God's True Facts (Dinosaurs, dragon, evolution, others)

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

Job 40 - The story of the Leviathan Creature of Sea. Job 41 - The story of the Behemoth Creature of Land.

The way I described it. It seems like a myth. Read the passage. Because one day they shall rise above the earth and fight the mightiest fight on earth. When? Judgement Day, (possibly after the rapture or maybe before). It is not a myth.

Dinosaurs??? When did they exist? Scientists showed that all fossils have been tested and their theory describes their bones to exist over 100 billions of years or more. Do you think that's true? God said he created ALL of the water creatures on the 5th day and ALL the land creatures on the 6th day. That includes dinosaurs. You might not believe it but dragons did exist. Just not in the way you think they are. Leviathan is somewhat of a dragon. All dinosaurs are. In the bible God describes dinosaurs as foul demon-like things. He calls them dragons and sort. God had told Noah to have 2 of every animal that is pure of heart. Dinosaurs, as God calls them dragons and demons, didn't include the pure hearted animals. Thus the dinosaurs died at the time of The Flood of Noah's Ark. You know when you take showers and you become wrinkly? Science calls it osmosis. It basically (sort of) removes the life from you by absorbing water. If you put your skin in the water for a day you would look really wrinkly and old in some way. I don't believe that the earth has lasted over 300 billion years because the bible would be way much longer. The fossils that have been found has been absorbed from the water from the flood. The flood laster more than a month right? Then imagine eating a juicy chicken and putting the leg in the water for a month. I'm not talking about KFC. Lets say you just killed a chicken. Cut it and put the bone in the water for more than a month. "Osmosis" will take place. Evolutions. They do have evidence that we were from apes and monkeys because we are very similar. But there are many gaps in the theory of science. They have found a fossil along with a dinosaur fossil. A sort of humped human shaped fossil. Because of how it was shaped they thought of it as a gorilla. What was so confusing was that its bones were to thin and weak to be a gorilla's. It was an old man's fossil. I don't like to talk about evolution because whenever you talk about it your mind goes to a world unimaginably rotten and always think "What if..." I'm saying that I deny many facts of science so much. It's not nature who chose dinosaur's extinction but God's. That's the way we should go.

-- JoeKP (joekinplaya@orangeday.net), January 08, 2005

Answers

Job 40 - The story of the Leviathan Creature of Sea. Job 41 - The story of the Behemoth Creature of Land.

{Point being?}-Zarove

The way I described it. It seems like a myth. Read the passage. Because one day they shall rise above the earth and fight the mightiest fight on earth. When? Judgement Day, (possibly after the rapture or maybe before). It is not a myth.

{Uhm??? what are you on abotu here?}-Zarove

Dinosaurs??? When did they exist? Scientists showed that all fossils have been tested and their theory describes their bones to exist over 100 billions of years or more.

{dinosaurs still exist as Bords, that asided, the last dinosaur as most popel think of them died otu at the end of the Cretacious,. csoem estimated 65 Million tYears back... others lived 250 Million Years ago, not 100 Billion...}-Zarove

Do you think that's true?

{No, and neithe do mist sicnetists...}-Zarove

God said he created ALL of the water creatures on the 5th day and ALL the land creatures on the 6th day. That includes dinosaurs.

{when where Osterarches crated, dya 5 ( wihthte Birds) or day 6 (with fellow land animals)?}-Zarove

You might not believe it but dragons did exist.

{Ok...}-Zarove

Just not in the way you think they are. Leviathan is somewhat of a dragon.

{accordign to whom?}-Zarove

All dinosaurs are.

{

1: you asusme Leviathan is a dinosaur. why? what evidnece do you relaly have?

2: Yiu asusme Leviathan is a dragon, why?

3: Dinosaurs arent dragons by the definition. Indeed, they fit into a totally different cateory. They may be invisioend with scale and large, but many where likely feathered animals. Likewise, theylack serpintine form...}-Zarove

In the bible God describes dinosaurs as foul demon-like things.

{des it? swhwre? shat cintext?}-Zarove

He calls them dragons and sort.

{Calling a drafon a dragin is hardly a surprise...}-Zarove

God had told Noah to have 2 of every animal that is pure of heart.

{No, he had 7 clean ( edible) animal pairs, and 2 unclean ( unedible) animal pairs. 4 of eahc unclean animal and 14 clean...No mentin of "Purity of Heart". Besides, all animals lacj sin and are pure eharted...}-Zarove

Dinosaurs, as God calls them dragons and demons, didn't include the pure hearted animals.

{why not? becuase you said so? likewise, God told Noah to save all animals, nto just Pure hearted ones...}-Zarove

Thus the dinosaurs died at the time of The Flood of Noah's Ark.

