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.

 

Connection between Creationism and Evolutionism

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Taken from Genesis

1:11 Then he commanded, "Let the earth produce all kinds of plants, those that bear grain and those that bear fruit"--and it was done.
1:12 So the earth produced all kinds of plants, and God was pleased with what he saw

In here we could see that all kind of plants produced by the earth. was that not an evolution, it is God made marvel, but He did in evolution way!

So do the animals, lets see:

1:24 Then God commanded, "Let the earth produce all kinds of animal life: domestic and wild, large and small"--and it was done.
1:25 So God made them all, and he was pleased with what he saw.

See! the animals also produced from earth. Interesting because evolutionist claim that every creatures was their by changes. There is changes, from the earth to plants and animals, but their is no missing links!

even human was made of soil! but i agree their is no missing links.

1:26 Then God said, "And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and resemble us. They will have power over the fish, the birds, and all animals, domestic and wild, large and small."
1:27 So God created human beings, making them to be like himself. He created them male and female


Thx before




posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eastpolar Commander
Taken from Genesis

1:11 Then he commanded, "Let the earth produce all kinds of plants, those that bear grain and those that bear fruit"--and it was done.
1:12 So the earth produced all kinds of plants, and God was pleased with what he saw

1:24 Then God commanded, "Let the earth produce all kinds of animal life: domestic and wild, large and small"--and it was done.
1:25 So God made them all, and he was pleased with what he saw.


The only problem is that if we take this as the temporal order of creation (and the 'then' suggests we should), then the evidence suggests it is wrong.

As land-plants (grains & fruits) evolved after animals. Indeed, angiosperms never appeared until about 130 million years ago, in the cretaceous. Animals appeared well before this.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Million years ago dude?

...


well, ...........................million years ago!?!?!?



okay! i just wondering, how animal could survive without food!?

thx



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   
They ate each other, for one thing. And there were plants, but in the beginning it was mostly algae. There were ferns and other primitive plants before angiosperms -- those are flowering plants, the seed bearers.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   
1:29 I have provided all kinds of grain and all kinds of fruit for you to eat;
1:30 but for all the wild animals and for all the birds I have provided grass and leafy plants for food"--and it was done


???


I still believe in God dudes!



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Animals and plants aren't the same kind of composition as dirt. Dirt doesn't have protein in it. Dirt doesn't have hormones in it.

There's lots of fossils that show evolution... one 'kind' slowly changing into another 'kind'.

If there wasn't evolution, how could you breed a poodle from a wild dog in only 10,000 years?



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 02:07 AM
link   
If the animals and plants aren't the same kind of composition as dirt,

how could the plnts evolve into animals and then human?

human has the same composition of dirt!

about million years! the layers of Great Canyon claimed by evolutionist it was created in million of years, but it was proved that to make these single layer, we don't need have to wait for million of years.

In process to be higher level of creature, you need higher inteligence, and of course evolving body structure!

No creatures could evolve into something else! if they could, there will be more creatures than now!



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eastpolar Commander
If the animals and plants aren't the same kind of composition as dirt,

how could the plnts evolve into animals and then human?


animals didn't evolve into humans... humans are still animals.



human has the same composition of dirt!


NO we don't there isn't any protein in dirt, and it isn't mostly carbon. humans are primarily made of PROTEINS, dirt isn't



about million years! the layers of Great Canyon claimed by evolutionist it was created in million of years, but it was proved that to make these single layer, we don't need have to wait for million of years.


no, it hasn't. any geologist that knows anything about soil erosion would know it would take millions and millions of years for it to happen



In process to be higher level of creature, you need higher inteligence, and of course evolving body structure!


evolution doesn't tend towards intelligence, it tends towards survival.



No creatures could evolve into something else! if they could, there will be more creatures than now!


...why?
there isn't a logical train of thought there.
in evolution we have natural selection, the most fit animals survive, the least ones die off. the tree of lifeforms has its branches pruned using this method, so it limits the amount of creatures to only those that could survive...

and we also have a helluva lot of animals out there.
over 200,000 species of plants
over 70,000 species of fungi
over 9000 species of lichens
over 1,000,000 species of animals
over 5,000,000 species of bacteria

[edit on 9/23/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   
As far as creationism goes, you must always take this one simple thing into account...faith.

