A well thought-out argument against anti-evolutionists

Well scientist are saying this may not be unique at all, and are talking about breaking into other bones in other digs and doing the same tests. Evolutionist laught at creation scientist at the thought that dinosaurs may of walked the earth only thousands of years ago. So now rather than believe that, they are now talking about changing their theory on soft tissues life span. Evolution is an unproven theory and in order to keep the ball rolling all other theories must change to support their unproven one. I have heard that radioisotope is accurate up some thousands of years, not millions. I recall a story where a clay vase was made and after a few days their dating, showed it to be 500,000 years old. If you want to check out the artical I was talking about just type in, ( soft tissue Dinosaur bones) it's all over the web.

 

For that to be true, the Earth would have to have appeared out of thin air just before Adam was born. Nowhere in The Bible does it give any reference about when the Earth was born.

Anyone who can use The Bible to tell how old the Earth is — even though The Bible never mentions when the Earth was born — is a nutter!

Erm, in my Genesis it says:

"Then the Lord God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it; he breathed life-giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live.

[several paragraphs later...]

Then the Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to live alone. I will make a suitable companion to help him." So he took some soil from the ground and formed all the animals and all the birds. Then he brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and that is how they all got their names. So the man named all the birds and all the animals; but not one of them was a suitable companion to help him.

Then the Lord God made the man fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping, he took out one of the man's ribs and closed up the flesh. He formed a woman out of the rib and brought her to him. Then the man said: "At last, here is one of my own kind — Bone taken from my bone, and flesh from my flesh. 'Woman' is her name because she was taken out of man [the Hebrew words sound very similar]"

I have pretty good reading and comprehension skills. Do you?

So you've come to the conclusion that Genesis is definitely a fable. How? You must be pretty convinced to proclaim everyone who beileves it 'insane'! So what's your reasoning that it's a fable?

 

couldnt evolution be true, but only within species? like, apes evolved to humans, other species evolved over time? instead of everything originating from the same species, a couple species evolved into what is now? or is that what they do believe already; i dont know much about evolution.

 

you qouted the second accounting of creation in the bible, look at the first version.-
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.



2And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


3And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.


4And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.


5And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


6And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."


7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.


8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.


9And God said, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.


10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.


11And God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth"; and it was so.


12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good.


13And the evening and the morning were the third day.


14And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years;


15and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth"; and it was so.


16And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.


17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,


18and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.


19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


20And God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."


21And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that it was good.


22And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply on the earth."


23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.


24And God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind"; and it was so.


25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind; and God saw that it was good.
26And God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

so according to the first version man is the last of gods creation. did you skip the first chapter in the bible?

because i dont believe in magic, i dont think its phyisically or scientificly possible that first a god exsists and second that such a being created the universe. also when theres 2 DIFFERENT accounts of the order and purpose of creation given in the bible doesnt give it much credibility either. and considering every religion has its own creation myth, there all were just ways primitive man explained the natural world around them.

and face it its easier on a persons head to think god waved a magic wand and created everything than that we are the end product of millions of years of evolution.

 

The near universal belief in the scientific community is that all life on earth is descended from a form of single-celled organisms that came to be billions of years ago.

 

well it isnt said man evolved from apes, its said both apes and man evolved from a long dead anscestor we hold in common.

 

It's proven that the Ark existed. IT HAS BEEN FOUND ON MOUNT ERETH(sp)! -proof enough.
And Noah didn't find them all, the Lord lined them up infront of him. Only capable ones at that. Dinosaurs, for instance, weren't taken.

Which don't have them?

 

Ok. First, all I could find claiming to have found noah's ark was the turkish government (who have already set up a tourist center for it...motivation?). Almost every site I saw indicated no scientific evidence for this find (even a christian one), and it was described as a depression in the ground with pieces of wood in it. Second, no, even if a 500-foot tri-level boat were to be found, that would not be proof enough. The fact remains that two of every animal on earth would have to be fit into this boat. And if you're discounting evolution (especially in the course of 6000 years or whatever), that means that these could not be generalized. Two leopards and two ocelots and two jaguars and two lions and two tigers and two pumas and two lynx, and two housecats...Everything would have to be included. Actually, I just checked the verse, and it says by sevens...whether that is seven or seven pairs is unclear, but that certainly ups the ante. My point is that there is no way to fit 2-14 of every species onto a 450-foot tri-level boat. One scientist estimated that the insects and worms (two of each, not seven or fourteen) alone would fill about 21 boxcars. And then you have to take into account that they would need space in order to survive, and could not just be tossed into a pile, or they would die. Also, many species do not get along. Dragonflies eat other insects. Spiders eat tons of stuff. Lions and hyenas will kill each other. Elephants and Rhinos gore each other. Red-tailed hawks and Great horned owls fight. They also both eat rodents. Alligators will eat prettymuch anything. And then dinosaurs. The bible does mention creatures that could be interpreted as dinosaurs. The bohemeth, for example, ate grass like an ox, was huge, and had a tail like a cedar, apparently. Just out of curiosity, what makes dinosaurs incapable? Ok, but back to the point. In addition to all these animals (who would have to have a decent amount of space to walk around, by the way), this ark would also require food and fresh water that would supply these animals with enough to last 190 days. 40 days of rain and 150 of flooding. And the lord didn't line them up. There's no mention of that, only that he told noah to go get them.

