• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Evolution?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

What is you view on evolution

  • GOD is Right

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Darwin was Right

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I am not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Platypus is a myth

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Just a thought on the Platypus.....is Darwinism wrong?

Scientists initially considered the platypus to be ‘primitive’, but then they discovered the incredibly complex electrolocation techniques the animal uses to find food. To evolutionists this made it a ‘highly evolved animal and not a primitive transition between reptiles and mammals.’6

The platypus, along with its fellow monotreme, the echidna, was believed to have evolved in isolation when the land mass that would become Australia broke away from the other continents supposedly 225 million years ago.7 This idea of evolution in isolation followed the theory of Darwin,

However, the discovery in the early 1990s of three platypus teeth in South America—almost identical to fossil platypus teeth found in Australia—threw that theory upside down.9 (Marsupials, too, were once considered to be exclusive to Australia, but their fossils have now been found on every continent.),

In reality, there is nothing in the fossil record to indicate that the platypus was ever anything other than a platypus.

So either it was Created?....
or it does not exist?....

While I can not ignore science,,,,I also can not ignore thier inability to explain flaws in thier theories.....
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
4,377
Reaction score
1
Location
8 mi S.E. of Harrison, Ar.
I am proud to be the only God is right person at the moment. It seems always to turn toward the Creation argument but There doesn't have to be another right answer to replace evolution in the schools . Evolution can be thrown out without a replacement with the evidence in our posession today.
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
1,191
Reaction score
0
Location
southwest corner of the Sandhills
I haven't voted as you don't have my choice available...

The two do not have to be mutually exclusive. I think they're both right...
(that of evolution and God, that is, since Darwinism isn't quite the same thing as evolution)
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
I haven't voted as you don't have my choice available...

Sorry,

I had thought about that and considered both the option of a literal reading and an interpative reading....but considered the "faith" issue and decided that those who choose to believe in GOD, would also believe that the questions in our faith would in time be answered.

I at one time felt as you do now that Darwin was more on track and believed that the bible writing was fallable and attempted to rationalize the two.....

But the absence of fossil remains of the between species has continued to nag at my ability to accept his theories.....

While there is evidence to support the theories, there is the absance of proof, so both the Bible and Darwins theory becomes a matter of faith.....

Faith:... Belief that does not rest on proof or material evidence.
Theory:... An assumption based on limited information or knowledge.

And it would not let me add the option after a vote was posted....
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
1,191
Reaction score
0
Location
southwest corner of the Sandhills
In light of the fact that the Lord tells us His ways are not our ways, His time is not our time and that in time, all things will be revealed, it hardly makes the Bible fallible.

Instead, it seems almost arrogant to try to constrain Him to both our timeframe and our way of doing things...

PS:
Theory--an incorporation of facts, laws and tested hypotheses.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
While I like your defination of theory better, mine was just taken from the web dictionary.

it is still not a fact, or Law, as it as a whole is not proven......[/quote]
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
1,191
Reaction score
0
Location
southwest corner of the Sandhills
While I like your defination of theory better, mine was just taken from the web dictionary.

*chuckle*
So was mine. :wink:

Theory itself is not a fact or a law. But it is often formed using existing laws and facts. For example, the theory of relativity was formed using existing laws of gravity and time.

PS: a short,sweet article on the idea that the two do not need to be mutually exclusive.
http://www.brianclardy.com/06182003.html
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
10,861
Reaction score
4
Evolution is a word that is so bastardized that it's a pity!! What I mean is that most people think that " evolution" means a physical change, i.e you gain an opposable thumb or drop a tail or become bi ped instad of quadraped......NO!!

You evolve everyday. Lots of us did not know how to use computers at first....but we evolved our thinking and learning patterns and now we're all practically experts. Learning is evolution....you evolve everyday of your life.

So you just can't run screaming EVOLUTION=BAD, EVIL ,of the DEVIL....if you do...then you're surely NOT evolved all those brain cells.
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
theHiredMansWife said:
I haven't voted as you don't have my choice available...

The two do not have to be mutually exclusive. I think they're both right...
(that of evolution and God, that is, since Darwinism isn't quite the same thing as evolution)

I completely agree. Why would God be less powerful if he created the Universe in billions of years instead of just five thousand? It's just our perception of time anyway. The Pope said that there's room in Christianity for evolution, and even as a semi-apostate Catholic I agree.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mp.freelance said:
theHiredMansWife said:
I haven't voted as you don't have my choice available...

The two do not have to be mutually exclusive. I think they're both right...
(that of evolution and God, that is, since Darwinism isn't quite the same thing as evolution)

I completely agree. Why would God be less powerful if he created the Universe in billions of years instead of just five thousand? It's just our perception of time anyway. The Pope said that there's room in Christianity for evolution, and even as a semi-apostate Catholic I agree.

Thats kind of the stance I've taken...What is a day to God? You can't just throw out the entire evolution theory because some parts are unproven- because you can see some instances taking place daily... How did horned herefords become polled?
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
4,377
Reaction score
1
Location
8 mi S.E. of Harrison, Ar.
kolanuraven said:
Evolution is a word that is so bastardized that it's a pity!! What I mean is that most people think that " evolution" means a physical change, i.e you gain an opposable thumb or drop a tail or become bi ped instad of quadraped......NO!!

You evolve everyday. Lots of us did not know how to use computers at first....but we evolved our thinking and learning patterns and now we're all practically experts. Learning is evolution....you evolve everyday of your life.