{and the Bibel is wrong when it ays " evey Kind" was saved...}-zAROVE

You know when you take showers and you become wrinkly? Science calls it osmosis.

{OSMOSIS is when semthignis absorbed. what happens when you become wrinkly is that water is LOST. ( beleive it or not, water draws ot water...)}-Zarove

It basically (sort of) removes the life from you by absorbing water.

{Thats the OPPOSITE of osmosis...}-Zarove

If you put your skin in the water for a day you would look really wrinkly and old in some way. I don't believe that the earth has lasted over 300 billion years because the bible would be way much longer.

{why? The Bibel dosnt desciebe EVEYTHING.}-Zarove

The fossils that have been found has been absorbed from the water from the flood. The flood laster more than a month right? Then imagine eating a juicy chicken and putting the leg in the water for a month. I'm not talking about KFC. Lets say you just killed a chicken. Cut it and put the bone in the water for more than a month. "Osmosis" will take place.

{No , it wont. Osmi=osis is the absorbtion of water into a body, not he extractionfrm it. by the way chickens ( whole ones) and several other anmals HAVE been under water for a month, or linger,ad sdiscoveed, they are never fossilised...}-Zarove

Evolutions. They do have evidence that we were from apes and monkeys because we are very similar. But there are many gaps in the theory of science.

{swhat the dukes is "The theory of sicnece?" Glad you think evolutionary bology has evidence though...}-Zarove

They have found a fossil along with a dinosaur fossil.

{So? finding "a fossil' means little...}-Zarove

A sort of humped human shaped fossil.

{where and when?I want proof... this had better not be form kent Hovvind...}-Zarove

Because of how it was shaped they thought of it as a gorilla.

{woidln they know the diferenc between a much smaller and rouder Human skull and a larger nad pointeir gprilla? Liekwise, you do relaise that Gorilla;s arent thoguh to have excisted in the Cretatious, or imediatlry after , but come about soemtime about 3 to 6 million Years ago, soem good 60 Million years AFTER the Dinosaurs, right?}-Zarove

What was so confusing was that its bones were to thin and weak to be a gorilla's. It was an old man's fossil.

{Woidtn findign a Gorilla's skull near a dinosaur ( Thats nto a Bord) also disprive the curent timeline? snd where is this skull, where was it located? Anything?}-Zarove

I don't like to talk about evolution because whenever you talk about it your mind goes to a world unimaginably rotten and always think "What if..."

{rotten how? and isnt "what if" one ofth weatiosn we ask to make progress in any feild of endeavour? doesnt the Bibel insturct us to ask "what if"? ( See Proverbs Chapter 4...)}-Zarove

I'm saying that I deny many facts of science so much. It's not nature who chose dinosaur's extinction but God's. That's the way we should go.

{Thats nice but this doesnt relalyprove much...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 08, 2005.


sorry. im still on the base of research on this. ill put up more later. criticize me if u want but you have to understand that i'm not completely done with this thread. u can tell with all the gaps in them

-- JoeKP (joekinplaya@orangeday.net), January 09, 2005.

That doesnt justify sloppy sttaements like " dinosaurs lived 100 Billion years ago". This is patently false, and I don emant because of creaitonism, I mean because workign modles say 210 Million to 65 Million Years ago...

And makifn statemnts thta arnt fact byt speulation as if fact is not consiered correct either...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 09, 2005.


Scientists still have no evidence that humans came from apes. There are many similarities between species. Evolution tries to connect these life forms back to similar but separate species (like a family tree). Creationalists believe there are similarites because they were all created by one Creator-- God.

Unfortunately, neither belief can be proven because no one was around during that time to witness it. As for today, apes still make apes, and humans make humans. There is never been witnessed a complete change in species.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 09, 2005.


> "Scientists still have no evidence that humans came from apes".

A: Why would they? No scientist has ever claimed that humans came from apes. That ridiculous idea is never mentioned by anyone other than anti-scientific fundamentalists, who try to associate the idea with evolution precisely because the idea is absurd. Such straw man tactics are typical when a group wishes to attack another group philosophically or intellectually, but has no real evidence to back up its own position.

> "Creationalists believe there are similarites because they were all created by one Creator-- God."

A: So do the many scientists who are believers in God. Evolution is merely a tool the Creator designed and employed. It isn't an alternative to the Creator.

> "As for today, apes still make apes, and humans make humans".

A: Well of course they do. But the apes being "made" today are slightly different from those being made 1,000 years ago, and even more different from those being "made" 10,000 years ago. That's evolution.

> "There is never been witnessed a complete change in species".

