evolution

You don't have to take the Bible 100% literally though. I've never thought science and religion to be mutually exclusive, despite the fact that a lot of scientific discoveries contradict the Bible... Just that the Bible should be updated, since parts of it have been proven to be quite clearly wrong. I don't believe in a god, but I don't know why Christians don't accept the evidence against them and decide that maybe, just maybe, their god created the universe as a place full of different elements, and then things went from there.

Not to insult your intelligence hunchy, but are you sure you've read up on evolution? Because I don't get where you're finding that evolution has anything to do with how life was started or even how the human race was started.

Definition- evolution:

Noun
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development. 2. a. The process of developing. b. Gradual development. 3. Biology a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. 4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements. 5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.

Look specifically at number 3. I think too many people think that evolution = humans came from apes. Evolution is the graadual change of a species over many generations. Who is to say God and evolution can't coexist? The bible? Again, religious philosophies can't proove or disprove evolution.

There's actually different types of evolution...which one are you talking about? I think that the evolution that says that there was a big bang and then we have progressed from animals...I believe in some forms of evolution...and by the way, you didn't insult me. I understand that you want to question what I have to say. Thanks for going about it in a nice way. 🙂

Your welcome. 🙂 But as far as I know evolution and the big bang theory are two different issues. As far as different types of evolution goes, I don't know all that much. I am only a high school student and I'm just now studying evolution, but my teachers have stressed on countless occasions that evolution never says we evolved from apes it says we had a common ancestor, and that evolution and creation have nothing to do with each other and shouldn't be used to argue for or against each other. Unless of course you also believe the bible is an accurate time line, scientific discoveries have already proven the earth to be billions of years old and there was no way it was created in 7 days. But with or without the theory of evolution, the above fact remains.

The big bang and evolution are relating to science and not religion.

I have posted insight into why the beginning week could have been more like 250 million years times 7 or so. 1 day for God = 250 Million years for earth which didn't exist a the time the big bang began. Scientifically it took all the time (250 Million, probably more) to send all those balls of gas across however far it traveled. No one comprehends these terms. I can, but then I assume infinity goes on. So I comprehend it and then sleep and I stop thinking about it.

In my mind, the big bang started it all, then evolution took place and religion ties into it all because God created humans in his image.

So literally, God created the big bang to send stars out millions of miles in every direction, the earth was formed and the being he created started to become more like him. We are continuing to become his image are we not? We are evolving into what God is and far from being complete. We will not stop evolving. It could be as infinite as space itself.

Your theory falls apart if there is ever life discovered on other planets. basically, all of religion falls apart if this happens.

ok, heree's a q: After every generation a species is slightly different. Over enough time, generation 6395 is different from generation 1. So then, when is the line that turns these two organisms into two different species?

I hope someone will understand this q. I'm just trying to bring life back to this thread

I'm not quite sure, but from what I've learned it doesn't turn into another species. It's the same species... just changed. My biology teacher gave us the example of this white moth that lived in england. The moth would blend in on the trees to hide from birds and other predators. And once the industrial revolution took place and the air was filled with pollution, the trees started getting darker because they were collecting soot. And over time they observed that the color of the moth changed from white to peppered over a few generations. So it was evolving to better survive it's environment. It was the same moth, just 'upgraded'.

Yeah, but at the same time, changes occur that are much more drastic. Like the horse for example, a really long time ago, it was a little thing that had paws and looked more like a really ****ed up dog than a horse... But over time, it's evolved into something completely different. The ancient horse, whose name I can't remember, is obviously a different species from the modern horse.

Yeah, I guess your right, sometimes the species does change. I don't know where to draw the line, though. But the moth example really is minor. Remember that happen within a decade, but it sort of proves that when an environment changes the animals that live in it change as well.

How do you have proof that horses use to be smaller? You think we all got bigger over time?

They're called fossils, stupid. And no, humans actually got smaller over time.

More name calling...This is starting to get old...Ok, look...Say if its true, you find a small type of horse fossill...one you prove its a horse, and then two how can you prove that ALL horses were that small back then, when maybe you found a couple that were small and defected...or died at a young age...how do you know they were small...couldn't some of the fossils been baby horses? I never heard of humans getting smaller...only bigger...Never heard any theories to back that one up either...You might have gotten smaller over time, but I sure never did...

