Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
accumulation means little it is the inability to fill in the blanks that destroys evolution. anyone can label a startigraphy section in the dirt but without eyewitnesses, ancient witnesses, written records from the past, there is no way they can be proven as true.My belief in evolution comes soley from the abundant geological, genetic, and fossil evidence science has accumulated
the evidence is there, no non-believing scientist will let it be known or follow it to the truth. instead they are out there seeking toprove their pet theory or the 'accepted' theory.then science would have been compelled to come to the conclusion that that particular religion was indeed right. No such thing happened
actually this and the previous sentence are just not true. no unbelieving has been able to prove anything concerning evolution because they do not have anything from the past to corroborate their thinking.The truely ancient age of the earth, the titanic story of life's evolution on earth
amazing, that would prove creation not evolution as humans were a recent arrival. so your physical evidence again undermines evolutionary thinking and directs one to creation. think about it, i have said this often enough, the physical evidence is there for creation, how you apply it will determine your belief. just as ryan and pittman, among others, have done.the extremely recent arrival of the human species. These are the things that the physical record reveals
my my my aren't we testy this morning. since this is called evolutionary evidence why don't you show me some evidence that proves that the ape turned into a human , let's say, in the last 10,000 years of written history.That's a bad case of Mirroritis you got there, arch.
Go see a doctor! They've got pills for that now
First off there is not 10,000 years of written history, only about half of that. A great site for some info on the developement of written language can be found here:"...why don't you show me some evidence that proves that the ape turned into a human , let's say, in the last 10,000 years of written history.
i do not care what your charts say,especially since they indicate a time long before the boundary i have set. that evidence was not observable so it cannot be and is not valid. we only have conjecture to say that that was so, nothing proveable. "
i will disagree with you on that. we know we have writing from the post-flood ages but we have not discovered or properly dated finds that may extend to the pre-flood civilization. charles hapgood's book, the ancient sea kings (i am doing this from memory) makes a good argument when it comes to the qulaity of maps and his allusion to a pre-flood origin may be correct.First off there is not 10,000 years of written history
because that is the only time such transitions could be recorde with observations to back up the claims.Secondly I am not sure why you insist on evidence of humans coming from apes in the last 10,000 years.
i said you couldn't use this time frame because there is no scientific way to prove the theories or conjectures as true. all you have are possibilities, old bones, charts, timelines and some person SAYING this is the way it was. you cannot substantiate any claim as there are no scientific records that pre-date 10,000 years ago to corroborate any conclusion you come to in this day and age.The time span was much greater, the last common ancestor many millions of years ago
you don't know that, it is an assumption of the highest order. especially since most scientists say: 'we think...' or 'it may have happened this way...', or 'we believe...' and so on. there is nothing concrete or conclusive about it.These fossils are the actual physical, tangable, empirical proof of human evolution
no, it is people who do not want to believe the Bible who USE the fossils in that manner to try and prove evolution but they can't doit.It is fossils like these (and not just for humans but many many species) that prove the case for evolution.
i will disagree with you on that. we know we have writing from the post-flood ages but we have not discovered or properly dated finds that may extend to the pre-flood civilization. charles hapgood's book, the ancient sea kings (i am doing this from memory) makes a good argument when it comes to the qulaity of maps and his allusion to a pre-flood origin may be correct.
i really don't care, many of themare too lazy tosearch out the iformation they need prefering to remain as little children and not learn anything.You could get in a lot of trouble with your co-religionists for those comments
i have been there and have received my share of 'roastings' from my so called friends in the church. i have known people for 30 years who now refuse to talk to me so i guess the answer to your question is yes.Do your people still burn heretics at the stake and do you have fire insurance
actually i am not narrow minded and probably would be considered liberal by those in the church i grew up in. i am a person who has loked at the evidence, found evolution impossible (and impossible to prove) and decided to go with the Bible.There are people even narrower minded?
GASP...
hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahahahaarchaeologist wrote:[...] actually i am not narrow minded
Than that church is most probably in full fledged violation of the law, and you have a citizen's duty to report it to the authorities.and probably would be considered liberal by those in the church i grew up in.
Excluding some evidence and including other evidence, just because it would make your preconceived (= BIAS) ideas fit better, is called 'manipulation', mate.[...] what proof do you have beyond charts, graphs and timelines (fossils are excluded here) that have not been drawn up in the modern age? (the past 150 years)
the reason i excluded the fossilrecord is that we had discussed it before i and i think i showed quite clearly that it point inthe direction of noah's flood not evolution. also the theories that construct the the fossil record is just conjecture.Excluding some evidence
