It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creation Theory VS Evolution Theory... who is right?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Okay Expert.. I will answer your questions again:

1. Who am I, and what am I worth?

The question "Who am I?" doesn't make any sense.. I have never felt a need to ask that.. but what I am worth?.. my own existence validates itself.

2. Where did I come from?

A conception.

3. What is the purpose of life?

To live.

4. Where am I going when I die?

Another geared question [no surprises there].. 'I' would not exist after I die.. in saying that however I have had an outer body experience [not a near death one] so I cannot discount the possibilty of turning into a 'ghost' by leaving my body again. This 'existence' would of course be dependent on my present 'identity' ..so I think that would be a temporary existence [hypathetically] as without a body I wouldn't actually have an identity. It's plausable that I could just fade away.

Now.. in regard to you answering as an atheist/evolutionist.. that was nonsense and designed to taint the discussion. You clearly depise the concept which is why all the answers you gave [to yourself] were filled with contempt for it.




posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
how come we use most of the 10 commandments rather than using Hammurabi's code? here is a site that shows the history on these laws and codes, and commandments. the bible doesnt just have the 10 commandments, it ha other commandments that support those 10.

www.juntosociety.com...



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Why do you characterize the formation of humans through evolution as being "an accident?" I don't understand how you equate millions of years of small gradual changes in the direction of forming intelligent creatures to being some kind of "oops, I made a human" scenario. It doesn't make sense.



2050 BC: Ur-Nammu's Code - The earliest known written legal code of which a copy has been found, albeit a copy in such poor shape that only five articles can be deciphered. Archaeological evidence shows that it was supported by an advanced legal system which included specialized judges, the giving of testimony under oath, the proper form of judicial decisions and the ability of the judges to order that damages be paid to a victim by the guilty party.


It quite seems to me that we employ this method in modern times - as opposed to stoning people to death.


Exd 19:13 There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether [it be] beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.

Exd 21:28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox [shall be] quit.

Exd 21:29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

(Here's some justice for ya

Exd 21:32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

Num 15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Act 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.


I could go on, but I think I've successfully illustrated that Ur-Nammu's code is arguably more just and fair that the Bible.

Anyways, I agree with you. I don't know where we'd be without the ultimate justice that God handed to us in the Bible:


6. Does God allow you to sell your daughter into slavery?

Correct Answer: A. (Yes. And the situation is not unbearable for her since, if her master takes her as his wife and she does not please him, he must set her free) “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation, he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife: her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish” (Exodus 21:7-10).


Zip



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
The 'primordial soup' Expert, just consists of the elements essential for life, and it is believed by some that these came together to form RNA as I'll explain below. Before I go on, I just want to mention that there are many theories about how life formed, not just the one I'm mentioning. The RNA theory is just what I was taught in school, and in my opnion makes the most logical sense.

RNA is believed to be the first lifeform on Earth. With this theory, it is thought that free floating nucleotides naturally came together by forming bonds, but these would break down fairly rapidly. Some RNA chains were able to create more chains than were being destoyed, and these 'survived' due to natural selection. The most efficeint RNA molecules grew and evolved to eventually form modern RNA.

"Competition between RNA may have favored the emergence of cooperation between different RNA chains, opening the way for the formation of the first proto-cell. Eventually, RNA chains randomly developed with catalytic properties that help amino acids bind together (peptide-bonding). These amino acids could then assist with RNA synthesis, giving those RNA chains that could serve as ribozymes the selective advantage. Eventually DNA, lipids, carbohydrates, and all sorts of other chemicals were recruited into life. This led to the first prokaryotic cells, and eventually to life as we know it."



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   
if man has been here for more than 10,000 years, howcome there havent been any older codes found? the world was created 6,000 years ago, roughly, and if you want me to stop using man as an "accident" then I will, but evolution makes life out to be from chance. it so happened to appear on earth 3.4 billion years ago. and now life has changed a lot since then.

that is a fairytale. the textbooks say that life evolving from non-living material is slow. I would agree. its so slow that it doesnt even happen.
evolution is a fantasy provided by man for an excuse so he wont be accountable to God.
you cant prove that it happened. at least I have a record of my religion. its called the bible. yeah there were some pretty weird ways of doing things back in the day, but didnt jesus change a lot of things? like whoever is without sin cast the first stone. or turn the other cheek.

and he also stated that "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul,mind,and strength" and also "love your neighbor as you love yourself" "by doing these you will have kept the 10 commandments.
jesus changed a lot of things because he was going to be the ultimate sacrifice, meanming he took punishment for every sin ever done.

