• 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?

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 .

katrina

Well-known member
Hang in there Erin, and Red Robin, This is quite fascinating and I say bravo to both of you. And Steve and all of you..
 

Steve

Well-known member
Isn't it interesting how meanness and fringe rightwing beliefs are carried on the same gene?

now that is downright mean and judgemental......

we have been haveing a friendly discussion,,,about the origin...

It is important to distinguish between what the Bible says and what we think it says.

Red Robin,,(and Erin),, actually all following the discussion,,please read the two links....

, as it puts a faith based look at the interpitaion of the writings in the Bible and how it applies to science,,,,please read the two links....

" "I would first like to point out that God has not revealed the entire creation process in the Genesis creation account, but only that which is particularly relevant to mankind. Many events in the creation account of the Bible have been intentionally left out (unicellular life forms, dinosaurs, etc.), I believe, because they would have been difficult to express in the Hebrew language, and would have lead to confusion, since they would not have been understood through the vast majority of mankind's existence (i.e., only understandable in the last two centuries). The interpretation of the Genesis creation account should not be made independently of the remainder of the Bible," "
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

and

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dayagedefense.html

the theories provided so far
Evolution, (GOD had no hand in it)
Young earth creation (GOD created Earth, let earth take it's course then at the last ice age created it as it is now.)
ID (earth evolved, someone interferred )
Day age theory (GOD created and the earth responded,in it's age and we confused his word)
Creation, (GOD Created)

Please all keep it friendly a differance of opinion is not a lie, it is just a differance of opinion..

Except for the gill thingie, it appears to be a fraud, and shows how some scientists will push thier agenda......while others are content to presenting just the facts.....
 

Steve

Well-known member
The eye of the beholder and all that (if your teeny brain holds any Biblical references)

While I have earned a 4.0 gpa at college and can look up bible quotes and scientific evidence to back up my beliefs...mockery is not one of my atributes towards non- believers......so how am I mean.....nor do I have a teeney brain......

and how is claiming a believer has a teeney brain not mean?
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
I wasn't offended but I do think it was ment to offend the intelligence of Bible believing Christians. It might be better to say that it was intended to discredit evidence presented by Bible believing Christians. The old kill the messenger deal . Interesting that no one refutes the most of the evidence I posted. They just want to call me mean or say I am a literal Bible believer. On that charge I am guilty but the evidence against an old earth and evolution still stands.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
katrina said:
I guess I'm like Steve, I was offended too.

No offense meant to you Katrina. I apologize for any offense given. I haven't witnessed you being mean spirited in political debates whatsoever (or elsewhere). I have NO problem with people's holding strong views on religion or other topics, I dislike the frequent personal attacks that occur in Political Bull, perpetrated by a very few.

The "eye of the beholder" comment was meant to X to look at why he/she got so jumpy about my reference about Hawaii which was made in passing.
Yet you jumped out with a personal attack adding nothing to the discussion.
Isn't it interesting how meanness and fringe rightwing beliefs are carried on the same gene?
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
The problem with creationism and intelligent design is that they take the exact opposite approach sound science is supposed to take. Rather than looking at facts and trying to come up with a theory, creationism and ID start out with a theory that is immediately assumed to be perfect and immutable, and then try to pick and choose facts that appear to support it. For this reason, it can't be taken seriously by the mainstream scientific community - NOT because scientists are anti-God. In fact, most surveys show that a majority of scientists believe in God.

My father is a scientist and VERY religious Catholic. He doesn't believe in birth control, abortion, and goes to church every week. He also believes in evolution. For that reason, when Red Robin and Steve say that science is somehow fundamentally opposed to religion, it rings very false. I think you both have some preconceptions about scientists and science itself that are not based in reality. Darwin vs. God is simply not the case - it's an epic battle that exists entirely in your minds.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
MP obviously Creation is a religion. It starts with the Bible. No one said it was provable. Evolution isn't provable. It is a religion in that sense and shouldn't be taxpayer funded.
Evolution rejects comon science on several fronts though mp. It is obvious they have a agenda . The radio polonium halo post I made is even censored from some papers because it refutes an old earth. How sound of science is that? You think Christians have preconceptions, I say you have preconceptions as well. Look at all this evidence for a young earth. How can one therefore say the earth is old. Any one of these ideas prevent the age of the earth from being billions of years old.Take the salt in the oceans for example,that alone should stop any sound scientist from going any further with the thought of evolution. There simply hasn't been enough time for evolution to take place. You are a journalist correct? How long would you keep your job if you came up with the evolution idea and the public was aware of the data supporting a younger earth than require for evolution? It's just a silly idea .
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
rR2 Welcome Back....and SOOOOO glad you're here to post. Red Robin, , et.al... I'm not trying to make you mad...change your mind...your beliefs or faith. Remember me saying earlier that if you're happy with whatever you believe in...and it makes you do your humanly best ever day....more power to ya. You asked me a question...I simply answered and gave you sources of reference so that you could read more yourself into the topic as it would take pages of posts to give complete answers. You can do a little of the work for answers on your own was my only reason.

