I believe in God and Jesus Christ, I also believe in evolution. I believe the bible is a collection of values to help guide us, and I also believe it was written in a way that made sense to people at the time and will now as long as you have common sense. I just happen to believe God is the biggest scientist the world could ever imagine. He created everything but didn't explain exactly how and what his methods were because it would literally take millions of books, and throughout our lifetime we'd never really comprehend it all. I believe he left some things for us to learn on our own because he knew we would want to. If you think about some science it would seem like magic if you didn't know anything about science.
That's OK guest. Now the real question is are you willing to take a fair look at the evidence I present? Most 'anti-creationists' react in the same way as the creationist depicted in the image. But if you are simply an 'evolutionist' who is interested in seeing my point of view, then I will present my evidence. Please respond soon! :)
Well first there's Pluto's atmosphere, measured within our lifetime. "Scientists measured the escape rate of nitrogen at 500 tons per hour. That’s 500 times the rate at Mars. All of Pluto’s nitrogen should have been depleted eons ago." Yet it still has an atmosphere to lose.
And its surface. "According to the secular scientists, Pluto has been bombarded by other objects in the Kuiper Belt for billions of years. The “most stunning thing” about the initial image of Pluto’s southeast quadrant is that not a single impact crater was found."
Both these facts are good indicators that Puto is way younger than even hundreds of thousands of years.
http://creation.mobi/the-new-pluto
And many many many polystrate fossils. Trees and such that were fossilised through many vertical layers of rock. Given evolutionary estimated extremely slow sedimentation, "it would have taken 100 000 years to bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous." It would have deteriorated and rotted way beforehand. Finding these all over the globe give good indication the layers formed rapidly. Such as in a global flood. Noah's flood.
http://creation.mobi/polystrate-fossils-evidence-for-a-young-earth
Not to mention that 5 out of the 6 types of evolution are not scienctific, by definition. Science must be observable, testable, and repeatable. We cannot witness a monkey turning into a man within our lifetime. And even if we did it in the lab, we would have used intelligent design to do so (and the early evolution had no human intervention).
Also it disobeys the scientific natural law of biogenesis, life coming from life. Evolution says we all had a common ancestor, but where did that ancestor evolve from? A rock? Primordial soup? If so, that is abiogenesis, life coming from non-life.
It is even mathematically impossible for the first amino acids to have formed and survived long enough to become a part of a functioning life form.
Hi, original guest here. You raised some really interesting points. First of all, scientists believe that Pluto is still geologically active, explaining the loss of Nitrogen, but are still looking into it. As for the lack of craters I have no idea and will have to look into that As for the second point, fossils are often buried by large events such as volcanic eruption or floods. So yes, if Noah's flood did happen it would be responsible for a lot of fossils, but in the case of Noah's flood, every piece of life in existence at the time (save Noah and his animals) would have been fossilized, and we simply don't see that number of fossils in existence. And for the third point, you're dead right. We simply don't know how life started. Only time will tell. Thanks for your points. As a side note, I notice all your sources are creationist websites, and you might want to try looking at things from other perspectives. Thanks for your time :)
"are you willing to take a fair look at the evidence I present? Most 'anti-creationists' react in the same way as the creationist depicted in the image. " - You experience it like that because you do not really know what a) science is b) a scientist does c) evidence is. Thus you believe creation.com is a valid source of arguments in a "evolution vs. creationism" debate. Which would make Richard Dawkins look exactly like in the last picture.
The scientific community acknowledges that life was likely created from something nonliving at at least one point in history. There are also other theories which state that life came from a different planet, but this would also raise the same questions. And even though we cannot observe evolution in a closed environment, the fossil record shows that there are specific time periods in which certain animals existed, and that humans had not been around until recently, in relative terms. There is also evidence of adaptation, a step in the chain, such as diverging populations of a certain type of insect developing differently shaped genitalia, or birds near roadways developing a lower average wingspan.
Hey, original guest here again. Sublime, I find it kind of funny how you suggest I could be an anti-creationist who might not accept your points, yet when I raise some valid points myself you choose to ignore them and not even acknowledge them. I feel quite insulted that you feel like you need to make a point of telling me to acknowledge your points when you won't do the same. You know, you're exactly like the creationist in the picture. Happy to say your points but when someone says theirs you won't even respond. I gave you time to respond and you didn't. Fuck you man, seriously.