A: On the contrary. At the time of the dinosaurs there were no mammals. A few million years later there were many kinds of mammals, and no dinosaurs. This represents a change in many species. Either this tremendous change in species happened through gradual change in existing species over time - or - God continued to directly create new species throughout the history of life on earth. However, the second alternative doesn't seem likely, since it directly contradicts the Bible, which tells us that God created initially, and then STOPPED creating (rested).

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 09, 2005.



You missed my meaning, Paul. I meant that the apes did not change into humans, or that tigers came from the dodo bird.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 09, 2005.

Here's my theory. I have been doing alot of research on God and Evolution. First and foremost, the scientists say that evolution took place over millions or billions of years, that when we derived from monkeys or apes, it didn't take place over night. But if this were to be true, wouldn't evolution be taking place today, and a 100 years ago, and a 1,000 years ago. Considering that everything changes into another thing, then why isn't there monkeys today changing into humans? What? It just took place at one period and time and then just stopped. And in 10 million years from now, (if evolution is still taking place)will humans change into another creature. That's like a cat gradually over millions of years changing into a saber tooth tiger or even a completely different breed. Because if you look at it, our DNA is still different than that of an apes. How come they can never find the fossils of the in betweens? Meaning, where's the fossils that show the cro-magnum turning into the homo-erectus. Where is the fossils that show the dinosaur turning into the komodo dragon. So, after so many births from one creature, thus another one is born!!! It's completely ludacrous to me. Thank you.

-- Athena Hays (hbgmtg@aol.com), February 08, 2005.

How is it that Luke and Paul are posting from tomorrow?&*#@%?

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 08, 2005.

Maybe there in a different time zone . . .? Weird.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 08, 2005.

I wonder if somebody fiddled with the server clock settings.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 08, 2005.



Athena,

It might help to Re-read Paul M's response.

Also finding fossils is not an easy thing to do. They aren't just everywhere. You can't just dig down a few layers and find what you are looking for. We've come close enough to develop a reasonable hypothesis about our development. Ancient human/homosapian/primate remains are extremely rare. Its a big newsworthy "find" when one is located.

Proper conditions had to exist for their formation, not to mention their preservation. The fact that we have no fossil remains of a "missing link" does not therefore disprove the theory involving evolution. It does indicate that we haven't found a fossil to completely solve the puzzle. We may never find it in our life time. Doesn't mean it will never be found. (or that it will definitely be found)

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 08, 2005.


The ppsts are form JANYARY 9th, not Febriary.

Here's my theory. I have been doing alot of research on God and Evolution. First and foremost, the scientists say that evolution took place over millions or billions of years, that when we derived from monkeys or apes, it didn't take place over night. But if this were to be true, wouldn't evolution be taking place today, and a 100 years ago, and a 1,000 years ago. Yes, and it still is... Thats the point... At leats in theory. Considering that everything changes into another thing, then why isn't there monkeys today changing into humans? well for starters , Humans and paes share a COMMON ancestr in this theory, and one didnt evovle from another. That siad, the changes are tout to be incrumentsl.Likewised, the most modern theory is "Punctuated Edquilibrium", formulated byt he Late Greta steven J Gould. In this theory, evlutionary change beocmes static for geenratiosn ten rapid prliferation ocures. I suggest you read up on the hteory befoe criisising it. What? It just took place at one period and time and then just stopped. Not quiet. Its iether still in progress with eahc small mutation incurign minor change hats inpereptible form ne genration ot he net till the cumulatve change reveals a divergence, or else Goulds Punctuated Equilibrium is righ and populion and conduons that remain satic yeild stasis in evolutionn. In this idea, evolution takes palce when rapid enviornmental change nessesitates it, and then over a short period of time rapid proliferation occures. And in 10 million years from now, (if evolution is still taking place)will humans change into another creature. Poibley. Or be extinct. or eb the same. ( evolution need nto always happen, and is largley contengent on the need for adaption to environment.) That's like a cat gradually over millions of years changing into a saber tooth tiger or even a completely different breed. You do ralise a Sabre-Toothed tiger IS a cat, right? Because if you look at it, our DNA is still different than that of an apes. Its 98% the same. And aain, the theort isnt that Man evovled form Apes, btu that both man and apes decended from a Coommon ancestor. How come they can never find the fossils of the in betweens? There where no "In-betweens". Aain, man didnt evvle rom apes, Man and paes evovled form a common ancestr, and thye have cfound that chain... Meaning, where's the fossils that show the cro-magnum turning into the homo-erectus. Other way around. Cro-Magnum is basicllay he earliest Homo Sapein. And Homo erectus IS the "In between"... Where is the fossils that show the dinosaur turning into the komodo dragon. None, dinosaurs didnt turn into Komodo dragons. komodo dragosn decened form the Lepadisaur line, and are Lizards. dinosaurs are form the Archosaur line, and are decendd form th same surce as Crocodiles, and dd not evovle into Lizards at all. indeed, dinosaurs progressed to Birds, not Lizards. And, form a biological standpoint, dinosaurs didnt evvle into Birds, btu trather Birds are themselves thropod dinosaurs. So, after so many births from one creature, thus another one is born!!! Yes, but soemtimes stasis in an evolutionary chain, till such a time as needed or adaptoon. It's completely ludacrous to me. Thank you. I dont think you fully understand evolutiinary theory.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 08, 2005.


