My thorey on Earth and the Universe((Please read))

[thrashmetaljunkie]

golden_asuka

You know why the earth is older than 5000 yrs? In the Bible it says that (about) a thousand years is like a minute to God!! (it doesn't come right out and say it of course, but it's been interpreted) So if it's going to be say a thousand years God's time for him to come back, then that makes it a way longer time here!! In the Bible it says that it took Him a day for Him to create the Earth, and according to all that research scientists did, it took like a million (guesstimate) yrs our time for it to be created, so there you go--a million yrs our time and a day of His. Anwsers your question. The End. Oh and btw-- GOD DID NOT BEGIN EVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!! He created man from the dust of the Earth---and if you beleive in Evolution, then why aren't there monkeys still evolving into humans?! Theory disproved. There you go.

i said tha lol, just not as detailed. ^^  

[MISERY in pure bliss]

thrashmetaljunkie

golden_asuka

You know why the earth is older than 5000 yrs? In the Bible it says that (about) a thousand years is like a minute to God!! (it doesn't come right out and say it of course, but it's been interpreted) So if it's going to be say a thousand years God's time for him to come back, then that makes it a way longer time here!! In the Bible it says that it took Him a day for Him to create the Earth, and according to all that research scientists did, it took like a million (guesstimate) yrs our time for it to be created, so there you go--a million yrs our time and a day of His. Anwsers your question. The End. Oh and btw-- GOD DID NOT BEGIN EVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!! He created man from the dust of the Earth---and if you beleive in Evolution, then why aren't there monkeys still evolving into humans?! Theory disproved. There you go.

i said tha lol, just not as detailed. ^^

lol sorry I got a **teensy** bit angry there lol I didn't really think, I just typed with my anger, not my brain!! I like to argue (it's a gift lol) and if someone does't like it, then they just shouldn't get in an arguement with me lol I know what I'm talking about usually and it just makes no sense to me how anyone could think that we come from of all things, monkeys!!  

[thrashmetaljunkie]

well its becaUSE scientists jump into things, because of the structure monkeys are built. they are ALOT like us, and some animal, like dolphins, are smarter, but they dont have an imposible thumb, which makes us more capable. so they thought because of the vast many different types of animals of the same speicies that they had to evolve to be able to live in the area tha they live, in fact, that much is true, i believe in evolution, simply because the evidence is there, but i also believe in cretionism, which is that God made the world, and that humans were not evolved from monkeys. and i h8 arguing generally, i'm a peaceful person, and i prefer to stay quiet, and i really dont care tha u said wa i said, i was just messing with you lol. sall good wink neways, nick, i like you bro...but i dun kno where u came up with this stuff...*is confused*  

[ElenaMason]

golden_asuka

SaintXenos

torrinne

Now wait just a minute, golden_asuka. About your succinct disproving of evolutionary theory. If it was that simple, we would have been done with this arguement decades ago. Obviously it's not. Now, there's a theory out there, we learned about it in my biology class, that says that all life was originaly formed from nonorganic material. Like, for example, dust. From dust to single celled life. From there, reptiles, birds, mammals. Monkeys. Humans. Thus, if you follow the chain back far enough, you get dirt. Now, let's go to the bible. Start with Genesis 1:26-28. God creates people. Note the lack of reference to dust/dirt. These people, strictly scripture-wise were 0% dust. File that one away for later parts of this arguement. Then, skip ahead toGenesis 2:5-7. After the creation is FINISHED. This is where God goes back and makes ONE MAN out of dust, and later(Genesis 2:21-22) creates ONE WOMAN from the man. Thus, in the bible, there are only five peolple directly descended from the dirt. In case you are wondering, that would be Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Seth. Cain and Seth, the surviving sons get themselves wives. Now, since the only woman directly created from the dust is Eve (and only because her husband was from the dust), these wives must be from the first batch of humans--the ones not made from dust. So, every human after that is only, at best, part dust, and some would be 0% dust--unless you look at the science that says that everyone comes from inorganic material. Now, since God says later that mankind was born of dust (I don't remember where the passage was), that actually argues FOR evolution, rather than against it.

depending on what bible version you read, the very verses you showed is a completely "summary" of what God created. in my NASB the summary of all Gods creations is the first chapter, THEN chapter 2 is the "detail" of HOW everything was created....including man.

your verse of 26-30 in chapter 1.....the "man" should be taken as "mankind". Adam and Eve were the very first human beings created from dust of the earth NOT apes. if God created man from apes, the bible would have said so. but nope, adam and eve were created from dust.

and WE descend from adam and eve we ALL descend from adam and eve, meaning we were also "in a sense" created from dust. not apes.

is god an ape? no. and god created man in HIS image, not an apes image. and we already have a description of what god looks like stated in revelations, and i can tell you for sure...god isnt an ape.