Dear guest, I am sincerely sorry for not responding within 21 hours. I wrote those points just as I was going to bed and I did not get a chance to read your further comments until now.
I am quite a slow reader.
Now if you're not still mad, sorry :( I will respond to your points.
Yes, Pluto is volcanically active. But if it were really billions of years old, shouldn't it be an icy world with no form of heat whatsoever? All heat would have radiated away from the planet in that long amount of time. The fact that it is still giving off heat is a good indicator that it is very young.
Seeing as we have such a limited amount of fossils we can observe, why aren't there tons more? If old age evolution were true, shouldn't we see billions of dead fossilised animals? Millions of years would sure give plenty of time for many generations to come and go, so why don't we see more evidence of the incredible amounts of life? Unless there was not that much time.
And not everything during Noah's Flood would have been fossilised. Only life caught in vast mudslides in the water. Other animals that simply drowned would have rotted away. Some biological matter would be quickly put under immense heat and pressure and become oil.
As a side note, as humans and other mobile animals tried to escape the flood, they would have tried to get to the highest possible point, so the humans would die last. This sets up the appearance of a 'geologic column'.
And thanks for sending your comments, even when I don't respond right away. I appreciate your point of view. I will look up some of the opposition's points to get a balanced view. And maybe quote them too.
deleted
· 7 years ago
Guest here, swapping over to real profile. I appreciate the apology and I accept it, thank you. As a response to the heat indication, scientists believe that the heat is a result of radioactive elements degrading, in combination with Subquantum Kinetics generating genic energy. They currently have no proof of this but will look into it as soon as we can get a probe up there. Will get back to you with more tomorrow, in my timezone it's getting late and I have some stuff to do (I live in Australia).
@geluregis, yes those changes do happen. These adaptations can be observed, resulting in what we call micro-evolution. The birds with larger wingspan are still birds of that kind. The insects with different genitalia are still insects of that kind. We cannot observe macro-evolution, like a dragonfly turning into a butterfly.
Oh, here's for offering something to think about. "Radioactive elements like Uranium generate heat—but they are heavy elements. Because of its estimated lower density, Pluto must be made primarily of lighter elements." But I don't know how accurate those estimations are.
http://www.icr.org/article/new-horizons-at-pluto/
There are a large number of fossils, from every era. Yet there are not so many that they would be uncommon. This happens for a variety of reasons. Fossilization tends to require a specific environment for it to be any good. Moreover, these fossils can be destroyed by geologic action, which is why it is so hard to find those from the Precambrian Era. There are also many animals that do not often fossilize well, such as most invertebrates and bacteria. Additionally, fossilized species can be hard to classify, as without DNA, there can be many species that we may classify as the same species, even though they are different. There is also a practical reason. It is simply hard and costly to excavate these fossils, as it is not simply a matter of excavating rock. A great deal of care is taken, which means it takes much more time.
Okay
Okay but
What if
.
..
...
We stopped caring about which religion is true and having wars over it and focus on more important things like exploring the stars and creating new medicines.
Define 'important'. Why not define 'morals'? In fact, define 'truth'. We must get the basics down first (religion/origins) before we can enjoy these things of life.
How have other countries fared, before this moral compass invaded their lands? How are Germany and Japan still standing, despite their nonreligious community being over half? And why can there still be evil in those who believe strongly in God?
The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.
Source article: icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
We are finding those links, but just because they aren't found yet, doesn't mean the whole theory is bunk. Moreover, even if there are no intermediates, we can definitely see that there were specific time periods in which certain animals existed, rather than all of them existing simultaneously.
I am a catholic and I believe that God created the world. However the story of creation and of Adam and Eve didn't happen. It's a parable. Besides why can't we think of it like God made humans through evolution and not as a species thats unrelated to everyone. It would please both religious people and scientists in my opinion
He never lied, but I am not certain there was a rich man and a poor man named Lazarus, or that a Shepard would leave his entire flock unattended for a single sheep. They are hypotheticals that illustrate a point.