But, I must admit I shiver @ your comment that the world was not the age of Grand Canyon lowest strata level....which is the Visnu schist @ 3.4 BILLION yrs old.

You go ahead and live in your closet....safe from the sceintific boogy men...but one day someone will jerk open that door....let in daylight and I hope you're ready.
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
MP obviously Creation is a religion. It starts with the Bible. No one said it was provable. Evolution isn't provable. It is a religion in that sense and shouldn't be taxpayer funded.
Evolution rejects comon science on several fronts though mp. It is obvious they have a agenda . The radio polonium halo post I made is even censored from some papers because it refutes an old earth. How sound of science is that? You think Christians have preconceptions, I say you have preconceptions as well. Look at all this evidence for a young earth. How can one therefore say the earth is old. Any one of these ideas prevent the age of the earth from being billions of years old.Take the salt in the oceans for example,that alone should stop any sound scientist from going any further with the thought of evolution. There simply hasn't been enough time for evolution to take place. You are a journalist correct? How long would you keep your job if you came up with the evolution idea and the public was aware of the data supporting a younger earth than require for evolution? It's just a silly idea .

You missed my point entirely. I don't care what you think about evolution, but when you say things like "You think Christians have preconceptions, I say you have preconceptions as well" you imply that those who believe in evolution cannot be Christian.

That's simply not true, since many Christians, inluding Christian scientists, do believe in evolution, a 15 billion year old universe, and continental drift.

I have agreed with many of your points about Iraq, the war on terror, etc., so don't take it personally when I say this: it's arrogant to assume that you are more Christian than others simply because of their views on science, even if you believe them to be erroneous. Faith is a matter of the heart, so don't assume your way (a literal understanding of the Bible) is the only way to be Christian.

By calling people "evolutionists" - as if everyone who believed in it were adamantly secular - and equating the theory to Hitler, the columbine shooters, and other tragic human events, you're subscribing to a paranoid view of the world that has no basis in reality.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
rR2 Welcome Back....and SOOOOO glad you're here to post. Red Robin, , et.al... I'm not trying to make you mad...change your mind...your beliefs or faith. Remember me saying earlier that if you're happy with whatever you believe in...and it makes you do your humanly best ever day....more power to ya. You asked me a question...I simply answered and gave you sources of reference so that you could read more yourself into the topic as it would take pages of posts to give complete answers. You can do a little of the work for answers on your own was my only reason.

But, I must admit I shiver @ your comment that the world was not the age of Grand Canyon lowest strata level....which is the Visnu schist @ 3.4 BILLION yrs old.

You go ahead and live in your closet....safe from the sceintific boogy men...but one day someone will jerk open that door....let in daylight and I hope you're ready.
Glad you mentioned the oldest strata layer of the Grand Canyon ( I didn't mention that. You didn't read my post) Why are there no erosion marks between strata layers??? Obviously if a strata lay exposed for a few million years waiting on the next catastrophic event to lay down more strata, it would have erosion marks like ditches, creeks, etc. There are none. The top strata layer is the only one with erosion marks. Hmmmmm????
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
mp.freelance said:
Red Robin said:
MP obviously Creation is a religion. It starts with the Bible. No one said it was provable. Evolution isn't provable. It is a religion in that sense and shouldn't be taxpayer funded.
Evolution rejects comon science on several fronts though mp. It is obvious they have a agenda . The radio polonium halo post I made is even censored from some papers because it refutes an old earth. How sound of science is that? You think Christians have preconceptions, I say you have preconceptions as well. Look at all this evidence for a young earth. How can one therefore say the earth is old. Any one of these ideas prevent the age of the earth from being billions of years old.Take the salt in the oceans for example,that alone should stop any sound scientist from going any further with the thought of evolution. There simply hasn't been enough time for evolution to take place. You are a journalist correct? How long would you keep your job if you came up with the evolution idea and the public was aware of the data supporting a younger earth than require for evolution? It's just a silly idea .