back before jesus came, they took punishment for what they did right then in there.


but back to what I was saying, evolution isnt even a good theory, it tries to make an excuse for mans responsibility and accountablility. but it cant happen.

so as I asked before, is there any proof for evolution. such as a gain in genetic information. or proof by observing an animal evolve into a different kind of animal. how do you explain DNA and RNA and how the cell works, and it has to be perfect or else the cell dies, and if it does survive, its all messed up.

see the textbooks say that beneficial mutations are the raw material for natural selection, I have never seen any beneficial mutations. if you can find one, show it to me. you will not find any.


and if God spoke everything into existance, that it not against any law of nature, nature didnt even exist yet. God created nature. God created everything. you dont seem to get the concept, God is not limited by anything. he is eternal and not limited by anything at all.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
if man has been here for more than 10,000 years, howcome there havent been any older codes found? the world was created 6,000 years ago, roughly, and if you want me to stop using man as an "accident" then I will, but evolution makes life out to be from chance. it so happened to appear on earth 3.4 billion years ago. and now life has changed a lot since then.


Because the oldest findings of recorded history are approximately from around 3,500BC. Ancient History


that is a fairytale. the textbooks say that life evolving from non-living material is slow. I would agree. its so slow that it doesnt even happen.
evolution is a fantasy provided by man for an excuse so he wont be accountable to God.
you cant prove that it happened. at least I have a record of my religion. its called the bible. yeah there were some pretty weird ways of doing things back in the day, but didnt jesus change a lot of things? like whoever is without sin cast the first stone. or turn the other cheek.


The odds of winning the lottery is also insignificantly small. Yet, amazingly, it happens. The improbable does not account for the impossible.


and he also stated that "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul,mind,and strength" and also "love your neighbor as you love yourself" "by doing these you will have kept the 10 commandments.
jesus changed a lot of things because he was going to be the ultimate sacrifice, meanming he took punishment for every sin ever done.

back before jesus came, they took punishment for what they did right then in there.


I don't think you can speak for the entire world. There very well may have been laws and justice systems before then.


but back to what I was saying, evolution isnt even a good theory, it tries to make an excuse for mans responsibility and accountablility. but it cant happen.

so as I asked before, is there any proof for evolution. such as a gain in genetic information. or proof by observing an animal evolve into a different kind of animal. how do you explain DNA and RNA and how the cell works, and it has to be perfect or else the cell dies, and if it does survive, its all messed up.

see the textbooks say that beneficial mutations are the raw material for natural selection, I have never seen any beneficial mutations. if you can find one, show it to me. you will not find any.


Here you go. Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection


and if God spoke everything into existance, that it not against any law of nature, nature didnt even exist yet. God created nature. God created everything. you dont seem to get the concept, God is not limited by anything. he is eternal and not limited by anything at all.


Even though what I'm about to say has no bearing whatsoever on evolution, you can say that about the Big Bang theory. If the universe did come out of a singularity, it's entirely possible. A singularity is dimensionless. There is no time, spatial dimensions, anything. All known physical laws break down. So the Big Bang theory, following your logic, is entirely possible, because it's not limited by anything at all, right?



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
ok first off those are adaptations... and if you want me to believe that whole thing on natural selection, then what I gather from the evolution theory and natural selection, evolution is a religion of death. if one organism "adapts" better than the others or if it "evolves" better than the others. what must happen to the others in order for this process to work? everything else must die, or else the good genes get mixed back in with the bad ones. or according to one of the pages on your site you gave me. if it doesnt adapt, it results in a failure to live.

like I siad before, evolution is a religion of death. many things have to die in order for natural selection to work.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
"Chlamydomonas is a unicellular green algae capable of photosynthesis in light, but also somewhat capable of growth in the dark by using acetate as a carbon source. Graham Bell cultured several clonal lines of Chlamydomonas in the dark for several hundred generations. Some of the lines grew well in the dark, but other lines were almost unable to grow at all. The poor growth lines improved throughout the course of the experiment until by 600 generations they were well adapted to growth in the dark. This experiment showed that new, beneficial mutations are capable of quickly (in hundreds of generations) adapting an organism that almost required light for survival to growth in the complete absence of light."

