• 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 .
Well who knows if the books of the Bible are correctly written anyway. These things were re-written dozens of times...and any journalist--feel free MP to correct me...can puts their own " touch" to a story if they so desire....especially way back when. It's a book of history


And the Bible wasn't even an organized ' book' till Emperor Constatine basically called all scholars to order and demanded it all be placed under one cover.....some scholars did not comply thus we have the Gnostic Gospels or the " lost books".

Ok...with this I give up.
 
I took an interesting class about the history of the Bible, and it's pretty clearly a book based on oral traditions that were eventually transcribed by various sources. Most serious theologians would agree that it is a composite of many texts, many of which were rejected by various Christian denominations. With so many reinterpretations, revisions, and translations, I prefer to look at the spirit of the Book as the word of God rather than its precise wording.
 
mp.freelance said:
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.
Maybe I read it wrong MP. I thought your semen and egg example didn't actually fit what I was trying to imply. I thought my cellular organism to human was more than semen and egg. Maybe not. I am the first to admit I am not that smart and certainly uneducated. Just a simple little old man who thinks evolution is wrong. I guess if you are saying that the 2nd law of thermodynamics (you don't discuss the first one much) isn't broken by genetic evolution , I'd like your opinion of whether it breaks this second law with the element evolution. How did we get all the elements on the periodic table? Would going from nothing to some of the heavier elements be tending toward order? If not, what would be an example of breaking the 2nd law ?You'll agree I think that it is a law not a general idea??? Talk some if you would about elemental evolution? Or elemental origin within the big bang concept if you please.
 
It is important to distinguish between what the Bible says and what we think it says.

Literal translations of the Hebrew word, yom, like our English word "day," can refer to a 24 hour day, sunrise to sunset (12 hours), or a long, unspecified period of time (as in "the day of the dinosaurs"). The Hebrew word ereb, translated evening also means "sunset," "night" or "ending of the day." The Hebrew word boqer, translated morning, also means "sunrise," "coming of light," "beginning of the day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage (1). Our English expression: "The dawning of an age" serves to illustrate this point. This expression in Hebrew could use the word, boqer, for dawning, which, in Genesis 1, is often translated morning.

Thus yon would mean age?

morning would mean the dawning of an age?

and evening meaning end of the age?

I believe in the GOD,,,the Bible is divine inspired and I will except the word as given, ,,,,,,,not my limited understanding of man's interpetaion of it....

as for Darwin, I am not convinced...





link for interpetation:
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html
 
Here is a Chemist that has converted to the Biblical view of creation because of the scientific evidence. I won't cut and paste but it is a very detailed and good article which gets better farther into the body of his letter.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/ISD/boudreaux.asp
 
Steve said:
(and Erin),, actually all following the discussion,,please read the two links....


:?
I've read godandscience.org extensively. There's a reason I linked to it on the very first page in support of my opinion that evolution doesn't contradict Creation...

I'm going to guess RR is not interested as it's all just a lie. :roll:
 
My problem with evolution is that species lived, died and then other species lived and died, some overlapping but little proof of transitional links between them.

there is ample evidence to show species "evolved" and changed, mostly changes in size, color , ect. within thier species. but the evidence between evolution between groups is sketchy at best.

even ignoring the species gaps, where is the proof that they changed groups?

such as from mammel to fish or dino to mammal?

using the horse as an example. traced back to 65 million years to an unrelated dog like creature the Euhippus to a condylarth, which was still a mammel.

if evolution was true what came before the condylarth?

Dino rat?
 
Kolan, where is the Delta?