Okay, so is anything in the Bible untrue? Because if even the smallest lie is in that book, how can you be sure that the parts you believe are actually true? We must have faith that the Bible contains no lies, and that what we find in the real world should support it.
The Bible is not what it was when it was written, and even then, there's no guarantee that it was entirely true. It's been translated from many languages, by hand in many cases, and the people translating it were wealthy and powerful. It would be hard to believe that a lowly scribe would manage to translate or copy the work accurately in its entirety.
@geluregis they hand picked the smartest people who were linguistically capable to translate the bible to make a copy everyone could read in the hopes of creating a version we would be able to have in our home at the command of King James. That is how it was scribed and translated for us. You are wrong.
They meticulously went through the translations...they all went over it over and over, each had to agree with the other. They worked on it for months, with each language to make sure the translations came out as close as they can possibly get it to. Take time to learn about it before you say the translations were possibly incorrect.
@skittles you really, really believe a book that has been translated and edited for 150 years ("latest" version is of 1769?) by mostly unknown people from mostly unknown sources with a (or many?) mostly unknown agenda(s) literally is "the bible!"? I don't know of the subtleties of the "official" english version, but I know a bit of the Luther translation of mid 16th century, which is base of the german bible (constantly amended, latest version 1984 btw) and there are still lots and lots of crude translations and severe cultural misunderstandings. The main point is that the sources of all these bible versions are all inevitably dubious and anything but trustworthy. 14 to 15 centuries (!) of translations and alterations made the whole thing a collection of a few helpful rules for a society (all religions have those in common, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology) plus some regulatory policies plus a lot of poetry. The bible is a fairy tale. Period.
Ok first you have to understand there are many versions of the bible, and yes there have been amendments to some more than others. This is something a lot of Christians don't seem to realize, and for a lot of Christians they don't know what was amended from originally or what it was amended to. That is something in my opinion is very ignorant of anyone not to find out because changing just a few words in order to make it easier to read and understand can be very dangerous because it can change entire meanings of the text. For instance: the new NIV is passed out to many people now and it originated from the KJV so we are lead to believe it's ok, but after I've researched some of the scriptures it has many changes in which would be interpreted entirely wrong. (that being of course if you didn't already know) I didn't just ignorantly jump into a faith led by some man without asking questions, without research, and blindly accepting...at least not completely.
You can call the bible a fairytale if you want...but just remember that when someone who doesn't believe tries to get people who do not to, it's no different than a Christian trying to make someone who doesn't believe a believer. But of course that's called pushing our religion on someone...rubbing it in someone's face...bible thumping...all that.
Yea right, except atheists don't exactly threaten religious people they'd rot in hell for not believing the right thing. Believe whatever nonsense you want, no prob, you won't even notice me. Start rationalizing it and pretend some fairytales will answer the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything, or even give these fairy tales remotely the same credit as science, I'll be all in your face.
.
Oh, and this: "I didn't just ignorantly jump into a faith led by some man without asking questions, without research, and blindly accepting...at least not completely."? Really? How many percent to complete a hundred? You don't buy the Immaculate Conception? The Resurrection? The Ascension?
"atheists have nothing to threaten with." - which kind of is the point. Try not to be an asshole for the sake of not being an asshole, not because some god might decide to send you to the shitty afterlife-lounge, instead of the great one.
I don't understand how I'm being an ass hole? I'm just making a debate, and I honestly don't want to make you or anyone angry doing it because my belief is in Jesus Christ and he would never want that. I don't want to offend you by a debate on my belief either. So please don't take offense to it, and if you are I will gladly stop. My religion is about love..you are my neighbor and I love you.
I agree with you @skittles, but sometimes debates about religion can and will turn into negative conflicts. It is inevitable. Don't be discouraged to share your point of view. Especially if you truly believe your faith is the right one.
And to @funsubstanceuser, your argument about scriptures' trustworthiness is a problem for all religions, including atheism. Some people are willing to believe what people mere decades ago said happened billions of years ago. Other people are willing to believe what people thousands of years ago said happened during their time.
