quote:

I'm not saying that evolution occurs within a couple generations, but if you think about all the changes and adaptations, that have to had occurred to get from what science calls our ancestral forebears, the number is mindboggling. The new species has to last long enough for there to be a new mutation. If not, that species goes extinct and it ends there, carrying that genetic trait with it, at that time. Then, we have to look at chromosome counts and mating.

Lunged fish and globed fins aren't exactly proof of evolution, either. Didn't everything, at some point in time, have only gills? Or, was the liquid environment like the SCUBA-tech in that ancient Bruce Willis movie (Deep Blue, The Abyss, or whatever it was)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
My point is that if there is a link between Lucy and Homo erectus., why have we not found them?All you can do is question my education? Again? Puh-lease. Get a cogent argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

First of all, the universe was created in six days, on the seventh god rested.

I said that god started the process to create the universe and life, but allowed it to follow a course dictated by laws of nature, after all god did create nature, did he not.

And please dont give me the tripe the world is only six or so thousand years old, geology disproved that a century or more ago.

As for intelligent design, with the fossil record full of failed species, it proves that life followed various paths to get where we are today.

In other words, we are all part of a grand experiment by a being greater than ourselves. Accept it and move on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Could you talk me through that because I was just reading Genesis 1:3-2:3 and it seems an awful lot like water and the earth predate the existence of stars which is a pretty massive cosmology fail.

It's a lot to walk through. Though interpretations vary, if you look up "Pre-adamite world" you can find lots of details that explain how Genesis and Science aren't necessarily at odds.

That doesn't address how terribly wrong the biblical order of creation is in light of what we know concerning cosmology.

Okay, so the writers of Genesis got things out of order.

quote:

In The Beginning
Long before a man called Adam walked with God in the gardens of Eden, longer still before the flood of Noah covered the face of the earth, in a time called "the beginning," God created the heavens and the earth. A grand and beautiful design, the earth as conceived by the Creator was an exquisite home for the creatures He had fashioned. The earth itself was a magnificent garden where life flourished in a dazzling display of variety. The ground trembled with the footsteps of the largest creatures (those we now call dinosaurs). Animals filled the trees, the skies and the oceans. From eternity God had planned this creation, and it was perfect in every way. God created men and they began to settle in villages, cities and nations. Angels, a part of this new creation, were given dominion over the earth, to rule with the authority of their Creator. It was the archangel Lucifer who ruled over the nations in all the splendor of the greatest of God's creations. Every creature fashioned by the hand of God acted in perfect obedience to the will of their Creator. Angels and men knew God as a friend and drew their life from Him. There was no sickness or disease, no hunger or death, for there was no sin--

--Until Lucifer, the closest to the throne of God, the archangel who "walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire," let the seed of pride find fertile ground in his heart. Pride led to rebellion, and rebellion to judgment. Lucifer and the nations following him were placed under a curse, and the earth itself was judged for their sin.

All of this happened before Genesis 1:2.

quote:

So like I said, it makes no sense to beleive in something with no evidence.

quote:

There's some pretty compelling support in the Bible that most of the creation story in Genesis was talking about a creation event long after the universe originally came into being.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

There's some pretty compelling support in the Bible that most of the creation story in Genesis was talking about a creation event long after the universe originally came into being.

Then, in the beginning was not really in the beginning? Oh my! That is disconcerting, ain't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

First of all, the universe was created in six days, on the seventh god rested.

I said that god started the process to create the universe and life, but allowed it to follow a course dictated by laws of nature, after all god did create nature, did he not.

And please dont give me the tripe the world is only six or so thousand years old, geology disproved that a century or more ago.

As for intelligent design, with the fossil record full of failed species, it proves that life followed various paths to get where we are today.

In other words, we are all part of a grand experiment by a being greater than ourselves. Accept it and move on.

Show me the evidence first.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun
There's some pretty compelling support in the Bible that most of the creation story in Genesis was talking about a creation event long after the universe originally came into being.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

First of all, the universe was created in six days, on the seventh god rested.

I said that god started the process to create the universe and life, but allowed it to follow a course dictated by laws of nature, after all god did create nature, did he not.

And please dont give me the tripe the world is only six or so thousand years old, geology disproved that a century or more ago.

As for intelligent design, with the fossil record full of failed species, it proves that life followed various paths to get where we are today.