You missed my point entirely. I don't care what you think about evolution, but when you say things like "You think Christians have preconceptions, I say you have preconceptions as well" you imply that those who believe in evolution cannot be Christian.

That's simply not true, since many Christians, inluding Christian scientists, do believe in evolution, a 15 billion year old universe, and continental drift.

I have agreed with many of your points about Iraq, the war on terror, etc., so don't take it personally when I say this: it's arrogant to assume that you are more Christian than others simply because of their views on science, even if you believe them to be erroneous. Faith is a matter of the heart, so don't assume your way (a literal understanding of the Bible) is the only way to be Christian.

By calling people "evolutionists" - as if everyone who believed in it were adamantly secular - and equating the theory to Hitler, the columbine shooters, and other tragic human events, you're subscribing to a paranoid view of the world that has no basis in reality.
Sorry mp. I didn't mean to say you weren't Christian. I don't even know you it wasnt intentional. I will absolutely stand by my statements that Hitler was an evolutionist, The columbine shootist were (1 was) wearing evolutionist T-shirts. Nothing more. That doesn't (obviously) mean you are hitler or a columbine shooter, just that you don't have only sound science on your side. You also have strange bedfellows. On the literal understanding on the Bible part , I am confused. I don't see how you can be a follower of a book with out takig it literaly. Can you do algebra without literally following the book??? It is a real odd position to me and I am not sure it is genuine , never the less, if that is your opinion you are entitled to it. I am absolutely done discussing religion on this thread. Noone is debating the facts of the evolution argument. Everyone want's to disprove my personal opinion of Creation. What does my view have to do with Evolution. Part of that is my fault I guess but lets get back to the evolution discussion. Mp try to explain to me some of the things I mentioned earlier. Debate the issue.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Robin.... I know you didn't mention the Visnu strata...I doubt you ever heard of it before I mentioned it...I was making a point of the timeline of the world was all.

I hope that you are more aware of your earth's history than you are making out here. Because if you're not...you're missing a lot of information. It's sad.

And for you comments on erosion marks..... honey child the Grand Canyon IS the erosion thru the strata. Look up " uplift" and I don't mean those that go in yer shoes, continental uplilft!! The Colorado River is working thru the uplilfted area this very minute....like a chain saw thru a tree!

You want to take your John Deere out there and remove TONS TONS TONS MILES MILES MILES of strata....do and it you'll find your marks on the huge layers of the earth. What you see, i.e. the Grand Canyon is like taking a itty bitty piece out of a HUGE layer cake. You have concept of how BIG....BIG really is.

Honestly, I can't discuss topics with you as it's hard to make you hear things thru all that sand that's in your ears....it seems that your head is in the sand!

I do honestly hope you are doing this just to cause a fast and hardy debate...cause if not...it's scary.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
R2....some of these folks here have me baffled as well. I've been attacked from this topic to the cost of my shoes once!!

But I think you're spot on with jealousy, immaturity and insecurity ideas with some of this crowd. In fact.. some of these 'ideas' voiced here are more dangerous than the dreaded " terrorists" that lurk under every bed frame!!!

I have an aunt who believes if she didn't see it or it did not happen to her...thus it did not happen. No matter what the situation, car won't start or key won't fit the lock....if it didnot happen to her directly...it basically didn't happen in the world. Some of these folks remind me of that mind set. " I did not see it, thus it did not happen and has no significance"

Honestly, glad ya went to Hawaii... I own a condo there ( bet now they're gonna get me for that!!) Guess it boils down to the basic rule of the world the " have's " vs the " have not's". If you had a rippin' good time..why give a ratz arse what others think!!

Evolution may weed some out!!!
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Robin.... I know you didn't mention the Visnu strata...I doubt you ever heard of it before I mentioned it...I was making a point of the timeline of the world was all.

I hope that you are more aware of your earth's history than you are making out here. Because if you're not...you're missing a lot of information. It's sad.