@sublimegamer Thank you for your support, I just don't want to be one of these Christians that get angry or make others uncomfortable and angry. That was never the intention of Jesus Christ and I'd like to be as close to that teaching as possible. @funsubstanceuser atheists may not have anything to threaten Christians with, but I've had several treat me as though they think I'm stupid. I've had several get extremely angry with me, and without good reason. I have seen Christian posts that were only about love treated as though they were something that should never have been posted, while atheists post offensive material that was anti-Jesus, or flat out making fun of Christianity...and without one Christian commenting on the post. I have had people try to treat myself and other peaceful Christians as if we were all some kind of crazy group like we are akin to people who call themselves Christians such as Westborough Baptist Church who may believe themselves to be Christians but are not.
Yeah! I am fed up and tired of people ridiculing our religion, and not having the courage to stomach their own medicine. Some say we can take a joke, but I say we shouldn't have to in the first place.
There is a spiritual battle going on within our world, and so we see the Enemy trying to discourage us by having other people make hateful comments without any reason. It is not merely a case of right or wrong, nor just of different opinions. It is a spiritual war going on around us. If the Devil sees we are making a stand for Jesus, won't he try to extinguish it? He will desperately throw negativity, hatred, and other obstacles at us to try and make us back down from defending God. We need to stand strong in our position and fight for what we believe is true. Shouldn't we?
On behalf of other atheists like myself, I am truly sorry. No one should have to face religious persecution, or anything based on what someone believes. If it doesn't harm anyone, then let it be. A vast majority of the time, religion brings good. It is only when idiots use it as an excuse to justify their actions that it becomes a problem. But we should not destroy religion because of their ignorance. I'm sorry that people can be such assholes. I just hope that some of them will see the error of their ways. For some, it's too late.
I don't even mind a joke, or questions, or even a little criticism. I don't mind a good debate, I do however have very little tolerance for being treated as though I'm stupid. I have no tolerance for a Christian just talking about something very loving and peaceful and being cut down for it either. I am a Christian to make myself a better person, but of course it tells us in the bible that we will be laughed at and ridiculed for or beliefs. It's all worth it if it helps anyone even just one person. The harder I've been tried to be talked out of my faith is the more I realize how much I need it and am thankful for it. And of course I'm never alone in it, I always have another believer to welcome and share it with!
You aren't stupid. But just being Christian does not make you a better person. But practicing certain ways of it does. Just being nice to people, be generous and forgiving, things that are part of most religions; they make you a better person.
@sublimegamer you are very correct! You couldn't have spoken it any better. I shall always stand for my father until it is time to kneel before him.
@silvermyth thank you for being respectful. We are all just people and that makes us equal in all respects. Race, religion, or sex is of no consequence. It is nice to meet you my friend.
"your argument about scriptures' trustworthiness is a problem for all religions, including atheism. " - this "atheism is just another religion" bullshit is literally the last straw you bible thumpers have and proof you completely ran out of arguments. . So as you shot your last desperate shot, my job is kind of done here. and @skittles: try and read that passage again where I did NOT call you an asshole. Kind of ironic that YOU are talking about precise text research and shit.
It might not be a 'religion' in the sense of believing in a God, but it does imply supernatural events such as abiogenesis and mass travelling faster than light, thus making it a faith. You cannot entirely prove what happened in the past without direct human observation at that time, so you have to believe that the Big Bang happened, don't you?
I actually do not have to believe anything, that is the point. Atheists don't claim they're able to explain everything. All I believe is that science as source of knowledge is preferable to religion, and I accept the limitations of knowledge itself. And scientists never "believed" in the BBT. It has been the best explanation for certain phenomenons, but knowledge is actually in motion. Not because of some random persons reading old fairy tales and deciding what's the least fairy, but with scientists practicing science.
Yea I am talking about precise text because you think you know something you clearly do not. Anyone can read an article about how much bibles have been changed, and of course criticize (for no reason I'm not trying to make you believe in it) it's a complete different story when you know what had actually been changed.
Yes. Science. What is that exactly? Is it observable, testable, repeatable, and predictable? Because evolution and certain historical 'sciences' are none of these things. And yet, evolution is presented in the textbooks as irrefutable fact, even though it is extremely lacking in examples of evolution. There are even deliberate lies left in the textbooks, that many people have told the curriculum about, but nothing has been done to correct the mistakes. That sounds less like science and more like a forced doctrine.
The bible mentiones a global flood. There is evidence for a flood but not global.
