Pretty weird. People believing that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark? Do you REALLY believe that Bolshevik? Geeze.. how big WAS that dang ark anyways? Hee-hee! And after the ark landed in modern day Turkey, we had the kangaroos swimming to Australia, Coral snakes swimming to the Americas, and all other species that can't swim making their way to the new world but the dinosaurs?? Naw... its just preposterous to me but I have long said here.. (and some are getting tired of hearing me say it)... you can get a lot of people to believe pert near anything.
Did you know that most Republicans don't believe that evolution occurred? Here's a recent news article, click HERE! I have to disagree with you.. a LOT of faith is required to believe in Creationism. Dinosaurs on Noah's ark? just a measly 6000 years ago? When we have evidence of ongoing (thinking China presently) civilizations that we can definitively date to 10,000 years ago? And archaeological records that we can date to... oh, never mind.
I'm ashamed to even be trying to change peoples' minds once their religious beliefs have taken over the controls. Maybe this thread needs to be moved to the Doctrinal forum you think? It's looking to me like folks are lining up on either side of the debate based on their beliefs. Huh?
Pretty weird. People believing that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark? Do you REALLY believe that Bolshevik? Geeze.. how big WAS that dang ark anyways? Hee-hee! And after the ark landed in modern day Turkey, we had the kangaroos swimming to Australia, Coral snakes swimming to the Americas, and all other species that can't swim making their way to the new world but the dinosaurs?? Naw... its just <B><I>preposterous</I></B> to me but I have long said here.. (and some are getting tired of hearing me say it)... you can get a lot of people to believe pert near anything.
Did you know that most Republicans don't believe that evolution occurred? Here's a recent news article, click <a href=http://www.fox28.com/News/index.php?ID=19933><B><font color=red>HERE!</font></B></a> I have to disagree with you.. a LOT of faith is required to believe in Creationism. Dinosaurs on Noah's ark? just a measly 6000 years ago? When we have evidence of ongoing (thinking China presently) civilizations that we can definitively date to 10,000 years ago? And archaeological records that we can date to... oh, never mind.
I'm ashamed to even be trying to change peoples' minds once their religious beliefs have taken over the controls. Maybe this thread needs to be moved to the Doctrinal forum you think? It's looking to me like folks are lining up on either side of the debate based on their beliefs. Huh?
<center>sudo</center>
I'm just saying if you believe in the great flood and the ark, that itself is weird. (I'm not saying I don't believe the Noah story) Elephants, hippos, bison, giraffes, salt water crocodiles, PLUS all those large animals that have gone extinct since Noah's time.
Believing in evolution theories is just as crazy as the different creation science theories.
I don't that you can argue the "sides" since neither the creationists nor the evolutionists have unified theories on what happened.
No I don't think this thread needs to go to doctrinal.
I am happy to see the creation museum being opened since it means new ideas can be considered. IMO these views have just as much scientific merit as the evolutionists.
I think the prehistoric animals became extinct during the form and void...they was actualy frozen during that period, wouldnt that be apart of the ending of the first heaven and earth..that is how they where able to be preserved..I know in history of archeological finds, a elephant was found with a living plant still preserved in his intestines, the plant was bittersweet,If I remember correctly.Just some things I have stumbled upon that makes more sence.
Re:"Believing in evolution theories is just as crazy as the different creation science theories."
Yeah, you aren't going to change any minds on a thread like this, I agree. Most have already made a decision. So what are you saying?? That there were dinosaurs on the Ark like the museum claims? Or that there was no ark at all? Obviously you aren't buying into scientific explanations but you don't seem to be a confirmed Creationist either.
I think Lewis Black is the funniest comedian around today...always makes me laugh...
As far as the topic of this thread goes...I believe that God created the process of evolution...He set things in motion so to speak...how do I know this?...because Hank told me.
Re:<B><I><font color=maroon>"Believing in evolution theories is just as crazy as the different creation science theories."</font></I></B>
Yeah, you aren't going to change any minds on a thread like this, I agree. Most have already made a decision. So what <B><I>are</I></B> you saying?? That there were dinosaurs on the Ark like the museum claims? Or that there was no ark at all? Obviously you aren't buying into scientific explanations but you don't seem to be a confirmed Creationist either.
<center>sudo</center>
I don't know if dinosaurs were on the ark or not. Usually, creation scientists say they died in the flood. Some believe in gap theory.
