Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

The World's First Baby. How'd it survive?

PsychoSkitz

New member
How did the first human age? If it was a baby, wouldn't it have died after a few days? Did monkey's know how to care for the human? Was the human able to survive on insects and fruit that the monkey fed it?

Answers. Anyone?
 
PsychoSkitz said:
How did the first human age? If it was a baby, wouldn't it have died after a few days? Did monkey's know how to care for the human? Was the human able to survive on insects and fruit that the monkey fed it?

Answers. Anyone?
Well the first human baby's parents were gorillas. And they probably suckled it at thos big old saggy ass gorilla titties. Mmm milk does a body good. and then when it became clear this baby didnt like bananas and wasnt going to have a 15 inch dick, they turned it out into the savannah. well the baby (actually he was a man now) did grow pu to have a big dick after all and periodically he would come into the gorilla den and make off with a gorilla wife. sometimes he would eat it for meat, sometimes he would simply have sex with it. well anyway all those babies started popping out of the gorilla kidnappess and thats the story of my family
 
PsychoSkitz said:
How did the first human age? If it was a baby, wouldn't it have died after a few days? Did monkey's know how to care for the human? Was the human able to survive on insects and fruit that the monkey fed it?

Answers. Anyone?


WODIN will be back Monday to tell us how he survived.
 
Dcupasshole

Hey Dcup, im not gay but if you were on your knees I honestly think I could get off by jacking off into your mouth. Of course that feeling would fade fast when I see you begging for more. Good morning asshole, Im sorry to see your still alive.
 
Hey Dcup, im not gay but if you were on your knees I honestly think I could get off by jacking off into your mouth. Of course that feeling would fade fast when I see you begging for more. Good morning asshole, Im sorry to see your still alive.

So much hostility from a Flower Child! It's good to see a Peacenik can stand up and fight for something! As much as I need the protein I will pass up on your offer! May1010 told me you are infertile! I'm not going to throw down some throat yogurt if your boy's dont swim! Now I must go suck some tits for protein!
 
PsychoSkitz said:
How did the first human age? If it was a baby, wouldn't it have died after a few days? Did monkey's know how to care for the human? Was the human able to survive on insects and fruit that the monkey fed it?

Answers. Anyone?

You have misunderstood evolutionary theory. Humans, as all organisms, evolve through many small steps rather than large leaps within one generation. So the offspring would resemble the parents.......it is unlikely that there would be variation of greater extent than that normally seen between parents and a child. Therefore, the parents would know perfectly well how to cope with the baby.
 
What I want to know is are we all related somehow? There had to be an original being that we all decended from, branched off from or whatever. How was a male and a female created simultaneously without reproduction. Then, after the first offspring, they would have to mate with each other to continue the species. We are all inbred it seems. THe shit trips me out.
 
biteme said:
What I want to know is are we all related somehow? There had to be an original being that we all decended from, branched off from or whatever. How was a male and a female created simultaneously without reproduction. Then, after the first offspring, they would have to mate with each other to continue the species. We are all inbred it seems. THe shit trips me out.

We all came from little puddles of goop that emerged zillions of years ago. Different puddles formed different sets of little microscopic organisms that became monkeys a zillion years later and eventually became human. A zillion years from now we will evolve to the point where <what we will be> is to humans as humans are to puddles of goop.

Watch the series finale of Star Trek: TNG for more information. Q breaks it down rather nicely.

-Warik
 
curling said:


You roll your eyes at that but believe you came from a monkey? Dang, have another banana monkeyboy.

If you fail to understand that the theory of evolution is at least plausible then you must have a very closed mind. Why do you object to being related to other species? The usual reason is that people cant accept that they arent anything special...........

And your a person who likes to encourage people to open their minds so that they can have faith in something that there si no evidence for..........isn't that slightly hypocritical?

BTW namecalling is the normal approach of those that fail to understand something but dont want to admit to it. How about you go away and do some reading with an open mind.......you might suprise yourself.
 
Originally posted by I
BTW namecalling is the normal approach of those that fail to understand something but dont want to admit to it. How about you go away and do some reading with an open mind.......you might suprise yourself. [/B]


Dude I was just playing about the monkey boy comment. I wasn't serious and I apologize for saying it in the first place.

I have done some studying on evolution and it just doesn't make sense. There are too many holes in the theory that many credited scientist have found. On the other hand, all the Bible prophesies have never been wrong. So I think you have to have more "faith" so to speak to believe in evolution that you do with supreme being creating everything.

Once again sorry about the name calling.
 
Please elaborate on why the theory of evolution makes no sense. Maybe then I will understand where you are coming from. I too have studied this theory in some detail. I usually find that those that fail to see any significance in the theory have misunderstood something. There are aspects of the theory that we have actually observed so it isnt just a theory.