It also mentions the parting of the Red Sea. No evidence points to it "parting" into walls of water but there is a sandbar with Egyptian chariot ruins and whatnot.
Sublime, please go somewhere else and shut up. You will never understand such complex things as science and evolution so why argue?
Sincerely: a real fucking Christian who can use his brain
We could be, but unfortunately I'm thirteen and even though I have been somewhat obsessed with things like that, my knowledge is limited. I can try, but the current topic is science and religion.
Science is observable, but the definition of observable is the kicker. There are many processes that we can only see the aftereffects of, yet their theory is still a science. We can see the effects of evolution, yet the process is not significant enough to be definitely noticed within our lifetimes, or even within our life as a species. However, we can still see steps, small "microevolutions", the building bricks to an evolutionary wall.
If only there was a way to live longer...... Sometimes I feel trapped by my own human limitations. I cannot store enough knowledge, process enough information. And my life is so short. I don't have enough time to change things or advance the fate of our earth and it bothers me. Geniuses have a better chance at it. I'm not one of them, another limitation.
I'm starting to sound like a sci-fi movie villain, eh?
The hallmarks of a legitimate science is that it can make testable claims and predictions.
So, Evolutionary Paleontologists in pondering the "holes" in the fossil record... the so called "god of the gaps," looked at the gap between fish and land animals. They made the following predictions:
• It was likely an amphibian.
• They predicted that it would have a particular morphology.
• It would appear in a specific age range in the fossil record.
In Paleontology and Geology, age corresponds almost directly to the depth at which it will be found. So, when a location was found that was amenable to checking that era, they went looking.
Yes. Tiktaalik was a fossil that evolutionists thought would fit the bill as an intermediate fossil (missing link) between fish and tetrapods. They "dated" the rocks it was found in to be 375 million years old. A little while later in Poland they found fossilised, fully-formed tetrapod footprints in rocks they dated 379 million years old. Sooo... That means Tiktaalik was not in fact an intermediate link, because tetrapods were already around. And yet all the press and media continued to hail Tiktaalik as the ancestor of all tetrapods. Why?
http://www.livescience.com/6004-legged-creature-footprints-force-evolution-rethink.html
Even in the article you linked they falsely stated that Tiktaalik came 12 million years before the first tetrapods, so how come there are tetrapod footprints that came 4 million years before Tiktaalik?
um...am I the only person who was raised as a Christian who believed in freaking evolution? stop judging all religious people as idiots because of a few among us
Its always 100% exactly the same: any time someone sees himself as "sceptical of evolution" it turns out S/he. Just. Doesn't. Know. What. S/he. Is. Talking. About. So someone will not believe we descended from monkeys? Well then his/her opinion doesn't fucking matter, easy as that.
.
Now there is nothing wrong with that in general, nobody knows everything. Not everybody needs to understand what science in general and evolution specifically is. But what's the hubris, the stupidity, to believe one's own opinion, based on a few google searches, kind of outweighs the opinion of pretty much everybody who is an expensively educated expert on the topic, offering peer reviewed, evidence based, fucking educated opinions? Whereas the Doyen of Evolution Critics, Henry M. Morris is a Ph.D in Hydraulic Engineering and had been teaching civil engineering? Everyone would laugh at an evolution biologist criticizing the construction of a bridge or a sewer system. Justly so. Nome sayn?
You can believe in a certain amount of both. While I dont believe we evolved from monkeys, I don't also believe the earth is only 6000 years old. I do think there were dinosaurs and that certain species evolved from them and such, I just also believe God created us.
You can believe in whatever you want, indeed. You're entitled to your own opinions and beliefs, just not to your own facts. The good thing with the products of the scientific methods is that they're true whether one believes in them or not.
I have no idea what you're referring to. Are you talking about me not believing we came from monkeys? That's not 100% proven, so I can choose not to believe in it, just like you stated.
@sablad it seems like you're being a little aggressive toward @morganwinchester for stating his understanding. Instead of insulting Morgan explain your point.
I am however, gonna throw this out there, it's not that we evolved from monkeys or the other way around, the theory is that apes and humans share a common ancestor. Meaning at no point will an ape give birth to a man (or man to ape).