Author: Curt Sewell
Subject: Creation Overviews
Date: 11/8/1999
Curt Sewell is the author of God at Ground Zero
Essays by Author
Essays by Subject
Essays by Date
Shopping Cart


The Grand Canyon of Arizona is one of the outstanding geological wonders of the world, stretching for some 277 miles in a generally east-west direction, virtually isolating northwest Arizona from the rest of the state. It's over a mile deep in spots, and ranges from 4 to 18 miles wide. Parts of the north rim reach an altitude of 8,500 feet, while the mighty Colorado River, looking tiny from above but carrying tremendous volumes of water and silt, rushes along the bottom at about 2,400 feet elevation, passing through Lake Mead and finally dumping into the Gulf of California. One of the earliest government explorers referred to it as a "hideous gash" in the earth, forming an impenetrable barrier to travel; he said it was a totally worthless area. Yet millions of people have travelled thousands of miles to gaze in awe at the magnificent landscape -- intricately carved massive cliffs, sheer pinacles, and other geological features. More strata can be seen exposed here than at any other place in the world.
For years, scientists said that it had been carved slowly by the Colorado River, over a period of milllions of years. It was considered a showcase of evidence of the tremendous erosive power of water, when combined with eons of time. Yet today most geologists acknowledge this explanation must be wrong. Within recent decades, it's becoming a monument to the power of the Creator God, and the terrible effects of the Great Flood described in Genesis 6-9. Steve Austin discussed this changing viewpoint in his beautifully illustrated and well documented book1. Steven A. Austin, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, (Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA 92071, 1994), pp. 83-110.. Any solution to the question "How was the Grand Canyon eroded?" must provide answers to several geological factors, including:

1) About 1000 cubic miles of sediment was removed from the Canyon itself. Also, examination of the regional strata shows that between 1,000 and 3,000 feet of upper-layer strata have been eroded from over 100,000 square miles of the Colorado Plateau, forming a giant peneplain. Where did all this sediment go? It couldn't just evaporate.

2) The eastern portion of the Colorado River, northeast of the Utah-Arizona border, behaves like a normal river, having its origins at high elevations and finding the easiest path toward the ocean. The area near the present Glen Canyon Dam, which forms Lake Powell, is at an elevation of some 5,000 feet. But the region to the west, near the beginning of Grand Canyon, rises in the vast uplifted Colorado Plateau stretching for hundreds of miles. This is caused by the Kaibab Upwarp, or Kaibab Monocline, which lifted the previously flat strata some 3000 feet. This would appear to form a barrier to the flow of the river, which might have turned southeast to join the Rio Grande and dump into the Gulf of Mexico, or it might have turned south and southwest to dump into the Pacific via the Gulf of California. Instead, it did what seems impossible -- flowed west, cutting directly into and through this huge monocline!

3) When did this uplift occur? When was the Canyon eroded? Uniformitarian geologists, using the Geologic Column system of classification, assign the highest folded strata of the Kaibab Uplift to the Upper Cretaceous, said to be some 70 million years old. Further north, these are beveled and overlain by the flat-lying Wasatch Formation, which was not uplifted or folded. It is assigned to the Eocene Series of the Tertiary, which is said to be some 50 million years old. The uplift must have occurred between these two dates (according to evolutionary thinking). And parts of the Grand Canyon erosion cut through portions of Wasatch Formation rock near Bryce Canyon. This shows that the massive erosion of the Grand Canyon occurred after the Wasatch was laid down, within the last 50 million years. We must recognize that the vast Colorado Plateau was already in position before the Colorado River flowed uphill (?) to cut the Grand Canyon through that Plateau! Something doesn't add up.

4) From 1926 until 1950, just before the Glen Canyon Dam was built, the daily sediment flow of the river was carefully measured, and was found to average almost 500,000 tons per day (168 million tons per year). This is equivalent to 0.015 cubic miles per year. During a 1927 flood, this increased to some 23 million tons per day. Another interesting fact -- in modern times, the majority of the sediment coming out of the Canyon originates in the headwaters region, not in the Canyon itself. The Grand Canyon is not presently undergoing much erosion.

The Antecedent River Theory is the name given to the original "solution" to the question of "How did the Grand Canyon originate?" It's been described in elementary textbooks for more than a century, and is still seen on much of the literature put out by National Park Service. It began in 1869, when geologist John Wesley Powell rafted down the river. He was a believer in uniformitarianism, so naturally he found an idea that matched that belief. He said that the river must have existed in about its present position before, or antecedent to the uplift of the Colorado Plateau, during the Laramide Orogeny, about 50 to 70 million years ago. He said that as the slow uplift occurred the river eroded the uplifted portion, maintaining its current level. Thus the theory depends on a rate of erosion which precisely matched the rate of uplift. For about 100 years since that time geologists have gone along with that theory.