I'm saying I'm tired of having the evolutionist decide what is good science and what isn't. I like that new ideas can be taken seriously.
Re:"I like that new ideas can be taken seriously."
Dinosaurs on Noah's ark? And you expect this to be taken seriously by anyone other than Creationists? Look... here's a pretty good link to Creation Science on Wikipedia.. Click HERE! As I was perusing the site what seemed to stand out was this statement.. "... Christian creation science holds that the description of creation is given in the Bible and that empirical scientific evidence corresponds with that description."
As was stated earlier in the thread. Creationism is based on various interpretations of the book of Genesis and is based on religious beliefs. Folks can believe that scripture teaches that Eve was a lesbian or whatever. Science has the empirical method to weed out belief systems of any kind. Hypotheses and theories change with evidence. Who was it on this this thread that mentioned Jean Baptists Lamarck and his hypothesis? It was discarded when the evidence proved incorrect, no?
Aw... sheesh. If you're happy I'm happy, dude. If you feel comfortable believing what you want to believe then fine with me. I had a patient several years ago that had just immigrated from Nigeria and truly believed that ocean tides were the result of spirits. All I could do was smile and carry on like I'm carrying on with you here.
I don't mean to sound condescending but (I'm probably wasting my breath) if you don't give up all preconceived pretexts as to what you BELIEVE happened in the past you will never learn what really happened.
As was stated earlier in the thread. Creationism is based on various interpretations of the book of Genesis and is based on religious beliefs. Folks can believe that scripture teaches that Eve was a lesbian or whatever. Science has the empirical method to weed out belief systems of any kind. Hypotheses and theories change with evidence. Who was it on this this thread that mentioned Jean Baptists Lamarck and his hypothesis? It was discarded when the evidence proved incorrect, no?
. . .
Well, maybe I won't agree with everything at this new museum then. From what you're saying it sounds like they only have one possibility presented on how things happened. I was hoping they would have more then just one group's opinion.
Some people look at the natural world and say "Something intelligent is at work here" Some say "this all here by chance". I don't see any hard evidence to prove macroevolution. So there must be another option IMO. What exactly it is, I don't know. Probably neither evolution or Christian science.
"... Christian creation science holds that the description of creation is given in the Bible and that empirical scientific evidence corresponds with that description."
One point that is stubbornly continuous throughout creation science is that it never dares to cross the authority of the Scriptures -- never. They won't even consider the possibility of any evidence/proven information successfully challenging the authority of what the Bible says in Genesis, no matter how solid that proof/info might be.
...One point that is stubbornly continuous throughout creation science is that it never dares to cross the authority of the Scriptures -- never. They won't even consider the possibility of any evidence/proven information successfully challenging the authority of what the Bible says in Genesis, no matter how solid that proof/info might be.
There is something in what you say there. Personally, I learned a valuable lesson after leaving TWI – never let anyone dictate the building blocks of my belief system. Whether it's checking out the Bible or science – I think it's all a matter of how you interpret the information in front of you.
While in TWI I used to believe in a young earth – being created in a literal 6 days as taught in PFAL. This is based on an assumption the Bible is an all-in-one textbook that covers everything - even science. It seems to me though – the apparent topics of the book [God, Christ, sin, salvation, love, etc.] fall into a religious [or spiritual] category. While there is grammatical evidence that suggest longer time periods in Genesis 1 – I believe in a much older earth and universe based on the evidence interpreted by geologists, archeologists, physicists, and astronomers.
I believe the Bible and the universe are both the work of God. That is an assumption I hold -and don't see science as a challenge to the authority I let Scripture have over my soul. I also think it is a lot easier interpreting scientific data than biblical data. Many times it's not very clear whether the passage is to be interpreted literally or figuratively or both, who or what it's referring to, how or if it relates to another topic, etc.
Whew…glad I got that off my chest…now I bet I've got everyone confused on this thread .
Ok, I'll come out of retirement offer you these posers?
Forget about the dinosaurs on the Ark. How did Noah find two of every animal no matter how small? How did Noah determine the sex of the gnats? Did he keep predators and their prey separate? If so, how did the predators survive? If he didn't, how did those species occupying lower levels of the food chain survive? How did the kangaroos and koala bears get to the Fertile Crescent all the way from Australia? Did they swim or did God beam them aboard and then back?