That said, evolution seems the most likely theory to how the earth has divided into species. But, the time it would take for one species to evolve into another does not allow man to see it in real time. So, it is theoretical (good theory too). Which means at some point you have to have some sort of faith that this theory is true. I could be way off on this, so if anyone knows more about evolutionary theory please jump in and correct me. I'm open to knowledge. I'm also a Christian who doesn't believe in the 6000 or 7000 timeline.
The only thing that I said was that I believe God created us. That makes me stupid? Damn you guys are hostile. If you really want people to see it your way, you're doing an extremely shitty job at it. You're just as bad as the overly religious people who shove their religion down people's throats.
@illjusthavewater i think i have something to add.
There is a common misconception about theories in science.
Hypothesis are the ones that have not been proven and are pending on further investigation.
Theories are proven hypothesis. They can of course be corrected or further perfected, but they are not a hypothesis.
Gravity is a theory, too :)
That's exactly why evolution should Not be labeled a 'theory'. It cannot be proven with observational science in the here and now. It is not observable, or repeatable, within our timespan, so it shouldn't even be called a hypothesis. And seeing as it relies on events that go against well established laws of nature (like biogenesis), it should be called, by definition, a supernatural belief.
Note that I am not talking about the scientific 'micro-evolution' i.e. dog breeds, which is true science, but rather 'macro-evolution' i.e. apes to humans.
I'm sorry but I have to speak up, there is absolutely NO reason to be calling anyone a pig because of what they believe!!! That's rude and uncalled for @fbi4! And good for you @morganwinchester for you not feeding into a bully's remarks.
What the hell are you talking about? Evolution is completely observable and repeatable. Fossils are a good example of observation. And if for some reason you think Satan put them there to fuck us over, then well...you're stupid.
Bacteria is another great example, better than fossils. With their short(ish) lifespans and incredible reproductive power, we can observe and force evolutions. Observe, repeat, and even manipulate.
Yes, that is micro-evolution. The bacteria evolve into... Bacteria. They do not evolve into viruses, nor multi-cellular organisms. And when they are returned to their original environment they de-evolve back to their original form.
The bacteria evolves into a new type of bacteria that eventually is no longer compatible with the original. What you said is like saying "an animal evolved into... An animal".
Okay. What strand of bacteria are we talking about? I know 'Bacteria' is a class of life.
I also know some dog species can no longer interbreed. But they are still dogs. They have not become cats or bears.
... Because the probability of a dog turning into a cat is almost impossible. They don't turn into already existing animals, rather new ones. It's not that hard to understand. Technically those dog breeds that can no longer interbreed are two new species.
When it comes to evolution, you cannot think of it within a 6000 year timespan. It is a gradual accumulation of these adaptations, which eventually pile up into something seemingly new. To say that humans evolved from monkeys would be inaccurate, as we merely share a common ancestor.
@geluregis, well how about the current theory that sonar developed independently in bats and dolphins, without a common ancestor with sonar?
@chu, yes that is micro-evolution.
Animals adapt after their needs. Both dolphins and bats can't see very well in their environment. Therefore they adapted and thus have similar abilities
Now the Creationist depicted in the image Should actually have a real answer for the Evolutionist. They have no reason to ignore the evidence presented. However, if they did know their science well enough, they could have easily come up with a reasonable counter to the Evolutionist's argument.
In all of these arguments, whenever one side makes an ad-hominem attack, it can Just as Easily be turned back against them. For instance, in this image, just reverse the role of Creationist and Evolutionist.
And its surface. "According to the secular scientists, Pluto has been bombarded by other objects in the Kuiper Belt for billions of years. The “most stunning thing” about the initial image of Pluto’s southeast quadrant is that not a single impact crater was found."
Both these facts are good indicators that Puto is way younger than even hundreds of thousands of years.
http://creation.mobi/the-new-pluto
http://creation.mobi/polystrate-fossils-evidence-for-a-young-earth
Also it disobeys the scientific natural law of biogenesis, life coming from life. Evolution says we all had a common ancestor, but where did that ancestor evolve from? A rock? Primordial soup? If so, that is abiogenesis, life coming from non-life.
It is even mathematically impossible for the first amino acids to have formed and survived long enough to become a part of a functioning life form.