Evolution is quite a silly "theory". and yes as was brought up earlier, if we descended from apes why arent apes today evolving into humans?

That is exactly what I was trying to say, SaintXenos! You took the words right out of my mouth!! That was awesome-- oh and just so you know, LRD_Nick, there are these places on your body called pressure points, such as your temples and the spot in between your thumb and index finger and you can die by just being hit in those places hard enough, so that just proves that David could have killed Goliath. If he had the strength to throw it hard enough and hit him in a pressure point, then he could have very well killed him. And that is science, so some of you people who beleive in the big bang and all that other scientific nonsense (in my opinion it is, anyway), then you can beleive that he may have been hit at that spot, just like if a baby is hit hard enough on the "soft spot" on it's head, it could suffer from brain damage or very possibly die.

hey no problem. and actually what was said earlier about Goliath is correct. he was considered a giant back in those times because everyone was pretty short if i heard correctly. and to them Goliath would seem like a giant but he was actually.....7-8ft tall if i also heard right. which is no different than a basketball player. picture that with really big muscles and what not and youve got yourself a life size giant.  

[MISERY in pure bliss]

What did you mean by "i believe in evolution, simply because the evidence is there, but i also believe in cretionism", thrashmetaljunkie? Nice siggy btw... And that is very true, SaintXenos...People were supposedly shorter than we are now...  

[ElenaMason]

its funny how people say how similar we are to apes....but we're also similar to just about EVERY animal.

-we have a tailbone like alot of animals have. ours is just very low developed.
-we have shoulder blades that could easily grow into what could be considered bird wings, but we dont have wings obviously.
-other than birds, just about every animal has 5 bones that could form fingers, especially on cats and dogs. they have bones that could similiarly form fingers and the fifth bone is higher up on their leg. could easily look or form like a hand.
-scientifically they also say that the embryo of a baby forms very similar to that of a chicken. and its hard to tell the difference in the early formed stages of a baby embryo to that of a chicken's embryo.
-we have ribs, a skull, teeth...even slight kanine teeth like a dog's.

we have ALOT of animal characteristics. its not just with apes, although apes are the MOST similar, that doesnt mean we came from them. hence why scientists jump to conclusions.  

[thrashmetaljunkie]

golden_asuka

What did you mean by "i believe in evolution, simply because the evidence is there, but i also believe in cretionism", thrashmetaljunkie? Nice siggy btw... And that is very true, SaintXenos...People were supposedly shorter than we are now...

i believe in evolution because when you look at the many different species, AND some animals of the same species at different places have different attributes. which suggest adaptation, or evolution. but i dont believe tha man came from monkeys. i believe that we are made in Gods image, thus not evolved from said 'monkeys'. So i believe that Good also made the big bang..i mean....ya..there was a big bang..but what caused it? it just happened by itself..COOL..uh, no stare it didn happen by istelf, God made it happen. thas what i mean. God has started evolution so the different animals may live and adapt to their enviroment. i hope that answers you question, and thanks.  

[dirtdevilgrunt13]

golden_asuka

SaintXenos

torrinne

Now wait just a minute, golden_asuka. About your succinct disproving of evolutionary theory. If it was that simple, we would have been done with this arguement decades ago. Obviously it's not. Now, there's a theory out there, we learned about it in my biology class, that says that all life was originaly formed from nonorganic material. Like, for example, dust. From dust to single celled life. From there, reptiles, birds, mammals. Monkeys. Humans. Thus, if you follow the chain back far enough, you get dirt. Now, let's go to the bible. Start with Genesis 1:26-28. God creates people. Note the lack of reference to dust/dirt. These people, strictly scripture-wise were 0% dust. File that one away for later parts of this arguement. Then, skip ahead toGenesis 2:5-7. After the creation is FINISHED. This is where God goes back and makes ONE MAN out of dust, and later(Genesis 2:21-22) creates ONE WOMAN from the man. Thus, in the bible, there are only five peolple directly descended from the dirt. In case you are wondering, that would be Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Seth. Cain and Seth, the surviving sons get themselves wives. Now, since the only woman directly created from the dust is Eve (and only because her husband was from the dust), these wives must be from the first batch of humans--the ones not made from dust. So, every human after that is only, at best, part dust, and some would be 0% dust--unless you look at the science that says that everyone comes from inorganic material. Now, since God says later that mankind was born of dust (I don't remember where the passage was), that actually argues FOR evolution, rather than against it.