Lol!!

That's right...duh! January 9..

It was confusing, that's all

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 08, 2005.


Here, now I am posting from tomorrow.

Actually, I should have explained it better. Paul and I are both angels and we time travel.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), February 09, 2005.


"First and foremost, the scientists say that evolution took place over millions or billions of years, that when we derived from monkeys or apes, it didn't take place over night. But if this were to be true, wouldn't evolution be taking place today, and a 100 years ago, and a 1,000 years ago. Considering that everything changes into another thing, then why isn't there monkeys today changing into humans? What? It just took place at one period and time and then just stopped. And in 10 million years from now, (if evolution is still taking place)will humans change into another creature. That's like a cat gradually over millions of years changing into a saber tooth tiger or even a completely different breed. Because if you look at it, our DNA is still different than that of an apes. How come they can never find the fossils of the in betweens? Meaning, where's the fossils that show the cro-magnum turning into the homo-erectus. Where is the fossils that show the dinosaur turning into the komodo dragon. So, after so many births from one creature, thus another one is born!!! It's completely ludacrous to me."

Science as a whole cannot accept creation or evolution. Individually each one will have his or her own belief, which is what both of these theories are, beliefs.

Science is something that must be studied. According to the creation belief, the Earth and its inhabitants were created in six days and then God ceased from creating. Thus, creation cannot be observed. It is not science. Evolution is also an attempt to explain our existance, but it too cannot be repeated thus observed. There are claims that it still is occuring and that we are studying it, but these are false. Never in the written history of man has a species been observed evolving into another.

So neither evolution nor creation are science.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), February 09, 2005.



So you see still evolution can only exist in the theoretical realm. No missing link has been found that serves as proof that man and ape evolved from a common ancestor. Apes are apes are apes, and man is man is man. Man was never an ape except in "Animal House." What I mean is species have never been observed changing, and there has never been a missing link between any two species.

So mans DNA is 98% exactly like an apes. What does that mean? Nothing. Maybe it means that one deity created them both. Is it absurd for an artist to have similar paintings? I should think not.

Oh but evolutionists sure are creative. They have drawn the most interesting pictures of species that do not exist. Oh how they'd love for these creatures to exist. But they don't.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), February 09, 2005.


Plus, the laws of science usually come up against evolution.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), February 09, 2005.

Okay, I was just stating my opinion. I'm sorry that I don't know the specifics as to what cave man turned into whatever other caveman. And as far as komodo dragons, they are lizards, are they not? So where does science say where lizards came from? Crocodiles and alligators? And if evolution is taking place today, like I said, why can't we see any new types of species. I know that saber tooth tigers are cats. I was just making a point, that in a million years from now, will it turn into something else. I did my research, sorry that I'm not scientific enough, but that's just the way I see it. And for it to be hard to find fossils, I think that they have found alot in this day and age. They're everywhere. Everyday I read about them finding some fossil that belonged to this dinosaur and this human. It's just funny they never found the "missing link". Something doesn't come from nothing. And the whole evolution theory just doesn't make sense to me. You don't have to ridicule me for it. LOL, duh!!!

-- Athena (hbgmtg@aol.com), February 09, 2005.

One more thing, I'm not trying to argue or be smart with anybody. Granted, I don't know every little detail about evolution. It just doesn't make any sense to me. So therefore I choose to believe in a creator of everything. And say that the big bang theory were true, because that's where everything came from, dinosaurs, humans, plants, ect., that all these things came from single celled organisms and water, climate, and everything that was going on when the earth was creating itself, and it came all from space. The dust in space and rocks and asteroids, whatever the recipe was for creating earth. Where did space come from? It was just there. What I'm trying to say, because I don't know if I'm being clear enough, it's hard. Was space, from a agnostics point of view, just always there? That was the beginning? Or did it create itself? Life cannot create itself. And if it could, it only happened when we weren't here. Amazing! Like I said, it just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe to others, but not to myself. I'm sorry that we all see things differently. We will find out when we die though, won't we?

-- Athena (hbgmtg@aol.com), February 09, 2005.

