evolution

Started by Afro Cheese156 pages

Great point Darth. On top of that, my own bible study teacher said that since it has been translated from language to language many times, a lot of words that deal with measurement and other related things, could not be accurately translated or were lost somewhere in translation. He said that the bible really could not be trusted for measuring time specifically, because while it says people lived to be 900 years old, it is believed by scholars that they measured years differently. He also said that people were literally burned at the stake for trying to translate it from Latin.

There is a lot of proof that the earth is much older than the bible suggests Hunchy. I suggest you do some research. But to come up with some examples right here, just look at things that have already been said in previous posts. I think it was Darth that mentioned that some stars are so far away it takes millions of light years for the light to reach earth, and we wouldn't be able to see them if earth was only a couple thousand years old. And I brought up the fact that fossil fuels take millions of years to form, and they exist here on earth. I can't really think of any others off the top of my head, but I'm sure if you look it up you'll find plenty of facts from both sides of the argument.

And animals appearances do sometimes change according to their environment. That doesn't mean that is the only type of evolution there is, but it does happen. Look at the tundra for example. It is all snow, all white, no trees whatsoever. The only rabbits you find there are pure white. Is that a coincidence? No. That's natural selection. At one time all the rabbits were brown, but eventually one came out that was white, and had an advantage in hiding from predators, so eventually all the brown ones died off until all the rabbits in that region were white. That's a example we talked about in my environmental science class this year. There are many more.

http://www.behindthebadge.net/apologetics/discuss169.html and http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwinbx.html

Evolution is just silly.✅

Unfortunately I have to go and don't have time to read those sites right now... But I will respond when I get back from school.

Originally posted by hunchy
Maybe because he respects me, which I appreciate. But I would please like to know where this "proof" is about how old the earth is. Where does it come from? And I have said that I believe in evolution to an extent...just not that we evolved from something else...but that we do adapt to our environment and make changes...just not physical changes in appearance.

What the fcuk do you mean where's the proof? Go to Yahoo!, type in "Age of the Earth" and you'll find hundreds of site telling you why the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Or find your Earth Science textbook and look up "Age of Earth" There's your answer. Please don't be an idiot and question something that's been proven.

Hunchy> “there was an expedition of people that went there before and looked at it..”
Am I just supposed to take your word for that?

I’m not. So either you back up that statement with a link NOT to www.thebibleistheonlyanswer.com or I’ll call you a liar!

Afro Cheese> There is no evidence against evolution. What you must be thinking about is the following: Evolution is the theory, that all lifeforms evolved from simpler organisms. Exactly when and how that happened is not complete understood. We haven’t been around long enough as species and biology/palaeontology are relatively new sciences while palaeo-zoology is only some 30+ years old.
All evidence supports the evolution of species over time. But scientists want to know how it happens, what triggers it, why certain species appear and others disappear. And not every living thing to’ve ever walked the planet becomes a fossil – far from it.

So it’s like trying to read a book where 9 in 10 pages are missing. You have the title, but it’s not easy to figure out what happens on the missing pages.

David> Woaw, the replier starts out by attacking the person who wrote the e-mail against Noah’s Flood. Well: I suggest you browse through this topic. We’ve thouroughly disproved any possibility of there EVER having been a Noah or an Ark.
However wrote http://www.behindthebadge.net/apologetics/discuss169.html lacks the most basic understanding of how fossils are dated, not just through geology (and trust me, palaeontologists CAN actually see if the layers have been mixed due to geological activity) but also through carbon-dating.
The replier is simply sprouting the same nonsense you find on a gigazillion sites like it. If you’ve seen one you’ve seen them all, and we’´ve dealth with those here. So read this thread. If there is still any doubt in your mind that “Creationism is just silly” be sure to ask.

As for Behe: Go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html
And get into your mind, that
1) Evolution doesn’t deal with the creation if life
2) We don’t happen to have a copy of Earth at the time the pre-biotic chemistry became life.

Omega, I actually don't know what evidence there is against evolution because we haven't gotten into that yet. But two of my science teachers from different classes (environmental science and biology) have said there is. Maybe I misunderstood them or maybe they are just wrong, they have both taught basically the same material so far so it's likely they share notes and stuff. I don't know, I'll look into it next time I get a chance. But I wouldn't be surprised if there is some scientific evidence against evolution. It wouldn't mean the whole theory is wrong, most likely it would just be pointing out minor obstacles or flaws in the theory.