depending on what bible version you read, the very verses you showed is a completely "summary" of what God created. in my NASB the summary of all Gods creations is the first chapter, THEN chapter 2 is the "detail" of HOW everything was created....including man.

your verse of 26-30 in chapter 1.....the "man" should be taken as "mankind". Adam and Eve were the very first human beings created from dust of the earth NOT apes. if God created man from apes, the bible would have said so. but nope, adam and eve were created from dust.

and WE descend from adam and eve we ALL descend from adam and eve, meaning we were also "in a sense" created from dust. not apes.

is god an ape? no. and god created man in HIS image, not an apes image. and we already have a description of what god looks like stated in revelations, and i can tell you for sure...god isnt an ape.

Evolution is quite a silly "theory". and yes as was brought up earlier, if we descended from apes why arent apes today evolving into humans?

That is exactly what I was trying to say, SaintXenos! You took the words right out of my mouth!! That was awesome-- oh and just so you know, LRD_Nick, there are these places on your body called pressure points, such as your temples and the spot in between your thumb and index finger and you can die by just being hit in those places hard enough, so that just proves that David could have killed Goliath. If he had the strength to throw it hard enough and hit him in a pressure point, then he could have very well killed him. And that is science, so some of you people who beleive in the big bang and all that other scientific nonsense (in my opinion it is, anyway), then you can beleive that he may have been hit at that spot, just like if a baby is hit hard enough on the "soft spot" on it's head, it could suffer from brain damage or very possibly die.

Bro I am in karate and I have said it before I know there is such think as pressure points.  

[dirtdevilgrunt13]

thrashmetaljunkie

well its becaUSE scientists jump into things, because of the structure monkeys are built. they are ALOT like us, and some animal, like dolphins, are smarter, but they dont have an imposible thumb, which makes us more capable. so they thought because of the vast many different types of animals of the same speicies that they had to evolve to be able to live in the area tha they live, in fact, that much is true, i believe in evolution, simply because the evidence is there, but i also believe in cretionism, which is that God made the world, and that humans were not evolved from monkeys. and i h8 arguing generally, i'm a peaceful person, and i prefer to stay quiet, and i really dont care tha u said wa i said, i was just messing with you lol. sall good wink neways, nick, i like you bro...but i dun kno where u came up with this stuff...*is confused*

Well me and my grandfather were talken about somethin then it brought me into this subject and We both agreed that it could of happend.  

[Tarrou]

Nature abhors an echo chamber, and so do I. Ergo, I'll be throwing out a few points that run contrary to the received wisdom of this thread.
Firstly, and I can't stress this enough, it isn't strictly necessary to take the opening chapters of Genesis literally. It's an insistence on reading those chapters (say, Genesis 1-3) literally that is, as far as I can tell, primarily responsible for much of the out-of-hand dismissal of evolutionary theory that I so often see in this guild and in Extended Discussion. The bible does not have to contradict the theory of evolution, and vice versa; it's all in the interpretation.

I posted a link to Gendou's M&R thread on the subject, but no-one seemed to pay it much mind, so I'll outline it's basic premise here:

1. If Genesis 1-3 have to be read literally, then we have to take God's warning to Adam in Genesis 2:16-17 (The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.") literally as well. Therefore, we have to accept that God told Adam that he would perish on the day he ate from the tree of knowledge. Similarly, we have to accept the 'death' that God spoke of as literal physical death (premise).
   
2. According to Genesis 5:5 (So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.) Adam lived to be nearly one thousand years old--nearly one thousand years longer than he should have if God was telling the truth about Adam dying within a day of eating the forbidden fruit (premise).
   
3. Therefore, if we are to take the story of creation literally, we have to believe that God is a liar when he warns Adam against eating from the tree of knowledge (from 1 and 2).

So we can see that a literal reading of the creation account creates problems: after all, God is not supposed to be a liar, is he? However, if we read the story of creation as a metaphor, with the death that God spoke of in Genesis 2 being a metaphorical spiritual rather than a literal physical death, then this problem simply disappears. And if part of the creation story is a metaphor, then it's entirely possible that other parts of it are as well--that the story of creation is true in its essence, if not literally.
And so I ask: where is the contradiction between the bible and evolution there? I for one don't see any contradiction at all--just two truths that answer entirely different questions about man's spiritual and biological development, respectively.