It's sad that such a museum was ever funded and made. Crap like that is why we are becoming the laughingstock of the world, knowledge-wise.
Groucho, I think your point of view is fine. There is plenty of room to believe that other beings, whether gods or aliens, are responsible for the evolution of life on this planet. However, the process of evolution is as much a scientific fact as gravity. Plenty of experiments have been done to prove evolution, and all the specialized breeds of dogs are perfect examples of it. If you don't believe in evolution, then you also don't believe in poodles.
Yes,blind faith is very entertaining to say the least.
Robin, I once asked you, if you believe God talks to his kids, and you replied,"Yes"
Did Noah question God in this matter..I dont know...your talking about the food chain..maybe, these animals are not set up to be predators of each other.
It's sad that such a museum was ever funded and made. Crap like that is why we are becoming the laughingstock of the world, knowledge-wise.
Groucho, I think your point of view is fine. There is plenty of room to believe that other beings, whether gods or aliens, are responsible for the evolution of life on this planet. However, the process of evolution is as much a scientific fact as gravity. Plenty of experiments have been done to prove evolution, and all the specialized breeds of dogs are perfect examples of it. If you don't believe in evolution, then you also don't believe in poodles.
Ha-Ha-Ha!!! Snort!
You've found experiments to prove evolution huh? Enlighten me.
That's called microevolution, yes that is proven. But a poodle is as much a dog as a german shepard is a dog. The genetics to make them has always been present.
Yes,blind faith is very entertaining to say the least.
Robin, I once asked you, if you believe God talks to his kids, and you replied,"Yes"
Did Noah question God in this matter..I dont know...your talking about the food chain..maybe, these animals are not set up to be predators of each other.
LAE,
I am reading The Language of God by Francis Collins. Collins, who was the head of the human genome project and an unabashed Christian while maintaining an acceptance of evolution as the only scientific and logical explanation of how we and other living things are here. I recommend to anyone would like to thoughtfully consider the evolution vs. creationism / intelligent design debate.
One of the figures of speech is allegory. I seem to remember that even VPW referred to the book of Jonah as allegory. Why is it not possible to accept the six day creation and Noah as allegory? It is interesting to note that almost all religions in the ancient Near East refer to Flood. Google Gilgamesh.
design debate? I cannot debate your theory's if I havent read your books.
I dont question the design...there is definitely more out there information wise than meets the eyes..
I view the creation more and more to be one of God, The Father of my Lord and Savior..The Bible as a authority on life..and it's existence..but I definitely have learned from the scholars for more information..if its in your selection of books or not,somehow I still see God,s hand in the these things like childbirth, immune systems, platetectonics, gravitational pull,etc.
I will try to note the books you mention for when I have time to read..maybe, after a big snowfall this winter..
You've found experiments to prove evolution huh? Enlighten me.
That's called microevolution, yes that is proven. But a poodle is as much a dog as a german shepard is a dog. The genetics to make them has always been present.
Evolution is evolution. There's nothing with a short enough life-span and a high enough rate of mutation for humans to be able to do experiments that result in one animal turning into another.
However, there is the fossil record, which shows us that life forms changed over time, very slowly and gradually, to become what we have today, in addition to many of those older life forms still existing. Anti-science people like to claim that the fossil record is wrong, or that god put fossils into the Earth to trick human scientists, but the facts are there in the fossil record.
I would also point out that there were multiple branches of many species that split off. For example with early humans, there were also Neanderthals living at the same time. This was a distinct humanoid creature that was almost as intelligent as homo sapiens, yet they were different. They were wiped out, possibly by our ancestors. The bible makes no mention of Neanderthals, and I would think that talking about other sentient humanoid life on this planet would be pretty important, and I would wonder if they had a different god than homo sapiens or how it is supposed to be explained by creationism.
Evolution is evolution. There's nothing with a short enough life-span and a high enough rate of mutation for humans to be able to do experimentsthat result in one animal turning into another.
Microevolution is not macroevolution. There is a difference.
Which makes it non-science. How can you perform the scientific method without an experiment?
However, there is the fossil record, which shows us that life forms changed over time, very slowly and gradually, to become what we have today, in addition to many of those older life forms still existing. Anti-science people like to claim that the fossil record is wrong, or that god put fossils into the Earth to trick human scientists, but the facts are there in the fossil record.