These are mutations Expert, mutations that helped the organism adapt, you've got it wrong there. Some organisms had mutations that allowed them to survive better in darker lighting than others. These survived, and reproduced, forming offspring with the same traits. Mutations occurred again and again until 600 generations later they were well suited to life in the dark. The organisms didn't mutate in order to adapt however, as the mutations were totally random as they are with any organism. There were probably many many mutations, but the mutation that allowed for better growth in the dark just turned out to be the most beneficial to them.



evolution is a religion of death


Evolution is a religion of death? That's right, keep using semantics to convince yourself that evolution is bad. After all, who in their right mind would subscribe to a religion of death. You make it sound so horrible when it really isn't...you could just as well call it a religion of survival. But yes, you've got it right there, with evolution, organisms that don't adapt well to their environments die out. That doesn't mean that evolution is bad though, it just proves the remarkable 'ability' of living creatures to survive in a changing world.

By the way, I don't make it a habit to attack members, but could you please stop posting the same topics over and over again? You say that you want to drive home the 'truth', but its really an annoyance, and your posts just get deleted by the mods. By reposting, you are basically saying to other members that you will not accept any points they made in the previous threads, that you are closed-minded, and do not respect the effort they went through to make convincing arguments and share their views with you. Its incredibly disrespectful and is actually the cause of my rant last week, and I suspect the cause of many others in the near future.

[edit on 3-7-2005 by zhangmaster]



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
ok first off those are adaptations... and if you want me to believe that whole thing on natural selection, then what I gather from the evolution theory and natural selection, evolution is a religion of death. if one organism "adapts" better than the others or if it "evolves" better than the others. what must happen to the others in order for this process to work? everything else must die, or else the good genes get mixed back in with the bad ones. or according to one of the pages on your site you gave me. if it doesnt adapt, it results in a failure to live.

like I siad before, evolution is a religion of death. many things have to die in order for natural selection to work.


...And? Replace the word "religion" with "function" and you've got yourself a deal.

Christianity is a very palatable religion to people who are afraid of dying. In reality, though, death is required for life. That ear of corn growing in a field will either be eaten or returned to the ground to provide nutrients to new crops. That fox, lonely in a forest, dying of old age will be picked apart by scavengers so that they may get on with life.

Expert, I see a theme in your postings. You appear to be afraid of death. I think you should get in touch with that part of your psyche. I already told you my opinion, but I'll repeat it here - I think that death is required for life to be complete. Nature agrees with me. To live forever is unnatural and undesirable.

Zip

[edit on 7/3/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   


These are mutations Expert, mutations that helped the organism adapt, you've got it wrong there. Some organisms had mutations that allowed them to survive better in darker lighting than others


it probably already in the gene code.
and it does not cause evolution.
just like I can eat food for energy but I can also drink water for energy as well.

its in the gene code already. no evolution happened.
so no it is not a mutation. that is called an adaptation.

Fish gills are a design. and that is the only way for them to survive in the water. its not a mutation.

and ZIP im not afraid of anything (except for long torture and long suffering if it were me, death by fire, or maybe drowning)
but I aint afraid of dying. if you want you can kill me right now. ill be more than happy to go. because I know where my physical body is going when I die. yes you will agree, its going to the grave. but as for my soul...
thats is a different story. since we all have a soul, its what makes who we are it has to come from somewhere. it dosent come from your mom or your dad. God crreates it. and if you think that your soul is just going to float around in dreamland forever, you are wrong.

and you think that we all came here from the explosion of the cosmic burp 20 billions years ago. you are wrong.

let me ask you something.

if I stuck a frog in a blender, and turned it on. I would have frog nog afterward. but this also means that I have all the material to make a frog in one place. how long would it take for all of that material to become a frog again.... I know its not going to happen in my lifetime. but tell me, could I get that frog back? I dont think so.

both of our theories are religious, and both of them are the exact opposite. and one of them is wrong.

who is it?



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
since we all have a soul, its what makes who we are it has to come from somewhere. it dosent come from your mom or your dad. God crreates it. and if you think that your soul is just going to float around in dreamland forever, you are wrong.


As I have stated before, I believe in the canonical definition of death - as in - we die, and that's a wrap. Obviously I don't believe in "souls." There is no reason to think that any processes contributing to human consciousness do not come from the nervous system. As such, my parents initiated and sustained the process that lead to the growth of my nervous system, thereby inspiring my consciousness.

Zip



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I know these questions are directed at Zipdot but I thought I try to help answer Expert999 endless question for proof of evolution.


Originally posted by expert999
because I know where my physical body is going when I die. yes you will agree, its going to the grave. but as for my soul...
thats is a different story. since we all have a soul, its what makes who we are it has to come from somewhere. it dosent come from your mom or your dad. God crreates it. and if you think that your soul is just going to float around in dreamland forever, you are wrong.


Well because Expert999 says it, it must be true! You have no more proof of souls or creation, than anyone does of evolution. What is defined as a soul? Some parrots are thought to be sentient, and so is that level of consiousness considered a soul?



and you think that we all came here from the explosion of the cosmic burp 20 billions years ago. you are wrong.