I wont pretend that the theory is in any kind of finalised form.......scientific theories are always work in progress. However, the theory of evolution is not presented as an alternative to the Bible. The Bible is open to interpretation and can coexist with evolution theory.........unless of course you take it in a literal sense. I have a harder time having faith in such a document because of this need for interpretation........and because there are alternatoves such as the Quran.

Like I said........explain why the theory of evolution is wrong.

curling said:


Dude I was just playing about the monkey boy comment. I wasn't serious and I apologize for saying it in the first place.

I have done some studying on evolution and it just doesn't make sense. There are too many holes in the theory that many credited scientist have found. On the other hand, all the Bible prophesies have never been wrong. So I think you have to have more "faith" so to speak to believe in evolution that you do with supreme being creating everything.

Once again sorry about the name calling.
 
Please elaborate on why the theory of evolution makes no sense. Maybe then I will understand where you are coming from. I too have studied this theory in some detail. I usually find that those that fail to see any significance in the theory have misunderstood something. There are aspects of the theory that we have actually observed so it isnt just a theory.

I wont pretend that the theory is in any kind of finalised form.......scientific theories are always work in progress. However, the theory of evolution is not presented as an alternative to the Bible. The Bible is open to interpretation and can coexist with evolution theory.........unless of course you take it in a literal sense. I have a harder time having faith in such a document because of this need for interpretation........and because there are alternatoves such as the Quran.

Like I said........explain why the theory of evolution is wrong.


curling said:


Dude I was just playing about the monkey boy comment. I wasn't serious and I apologize for saying it in the first place.

I have done some studying on evolution and it just doesn't make sense. There are too many holes in the theory that many credited scientist have found. On the other hand, all the Bible prophesies have never been wrong. So I think you have to have more "faith" so to speak to believe in evolution that you do with supreme being creating everything.

Once again sorry about the name calling.
 
PsychoSkitz said:
How did the first human age? If it was a baby, wouldn't it have died after a few days? Did monkey's know how to care for the human? Was the human able to survive on insects and fruit that the monkey fed it?

Answers. Anyone?


LMAO!!!

Not the sharpest pencil in the box, are we?
 
Re: Re: The World's First Baby. How'd it survive?

Imnotdutch said:


You have misunderstood evolutionary theory. Humans, as all organisms, evolve through many small steps rather than large leaps within one generation. So the offspring would resemble the parents.......it is unlikely that there would be variation of greater extent than that normally seen between parents and a child. Therefore, the parents would know perfectly well how to cope with the baby.

hey stupid. if there were no large leaps, were are the different variation now days? duh!!!! nice try keep workin at your theory. oh yeah, and why are there still apes if human are now the greater species? just some of the apes decided to evolve or what. your theory is a joke, plain and simple.
 
Re: Re: Re: The World's First Baby. How'd it survive?

Ok fuckwitt now just for you...........

Heres variation for you........hair colour, height, athletic ability, IQ. There are thousands of characteristics that give variation in every individual. Some dumbass, before you use big words like variation make sure you know what they mean. Look at the person sat next to you. Are you exactly the same as them? NO! That is called variation and all of those little differences are called characteristics. Characteristics make us into individuals AND are selected against (even at the most basic level some people are generally more attractive than others).

As for the apes.........the current apes are our cousins. Apes are more perfectly adapted to their environments than humans so they live there. Do you actually know anything about evolution and evolutionary trees? Have you bothered to research the theory that you criticise? Go read a book and then come back with a real critique..........

You know what.......if you are the best creationist this site can currently offer then creationism is in a shit state.

I only wish you knew how stupid you just make yourself look :FRlol:

big_bad_buff said:


hey stupid. if there were no large leaps, were are the different variation now days? duh!!!! nice try keep workin at your theory. oh yeah, and why are there still apes if human are now the greater species? just some of the apes decided to evolve or what. your theory is a joke, plain and simple.
 
Re: Re: Re: The World's First Baby. How'd it survive?

big_bad_buff said:


hey stupid. if there were no large leaps, were are the different variation now days? duh!!!! nice try keep workin at your theory. oh yeah, and why are there still apes if human are now the greater species? just some of the apes decided to evolve or what. your theory is a joke, plain and simple.
 
hair color, height, athletic ability, IQ are the variations between man and ape? wow! it is so clear to me now, thanks. so it jumps from apes right to man. I think people who really believe this have mental problems, it's like so painfully obvious that it's not true, but you have like a mental block that prohibits you from seeing this. it's all a joke dude, can't you see that? man, people need to wake up, and stop eating up everything a so called scientist comes up with. yep, there are apes, and man, but nothing between.....I think you need to come up with something better, like maybe aliens took all the veriations between man and ape, and used them for powering there space ships.
 