This argument is silly. Yes there are fossils. No, there is no complete fossil record to verify that species evolved from common ancestors.
I would also point out that there were multiple branches of many species that split off. For example with early humans, there were also Neanderthals living at the same time. This was a distinct humanoid creature that was almost as intelligent as homo sapiens, yet they were different. They were wiped out, possibly by our ancestors. The bible makes no mention of Neanderthals, and I would think that talking about other sentient humanoid life on this planet would be pretty important, and I would wonder if they had a different god than homo sapiens or how it is supposed to be explained by creationism.
This has many sides. Are neandertals a different species? Maybe, maybe not. Still, no complete fossil record. (and in this "fossil record" numerous "fossils" were found to be true fakes (planted as practical jokes in some cases), although the impact that they had for the evolution argument remains.)
LAE,
I am reading The Language of God by Francis Collins. Collins, who was the head of the human genome project and an unabashed Christian while maintaining an acceptance of evolution as the only scientific and logical explanation of how we and other living things are here. I recommend to anyone would like to thoughtfully consider the evolution vs. creationism / intelligent design debate.
One of the figures of speech is allegory. I seem to remember that even VPW referred to the book of Jonah as allegory. Why is it not possible to accept the six day creation and Noah as allegory? It is interesting to note that almost all religions in the ancient Near East refer to Flood. Google Gilgamesh.
Do think he could keep his job if he denied evolution? I think not.
Do think he could keep his job if he denied evolution? I think not.
Ohhh, about as much as the likelyhood of an evolutionary biologist denying creationism keeping his job at that Kentucky museum, ya think?
Besides, he wouldn't have the "I'd better mouth the evolutionary party line, lest they fire me." song-and-dance if he actually believes that evolution was true, now would he? ... I think not.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
17
23
55
Popular Days
Jun 18
28
Jun 14
26
Jun 20
23
Jun 19
20
Top Posters In This Topic
oenophile 8 posts
likeaneagle 17 posts
GarthP2000 23 posts
Bolshevik 55 posts
Popular Days
Jun 18 2007
28 posts
Jun 14 2007
26 posts
Jun 20 2007
23 posts
Jun 19 2007
20 posts
Sudo
Bolshevik,
Pretty weird. People believing that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark? Do you REALLY believe that Bolshevik? Geeze.. how big WAS that dang ark anyways? Hee-hee! And after the ark landed in modern day Turkey, we had the kangaroos swimming to Australia, Coral snakes swimming to the Americas, and all other species that can't swim making their way to the new world but the dinosaurs?? Naw... its just preposterous to me but I have long said here.. (and some are getting tired of hearing me say it)... you can get a lot of people to believe pert near anything.
Did you know that most Republicans don't believe that evolution occurred? Here's a recent news article, click HERE! I have to disagree with you.. a LOT of faith is required to believe in Creationism. Dinosaurs on Noah's ark? just a measly 6000 years ago? When we have evidence of ongoing (thinking China presently) civilizations that we can definitively date to 10,000 years ago? And archaeological records that we can date to... oh, never mind.
I'm ashamed to even be trying to change peoples' minds once their religious beliefs have taken over the controls. Maybe this thread needs to be moved to the Doctrinal forum you think? It's looking to me like folks are lining up on either side of the debate based on their beliefs. Huh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm just saying if you believe in the great flood and the ark, that itself is weird. (I'm not saying I don't believe the Noah story) Elephants, hippos, bison, giraffes, salt water crocodiles, PLUS all those large animals that have gone extinct since Noah's time.
Believing in evolution theories is just as crazy as the different creation science theories.
I don't that you can argue the "sides" since neither the creationists nor the evolutionists have unified theories on what happened.
No I don't think this thread needs to go to doctrinal.
I am happy to see the creation museum being opened since it means new ideas can be considered. IMO these views have just as much scientific merit as the evolutionists.
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
I think the prehistoric animals became extinct during the form and void...they was actualy frozen during that period, wouldnt that be apart of the ending of the first heaven and earth..that is how they where able to be preserved..I know in history of archeological finds, a elephant was found with a living plant still preserved in his intestines, the plant was bittersweet,If I remember correctly.Just some things I have stumbled upon that makes more sence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Bolshevik,
Re:"Believing in evolution theories is just as crazy as the different creation science theories."