I have an addendum of my own to add to this argument, and it is this: if one wants to argue that the 'day' that God spoke of in Genesis 2:16-17 is not a 24-hour period, but actually a longer span of time, he is only furthering the case for a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis. Why? Because the word translated as 'day' in Genesis 2:16-17 is the Hebrew yom, the same word used to describe the seven periods of creation in Genesis 1, where it is also translated as 'day'. If yom in Genesis 2 doesn't mean a 24-hour span of time, then why would it have to equal a 24-hour span of time in Genesis 1?
"Day-Age" creationism, anyone?

Now for some more mundane points.

golden_asuka

[A]nd if you beleive in Evolution, then why aren't there monkeys still evolving into humans?! Theory disproved. There you go.

Well, simply put, the necessary selective pressures aren't there. Right now, it wouldn't do any of our ape and monkey cousins much good right now to start losing their fur and growing bigger brains; they're well-enough adapted to their own environments as it is, and the highly-intelligent-bipedal-primate niche has already been filled by humans. If an ape or monkey population were to start evolving such that their species came into competition with Homo sapiens, they would most likely be driven to extinction by our far more established species.

SantXenos

s god an ape? no. and god created man in HIS image, not an apes image. and we already have a description of what god looks like stated in revelations, and i can tell you for sure...god isnt an ape.

Well, taxonomically, humans are classified as great apes (we belong to the family Hominidae). If we were created in God's physical image, then God does indeed look rather like an ape, albeit a hairless one.

Quote:

its funny how people say how similar we are to apes....but we're also similar to just about EVERY animal.

This may be the first time I've seen anyone use what is commonly considered evidence for evolution in an attempt to refute evolution. Those similarities are the result of evolution; we share physical similarities with other animals because we all come from a common ancestor. What's important to remember, though, is that the degree of similarity differs depending on how closely related one species is to another. For example, humans have more in common with chimps than, say, frogs or, to chose a different kingdom of organisms altogether, mushrooms.

And now I'll leave you with a quote from one Baruch Spinoza:

"Nor is there any sound reason for limiting the power and efficacy of nature, and asserting that her laws are fit for certain purposes, but not for all; for as the efficacy, and power of nature, are the very, efficacy and power of God, and as the laws and rules of nature are the decrees of God, it is in every way to be believed that the power of nature is infinite, and that her laws are broad enough to embrace everything conceived by, the Divine intellect; the only alternative is to assert that God has created nature so weak, and has ordained for her laws so barren, that He is repeatedly compelled to come afresh to her aid if He wishes that she should be preserved, and that things should happen as He desires: a conclusion, in My opinion, very far removed from reason."  

[Spastic waffles]

Erm...There's a lot of talk about the evolution theory here, so I think I should ask this.

Have any of you heard that Darwin, on his death bed, said that his theory of evolution was wrong?

I didn't read everything, there is a lot of stuff there, but I read the first few posts and that's all we're talking about in here.  

[Tarrou]

Spastic waffles

Have any of you heard that Darwin, on his death bed, said that his theory of evolution was wrong?

A common misconception.  

[ElenaMason]

Tangled Up In Blue

Well, simply put, the necessary selective pressures aren't there. Right now, it wouldn't do any of our ape and monkey cousins much good right now to start losing their fur and growing bigger brains; they're well-enough adapted to their own environments as it is, and the highly-intelligent-bipedal-primate niche has already been filled by humans. If an ape or monkey population were to start evolving such that their species came into competition with Homo sapiens, they would most likely be driven to extinction by our far more established species.

what....are you saying things can choose to evolve?  

[Tarrou]

SaintXenos

what....are you saying things can choose to evolve?

No, not at all. I'm simply saying that a) there don't appear to be any selective pressures acting on any of the ape species that would cause them to evolve bipedalism and/or a larger brain and b) even if such pressures were acting on a given population of apes, they would then have to compete with humans within the highly-intelligent-bipedal-primate niche, which would probably not turn out well for the apes. Selective pressure and competition aren't something that a species chooses; they just happen, and those species that adapt (evolve) succeed and those that cannot adapt fail.  

[dirtdevilgrunt13]

Things cant choose to evolve.
They evolve according to where there from and which such.
Now I am not saying we didnt evolve from monkeys,We could of came up from dust and which such.