Okay, I was just stating my opinion. Im utterly OK with you statiung your opinion, I just think its wiser to not state opinions on topics you know nothign about, thats all. Oh by thr way welcome ott he board. Love yout name by the way. I'm sorry that I don't know the specifics as to what cave man turned into whatever other caveman. But the problem is you must relaise its not about "Cave men", its about speiciation. Again, the real cru is you reejct evolutionary theory without understanding it. This is what disturbs me. Scriptrue says to sek put a matter, and resolve it wisely, this canno be done if you speak before you knwo, and form opinion before you hear the evidence. And as far as komodo dragons, they are lizards, are they not? Yes, however, "Lizard" doesnt mean "Archisaur", and all Lizards are Lepadosaurs, whihc stemms off a common ancestor of Archosaurs , but ar enot related direclty. So where does science say where lizards came from? No where, its not sicneces role to say anyhting. The current hteory is that they evolved form Amphibions and the earliest form of Reptiule. Crocodiles and alligators? No. Crocodiles and alogators are Archoaurs, who decended form the same or similar reptile as an ancestor, but diverged formt he Lepaosaur gorup. Lizards did not decend form Allogators and crocodiles, neither did alligators and Crocodiles decent from Lizards, instead both the Lepadisaur and Archosaur lines brike off form an earlier primatie line. Its this that you are missing. And if evolution is taking place today, like I said, why can't we see any new types of species. Well for starters, the changes woidl be too small. and as I said, most evlutionary Biologists these dys abandoend graualism, in favour of Punctuated equilibrium, that states that so long as the nevironment rramins stable, evolution itsself remains static,a nd speiciatin occures to isolated pockets of a community that have been cut off form the rest of the ocmmunity durign times of environemal stress when new adaptatiosn will be needed to confion the new living rrangements. therefore eovlution shoidl nto be seen as a constant proccess. even accpeting Graualism though, you wont see a chimp birthign a Himan, you will see CHIMP bIRTHING ANOTHE CHIM THATS SLIHGTLY DIFFERENT DUE TO MUTATION. The acumulation of these differences over sucessive geenratiosn elads to new speicies over time. However, the emideate new speicies will be able to breed wihthte emideate ancestrial pseicies, but not the ones that lives a few million years back. Again, tis incremental. think o it this way. when I installed Juno, my Juno 4.0 was able to adapt to the new 5.0. But beelive it or not, 1.0 Juno was not able to adapt to 5.0. but 4.0 is... See? I know that saber tooth tigers are cats. I was just making a point, that in a million years from now, will it turn into something else. Possibley, byt evolution is not nessisarily a constant thin g, thats soemthigny ou arent quiwt grasping. I did my research, sorry that I'm not scientific enough, but that's just the way I see it. where did you research? Because yo seem oblivious to either the gradualist modle you are critisising, or alernative modles of evolution in current use. And for it to be hard to find fossils, I think that they have found alot in this day and age. They're everywhere. Everyday I read about them finding some fossil that belonged to this dinosaur and this human. It's just funny they never found the "missing link". They have foudn several "Mizing liunks". Indeed, just do a basic net seach on the names below. "Archeopteryx." "Homo Habilis" "EaoRaptor" Those three alone are intermediaries. Need I post more? or more baout them? Something doesn't come from nothing. evolutionary theory doesnt sy thigns coem form nothign either... And the whole evolution theory just doesn't make sense to me. You don't have to ridicule me for it. LOL, duh!!! I am not known for ridicule, however, you do not seem to undertsand evolutionary theory. All evolutionary theory is is decent with modification, not soemthign comign form nothing, and certainly we have foudn "Missing links" in the fssil record. One more thing, I'm not trying to argue or be smart with anybody. Granted, I don't know every little detail about evolution. It just doesn't make any sense to me. But perhaps it makes no sence as you javent studied what is beleived. Again, i dont midn if you beleive or disbeleive it, I just think it owdl be wise to learn what it is before ridiculing the hteory. So therefore I choose to believe in a creator of everything. Amazing,ly, I beleive in God, the creator of all. But I can still expound evolutioanry theiry far better than you seem capable of. This is because I took the itme to "Seek out the matter", as the Bible said to do. And say that the big bang theory were true, because that's where everything came from, dinosaurs, humans, plants, ect., that all these things came from single celled organisms and water, climate, and everything that was going on when the earth was creating itself, and it came all from space. Two things you must realise. The first is thay Big Bang theory is NOT the same as evolutionary theort, nor is evolutionary theory contengent upon it. Indeed, evolution was te product of the mid 19th centiury, wheras the Primordial Atom theory, later called big Bang theory, came abotu in the mid 20th century. The orony beign that creationists NOWW reject the theory because ahtiestic scintists propind it. this is Ironic since the athiests of yonderyear rejected big Bang theory, in favur of stedy sttae theory, in which the Universe has no begginnign nor knows an ending. In steady sate, mate and energy are reagranged in a Univrse hat rmeains stable overall. It took a Christain by the name of Lematre to come up withhe ig Bang theory, and he based his idea on the fact that tr Unicverse had to have a beginning, a notion he took form the Bible, for Genesiss makes it clear that their is a beginning. He also base dit on claciualatiosn and he known laws of nature of the itme. He was laughed at and ridiculed until Hubble discovered that galaxies are, indeed, moving away form eahc other as Lematre predicted inhis equations. Thus, rejecitng big Bang theory isnt rejecting athistm in favour of theism, its rejecin a creaitonist theory because Autheists later akboledged it. And, as noted above, the Big Bang theory has nothign to do with evoluionary theory... The dust in space and rocks and asteroids, whatever the recipe was for creating earth. Where did space come from? It was just there. You do realise that space is not a thing, right? also, if I amy, did most of your researhc come form creationisst sites? Like ICR? Or worse, creation sicnece evanglism? What I'm trying to say, because I don't know if I'm being clear enough, it's hard. Was space, from a agnostics point of view, just always there? Depends on the agnostic, however, Bog Bang is not an atheistic or agnostic solution for ht eorigins of th Universe, and the inital formulator beelived God created everyhting, and htis was merley to demonstrate a beginnign od the Universe... That was the beginning? Or did it create itself? Life cannot create itself. But we left Life long ago when we began tlakign abotu big bang. evolutionary theory is part of the Biological sicneces, not Physics and cosmology. the two disiplines are seperate. And if it could, it only happened when we weren't here. Amazing! It cant hapen while we ar here sinc we are "Alive'. also, the evolutinary theory curently doesnt expound upn Biogenesis often, but those that speculate thing the earht was racilaly different form wha it is now, with thick metane atmosphere, acid raisn, and feice stoms... The condisiotns hat initiated life may have been radiclay divergent form those accessbale in our current climate. Im sayignthis to be fair here. Like I said, it just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe to others, but not to myself. I'm sorry that we all see things differently. We will find out when we die though, won't we? Its not abiu seeing things differnetly, its abotu your lack of udnersanding of the theories in sicne, and your all too common mistake of lableing "Big Bang" as "Evoluiton". Again, d you get your researh form such sites as "Creaton science evangelism"? or is there another soruce?