However, many geologists have recognized that there were some major problems with this idea. Among the worst is the question of what happened to such vast amounts of sediment. If the river had been carrying that much sediment for that long a time, this would amount to (168 million tons/year) x (70 million years) = 11.8 million billion tons, equivalent to some 1.3 million cubic miles of rock. This is 1500 times the volume of Grand Canyon itself, and should be easy to find. But there was no trace of such a huge delta deposit.

Just outside the west end of Grand Canyon, at Pierce Ferry, there is a lot of sedimentary deposit (but not nearly that much). This is mostly limestone with some local granite gravel. These don't have the character one would expect from massive erosional deposits for millions of years. They are called the Muddy Creek Formation, and are assigned a Miocene age (about 20 million years).

In 1964, a symposium of geologists who had extensively studied the western end of the canyon met to discuss this theory, as well as others.. E.D.McKee, R.F.Wilson, W.J.Breed, and C.S.Breed, "Evolution of the Colorado River in Arizona," in the Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 44 (1967), pp. 1-67. This is cited in Austin's Grand Canyon." Their conclusion was unanimous -- this theory couldn't be true. The primary problem involved the sedimentary deposits which would have been made by the river over many millions of years, but which couldn't be found!

The next issue of Creation Bits (No. 16) will discuss the other two main theories of how Grand Canyon was formed -- the "Precocious Gully Theory" and the "Breached Dam Theory." We'll see that the breached dam idea has the best experimental evidence behind it, and also fits the Genesis account of the Great Flood of Noah. It has a strong parallel that was produced by the 1980 volcanic explosion of Mount St. Helens, with its damming of the Toutle River and subsequent breaching of that dam. The result looks very much like a 1/40-scale model of the Grand Canyon of Arizona.
 
A really long read, but extremely informative

http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp

"Anti-evolutionists continue to assert that the fossil record is incomplete and therefore poor evidence for common descent (e.g., Johnson, 1997). In truth, a very large number of intermediate forms have been found in the fossil record, so many that it is often difficult to determine when a transition occurs from one species or class of organisms to later descendents (NAS 14). Miller would go further and say, "In a very real sense, all fossil species within a line of descent are transitional forms in that they are anatomically intermediate in many features between earlier and later forms" (Miller, 2003, 173).

Let me cite just a few examples out of thousands. Over 250 species of the extinct order of therapsids (mammal-like reptiles) discovered in recent years have provided evidence of a transition from reptiles to mammals (Lamoureux 36). Going back even further in geologic time, paleontologists now understand more accurately the evolution of creatures moving from water to land. Fossils of a group of rhipidistian fishes, the panderichythids, provide evidence for the evolution of amphibians from fish (Miller, 1994, 117). A growing number of fossils of extinct ungulates (hoofed mammals) illustrate the later evolution of legs to flippers in the earliest species of whales, supporting this transition from land to water creatures that took place some 35 mya (Miller, 2003, 173-176). The transitional pathways that led from dinosaurs to birds have also been greatly enhanced in recent years by new finds. Fossils of a group of small theropod dinosaurs called maniraptorans are now identified as the ancestors of birds. The famous Archaeopteryx shares numerous features with these maniraptorans, a genus that includes among its species the velociraptors of "Jurassic Park" fame. While Archaeopteryx differs from modern birds in several ways, the discovery in just the past several years of new fossil birds has provided a subclass, called enantiornithes, showing transitional features between Archaeopteryx and more modern birds. Thanks to these newly discovered transition fossils, "birds are now recognized as simply a specialized group of feathered dinosaurs!" (Miller, 2003, p. 176-178)."
 
Robin...I told you I was done with you. BUT... instead of ME having to PROVE things to YOU.......Why don't you PROVE to me ...solid scitneific proof .....that I am wrong in my thoughts in evolution.

I don't mean just your opinion....I cited, and others have, specific references to you....names, etc. You do the same. That's fair!
 
kolanuraven said:
Robin...I told you I was done with you. BUT... instead of ME having to PROVE things to YOU.......Why don't you PROVE to me ...solid scitneific proof .....that I am wrong in my thoughts in evolution.