And for you comments on erosion marks..... honey child the Grand Canyon IS the erosion thru the strata. Look up " uplift" and I don't mean those that go in yer shoes, continental uplilft!! The Colorado River is working thru the uplilfted area this very minute....like a chain saw thru a tree!

Honestly, I can't discuss topics with you as it's hard to make you hear things thru all that sand that's in your ears....it seems that your head is in the sand!

I do honestly hope you are doing this just to cause a fast and hardy debate...cause if not...it's scary.
I didn't think you knew there isn't any erosion marks on any of the strata except the top. Maybe you are lacking the conception totally. I am saying when the bottom strata layer was laid down originally , the old earth theorist position is that it laid there a long time before the next layer of strata was deposited. During those millions of years it would act like any other top layer of strata. It would be eroded by wind, and water. While being eroded by water it would develop erosion marks like ditches and creeks depositing into the Grand canyon. The unusual thing is there isn't any. None. In fact it looks very much like the layers could have been deposited in a very short period of time which would be consistant with what we would expect during a world wide flood. Didn't know that did you Kolan?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
You're hopeless! It's on the BOTTOM...that's why you can only see small slices of it exposed in certain areas.

You're scary.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
You're hopeless! It's on the BOTTOM...that's why you can only see small slices of it exposed in certain areas.

You're scary.
If you think I am scary, you better not meet these guys. They really have alot of truth. www.answersingenesis.org



Do the rock strata represent eons of time?
There is a wealth of evidence that the rock strata do not represent vast periods of time. For example, the huge Coconino sandstone formation in the Grand Canyon is about 100 m thick and extends to some 250,000 km2 in area. The large-scale cross-bedding shows that it was all laid down in deep, fast-flowing water in a matter of days. Other rock layers in the Grand Canyon indicate that they were rapidly deposited also, and without substantial time-breaks between the laying down of each unit.1 Indeed, the whole Grand Canyon sequence is bent at the Kaibab Upwarp, in some spots quite radically, and without cracking. This indicates that the strata, which supposedly represent some 300 million years of evolutionary time, were all still soft when the bending occurred.1,2 This is consistent with the layers being deposited and bent quickly, during the Genesis Flood.

Some other evidence for the non-existence of the eons of time and for the rapid deposition of the layers are:

polystrate fossils—tree trunks, for example, running through strata supposedly representing many millions of years (these are common in coal) show that the strata must have been deposited in quick succession, otherwise the tops of the trunks would have rotted away.

delicate surface features preserved on underlying rock units—such as ripple marks and footprints—indicate that there was no long time gap before the next unit was deposited.

lack of fossilized soil layers in the rock strata, indicating no long time gaps.

lack of erosion features in the rock layers or between the rock units (any significant time break would result in channels being formed in the exposed strata from the action of water or wind).

limited extent of unconformities. Although unconformities (clear breaks in deposition) indicate time breaks, such unconformities are localized, with no break evident in rocks of the same strata elsewhere, thus indicating that any time break was localized and brief.

clastic dykes and pipes—where a sand/water mixture has squeezed up through overlying layers. Although the underlying sand is supposed to be millions of years older than the overlying layers, it obviously did not have time to harden.

and much else.2,3

Uluru (Ayers Rock), in central Australia, is also supposed to have formed slowly over hundreds of millions of years, but the structure of the rock shows that it must have formed very quickly and recently.4

The existence of many ‘living fossils’ also challenges the supposed hundreds of millions of years of ‘earth history.’ For example, starfish, jellyfish, brachiopods, clams and snails, which are known as fossils dated by evolutionists as 530 million years old, look like those living today. Dr Joachim Scheven, a German scientist, has a museum with over 500 examples of such ‘living fossils.’ Furthermore, some of these fossils are missing from intervening strata that supposedly represent many millions of years of evolutionary time, again indicating that there were no time gaps.

Evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed
Much evidence suggests that people and dinosaurs lived together, not separated by 65 million years or more, as evolutionists believe:

Many historical accounts of living animals, which were known as ‘dragons,’ are good descriptions of what we call dinosaurs—such as Triceratops, Stegosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and Ankylosaurus. The video The Great Dinosaur Mystery documents some of these.5 The account in Job 40 of behemoth sounds like one of the big dinosaurs, such as Apatosaurus or Brachiosaurus.

Unmineralized (‘unfossilized’) dinosaur bones.6 How could these bones, some of which even have blood cells in them, be 65 million years or more old? It stretches the imagination to believe they are even many thousands of years old.