-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 09, 2005.


Okay, I was just stating my opinion.

Im utterly OK with you statiung your opinion, I just think its wiser to not state opinions on topics you know nothign about, thats all.

Oh by thr way welcome ott he board. Love yout name by the way.

I'm sorry that I don't know the specifics as to what cave man turned into whatever other caveman.

But the problem is you must relaise its not about "Cave men", its about speiciation. Again, the real cru is you reejct evolutionary theory without understanding it. This is what disturbs me.

Scriptrue says to sek put a matter, and resolve it wisely, this canno be done if you speak before you knwo, and form opinion before you hear the evidence.

And as far as komodo dragons, they are lizards, are they not?

Yes, however, "Lizard" doesnt mean "Archisaur", and all Lizards are Lepadosaurs, whihc stemms off a common ancestor of Archosaurs , but ar enot related direclty.

So where does science say where lizards came from?

No where, its not sicneces role to say anyhting. The current hteory is that they evolved form Amphibions and the earliest form of Reptiule.

Crocodiles and alligators?

No. Crocodiles and alogators are Archoaurs, who decended form the same or similar reptile as an ancestor, but diverged formt he Lepaosaur gorup. Lizards did not decend form Allogators and crocodiles, neither did alligators and Crocodiles decent from Lizards, instead both the Lepadisaur and Archosaur lines brike off form an earlier primatie line.

Its this that you are missing.

And if evolution is taking place today, like I said, why can't we see any new types of species.

Well for starters, the changes woidl be too small.

and as I said, most evlutionary Biologists these dys abandoend graualism, in favour of Punctuated equilibrium, that states that so long as the nevironment rramins stable, evolution itsself remains static,a nd speiciatin occures to isolated pockets of a community that have been cut off form the rest of the ocmmunity durign times of environemal stress when new adaptatiosn will be needed to confion the new living rrangements. therefore eovlution shoidl nto be seen as a constant proccess.

even accpeting Graualism though, you wont see a chimp birthign a Himan, you will see CHIMP bIRTHING ANOTHE CHIM THATS SLIHGTLY DIFFERENT DUE TO MUTATION.

The acumulation of these differences over sucessive geenratiosn elads to new speicies over time. However, the emideate new speicies will be able to breed wihthte emideate ancestrial pseicies, but not the ones that lives a few million years back.

Again, tis incremental.

think o it this way. when I installed Juno, my Juno 4.0 was able to adapt to the new 5.0. But beelive it or not, 1.0 Juno was not able to adapt to 5.0.

but 4.0 is...