The older snakes are the only ones with leg stumps. These include the boas and pythons. And I'll re-iterate: this isn't by any means the only vestigial organ. Humans have tailbones, appendices, wisdom teeth, and body hair (that puffs out when you're scared). Many cave animals have eyes but they are shrunken and cannot see. Whales have leg bones.

 

kid, your too guilible. what talking about the ark being discovered, its not. what some people think is that on top of mount ararat(s/p?) is the impression in the snow of a large boat (it hasent been studied up-close because its in turkeys border and theres some political problems there), and of course christians hear big boat and think noahs ark, even if there was a boat on mt. ararat (which there isnt) theres zero proof that its noahs ark, you think no one else had a big ass boat? but what most scientists the boat like shape is just rocks and the way shadows fall upon them.

also, i have a important question about noahs ark, so all the animals alive today were on the boat, and when the flood waters recided and noah landed the boat all the animals would have had to exit the boat then, right. so why are only kangaroos and other marsuiples only found in australian continent, and gorillas only in africa, pandas in southeast asia, penguins south pole, buffalo n. america,, if the story of the flood was true theres no reason for different species to only be found in different locations thousands of miles away from where they would have exited the ark.

also ignore zero evidence the flood described in the bible is found, and theres much agaist there ever being such a flood. look at the fossil record, animals are found from simple organisms being found at lower levels whille complex organizms are found at higher levels.

 

Actually, a Russian expedition just recently found nothing but volcanic rock at the supposed site of the boat. It's a lava formation, just as suspected.

 

Campbell,

You are not responding to my last post (page 4).

 

Juggla, please bear with me I'll try to explain...

First of all, let's just back up a little and remind everyone what we're talking about, here.

I was talking about how Adam could be the first human, even though there were humans before him. What I speculated was that perhaps Adam was the first human, originally, but then after deciding Adam needed company, God decided to add other animals, thereby changing the nature of how Adam existed and giving him ancestors. So although Adam was the first man, he no longer is.

It's important that you understand that this is just my speculation. I'm not saying that I believe Adam was ever created out of thin air. I honestly don't have a strong opinion. Speculating on how God built the universe is utterly pointless, since we can never know. So why bother!

Since creation is so mind-boggling, and impossible to fully know or understand, this all has to be speculation. But I believe (in my opinion) that the first chapter of Genesis is a chronological account of what happened when the universe was being made (ie from our perspective). So you start off with the Earth being empty, then life evolves, and finally, yes, humans came last of all. Whereas the second chapter of Genesis tells us what God did (ie from God's perspective). So God talks to Adam and decides to add animals. So he adds animals to the Earth. This isn't contradicting the order of chapter one since these are two different perspectives (one is our timeline and the other is God's).

All I can say is this is ridiculously closed-minded of you. It's the sort of thing people would have said about televisions and computers 1,000 years ago. Something is only 'magic' if you don't understand it. There is no logical basis to conclude that the universe was not intelligently created. How do you know? There are only two possible explanations for the existence of the universe: either it's there because someone put it there, or it's there for no reason at all. Both of these explanations are hard to believe, or to comprehend, that doesn't mean they're both wrong!

I think it's particularly closed-minded that you say you don't think it's "physically or scientificly possible" that a god can exist! God isn't a physical being. God does not live in this universe and he is not bound by the laws of science (which he created)! Thinking of God in terms of science is pointless.

Why not? Again, you're showing your closed-mindedness.

Literally, the two accounts seem to contradict each other — it's a popular myth that they do, but they don't. The second account doesn't actually say that God created the animals after he created Adam. Hebrew experts say that the tense is left open to interpretation. You can either read it as "then God made many animals, which he brought before Adam" or "God had made many animals, which he brought before Adam". There is no "correct" interpretation.

But even if you choose to read it as God making the animals after he makes humans, that still doesn't contradict chapter one, if you simply read chapter one as being a chronological acocunt of what happened, and chapter two as an account of what God did (since God does not exist in our time, so chronology is irrelevant to him).

Well, I wouldn't call humans of 4 thousand years ago 'primitive man', but maybe I'm giving them more credit than they deserve?

Again, you're making a lot of assumptions. You're assuming that all explanations about creation are myths. How can you be sure that none of the 'myths' are based on divinely inspiration, and are true? You can't rule it out.

I don't think there are many religious people who deny evolution. Evolution is more or less scientific fact. That's not to say it is fact, but if the scientific community say something is definitely true then why shouldn't everyone else take their word?

But you're bringing evolution back into a discussion about religion. You just can't do that. Science has no relevance to religion. You either believe the God exists and he created us, or you don't. Arguing about science is of no relevance. God has never given any scientific details in The Bible, or said anything at all about science, so why try and disprove him with science? There's nothing you can prove with science that disproves God.