Yeah, you aren't going to change any minds on a thread like this, I agree. Most have already made a decision. So what are you saying?? That there were dinosaurs on the Ark like the museum claims? Or that there was no ark at all? Obviously you aren't buying into scientific explanations but you don't seem to be a confirmed Creationist either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I think Lewis Black is the funniest comedian around today...always makes me laugh...
As far as the topic of this thread goes...I believe that God created the process of evolution...He set things in motion so to speak...how do I know this?...because Hank told me.
Sudo also knows Hank...don't you doc?...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I don't know if dinosaurs were on the ark or not. Usually, creation scientists say they died in the flood. Some believe in gap theory.
I'm saying I'm tired of having the evolutionist decide what is good science and what isn't. I like that new ideas can be taken seriously.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Bolshevik,
Re:"I like that new ideas can be taken seriously."
Dinosaurs on Noah's ark? And you expect this to be taken seriously by anyone other than Creationists? Look... here's a pretty good link to Creation Science on Wikipedia.. Click HERE! As I was perusing the site what seemed to stand out was this statement.. "... Christian creation science holds that the description of creation is given in the Bible and that empirical scientific evidence corresponds with that description."
As was stated earlier in the thread. Creationism is based on various interpretations of the book of Genesis and is based on religious beliefs. Folks can believe that scripture teaches that Eve was a lesbian or whatever. Science has the empirical method to weed out belief systems of any kind. Hypotheses and theories change with evidence. Who was it on this this thread that mentioned Jean Baptists Lamarck and his hypothesis? It was discarded when the evidence proved incorrect, no?
Aw... sheesh. If you're happy I'm happy, dude. If you feel comfortable believing what you want to believe then fine with me. I had a patient several years ago that had just immigrated from Nigeria and truly believed that ocean tides were the result of spirits. All I could do was smile and carry on like I'm carrying on with you here.
I don't mean to sound condescending but (I'm probably wasting my breath) if you don't give up all preconceived pretexts as to what you BELIEVE happened in the past you will never learn what really happened.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Well, maybe I won't agree with everything at this new museum then. From what you're saying it sounds like they only have one possibility presented on how things happened. I was hoping they would have more then just one group's opinion.
Some people look at the natural world and say "Something intelligent is at work here" Some say "this all here by chance". I don't see any hard evidence to prove macroevolution. So there must be another option IMO. What exactly it is, I don't know. Probably neither evolution or Christian science.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Dang.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Groucho,
You mean this Hank?
:B)
Sudo,
"... Christian creation science holds that the description of creation is given in the Bible and that empirical scientific evidence corresponds with that description."
One point that is stubbornly continuous throughout creation science is that it never dares to cross the authority of the Scriptures -- never. They won't even consider the possibility of any evidence/proven information successfully challenging the authority of what the Bible says in Genesis, no matter how solid that proof/info might be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
There is something in what you say there. Personally, I learned a valuable lesson after leaving TWI – never let anyone dictate the building blocks of my belief system. Whether it's checking out the Bible or science – I think it's all a matter of how you interpret the information in front of you.
While in TWI I used to believe in a young earth – being created in a literal 6 days as taught in PFAL. This is based on an assumption the Bible is an all-in-one textbook that covers everything - even science. It seems to me though – the apparent topics of the book [God, Christ, sin, salvation, love, etc.] fall into a religious [or spiritual] category. While there is grammatical evidence that suggest longer time periods in Genesis 1 – I believe in a much older earth and universe based on the evidence interpreted by geologists, archeologists, physicists, and astronomers.
I believe the Bible and the universe are both the work of God. That is an assumption I hold -and don't see science as a challenge to the authority I let Scripture have over my soul. I also think it is a lot easier interpreting scientific data than biblical data. Many times it's not very clear whether the passage is to be interpreted literally or figuratively or both, who or what it's referring to, how or if it relates to another topic, etc.
Whew…glad I got that off my chest…now I bet I've got everyone confused on this thread
.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Ok, I'll come out of retirement offer you these posers?
Forget about the dinosaurs on the Ark. How did Noah find two of every animal no matter how small? How did Noah determine the sex of the gnats? Did he keep predators and their prey separate? If so, how did the predators survive? If he didn't, how did those species occupying lower levels of the food chain survive? How did the kangaroos and koala bears get to the Fertile Crescent all the way from Australia? Did they swim or did God beam them aboard and then back?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Ain't blind faith entertaining?
