I disagree
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
On Evolution & Creation
- Thread starter READY S W
- Start date
I disagree
Dimi95
Прaвославие!
How?
Can you live a milion years?
Yes , certain methodologies witness that.
And that is not a merit btw.
Actually , they show the exact oposite ,
Read :
A Pleistocene Puzzle: Extinction in South America
You think that is intelligent assistance?
Making cream on your coffee?
No one is assuming nothing before they study it.
The number does not matter - what matters is the way you get to it.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It has been observed many times. You are using a term that you do not properly understand. You are also trying to argue a strawman version of evolution. You are probably expecting a "change of kind" but that does not happen in evolution. Even new species is just a variation of the former one. You are still a variation on an ape. People are apes. There never was a time when we stopped being apes, in fact that would refute evolution.
Actually they do. You do not understand the concept of evidence either. Almost every fossil in existence today is recognized as a transitional species. Only a few very rare ones are not seen that way. For example the very rare, but existing fossils, of dinosaurs that died from the K-Pg asteroid strike. They would be better termed as "terminal fossils" they were the last of their line.
That is an extremely pointless argument. You used something that you know needs thought behind it to try to refute a process that does not need a mind behind it. This is very poor reasoning on your part.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh look, you do not understand the science so you have to make another bad argument.
Are you willing to learn? If you do not like it when people point out how incredibly ignorant that you are you really should try to learn. I can help you and will be rather polite. If this was an unmoderated forum people would be openly laughing at you and calling names. I can see that you do not lack intelligence so I am making a very polite offer.
So something has to be witnessed to be considered factual?
That would rule out the various creator Gods.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
I think he is talking about space dust.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
who says they are fully developed?
icant
Member
No.
That is why I gave such a wide period of time. But I am only talking about the last 5 miles of formation of the earth on top . Science says it only took 4 billion years to build the whole thing.
Enjoy,
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, we have erosion of existing rocks and deposition. Do you not realize that erosion is a very real thing? Chemical weathering and erosion turns solid rock into sediments. None is needed from space.
icant
Member
The plates of the continents bashing into each other is that what you are talking about?
All they do is rearrange the landscape.
The deepest oil well is in Russia at 7.57 miles deep. Oil is where ever you find it.
Enjoy,
icant
Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, oil needs some sort of physical trap to allow it to collect. If the sediments remained as flat as they were laid down there would be no way for enough oil to gather to be And yes, the crust has gotten very deep, especially in mountainous areas over the ages. Remember that the curst is "floating" on the mantle. Tall mountains have deep roots.
icant
Member
I am not making any argument only stating the facts, about constructing earth.
Enjoy,
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, erosion will cut through solid rock. Weathering also breaks down rock. Erosion will expose more fresh rock to weathering.
You apparently stopped learning the sciences in elementary school. I can help[ you with that if you would like. You can still learn.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you are only demonstrating your ignorance. I suppose being continually wrong is not making an argument so you would be right in that way.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
WE want me to reason? I have reasoned the matter out. I see the arguments pro evolution. I no longer believe them. And as a result of my Bible study I decide that -- evolution as that which is taught now is not true. Do I say that there are no inherited differences that are apparent among organisms, such as tribal characteristics? No. I do not say that. Genetics can transmit characteristics such as long or short limbs. But I also do not ascribe that to the general theory of evolution as it stands. By that I mean the idea that fish became or evolved to land dwelling creatures.
icant
Member
The BBT is based on there being non-existence and all of a sudden the universe began to expand into the universe the universe we have today. You may like your version of the BBT but I don't know what you base it on.
The Big Bang Theory was formulated by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian astronomer and cosmologist.
He proposed that the universe began from a single, primeval “super-atom” that exploded, leading to the expansion of the universe. This idea was later popularized as the "Big Bang Theory.
That "super-atom" later received the nickname of the God Particle.
Then it became a pinpoint .
Do you guys know anything about what you are trying to argue, or does it just change every so often?
Enjoy,
icant
Member
icant
Member
You mean be brainwashed don't you?
Enjoy,
It could have been here a lot longer than that.
Enjoy,
Dimi95
Прaвославие!
I can say the otherwise.
By appoarching another interpretation of the Bible , which is not so litterate i can say that the Bible does not say much about Evolution , but tells much more about events in certain timelines.
So you choose what to accept?
You don't have to , in this case is really irrelevant.
And you think that by one defition alone you can decide what is correct and what is not?
The best clue is a gene all animals have inherited. This gene is called Sonic Hedgehog and it controls the development of fins, claws, hands, etc. Considering Fish are the oldest vertebrates, we know we must have inherited it from them.
Vertebrates are an animal of a large group distinguished by the possession of a backbone or spinal column.
That's it.