See?

I know that saber tooth tigers are cats. I was just making a point, that in a million years from now, will it turn into something else.

Possibley, byt evolution is not nessisarily a constant thin g, thats soemthigny ou arent quiwt grasping.

I did my research, sorry that I'm not scientific enough, but that's just the way I see it.

where did you research? Because yo seem oblivious to either the gradualist modle you are critisising, or alernative modles of evolution in current use.

And for it to be hard to find fossils, I think that they have found alot in this day and age. They're everywhere. Everyday I read about them finding some fossil that belonged to this dinosaur and this human. It's just funny they never found the "missing link".

They have foudn several "Mizing liunks". Indeed, just do a basic net seach on the names below.

"Archeopteryx."

"Homo Habilis"

"EaoRaptor"

Those three alone are intermediaries.

Need I post more? or more baout them?

Something doesn't come from nothing.

evolutionary theory doesnt sy thigns coem form nothign either...

And the whole evolution theory just doesn't make sense to me. You don't have to ridicule me for it. LOL, duh!!!

I am not known for ridicule, however, you do not seem to undertsand evolutionary theory. All evolutionary theory is is decent with modification, not soemthign comign form nothing, and certainly we have foudn "Missing links" in the fssil record.

One more thing, I'm not trying to argue or be smart with anybody. Granted, I don't know every little detail about evolution. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

But perhaps it makes no sence as you javent studied what is beleived. Again, i dont midn if you beleive or disbeleive it, I just think it owdl be wise to learn what it is before ridiculing the hteory.

So therefore I choose to believe in a creator of everything.

Amazing,ly, I beleive in God, the creator of all. But I can still expound evolutioanry theiry far better than you seem capable of. This is because I took the itme to "Seek out the matter", as the Bible said to do.

And say that the big bang theory were true, because that's where everything came from, dinosaurs, humans, plants, ect., that all these things came from single celled organisms and water, climate, and everything that was going on when the earth was creating itself, and it came all from space.

Two things you must realise.

The first is thay Big Bang theory is NOT the same as evolutionary theort, nor is evolutionary theory contengent upon it. Indeed, evolution was te product of the mid 19th centiury, wheras the Primordial Atom theory, later called big Bang theory, came abotu in the mid 20th century.

The orony beign that creationists NOWW reject the theory because ahtiestic scintists propind it. this is Ironic since the athiests of yonderyear rejected big Bang theory, in favur of stedy sttae theory, in which the Universe has no begginnign nor knows an ending. In steady sate, mate and energy are reagranged in a Univrse hat rmeains stable overall.

It took a Christain by the name of Lematre to come up withhe ig Bang theory, and he based his idea on the fact that tr Unicverse had to have a beginning, a notion he took form the Bible, for Genesiss makes it clear that their is a beginning.

He also base dit on claciualatiosn and he known laws of nature of the itme.

He was laughed at and ridiculed until Hubble discovered that galaxies are, indeed, moving away form eahc other as Lematre predicted inhis equations.

Thus, rejecitng big Bang theory isnt rejecting athistm in favour of theism, its rejecin a creaitonist theory because Autheists later akboledged it.

And, as noted above, the Big Bang theory has nothign to do with evoluionary theory...

The dust in space and rocks and asteroids, whatever the recipe was for creating earth. Where did space come from? It was just there.

You do realise that space is not a thing, right?

also, if I amy, did most of your researhc come form creationisst sites? Like ICR? Or worse, creation sicnece evanglism?

What I'm trying to say, because I don't know if I'm being clear enough, it's hard. Was space, from a agnostics point of view, just always there?

Depends on the agnostic, however, Bog Bang is not an atheistic or agnostic solution for ht eorigins of th Universe, and the inital formulator beelived God created everyhting, and htis was merley to demonstrate a beginnign od the Universe...

That was the beginning? Or did it create itself? Life cannot create itself.

But we left Life long ago when we began tlakign abotu big bang. evolutionary theory is part of the Biological sicneces, not Physics and cosmology. the two disiplines are seperate.

And if it could, it only happened when we weren't here. Amazing!

It cant hapen while we ar here sinc we are "Alive'. also, the evolutinary theory curently doesnt expound upn Biogenesis often, but those that speculate thing the earht was racilaly different form wha it is now, with thick metane atmosphere, acid raisn, and feice stoms...

The condisiotns hat initiated life may have been radiclay divergent form those accessbale in our current climate.

Im sayignthis to be fair here.

Like I said, it just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe to others, but not to myself. I'm sorry that we all see things differently. We will find out when we die though, won't we?

Its not abiu seeing things differnetly, its abotu your lack of udnersanding of the theories in sicne, and your all too common mistake of lableing "Big Bang" as "Evoluiton".

