with the first 60 million years you just add another 60 million and another and another… (that is the reason I use 5,000 gazillion (Sarcasm) because they will keep on adding until we get to that)

That's not how evolution works. Scientists don't sit on their butts and go "hmmm, i don't know how to prove the world to be even older so I'm going to simply say it's older because I don't want people to know creationism is true." You would know this but you'd rather hold onto your belief that evolutionists are lying rather than actually looking at how the science is done and potentially discovering you might be wrong.

Don't make up fake strawman claims, then attack them. That would be like me making up the fact you like to throw puppies off bridged, then argue how immoral you are because you throw puppies off bridged. That's precisely what you're doing, but with evolution.

A scientific theory is not a fact....it is an explanation of the facts. Also....a scientific theory can change depending on newly discovered evidence.
Gravity is usually spoken of as being the Law of Gravity, because laws rarely change.

just so everyones clear

For the most part, you are correct. Though, a law isn't something a theory is promoted to.

Gravitational laws, such as Newton's laws of universal gravitation, are subsets of gravitational theory which is a more expansive topic.

If they could put a fact to Evolution, they'd call it a law.

No, we wouldn't. A law defines one incredibly specific principle. An entire theory can never become a law, but rather laws may be used to help support theories. Laws aren't "factualized theories" or "verified theories". Evolution is an entire study of an entire concept supported by numerous different fields of science and verified through numerous different means. We literally can't make the theory of evolution into a law because it simply ISN'T a law.

A law and a theory are two different things. A law is not something a theory is promoted to. It's not "more certain" than a theory.

Hopesprings is on the right track, but Gandalf and Jamal, you two clearly don't understand science. Frankly, I'm convinced you don't even want to learn about science since neither of you have even tried to prove you considered a word I said.

 

[hopesprings]

It is sort of silly tho how creationists downplay the definition of a scientific theory, and evolutionists exaggerate it. Not saying you are doing that, Percepi...that has just been my experience as a whole in talking to evolutionists.

Just for for the record, I believe in creation but I have not ruled out evolution as the tool used in creation. There is evidence for and against it. But we would be ignorant to say that it absolutely cannot exist, especially considering the bible never says that....

dont not throw the daggers too hard, my friends.

 

[Percepi]

It is sort of silly tho how creationists downplay the definition of a scientific theory, and evolutionists exaggerate it. Not saying you are doing that, Percepi...that has just been my experience as a whole in talking to evolutionists.

Just for for the record, I believe in creation but I have not ruled out evolution as the tool used in creation. There is evidence for and against it. But we would be ignorant to say that it absolutely cannot exist, especially considering the bible never says that....

dont not throw the daggers too hard, my friends.

I don't mind when people are skeptical, even if they're wrong. But we need to remain honest, open minded, and willing to correct ourselves.

It's frustrating when people intentionally lie about evolution, and it's even worse when they build their argument around that lie. It's completely understandable when someone is wrong out of ignorance, but as long as they're willing to learn, it's not a problem. But even when creationists are genuinely ignorant, they seldom correct their erroneous statements because they're unwilling to look further into the issue. They don't want to take the time to verify whether or not evolutionist arguments are valid or invalid. Instead, they continue to assume they're invalid, don't bother with looking into evolution, then continue spewing the same flawed arguments over and over. For example, I woulnd't be surprised if Jamal used the same "science is just a theory" argument in the future, even after he's been corrected. (If he does correct himself, then I stand corrected and would gladly redact my statement)

 

[Gandalf]

You're not following anything.

Percepi, then you should express yourself better. I am not going to argue with a borderline atheist. The words you are using (Strawman etc.) is from our atheists friends and I argue with them on another website. If I am with fellow Christians I am not going down that path.

The fact is evolution is a theory and nothing more. We cannot base our believes and religion on a theory. That is the reason why we have over 40,000 “Christian” denominations today. If we take the Bible as our guideline we cannot believe in the earth being 160 million years old (fact). There are some merits for believing in evolution as there are changes in certain animal species but it couldn’t have evolved over millions of years as the earth is not that old.

Apologies if my sarcasm offended you brother. Enjoy your day.

 

[hopesprings]

Percepi, then you should express yourself better. I am not going to argue with a borderline atheist. The words you are using (Strawman etc.) is from our atheists friends and I argue with them on another website. If I am with fellow Christians I am not going down that path.