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
It's sad that such a museum was ever funded and made. Crap like that is why we are becoming the laughingstock of the world, knowledge-wise.
Groucho, I think your point of view is fine. There is plenty of room to believe that other beings, whether gods or aliens, are responsible for the evolution of life on this planet. However, the process of evolution is as much a scientific fact as gravity. Plenty of experiments have been done to prove evolution, and all the specialized breeds of dogs are perfect examples of it. If you don't believe in evolution, then you also don't believe in poodles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
As far as I'm concerned, a museum dedicated to the following would benefit the human race far, FAR more.
Just give it a listen, and you'll see what I mean. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
Yes,blind faith is very entertaining to say the least.
Robin, I once asked you, if you believe God talks to his kids, and you replied,"Yes"
Did Noah question God in this matter..I dont know...your talking about the food chain..maybe, these animals are not set up to be predators of each other.
Edited by likeaneagleLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Really cool video with some very humbling thoughts - thanks, Garth !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Ha-Ha-Ha!!! Snort!
You've found experiments to prove evolution huh? Enlighten me.
That's called microevolution, yes that is proven. But a poodle is as much a dog as a german shepard is a dog. The genetics to make them has always been present.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Robin, I once asked you, if you believe God talks to his kids, and you replied,"Yes"
Did Noah question God in this matter..I dont know...your talking about the food chain..maybe, these animals are not set up to be predators of each other.
LAE,
I am reading The Language of God by Francis Collins. Collins, who was the head of the human genome project and an unabashed Christian while maintaining an acceptance of evolution as the only scientific and logical explanation of how we and other living things are here. I recommend to anyone would like to thoughtfully consider the evolution vs. creationism / intelligent design debate.
One of the figures of speech is allegory. I seem to remember that even VPW referred to the book of Jonah as allegory. Why is it not possible to accept the six day creation and Noah as allegory? It is interesting to note that almost all religions in the ancient Near East refer to Flood. Google Gilgamesh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
design debate? I cannot debate your theory's if I havent read your books.
I dont question the design...there is definitely more out there information wise than meets the eyes..
I view the creation more and more to be one of God, The Father of my Lord and Savior..The Bible as a authority on life..and it's existence..but I definitely have learned from the scholars for more information..if its in your selection of books or not,somehow I still see God,s hand in the these things like childbirth, immune systems, platetectonics, gravitational pull,etc.
I will try to note the books you mention for when I have time to read..maybe, after a big snowfall this winter..
Edited by likeaneagleLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Evolution is evolution. There's nothing with a short enough life-span and a high enough rate of mutation for humans to be able to do experiments that result in one animal turning into another.
However, there is the fossil record, which shows us that life forms changed over time, very slowly and gradually, to become what we have today, in addition to many of those older life forms still existing. Anti-science people like to claim that the fossil record is wrong, or that god put fossils into the Earth to trick human scientists, but the facts are there in the fossil record.
I would also point out that there were multiple branches of many species that split off. For example with early humans, there were also Neanderthals living at the same time. This was a distinct humanoid creature that was almost as intelligent as homo sapiens, yet they were different. They were wiped out, possibly by our ancestors. The bible makes no mention of Neanderthals, and I would think that talking about other sentient humanoid life on this planet would be pretty important, and I would wonder if they had a different god than homo sapiens or how it is supposed to be explained by creationism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Microevolution is not macroevolution. There is a difference.
Which makes it non-science. How can you perform the scientific method without an experiment?
This argument is silly. Yes there are fossils. No, there is no complete fossil record to verify that species evolved from common ancestors.This has many sides. Are neandertals a different species? Maybe, maybe not. Still, no complete fossil record. (and in this "fossil record" numerous "fossils" were found to be true fakes (planted as practical jokes in some cases), although the impact that they had for the evolution argument remains.)
Do think he could keep his job if he denied evolution? I think not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Ohhh, about as much as the likelyhood of an evolutionary biologist denying creationism keeping his job at that Kentucky museum, ya think?
Besides, he wouldn't have the "I'd better mouth the evolutionary party line, lest they fire me." song-and-dance if he actually believes that evolution was true, now would he? ... I think not.
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.