Rocks bearing dinosaur fossils often contain very little plant material—e.g., in the Morrison formation in North America. This is another indication that the strata do not represent eras of life on earth. If the strata represent an age of dinosaurs, what did they eat? A large Apatosaurus would need over three tonnes of vegetation per day, yet there is no indication of significant vegetation in many of these dinosaur-bearing strata. In other words, we see buried dinosaurs, not buried ecosystems or an ‘Age of Dinosaurs.’
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Mp try to explain to me some of the things I mentioned earlier. Debate the issue.

RR, I don't have time to answer every single question you ask about evolution. However, one point I've heard over and over again whenever evolution gets brought up on ranchers.net is the second law of thermodynamics. It's been stated that since systems inevitably become disordered, the formation of life through evolution is impossible because the theory states we're actually becoming MORE ordered. Well, I haven't wanted to sound like a know-it-all, but the fact of the matter is that this is an extremely simplistic and glib understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. It's akin to saying that the law of gravity states that when I drop an object on a curved surface, it will roll down to the bottom of the surface and stay there. In fact, it will roll back and forth, or if I drop it in the right place, it may actually roll back up. Natural laws are not: if A happens, it leads to B. This may occur, but thousands of other things may occur as well, as still be defined by the law.

As to the second law of thermodynamics disproving evolution, it's simply false. Complex systems can form from simple components under this law, and they do all the time: think about crystals and diamonds. You believe in those, right? When you say that the 2nd law of TD precludes the formation of complex systems, you're basically saying you don't believe in the 2nd law, not evolution. The fact is, the law states that in a closed system such as our solar system, energy and matter don't enter or leave. Entropy, also called disorder (but the meaning of disorder has a different context in this regard), can decrease in part of a close system as long as it increases in others. Organisms feed on one another and use the deterioration of one substance to fuel the formation of more complex systems. Under your superficial understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, the most simple occurences in life would be impossible, such as a single egg cell united with a sperm cell to "evolve" into a fetus, then into a baby, then a fully grown human.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
mp.freelance said:
Red Robin said:
Mp try to explain to me some of the things I mentioned earlier. Debate the issue.

RR, I don't have time to answer every single question you ask about evolution. However, one point I've heard over and over again whenever evolution gets brought up on ranchers.net is the second law of thermodynamics. It's been stated that since systems inevitably become disordered, the formation of life through evolution is impossible because the theory states we're actually becoming MORE ordered. Well, I haven't wanted to sound like a know-it-all, but the fact of the matter is that this is an extremely simplistic and glib understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. It's akin to saying that the law of gravity states that when I drop an object on a curved surface, it will roll down to the bottom of the surface and stay there. In fact, it will roll back and forth, or if I drop it in the right place, it may actually roll back up. Natural laws are not: if A happens, it leads to B. This may occur, but thousands of other things may occur as well, as still be defined by the law.

As to the second law of thermodynamics disproving evolution, it's simply false. Complex systems can form from simple components under this law, and they do all the time: think about crystals and diamonds. You believe in those, right? When you say that the 2nd law of TD precludes the formation of complex systems, you're basically saying you don't believe in the 2nd law, not evolution. The fact is, the law states that in a closed system such as our solar system, energy and matter don't enter or leave. Entropy, also called disorder (but the meaning of disorder has a different context in this regard), can decrease in part of a close system as long as it increases in others. Organisms feed on one another and use the deterioration of one substance to fuel the formation of more complex systems. Under your superficial understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, the most simple occurences in life would be impossible, such as a single egg cell united with a sperm cell to "evolve" into a fetus, then into a baby, then a fully grown human.
I don't think it requires a simplistic, glib view of the 2nd law of thermodynamics to explain you can't start with a single celled ameba and end up with a human and not trend toward things getting much better. That is a drastic change of events toward complex involving growing several new (all new) systems , circulatory, respiratory, reproductive, etc... and in this view mp I am allowing you to start with a single celled organism. Actually you start with nothing in the evolutionist view.
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
RR, did you even read what I wrote? Please do so, because I'm attempting to debate a point you made about the second law of thermal dynamics. From your reply, it appears that maybe you read only the first sentence or two.

What you're saying is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevents extremely complex systems to evolve from simple ones, but that's categorically untrue.
 

Latest posts

Top