The fact is evolution is a theory and nothing more. We cannot base our believes and religion on a theory. That is the reason why we have over 40,000 “Christian” denominations today. If we take the Bible as our guideline we cannot believe in the earth being 160 million years old (fact). There are some merits for believing in evolution as there are changes in certain animal species but it couldn’t have evolved over millions of years as the earth is not that old.

Apologies if my sarcasm offended you brother. Enjoy your day.

the bible does not insist on a young earth. We shouldn't put definites where there are not any. Just a word of caution.

 

[Gandalf]

the bible does not insist on a young earth. We shouldn't put definites where there are not any. Just a word of caution.

If you read the OT (but Genesis in particular), it is easy to see that from creation until today we are working with about 6,000 years.

Like I said to Percepi, I am not here to argue with borderline atheists about evolution. If you study the Hebrew and understand the back ground of the Hebrew writings you will understand why.

 

[Percepi]

Percepi, then you should express yourself better.

I should express myself better? I have been VERY clear with my posts and you completely ignore them and spew nonsense. It's not that you're failing to follow what I say, you're intentionally refusing to understand anything I say.

The words you are using (Strawman etc.) is from our atheists friends and I argue with them on another website. If I am with fellow Christians I am not going down that path.

We use the word strawman to refer to a malicious debate tactic. It's not an "atheist" term, but even if it were, so what? If you understand what a strawman argument is, which is to attack a position a person doesn't actually hold, why try to justify your lie?

The fact is evolution is a theory and nothing more.

I already explained to you what a scientific theory actually is. You don't have to accept my explanation just because I said so, you can do your own research and search "What is a scientific theory?" in Google.

We cannot base our believes and religion on a theory. That is the reason why we have over 40,000 “Christian” denominations today. If we take the Bible as our guideline we cannot believe in the earth being 160 million years old (fact). There are some merits for believing in evolution as there are changes in certain animal species but it couldn’t have evolved over millions of years as the earth is not that old.

You believe the Bible to be the ultimate truth, and anything that seems to contradict the Bible must be flawed in some way. I understand this. I won't even go into the flaws with this kind of thinking. But if you're going to take the Bible's word above the word of scientists (or "man" as Christians like to say), the least you can do is be honest and correct your own understanding of a theory you refuse to accept or believe to be true.

I'm not a Christian, but if I make a claim about the Bible that's untrue, then I'll look at the proofs and explanations posted by Christians and I'll either correct my understanding of the Bible or I'll try look into the issue further before concluding who's right or who's wrong. You, on the other hand, have your mind made up that you're right and you won't even consider a thing anyone says.

I am not going to argue with a borderline atheist.

An atheist is a person who believes in one or more gods. Accepting evolution to be true does not make one an atheist, or even a "borderline" atheist. You referred to hopesprings as a borderline atheist when she's the exact opposite, she is a theist. She believes in one or more gods (specifically, Yahweh). That's literally 100% not an atheist.

I, on the other hand, am an atheist. Not because I accept evolution to be true but because I don't believe in any gods. If you wish not to debate this issue with me, fine. But as long as I see posts completely misconstruing what evolution is, I'll respond.

 

[Jamal]

If you read the OT (but Genesis in particular), it is easy to see that from creation until today we are working with about 6,000 years.

Coincidently, reliable evidence of human history doesn't go back more than roughly 6000 years. Maybe a scientist will date piece of pottery at 50,000ybe, but that's speculation. The very Liberal Wikipedia says, "The emergence of civilization is generally associated with the final stages of the Neolithic Revolution, a slow cumulative process occurring independently over many locations between 10,000 and 3,000 BCE." Really, modern humans have been around 50,000 years, but didn't leave any evidence of civilization until 10,000BC at the earliest? For 40,000 years, no human population managed to leave a civilized footprint? That's what I'm suppose to believe? Actually, I hear that modern humans have been around for 200,000 years.

For 190,000 years, no one said "Hey, let's carve a huge statue in the side of that cliff." "Hey, if we stack rocks, we can build a house that will last the rest of our lives." "Hey, if we dig a ditch from the stream, we won't have to carry water so far." "Hey, if we raise cattle, we won't have to spend so much time hunting."


Why don't we have 200,000 years of people making lasting evidence of their existence, and I mean more than pottery shard.

 

[hopesprings]

If you read the OT (but Genesis in particular), it is easy to see that from creation until today we are working with about 6,000 years.

Like I said to Percepi, I am not here to argue with borderline atheists about evolution. If you study the Hebrew and understand the back ground of the Hebrew writings you will understand why.