As a believer in the creation account, I trust that God created everything in six days. God, by definition, can do whatever he wants...including create things with the appearance of being millions of years old. Apparent age is what that's called. (ie Adam was created as an adult male not a child)

Someone mentioned the 'evolution' of a poodle. That technically isn't evolution because the ancestor of the poodle didn't evolve into another species (the poodle is still a dog).

I remember learning in my creationism class in Bible School this past year that what most likely happened when the animals were created is that very few animals were created...not the plethora that we know...probably two of each kind (two common dog ancestors, two common cow ancestors, etc.). These two had every genetic possibility in them. Down through time and mating that is how the different types of dog and cow and lizard and monkey came about. Hopefully that makes sense. I just thought that I'd throw that in there.

I think that it's interesting, too, that in the Bible, there is a verse, I can't quite recall it right now, where God says that no animal will be able to reproduce out of its kind...and we see today that no felines can mate with canines or horses or such.

Tom



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Thx Octotom, Even Darwin himself admit that God created everything



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
As far as creationism goes, you must always take this one simple thing into account...faith.


As a measuring stick, I would put "faith" in the same class as "flying spaghetti monsters".


As a believer in the creation account, I trust that God created everything in six days. God, by definition, can do whatever he wants...including create things with the appearance of being millions of years old. Apparent age is what that's called. (ie Adam was created as an adult male not a child)


And this makes logical sense how? Why would God want to make it appear that he didn't create anything? "A test of faith" is a limp answer to that too. I postulate that God said he created everything, and man believed him, because man was not "as gods" at the time and had no way of proving God did not create everything. God, the bringer of - and lets be honest here - destructive fiery doom doesn't create jack # after genesis. Why not, I wonder?


Someone mentioned the 'evolution' of a poodle. That technically isn't evolution because the ancestor of the poodle didn't evolve into another species (the poodle is still a dog).


It is still evolution. Just because you are still a primate does not make you a monkey.


I remember learning in my creationism class in Bible School this past year that what most likely happened when the animals were created is that very few animals were created...not the plethora that we know...probably two of each kind (two common dog ancestors, two common cow ancestors, etc.). These two had every genetic possibility in them. Down through time and mating that is how the different types of dog and cow and lizard and monkey came about. Hopefully that makes sense. I just thought that I'd throw that in there.


Despite how much the last couple of sentences sound like evolution:

The very words "creationism class" send a chill down my spine. Frankly, it's unlikely that (even after all this time) species would have the genetic variation they have now if they were descended, literally, from two individuals.

Take the cheetah for example. Any Cheetah is as genetically similar to another as brother to sister because of a significant population decline at some point in their history. This means there were bugger-all cheetahs to reproduce, so they all ended up getting it on with relations, leading to very little genetic diversity. I can't tell you how many cheetahs this was, but it would have been far more than two.


I think that it's interesting, too, that in the Bible, there is a verse, I can't quite recall it right now, where God says that no animal will be able to reproduce out of its kind...and we see today that no felines can mate with canines or horses or such.

Tom


I'm sorry, Tom, but just because I can't get my cat and dog to breed to produce a Cog or a Dat, doesn't mean it must be that way because God says it was. They can't breed because (I haven't checked this but I'm going to hazard a guess based on what I know) they don't have the same number of chromosomes, ergo the male dog provides, say, 20, and the female cat provides 21. These cannot pair correctly and no resulting animal is produced. The foetus dies.

Also, pointing out easily observed facts can be done by anyone, not just God, and just because you've made an observation doesn't mean you made it so in the first place.

Carl



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eastpolar Commander
Thx Octotom, Even Darwin himself admit that God created everything


that's a myth. it either shows that you're ignorant or outright lying to prove your point.

i'm hoping it's the former.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indellkoffer
If there wasn't evolution, how could you breed a poodle from a wild dog in only 10,000 years?