So matter and energy are hard to find, but not a supernatural, all powerful being?



if I stuck a frog in a blender, and turned it on. I would have frog nog afterward. but this also means that I have all the material to make a frog in one place. how long would it take for all of that material to become a frog again.... I know its not going to happen in my lifetime. but tell me, could I get that frog back? I dont think so.

What does that mean?



both of our theories are religious, and both of them are the exact opposite. and one of them is wrong.
who is it?

True Science and True Religion cannot conflict because they both describe reality.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   
so why is evolution trying to pry into a position as being a part of real science?

the only thing that can explain polystrata fossils is a world wide flood.

an example of a polystrata fossil would be a petrified tree in the vertical position connecting many layers. how does this occur? the only good logical explanation would be a world wide flood.

lets do some science, go to walmart and get one of those sand toys and see how dirt settles, it settles into layers.

now if you threw a few trigs in there, some would settle sideways, and some would settle in the vertical position.

but since the bible is so wrong, how about you tell me how you get polystrata fossils and why there are no signs of erosion between the layers...

hey charlie, whose side are you on?
I, at first, had the impression that you were defending the bible, but I might have been wrong.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Expert are you aware it takes millions of years for fossilisation ?

How do you explain the speed of light if the universe is only 10,000 years old we can see stars and galaxys millions of light years away, the bible states that adam could see starts straight away yet the light from the closest star would have taken 4 years to reach earth.

And personally id rather think I was 14 billion years in the making than being thrown together in 7 days , I think evolution is pre-programed into the universe(by someone/thing) and that the true gensis is on-going now as we speak.

[edit on 3-7-2005 by Merkeva]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Expert, what "side" do you think I'm on?

I beg you to please stop referring to the "polystrata fossils" creationist ludicracy -


'Polystrate' trees show every sign of extremely rapid burial, generally when rivers flood over their banks.

(Eldredge, 1982, p.105)
An example of this very thing is given by Dunbar and Waage (Dunbar & Waage, 1969, p.52). They show a photo of the Yahtse River area in Alaska, which depicts a number of upright, brokenoff stumps stripped of most of their branches. The taller stumps poke out above the alluvial mud. This is the result of natural processes accompanying river course change. A couple of pages later we find a photograph showing how trees can be buried fairly quickly in another way. In this case, volcanic ash has partially buried a forest whose trees are mostly reduced to brokenoff stumps stripped of their branches. Continuing volcanic eruptions over a period of years (dead trees last a long time!) and the interaction with wind would create variations in the strata which finally bury the stumps.


To dismiss such natural occurences as rivers and local floods, just to support your global flood theory, is in my opinion, an assault upon creationists and any "valid" claims that they may present.

Zip

[edit on 7/4/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Expert are you aware it takes millions of years for fossilisation ?

How do you explain the speed of light if the universe is only 10,000 years old we can see stars and galaxys millions of light years away, the bible states that adam could see starts straight away yet the light from the closest star would have taken 4 years to reach earth.

And personally id rather think I was 14 billion years in the making than being thrown together in 7 days , I think evolution is pre-programed into the universe(by someone/thing) and that the true gensis is on-going now as we speak.


how do you know that it takes millions of years for something to fossilize?
actually it does not take millions of years to fossilize. where you pulled that from I dont know.


www.angelfire.com...
www.christiananswers.net...

www.newscientist.com...

blood cells would not last for millions of years. and no it does not take long for things to fossilize. if human hands were found fossilized in teh same strata as dinosaurs, that shows that it does not take long for things to fossilize.

giant human bones
www.returnofthenephilim.com...

the oldest tree in the world is less than 4400 years old. how about them trees in the dirt that are found connecting layers? how do you explain them?

as for as the stars go. if God said that they could see the stars. it probably because he made it so that the star light was already there.
and star distance cannot be measured accurately.

there is no was you can get an accurate measurement used trigonometry.
first off you have a skinny angle, even if you use earths orbit. and you cant tell exactly where we were 6 months ago. so im sorry but star distance only goes so far.

the shrinkin sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than billions of years. the sun is losing both mass and diameter. changing the mass would upset the fine gravitation balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive.

the 1/2 inch layer of cosmic dust on teh moon indicates the moon has not been accumilating dust for billions of years.

the existance of short period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old.

fossil meteorites are very rare in the layers other than the top layers of the earth. this indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks.

the moon is receding a few inches each year. billions of years ago, the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding the continents quickly.

the moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and TH-230, both shirt lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old.

the existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Poynting-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates that the solar system is young.

at the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been travleling for billions of years

saturns rings are still unstable, indicating they are nto billions of years old.