In other words, we are all part of a grand experiment by a being greater than ourselves. Accept it and move on.

Show me the evidence first.

Look, it is either that OR we are all part of an elaborate computer simulation being run in the year 2345. This is not my idea, but some physicist stated it on the Science Channel show, "Through the Wormhole."

Ken, I cant prove what I believe, but for me, I dont have to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
21-22 years ago...

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils
From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. With the rapid pace of new discoveries every year, this impressive sample means that even though some early human species are only represented by one or a few fossils, others are represented by thousands of fossils. From them, we can understand things like:

how well adapted an early human species was for walking upright
how well adapted an early human species was for living in hot, tropical habitats or cold, temperate environments
the difference between male and female body size, which correlates to aspects of social behavior
how quickly or slowly children of early human species grew up.

While people used to think that there was a single line of human species, with one evolving after the other in an inevitable march towards modern humans, we now know this is not the case. Like most other mammals, we are part of a large and diverse family tree. Fossil discoveries show that the human family tree has many more branches and deeper roots than we knew about even a couple of decades ago. In fact, the number of branches our evolutionary tree, and also the length of time, has nearly doubled since the famed ‘Lucy’ fossil skeleton was discovered in 1974!

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://books.google.com/books?id=g4gkhtRGSLgC&pg=PT131&dq
There is a supremely banal reason why transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level. I can explain it best with an analogy. Children turn gradually and continuously into adults but, for legal purposes, the age of majority is taken to be a particular birthday, often the eighteenth. It would therefore be possible to say, ‘There are 55 million people in Britain but not a single one of them is intermediate between non-voter and voter.’ Just as, for legal purposes, a juvenile changes into a voter as midnight strikes on the eighteenth birthday, so zoologists always insist on classifying a specimen as in one species or another. If a specimen is intermediate in actual form (as many are) zoologists’ legalistic conventions still force them to jump one way or the other when naming it. Therefore the creationists’ claim that there are no intermediates has to be true by definition at the species level, but it has no implications about the real world — only implications about zoologists’ naming conventions. To look no further than our own ancestry, the transition from Australopithecus to Homo habilis to Homo erectus to ‘archaic Homo sapiens’ to ‘modern Homo sapiens’ is so smoothly gradual that fossil experts are continually squabbling about how to classify particular fossils.

quote:

So I believe that something started the universe in the big bang.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
First of all, the universe was created in six days, on the seventh god rested.

quote:

3. Even if there were "missing links" at this point the DNA evidence would render that irrelevant. Any attempt to insert questions into the theory of evolution must address the DNA evidence, failure to do so is a demonstration of ignorance not of legitimate questions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
First of all, the universe was created in six days, on the seventh god rested.

We just went over how that story is garbage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

cant see how lack of proof is proof. dude A or B killed dude C. No evidence dude A did da deed so dats proof dude B did?

"The absence of any evidence for a phenomenon IS evidence for the absence of the phenomenon in cases where we would very much EXPECT there to be evidence for said phenomenon. It may not be absolute disproof of the phenomenon, but absolute disproof is really only the preserve of pure mathematicians and logicians anyway. For pretty much all existence claims in everyday parlance, historical analysis, and most of science it is easily enough to dismiss claims about a phenomenon." SOURCE
There is no evidence that unicorns and fairies have interacted with our species. Are we not free to discount the existence of unicorns and fairies?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
First of all, the universe was created in six days, on the seventh god rested.

We just went over how that story is garbage.

You know, I dont try to convince non believers to change to my belief system, nor do I attack theirs. As I stated earlier, who knows what constitutes a day for a being that can create the universe.

For all I know, God may only be ten days past the start point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
First of all, the universe was created in six days, on the seventh god rested.

We just went over how that story is garbage.

You know, I dont try to convince non believers to change to my belief system, nor do I attack theirs. As I stated earlier, who knows what constitutes a day for a being that can create the universe.

For all I know, God may only be ten days past the start point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Okay, so the writers of Genesis got things out of order.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Master2811
Very good point and I agree. There is no proof regarding evolution. If you find a bone in the dirt all you can say is that a creature lived and died and became a fossil. That is all. If you start to add more you are just speculating. And that is what the evolution theory actually is, pure speculations. A religion for atheists.