So you just can't run screaming EVOLUTION=BAD, EVIL ,of the DEVIL....if you do...then you're surely NOT evolved all those brain cells.
Kolanuraven, I know you are young but surely you know the difference in the evolution theory and learning. The evolution theory says you came from nothing then rocks...etc.
That is quite different than learning how to use a computer.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
4,377
Reaction score
1
Location
8 mi S.E. of Harrison, Ar.
theHiredMansWife said:
In light of the fact that the Lord tells us His ways are not our ways, His time is not our time and that in time, all things will be revealed, it hardly makes the Bible fallible.

Instead, it seems almost arrogant to try to constrain Him to both our timeframe and our way of doing things...

PS:
Theory--an incorporation of facts, laws and tested hypotheses.
If you believe the Bible to be true , why would God use the term morning and evening to describe the days of creation. Why would he tell us to work 6 days and rest the 7th? If the Bible isn't true when it says Jesus created the universe in 6 days then we need to throw it out.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Red Robin said:
theHiredMansWife said:
In light of the fact that the Lord tells us His ways are not our ways, His time is not our time and that in time, all things will be revealed, it hardly makes the Bible fallible.

Instead, it seems almost arrogant to try to constrain Him to both our timeframe and our way of doing things...

PS:
Theory--an incorporation of facts, laws and tested hypotheses.
If you believe the Bible to be true , why would God use the term morning and evening to describe the days of creation. Why would he tell us to work 6 days and rest the 7th? If the Bible isn't true when it says Jesus created the universe in 6 days then we need to throw it out.

Actually over the years many books of the ancient Scriptures that went into becoming the Bible have been either lost or were left out by the theologian editors of the day- sometimes purposely because they did not fit the beliefs they were teaching.......Several of these ancient authors writings were never printed.....
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
1,191
Reaction score
0
Location
southwest corner of the Sandhills
Not only the ones that are absent from everyone's Bible, like the Gospel according to Mary, but even the differences between the Protestant Bible and the Catholic Bible.

If you believe the Bible to be true , why would God use the term morning and evening to describe the days of creation.

"For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." (Psalms 90:4)
"A thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:8 )

Why should we presume that God is limited only to that which we know and understand?
A couple of interesting reads on this subject:

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/o_helweg/eve-morn.html
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
4,377
Reaction score
1
Location
8 mi S.E. of Harrison, Ar.
I disagree but if you want to talk about the cannonization of scripture or about the texus receptus we can do that later. Neither or those topics have anything to do with the literal 6 day creation. Here is a link from a Hebrew scholar. This is from the website www.answersingenesis.org

Dr James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University), who himself does not believe Genesis is true history, nonetheless admitted as far as the language of Genesis 1 is concerned that:

‘ … so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’16
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
4,377
Reaction score
1
Location
8 mi S.E. of Harrison, Ar.
theHiredMansWife said:
Why should we presume that God is limited only to that which we know and understand?
How would you explain Jesus in Mark 10 verse 6 when he says "But from the begining of creation God made them male and female." ? Millions of years couldn't have passed before he made man.
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
1,191
Reaction score
0
Location
southwest corner of the Sandhills
:???:
What does that have to do with time?

My stance is that the bible isn't trying to be a specific timeline in terms of hours and days and such. Mark 10 doesn't cause me any issues since back in Genesis it says, "In the beginning..." but I don't take it to mean right at that very first second.
To me it means, "the process which I used..."

For me, that is no conundrum at all.


However, I would think someone who is trying to limit God to the literal must have trouble with both Psalms 90 and 2Peter 3.

How do you rationalize those?
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
4,377
Reaction score
1
Location
8 mi S.E. of Harrison, Ar.
theHiredMansWife said:
:???:
What does that have to do with time?

My stance is that the bible isn't trying to be a specific timeline in terms of hours and days and such. Mark 10 doesn't cause me any issues since back in Genesis it says, "In the beginning..." but I don't take it to mean right at that very first second.
To me it means, "the process which I used..."

For me, that is no conundrum at all.


However, I would think someone who is trying to limit God to the literal must have trouble with both Psalms 90 and 2Peter 3. How does what have to do with time. The fact that Jesus says that from the begining of creation God made them male and female???? I guess I am puzzled by you not understanding . Are you not saying God initiated creation billions of years ago then man evolved like the evolutionists are saying?

How do you rationalize those?
I sure like 2 Peter 3 verse 5.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Verse 8 means that God is patient. Time means nothing to God. That doesn't mean God created the universe over millions of years. Even if you were taking that literal which you were not that would only ad 7000 years to the creation . Not nearly enough time for the evolution process.
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
1,191
Reaction score
0
Location
southwest corner of the Sandhills
Did you read my post? I already answered this...

I repeat:
I don't believe the Bible is trying to be a literal timeline.
Mark 10 doesn't cause me any issues since back in Genesis it says, "In the beginning..." but I don't take it to mean right at that very first second.

To me it means, "the process which I used..."


And please, feel free to answer my question:

However, I would think someone who is trying to limit God to the literal must have trouble with both Psalms 90 and 2Peter 3.

How do you rationalize those?
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
4,377
Reaction score
1
Location
8 mi S.E. of Harrison, Ar.
HMW , through the evolutionists time frame man came into being almost at the end. The evolution process started 4 billion years ago acording to them, not recently. At any figure man wasn't at the beging.
 

Latest posts

Top