I am quite a slow reader.
Yes, Pluto is volcanically active. But if it were really billions of years old, shouldn't it be an icy world with no form of heat whatsoever? All heat would have radiated away from the planet in that long amount of time. The fact that it is still giving off heat is a good indicator that it is very young.
And not everything during Noah's Flood would have been fossilised. Only life caught in vast mudslides in the water. Other animals that simply drowned would have rotted away. Some biological matter would be quickly put under immense heat and pressure and become oil.
As a side note, as humans and other mobile animals tried to escape the flood, they would have tried to get to the highest possible point, so the humans would die last. This sets up the appearance of a 'geologic column'.
http://www.icr.org/article/new-horizons-at-pluto/
Okay but
What if
.
..
...
We stopped caring about which religion is true and having wars over it and focus on more important things like exploring the stars and creating new medicines.
Source article: icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
.
Oh, and this: "I didn't just ignorantly jump into a faith led by some man without asking questions, without research, and blindly accepting...at least not completely."? Really? How many percent to complete a hundred? You don't buy the Immaculate Conception? The Resurrection? The Ascension?
@silvermyth thank you for being respectful. We are all just people and that makes us equal in all respects. Race, religion, or sex is of no consequence. It is nice to meet you my friend.
It also mentions the parting of the Red Sea. No evidence points to it "parting" into walls of water but there is a sandbar with Egyptian chariot ruins and whatnot.
Sincerely: a real fucking Christian who can use his brain
I'm starting to sound like a sci-fi movie villain, eh?
So, Evolutionary Paleontologists in pondering the "holes" in the fossil record... the so called "god of the gaps," looked at the gap between fish and land animals. They made the following predictions:
• It was likely an amphibian.
• They predicted that it would have a particular morphology.
• It would appear in a specific age range in the fossil record.
In Paleontology and Geology, age corresponds almost directly to the depth at which it will be found. So, when a location was found that was amenable to checking that era, they went looking.
Guess what? They found it. It's called Tiktaalik.
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html
/thread.
http://www.livescience.com/6004-legged-creature-footprints-force-evolution-rethink.html
Even in the article you linked they falsely stated that Tiktaalik came 12 million years before the first tetrapods, so how come there are tetrapod footprints that came 4 million years before Tiktaalik?
.
Now there is nothing wrong with that in general, nobody knows everything. Not everybody needs to understand what science in general and evolution specifically is. But what's the hubris, the stupidity, to believe one's own opinion, based on a few google searches, kind of outweighs the opinion of pretty much everybody who is an expensively educated expert on the topic, offering peer reviewed, evidence based, fucking educated opinions? Whereas the Doyen of Evolution Critics, Henry M. Morris is a Ph.D in Hydraulic Engineering and had been teaching civil engineering? Everyone would laugh at an evolution biologist criticizing the construction of a bridge or a sewer system. Justly so. Nome sayn?
I am however, gonna throw this out there, it's not that we evolved from monkeys or the other way around, the theory is that apes and humans share a common ancestor. Meaning at no point will an ape give birth to a man (or man to ape).
That said, evolution seems the most likely theory to how the earth has divided into species. But, the time it would take for one species to evolve into another does not allow man to see it in real time. So, it is theoretical (good theory too). Which means at some point you have to have some sort of faith that this theory is true. I could be way off on this, so if anyone knows more about evolutionary theory please jump in and correct me. I'm open to knowledge. I'm also a Christian who doesn't believe in the 6000 or 7000 timeline.
There is a common misconception about theories in science.
Hypothesis are the ones that have not been proven and are pending on further investigation.
Theories are proven hypothesis. They can of course be corrected or further perfected, but they are not a hypothesis.
Gravity is a theory, too :)
Note that I am not talking about the scientific 'micro-evolution' i.e. dog breeds, which is true science, but rather 'macro-evolution' i.e. apes to humans.
Bacteria is another great example, better than fossils. With their short(ish) lifespans and incredible reproductive power, we can observe and force evolutions. Observe, repeat, and even manipulate.
I also know some dog species can no longer interbreed. But they are still dogs. They have not become cats or bears.
evolution
And something more complex than bacteria
@chu, yes that is micro-evolution.