Again, d you get your researh form such sites as "Creaton science evangelism"? or is there another soruce?



-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 09, 2005.


I'm at work, so it took me a little while to get back. Honestly, the only evolutionary site that I can remember that I visited was Evolution Entrance. I went into my search and came across so many. I went into a few sites that were not christian based, but I did visit those sites as well. I've learned about it in school, my teacher thought we derived from whales because of the five bones in our hands and in their flippers or whatever. But I've tried to look at it from a scientific point of view. I've read the theorys and facts. My data isn't as precise as yours, but I do know what I'm talking about. I know that evolution has nothing to do with the big bang theory. I just went onto another subject when I was talking about evolution. Sorry. Anyway, thank you for liking my name, I love it! I know when it comes to religion vs. evolution, it's a never ending dispute. Just the same as religions and politics. I think if evolution were true, then God masterminded that as well as everything else. Considering all things change eventually into something else due to climate adaptions, ect., and them having the fossils of the missing links, and that there is proof, where? I just don't know. That's my peace. I'm done, I don't like it that you think I have no clue what I'm talking about, when I know I do. I'm just not as informed as you are. Sorry if I offended you in any type of way. I was for a minute, but I'm okay. Take care.

-- Athena (hbgmtg@aol.com), February 09, 2005.

I'm at work, so it took me a little while to get back.

ok.

Honestly, the only evolutionary site that I can remember that I visited was Evolution Entrance.

cAN YOU LINK THE SITE?

I went into my search and came across so many. I went into a few sites that were not christian based, but I did visit those sites as well.

Well you shoiudl ignroe Hovind, he's a known fraud. Most creaiton sites arent that reliable either.

But can you link a few sites?

I've learned about it in school, my teacher thought we derived from whales because of the five bones in our hands and in their flippers or whatever.

But thats not the case at all! Whales derived form land animals that wher DISTANTLY rleated ot man, man did not, hwoever, decend form Whales, and they are thought of as relatives to Dogs, not primates...even then its mroe like dogs evovled ino them...

But I've tried to look at it from a scientific point of view. I've read the theorys and facts. My data isn't as precise as yours, but I do know what I'm talking about.

All I suggest is a little more understanding.I noiced too many aerrors in the post you left, that seemed to indicate no real undersanding of the topic.

I know that evolution has nothing to do with the big bang theory.

Then why brign it up?

I just went onto another subject when I was talking about evolution.

But the other subject isnt related, thats the problem.That and too many Creationist siteds try to discredit evolutin by using he Big Bang theory...

Sorry. Anyway, thank you for liking my name, I love it!

As do I. Did you kn its the name of the Grek goddess of wisdom?

I know when it comes to religion vs. evolution, it's a never ending dispute.

Not nessisarily. and many Christaisn acept evolution, so its Crationism VS evlution, not religon VS evolution.

Just the same as religions and politics.

Not in Hisotry, and sledom outside the US...

I think if evolution were true, then God masterminded that as well as everything else.

That is the porosiotn of many Christains, and its called "Theistic evolution."

Considering all things change eventually into something else due to climate adaptions, ect., and them having the fossils of the missing links, and that there is proof, where? I just don't know.

Jusrt look it up.

That's my peace. I'm done, I don't like it that you think I have no clue what I'm talking about, when I know I do.

I just htink your misinformed is all.Sticj arond though, other threrads of interest awiat, ge tot knwo the peopel ehre.

I'm just not as informed as you are. Sorry if I offended you in any type of way. I was for a minute, but I'm okay. Take care.

No offence, just not up for haivng to expaln thigns you shodul ahve known, which you didnt. The critical errors prove you need more study is all, an thats not to offend, just an observation.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 09, 2005.


142.22.186.7

-- 142.22.186.7 (142.22.186.7), February 14, 2005.

Im all for the idea of theistic evolution. Why shouldn't the creatures God created evolve over time? We know without a doubt that environments changed, so I doubt that God would create animals which die out when the ice caps melt; thats how mammoths became elephants, Wolly rhino's become rhinocerouss and so on. Oh, and lets not pick at each others biblical quotes; there are subtle differences between different editions and slight contradictions thoughout the bible, so choosing which one you choose to believe could be dangerous.

p.s. Who says adam and eve were homo sapians?

-- Gavin Burton (gavin@alberonsystems.co.uk), March 05, 2005.


Adam and ve wher elikely H.sapins. the Bibel diesnt ocntain cotnradicitosn relaly, its just misundertsood, and to be fair and hoenst, your worng.

The mammoth evovled from the sme type of animal as the elephant, howeve, the Mammoth went extinct, the mamoth did not evovle intot he elephant.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 05, 2005.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