 

"Only capable ones at that. Dinosaurs, for instance, weren't taken." What makes an Elephant or even a Bear for that matter any more capable?
What did the carnivorous animals eat on the ship?

 

Ya' know...things like adaption, lung capabillity, etc...

And besides, Dinosaurs were...kinda big...

And I believe the meat was stacked BEFORE they left...

 

In 1969, a Turkish businessman named George Hergobian went public with a story that shook the world. He claimed that as a boy in 1902, he actually saw the Great Boat wedged in a glacier from which the ice had temporarily receded. The site was on the northeast side of Mount Ararat...Great Ararat itself...which today lies under a permanent twenty three square mile glacier of ice and snow. He describes the vessel to an archaeological illustrator, Elfred Lee as looking "like a long box, rectangular, and the corners were kind of rounded a little bit and the sides sloped in slightly. The roof was basically flat with just a slight pitch to it, and there was a stair apparatus at one end." Hergobian went on to say that the entire boat was exposed, and described the wooden grain along the side containing the beautifully fitted joints with wooden dowels. He said he could see the color of the grain, that it was not a stone formation. It was definitely a man-made wooden construction. He told Elfred Lee that he was an 8-year-old boy at the time, and his uncle had to hoist him up onto the ladder. He then had walked on up under the roof and there, all the was down the middle of the roof, he saw holes. He said he stuck head in one of the holes, and it was dark. When he shouted, his voice echoed and re-echoed inside---that it was hollow. Hergobian went back a couple of years later, say the same thing but ice and snow were beginning to cover it up again.
On June 5, 1958, 17 years after the first meentin with Hergobian, Elfred Lee met a man named Ed Davis. Davis was in the U.S. Army in 1943 and stationed in Iran at the time. Incredibly, he also claimed to have seen the Ark. His sighting was roughly in the same area as George Hergobian's only there was one signigicant difference. When Davis saw what he thought was the Ark, it had broken into two pieces. Ed Davis described three decks inside and large cages on the bottom deck. There were smaller cages on the second deck and on the roof was a venting system with many holes, enabling light and ventilation to reach the lowest deck. However, both Hergobian and Davis were unable to pinpoint the exact spot where they say the Ark.
Gregor Schwinghammer, a retired United States Air Force F100 pilot, reported flying over the Great Boat in 1959. He said it appeared to be a barge-like structure, similar to a large boxcar in design, and sticking out of the ice in a horseshoe depression about 3,000 feet below the summit of Mount Ararat.
Ed Behling was an American serviceman stationed southwest of Mount Ararat in 1973. He made friends with a local man named Mustafa, who said he had a great uncle who knew where the Great Boat was located. At first the uncle was reluctant to take the serviceman to the boat, but finally they set out. After hiking up the mountain, around rocks and below cliffs, as if following a trail, they looked down and saw a huge, awesome ship sitting on a shelf. They climbed down beneath it, noting that it was wider than itwas tall. Behling reported that the sides were jagged and ripped up a little bit, and I could see what resembled planks. Compaed to the hill, cliff that it was on, it still looked enormous. It's hard to imagine, and I think about it in my mind's eye, and it's still hard to imagine.
The real Ark is still on the mountain. An American satellite also spotted the object and just like Ed Davis they said there appears to be a man made object on the mountain at about the 16,000 foot level. They also said it appears to be broken in two. Americans had a GPS reading of it this time. I spoke with a member of the expidition that was finally going to check it out last year, but at the last minute the Turkish government refused to allow the group to investigate.

 

Sorry about the delay. Pretty busy these days, don't always get back here.
If it was the Pillar Lava and Mount Ararat you will find it at this web adress.
HTTP://www.Theoutlaws.com/unexplained9.htm

 

lets make it simple religion says poof! we were here, evolution says we grew into what we are now.... Honestly... I dont believe in magic

 

I don't believe in a theory that cannot be found in the fossile record. Especially when they had over 150 years to find even one trans-species. And there should be millions of examples. Archaeology is proving the Bible to be accurate. Those who bought into evolution are still waiting for their first fossile showing trans-species. Don't hold your breath.

 

Yes. Yes you do.

I think we've had this discussion. You still haven't said what you would think of as a trans-species, but there are plenty of examples for what I would consider a trans-species. You have to consider, though, that a trans-species is not acknowledged as in a semi-taxonomic group. It is a new species. With that in mind, the most readily available example is the archeopteryx. Many characteristics of reptiles, many of birds. Reptilian jaws and collarbone and claws, avian feathers, feet, and half-formed wings. If that's not a trans-species, what is?

 

I've never seen a crocodile in person, so how do I know they exist? For all I know, Adobe Photoshop V 39.22 already exists and allows you to create whole universes to export to 21st century media technology. In fact, God probably used Photoshop 666 to create the world we live in with all the lies in perfect harmoni with the truth as a mellowdie.