Thanks to Percepi for standing up for me...why is it he recognizes I am a theist, but you do not? For some reason, everyone on here is some sort of Hebrew linguistic expert, but the believer beside them cannot be if they disagree. Sad

so...since I find your statement to me slightly arrogant and annoying, let me say with 100% assurance that neither Genesis nor any other scripture says that the earth is 6000 yrs old. You can say it says that all you want, but I have read it, and dare I say...studied it and it absolutely does not say that. Do u recall the scripture that says one day to God is like a thousand yrs to man? Or how about the fact that 24 hr days were not the first thing that God even created? Or what about the fact that God stands outside of time, and therefore His "one day" perhaps is not even close to our bound to time one day?

My point is that Christians need to stop putting limitations on God like they are they even capable of understanding the intracit process He is able to use. God created the entire universe and everything in it....absolutely! But you honestly have no idea what process, or how long it took Him, to call this universe into existence. Evolution could very well be the process He used...doesn't make Him any less the Creator of all things. God made man....but you don't know how long it took him to do that, other than "one day" which is probably not referring to our one 24 hr day.

I think this is why many evolutionists, and others, think of Christians as just being plain ignorant of science. God gave man a brain, so don't assume that everything man discovers that contradicts with your idea about God, does not have genuine merit.

 

[Gandalf]

Thanks to Percepi for standing up for me...why is it he recognizes I am a theist, but you do not? For some reason, everyone on here is some sort of Hebrew linguistic expert, but the believer beside them cannot be if they disagree. Sad

so...since I find your statement to me slightly arrogant and annoying, let me say with 100% assurance that neither Genesis nor any other scripture says that the earth is 6000 yrs old. You can say it says that all you want, but I have read it, and dare I say...studied it and it absolutely does not say that. Do u recall the scripture that says one day to God is like a thousand yrs to man? Or how about the fact that 24 hr days were not the first thing that God even created? Or what about the fact that God stands outside of time, and therefore His "one day" perhaps is not even close to our bound to time one day?

My point is that Christians need to stop putting limitations on God like they are they even capable of understanding the intracit process He is able to use. God created the entire universe and everything in it....absolutely! But you honestly have no idea what process, or how long it took Him, to call this universe into existence. Evolution could very well be the process He used...doesn't make Him any less the Creator of all things. God made man....but you don't know how long it took him to do that, other than "one day" which is probably not referring to our one 24 hr day.

I think this is why many evolutionists, and others, think of Christians as just being plain ignorant of science. God gave man a brain, so don't assume that everything man discovers that contradicts with your idea about God, does not have genuine merit.

Hopesprings, I apologize if I offended you in any way. I was busy arguing with atheist on another website and sometimes you are still hot under the collar from one of your arguments and then you get to a Christian website and BAM… you sit with egg on your face because you typed something without thinking it through.

I will explain to you why I believe the earth is only 6,000 (not even) years old but my friend it is up to you to find out if it is the truth or not. The Hebrew language (and I am not an expert LOL) is so diverse that if YHWH used a longer period to create heavens and earth there would have been a different picture in His language. Simple as that, the word used for a day in Hebrew is the same as every other word used to describe a day (24 hours long). You are 100% correct if you say that time was only created on day four but here is my question to you, do you think God needed a watch to actually keep within his 24 hour periods? of course not. We can only guess but with the evidence in front of me and knowing that God is a God of order, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow I would find it fascinating if the first three days was not 24 hours long and the remaining 4 only 24 hours. That is not the nature of a God with self-discipline.

Without going on and on about the 6,000 years there are also other facts to consider but we can discuss that if you are interested in finding out more…

 

[Gandalf]

I, on the other hand, am an atheist. Not because I accept evolution to be true but because I don't believe in any gods. If you wish not to debate this issue with me, fine. But as long as I see posts completely misconstruing what evolution is, I'll respond.

Percepi, I also owe you an apology as I picked up you are an atheist and just went in guns blazing. Foolish, I know but I will take it on the chin and move on…

 

[kayem77]

Christians seriously need to stop equation Creationism with a young earth. A young earth is not a dogmatic belief, and we should stop being so divisive about it.

A good Christian website that believes in an old earth(not evolution, an old earth and evolution ARE NOT the same thing), for example: Reasons To Believe : Explore : Today's New Reason To Believe

 

[christianperson91]

And here is a website for Christians who do accept an old earth and the theory of evolution.

BioLogos: Science and faith in harmony

 

[Percepi]

Percepi, I also owe you an apology as I picked up you are an atheist and just went in guns blazing. Foolish, I know but I will take it on the chin and move on…

Thanks. I appreciate that.