There is no evidence against it, just a gap of needed evidence. If we find the evidence that fills in the gap, we're closer to the truth.

It's like trying to decipher an epic poem from a long time ago, but parts of the middle of the poem were lost. Find the missing peice, and you get the entire story.

Afro Cheese> ”I actually don't know what evidence there is against evolution because we haven't gotten into that yet.”
Well, hold on to your horses when it happens… And listen carefully. And take into mind whether or not these teachers are religious. And DO bring this evidence here to the forum, I’d like to see it.
Go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

”But I wouldn't be surprised if there is some scientific evidence against evolution. It wouldn't mean the whole theory is wrong, most likely it would just be pointing out minor obstacles or flaws in the theory.”

There are more than one sub-evolution brach in existence today. It’s like astronomy. Astronomers are pretty certain about how the Solar-system formed, with the planets, the sun, asteroid belt and Kuiper-belt and Oorts Cloud. But there are some irragularities here and there that are not completely understood. It’s like trying to sleep under a cover that’s too short. Either your nose or your feet freeze 🙂
It doesn’t mean the general over-all theory of solar-system formation is wrong. Merely that there are certain specific areas we still don’t fully understand. I hope you can see the difference between saying “There is evidence against astronomy” and “There are areas in astronomy that we still don’t fully understand.”

Creationists however grab onto "not fully understood" and somehow happen to transform it into "... is wrong."

Yeah, I deffinetly see where you are going with that. I'll ask my teacher what they meant by evidence against it because it says clearly in my notes "there is evidence supporting and opposing evolution." Maybe it just means what you said, that it isn't concrete yet.

perhaps he just means the holes?

I spoke to my biology teacher and he said there actually isn't evidence against it, but just some evidence supporting other theories. My bad, you were right Omega.

he should pick his wording more carefully 😉

It was actually my fault for jumping to conclusions.

you shall therefor be crucified 😉

why did that fool darwin assume that just because we are similar, we MUST be related?

evolution, what a bunch of hobbleswosh...

also, what about this i saw in another topic???

E. "Big Bang"- a big group of mass starts spinning with no force to make it do that, and it gathered into one big ball of mass. Then somehow exploded. Then made all the stars in the universe. The Planets: Nepute, Pluto, and Uranus spin backwards, yet the law of 'angular momentum' states when any gathering of mass implodes or explodes, all the remains, or planets, will spin in the same direction. BOOM. FALSE.

Originally posted by grap
why did that fool darwin assume that just because we are similar, we MUST be related?

evolution, what a bunch of hobbleswosh...

He didn't assume. He studied for decades to perfect his theory. It's not just the fact that animals are similar its the fact that if you look at fossil records you can see a progression in organism's bone structure. If you ever took a look at camels bones from millions of years ago to present time it becomes pretty clear. You don't only see similarities, you see slow changes.

Originally posted by grap
also, what about this i saw in another topic???

E. "Big Bang"- a big group of mass starts spinning with no force to make it do that, and it gathered into one big ball of mass. Then somehow exploded. Then made all the stars in the universe. The Planets: Nepute, Pluto, and Uranus spin backwards, yet the law of 'angular momentum' states when any gathering of mass implodes or explodes, all the remains, or planets, will spin in the same direction. BOOM. FALSE.

You simple fool. The law of conservation of angular momentum is the one (forgive me if I'm wrong, Omega) that states that once a body starts moving, it will move in that same direction forever, given that there is no outside force slowing it down. I can't believe how you Creationists can connect that with "all planets have to move in the same direction!" There is absolutely no relationship between the two. Just because the words "same direction" are used does not mean they are talking about the same thing. Congratulations. The argument you just gave is one of the weakest any Creationist has ever come up with, and, unfortunately, also one of the most commonly used...

I don't check on this thread for a few days and I come back to find we have a new toy...

Nivek -- the law you're talking about...well, I've never heard the name "angular motion" before...but what you're talking about is inertia: "an object in motion will want to stay in motion, and an object at rest will want to stay at rest." But correct me if I'm wrong, Omega.

Yeah, I know about inertia, just seems like I read the link that the person who originally posted that had, and it was about how an object in motion will keep moving in the same direction forever unless an outside force opposes it... Then the Creationist somehow pulled out of their ass that all the planets had to orbit in the same direction because of this 😕