There is a big difference between macro and micro evolution. Maybe you should look into it.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Please lets keep the thread on track, Disscussion rather than tit for tat please,

Thanks



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Eastpolar Commander
 


Well first thing first, who wrote the book of genesis? A man. An if you believe so much in "God" then you might find a little sentence in there that says man is foulable. Contridict, Contridict, and don't give me this bull# that it was passed down by some greater being, give me some concrete evidence then make creationist remarks, but wait there is no concrete evidence to support religion is there? Stop trying to put humans on a pedistal like were some amazing creation, all we are is a being that can think, so think of a better way to explain things.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
The only problem is that if we take this as the temporal order of creation (and the 'then' suggests we should), then the evidence suggests it is wrong.

As land-plants (grains & fruits) evolved after animals. Indeed, angiosperms never appeared until about 130 million years ago, in the cretaceous. Animals appeared well before this.


Well wait a second, what about Omnivorous and Herbivorous Dinosaurs and Mammals of the age? Did they not have shrubbery of some kind, trees .. leafy greens to eat?

If CROPS came afterward, but trees and shrub existed before, but lets say there was no corn for example, then okay i can buy that. but, if nature and evolution fill the demands of the most advanced life forms over time, then it only makes sense that God would deem it the right time for things like Corn and Peas and Carrots and Yams and so forth. Because man's early relatives, and early man, as well as omni and herbi mammals also became more prominent and numbered. All this came along and 'nature' yielded new fruits and vegetables to be eaten. It knew ahead of time. It set up the crops for us, I think if anything this lends itself to belief in Monotheism, or One God. Because why would these crops suddenly show up RIGHT before mankind hits the scene? Could it be because, without it, we'd be eating each other, and God knows that, knowing all, so he knew the Earth would be inadequate. Or all meat diet, not good for you. Ever wonder why everything on Earth seems so tailor made for your existence in some strange way or method? It's God...

Ready for Thxgiving yet?! I am !! I'm gonna get my festive bag of shrubberies and have a feast worthy of the Romans! except hold the Caesar salad, i love those but lets face it.. no Italian dishes at Thxgiving. Gotta have the sacrament to anoint the brain. Not just frankincense and myrrh, gotta have that caneh-bo'sm in there too. Btw, why did the Church remove all mentions of caneh-bos'm from the Old testament? Yet another cover up..

[edit on 10/2/2007 by runetang]

[edit on 10/2/2007 by runetang]



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
As far as creationism goes, you must always take this one simple thing into account...faith.

As a believer in the creation account, I trust that God created everything in six days. God, by definition, can do whatever he wants...including create things with the appearance of being millions of years old. Apparent age is what that's called. (ie Adam was created as an adult male not a child)


I'm with you except for the six 24-hour periods. 6 days of God! it took. We don't know God's years.. heheh.

And right, many so called evolutions are merely cross-breeds. The mule, the poodle, all of the designer cat and dog breeds. you mate and mate and mate them, not allowing the ones with undesirable traits to breed. This is selective breeding, not Evolution.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by runetang
Well wait a second, what about Omnivorous and Herbivorous Dinosaurs and Mammals of the age? Did they not have shrubbery of some kind, trees .. leafy greens to eat?


There were plants, just not what this guy is suggesting.


If CROPS came afterward, but trees and shrub existed before, but lets say there was no corn for example, then okay i can buy that. but, if nature and evolution fill the demands of the most advanced life forms over time, then it only makes sense that God would deem it the right time for things like Corn and Peas and Carrots and Yams and so forth.


I don't think evolution fills needs in the way you seem to be suggesting. Evolution just applies the mechanism of natural selection on the variation in organisms allowing descent with modification.

Thus, if we eat certain foods and disperse their seeds wide, then they will flourish. But that doesn't mean an ancient banana will become the banana we want naturally. Indeed, they are essentially man-made (bred).

These species evolve to ensure their own survival.


Ever wonder why everything on Earth seems so tailor made for your existence in some strange way or method?


Only in the same way the hole is tailor-made for a puddle.


Ready for Thxgiving yet?! I am !! I'm gonna get my festive bag of shrubberies and have a feast worthy of the Romans!


No, I'm in the UK, we don't follow all this foreign stuff. We save the turkeys for Yule. Sounds good though, I like a nice roast turkey.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join