Jupiter and saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. they are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun, they cannot be billions of years old.

jupiter's moon, Io, is losing matter to jupiter it cannot be billions of years old.

jupiters moon, Ganymede has a strong magnetic field indicating a hot inner core. it cannot be billions of years old.
(you cant just keep losing, after a while there is nothing left to lose)
the decaying magnetic field limits earths age to less than 30,000 years old. go back 30,000 years and the magnetic field would have generated so much heat that the earth would fry itself.

dividing the amoung of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumilation.

sahara desert is expanding, its about 4000 years old. see any earth science text book.

the oceans are getting saltier, is the earth is billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now.

ice accumilation at the poles indicates less than 5,000 years.

the current population growth (6 billion people) could easliy be generated from eight people in less than 4400 years.

the oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old.

the oldest living tree in the world is 4300 years old.

the oldest known historical records are less than 6,000 years old.

many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide flood. nearly 300 of these flood legends are now known.

biblical dates add up to about 6000 from today.

now here is what the bible says that people like evolutionist would react to people like me (chirstian, doing my best to follow the bible)
II Peter 3:3 "knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. for this they are willingly ignorant or, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water. whereby the world that then was overflowed and perished."

peter knew what happened a few thousand years before he was born, who told him this? was it God? yeah it was.

you have no evidence that the earth or universe is billions or even millions of years old.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Actually, we do have evidence, which can be found if you look for it.

I'll just pose an unrelated question.

The aborigines have been in Australia for at least 50,000 years, and Australia has been cut off from the "rest of the world" for quite some time. They have their own legends about the creation of the world, which outdate the bible by quite a long time. Does the bible account for them in anyway?



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:19 AM
link   


as for as the stars go. if God said that they could see the stars. it probably because he made it so that the star light was already there.


Back this up




the moon is receding a few inches each year. billions of years ago, the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding the continents quickly.


The moon was once part of the earth until its was torn away from it during an impact with a planetoid roughly the size of mars ,which contentents do you speak of, there would have been only one back then pangea which has been broken up due to tidal forces of the moons gravity and plate tectonics.




the moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and TH-230, both shirt lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old.


How if its being constanly replenished by the sun ?




at the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been travleling for billions of years


Back this up



sahara desert is expanding, its about 4000 years old. see any earth science text book.


True but this statment proves nothing only that the sahara is 4000 years old not the earth , there was something there before desert y'know.



the oceans are getting saltier, is the earth is billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now.


The oceans regulate their salinaty
alife.tuke.sk...




ice accumilation at the poles indicates less than 5,000 years.


Again back this up




the oldest living coral reef, is less than 4200 years old.


Proves nothing ,as does the oldest tree being 4300 years old eg : The oldest human is 120 years old doesnt mean the earth is only 120 years old




many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide flood. nearly 300 of these flood legends are now known.


So there was a big flood ? so what ? Im sure there will be more. again proves nothing about the age of the earth




you have no evidence that the earth or universe is billions or even millions of years old.


Yes i do : www.space.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.ldolphin.org...

hubblesite.org...

www.sciencenews.org...

Edit : Please dont use biast sources like christian answer etc. Most of these sites are out to disprove things rather than stating fact and proving things.

[edit on 4-7-2005 by Merkeva]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   


Actually, we do have evidence, which can be found if you look for it.

how about you show me some.

ive yet to see some real scientific evidence.

and those people down in australia that you talk about, are in schools science textbooks as well. as a matter of fact, some of those people were captured and killed just for theoir bones, because they looked like they would fit the criteria for a missing link. if you look at the jaw, it looks a little different from a normal human jaw. so they were murdered just for bones and to help make the evolution theory look like it had proof. now you say that they have legends that date back over 50,000 years. take a look at their calendar. its based on plants and how they grow. im sure I would get a big number for my family tree if I were them.

just some other geewiz info

"Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change."
by Dr Barney Maddox. at this link

www.trueauthority.com...

hey did you know that darwin said himself this "to suppose that the eye...could have formed by natural seems, I freely confess, absurd in the higherst degree" page 217 Origin of species...

even though he said this, he still believed that the eye had formed by natural selection.

the eye is a design by God. and its a very good one at that.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:36 AM
link   
did you know that the back of your eye is about 1 square inch. and it contains 137,000,000 light sensitive cells. how would you like to be the electrition making 137,000,000 connections in one square inch? my heavenly father did it.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join