They can tell the age of the horse by the placement of their teeth.

No, humans, back when they were first formed, had an avereage height of over 6 feet. Then the average height rose to maybe 6 1/2...then it shrunk severely. In the middle ages the average height was down to 5 to 5 1/2 feet. It's starting to rise again, because we are not malnourished anymore.

and I called you stupid because I know 6 year olds that could have answered that question. It was a stupid question.

One thing: How many "small" horses have they actually found? I've never heard of it before...We humans get adult teeth before we are done growing...I believe I had all my adult teeth by 12 or so...and I was not fully grown yet...but by placement? How do you mean? Do you mean differently than size or what? So if you could relate that to a horse...I'm sure they did not fully develop when they die...so of course your gonna find some cases of smaller looking horses or some horses...I mean, we have midgets...those are smaller humans...its a defect not evolution...its not like we evoled from midgets to what we are now...We have midgets, some short people, some tall people...its called varities...no one is the same... And its a theory that small horses existed. It's not proven.

Size of the jaw, wisom teeth, how large the actual teeth were...there are lots of factors.

It's not theory. And they aren't exactly "small horses". http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html#part2

There's proof man. Look for it. There's stuff all over the internet that answers your questions. I just think you don't want to find it.

I've gone to the websites you've provided...just because they say that that's what they think, doesn't suddenly mean its proven to be fact. Wisdom teeth? I know humans who have gotten their teeth in at around age 16 and they are not done growing. Like I said, there are human midgets, and people of all sizes and and there has been for a long time...people and things vary in shape...and yet you didn't respond to that at all...I'm sorry, but the horse thing is a theory. Read this:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html

Yes, oh my, it's a Christian website! But I found it had some good points.

Originally posted by hunchy
More name calling...This is starting to get old...Ok, look...Say if its true, you find a small type of horse fossill...one you prove its a horse, and then two how can you prove that ALL horses were that small back then, when maybe you found a couple that were small and defected...or died at a young age...how do you know they were small...couldn't some of the fossils been baby horses? I never heard of humans getting smaller...only bigger...Never heard any theories to back that one up either...You might have gotten smaller over time, but I sure never did...

Holy shit dude 😐

There is a VERY complete fossil record which clearly shows the transition from the early horse I described to the modern horse. This is common knowledge. And no, the horses could not have been baby horses, because as I said, the ancient horses had four toes--modern horses do not. They looked very different. But like I also said, there is an amazingly complete fossil record that allows us to easily trace the modern horse back to its roots. This is NOT just coincidence.

There are obvious differences other than size.

http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/soci011/sb1/sb1002.gif

Ok, wow. I just sent you a website listing EVERY genus of horse ever, and you're still arguing about teeth? Don't you think that was one of the first possibilities considered when they discovered these fossils? Or do you think scientists are slobbering idiots who haven't thought of what you have?

As for the site: It does nothing but induce doubt from the start. Constantly using phrases like "so-called" and "assuptions", on things that are true. Also apart from that, ALL OF THE INFORMATION IS OUTDATED. The most recent date on the site is 1996, and that date doesn't even concern where they got their information from! The thing most creationists don't realize is that Science, when it proves itself wrong, is willing to accept the correct answer, and change. Unlike religion, which hasn't change for a good 400 or 500 years....or more.

Fact 1. Did it ever occur to this "researcher" that the Ice Age had moved the placement of the fossils? Ice and glaciers covered nearly 70% of the earth, and moved massive amounts of land.

Fact 2. It isn't circular reasoning. The writer used a big word to try and confuse you. Great tactic.

Fact 3. Adaptation is a large part of evolution. Did it not occur to this writer that the primitive horses were simply adapting to their enviroment? Really, things like numbers of ribs and vertabrae don't matter, chalk it up to adaptation.

Fact 4. It seems as if the writer failed to realize that evolution occurs in one of three ways. 1. the original creature evolves into an "upgraded" version of itself(the earlier moth example), and 2. the original creature evolves into two or more similar creatures(dinosuars into reptiles and birds), and 3. creatures evolve from one creature, the original creature remains almost unchanged, but the evolved creature stems away from it(humans and apes).

In the case of the horse, option 2 happened. We have the little horses, and we have the larger horses.

Arachnoidfreak... You are mostly correct... but a little horse and an eohippus are not the same thing 😛