I don't mean just your opinion....I cited, and others have, specific references to you....names, etc. You do the same. That's fair!
Kolan the burden of proof is on you. I never claimed Creation is scientific and provable. I just think it is logical and is consistant with what I know. Evolution is inconsistant with what I know, is illogical , is in disagreement with scientific laws, and several interconnecting ideas are disprovable. If you wan't something more specific then go read my posts. The first law of thermodynamics states matter can neither be created or destroyed. How did the universe develop but didn't break this law? Obviously it can't . If you want the author of the 1st law of thermodynamics you'll have to do a google search. I have no idea....but of course I told you I am not very well educated or bright. I should be easily proven wrong. Tell me how I am wrong in thinking the 1st LoTD has to be broken when you start with nothing and end up with the vastness we know of.
 
RR,
There has been scads of information posted that answers your various questions.
But you don't seem to be interested. You've already stated that you think it's all a lie, afterall.

Why should anyone waste more effort? :???:
 
theHiredMansWife said:
RR,
There has been scads of information posted that answers your various questions.
But you don't seem to be interested. You've already stated that you think it's all a lie, afterall.

Why should anyone waste more effort? :???:
Forgive me. I am rather stupid. Just once more please. Where did the universe get its energy from?
 
Energy of the universe? I thought we were just talking evolutionary biology.
And I guess I don't recall you asking this question prior to now. I might have lost it in all of your copy and pastes...

Personally, *I* think this is part of where God comes in.
But you told me several pages ago that I'm just a liar, so I'm sure you don't care about my opinion, anyway. lol

But you're defending the literal, 144 hour Creation, remember? How does this question support your position? :???:
 
theHiredMansWife said:
Energy of the universe? I thought we were just talking evolutionary biology.
And I guess I don't recall you asking this question prior to now. I might have lost it in all of your copy and pastes...

Personally, *I* think this is part of where God comes in.
But you told me several pages ago that I'm just a liar, so I'm sure you don't care about my opinion, anyway. lol

But you're defending the literal, 144 hour Creation, remember? How does this question support your position? :???:
OK Erin. If you want to start with evolutionary biology, where did the first amino acids come from which eventually (according to the evolution theory as I understand it) become a living single celled organism? I think we'll end up back at the first question but I'll lead you back there.
 
while it is a nice essay I esspeciallly liked the part :

"Part of the problem for this widespread ignorance lies."

in describing those who question Darwin's theory.

add in


instead of ME having to PROVE things to YOU.......Why don't you PROVE to me ...solid scitneific proof .....that I am wrong in my thoughts in evolution.

and I can see why I and many others do not come forward with our concerns and debate.


I am just tired of debating with closed minded elitist such as Kolanraven who twist thier limited view of Christianity to say those of us who disbelieve her are scary......while offering NO proof of her tons of fossils.....

To continue to debate when all the burden of proof is placed on one who questions years of science based on egos of scientists hoping to write a book and be famous, seems pointless....


therapsids roamed the earth 250 million years ago....condylart 65 million years ago. thats only a 185 million year gap....

Picture of Theraspids.
http://tidepool.st.usm.edu/Crswr/therapsid.html
therapsid.gif


Picture of Condylart.
http://www.paleocene-mammals.de/condylarths.htm
chriacus.jpg
 
Steve,
while offering NO proof of her tons of fossils.....

I did.
Did you read my most recent link?

RR--
I repeat:
Personally, *I* think this is part of where God comes in.
But you told me several pages ago that I'm just a liar, so I'm sure you don't care about my opinion, anyway. lol

But you're defending the literal, 144 hour Creation, remember? How does this
(latest) question support your position?
 
theHiredMansWife said:
Steve,
while offering NO proof of her tons of fossils.....

I did.
Did you read my most recent link?

RR--
I repeat:
Personally, *I* think this is part of where God comes in.
But you told me several pages ago that I'm just a liar, so I'm sure you don't care about my opinion, anyway. lol

But you're defending the literal, 144 hour Creation, remember? How does this
(latest) question support your position?
Erin, I am going to say this real slow...if it requires God to make it a plausable , viable , workable theory, IT"S A RELIGION!
 

Latest posts

Top