Last edited:
Who said there was nothing between ape and man? I said that these large leaps dont happen. In between there are several species that have been identified........including Homo species and Australopithecus species. Are you deliberately misunderstanding........??

I gave you examples of variation WITHIN a species as requested. Small variations that can be selected for are the basis for evolution. Thats what I gave.

BTW I notice that you reverted to ridicule as an argument pretty quickly. Thats a typical tactic of somebody who is insecure in what they are criticising. Not unusal for you huh?

Ok so now I'll put the ball in your court.........write a decent critique of the current theory of evolution. Give references.....oh I know you wont. That is chiefly because you dont know shit about this topic but are afraid to admit it. So go ahead.......now make your excuses.

big_bad_buff said:
hair color, height, athletic ability, IQ are the variations between man and ape? wow! it is so clear to me now, thanks. so it jumps from apes right to man. I think people who really believe this have mental problems, it's like so painfully obvious that it's not true, but you have like a mental block that prohibits you from seeing this. it's all a joke dude, can't you see that? man, people need to wake up, and stop eating up everything a so called scientist comes up with. yep, there are apes, and man, but nothing between.....I think you need to come up with something better, like maybe aliens took all the veriations between man and ape, and used them for powering there space ships.
 
skaman607 said:
I want some evolutionists to explain how the peacock evolved

A similar route as any other species evolving I would imagine. How about you explain why it could not evolve with detailed reference to the environment within it evolved to say why it couldnt happen.
 
skaman607 said:
but how would its tail feathers help it survive, even darwin himself could not explain how it evolved

Well in evolution the individual need only survive to reproduce. So you have a competition really. Every individual wants to attract mates and reproduce as quickly and as often as possible. The characteristics need not increase the chances of survival.........just increase the chances of an individual reproducing. The tail attracts mates.........even if it is a hindrance the benefits outweight the negatives.

BTW Darwin is far from the last word in evolution. The theory has moved on (evolved if you like :)) since the original theory was formulated. So even if Darwin could not explain something it isn't a big deal.
 
Imnotdutch said:

insecure in what they are criticising :lmao: i'm sorry my friend, i'm just tired of debating this subject, because you evolutionist are like children. you are so convinced that there is a easter bunny because you have always been told that there was. so now you believe it with all your heart.

You showed variations between humans, you did not show variations between man and ape, because there is no such thing, correct?. what you are stating is not fact what so ever, it is all theory, correct? the evolutionist theory how humans evolved is truly a theory correct? so how can you be so sure about anything your stating when you have no proof, nor will you ever. does this make you mad? knowing that you have no way of proving anything your saying? "THEORY" look it up in the dictionary
 
I would also like to state that this is not evolution VS creation, because both are religions and both take faith to believe. I'm stating that evolution is to far fetched to even be considered.
 
The term variation simply means differences.........this is the true scientific meaning as applied to evolution. So you seem to be implying that apes are exactly the same as man?

Nobody said the THEORY of evolution was anything but THEORY. Nobody!! However, you can see some aspects of it happening in everyday life so it is ridiculous to dismiss it. Yes it is a theory. Your whole perception of the world is a theory that is built up in your head since the day you were born........do you dismiss that too?

Also, please note that at no point have I said that the theory of evolution in any way contradicts the Bible or for example the Quran. This simply isn't the case. There is no big dilemma.

Now you ridicule me for subscribing to a theory. Heres your theory........this book of mixed origins and written in a highly questionable way that is open to interpretation tells you everything........YOUR theory is that the book holds true. That God exists........go ahead.........prove it. Oh you cant. So all that bullshit that you just wrote about theories is crap too :) you only have a THEORY that God exists.........whereas I openly admit that I have no idea one way or the other.......and it does not affect whether I believe in evolution or not.

Now I put it to you that you wont attempt to write a decent critique of the theory of evolution because you know you dont have a leg to stand on. If it is so ridiculous you should be able to disprove it........LETS SEE YOU DO IT. Oh yeah........you cant. The conclusion, it isnt as bad as you liek to make out.

Oh one more thing..........if you think this is a debate you are mistaken. Debates involve open minds........you dont have one. Therefore this is not a debate.


big_bad_buff said:


insecure in what they are criticising :lmao: i'm sorry my friend, i'm just tired of debating this subject, because you evolutionist are like children. you are so convinced that there is a easter bunny because you have always been told that there was. so now you believe it with all your heart.

You showed variations between humans, you did not show variations between man and ape, because there is no such thing, correct?. what you are stating is not fact what so ever, it is all theory, correct? the evolutionist theory how humans evolved is truly a theory correct? so how can you be so sure about anything your stating when you have no proof, nor will you ever. does this make you mad? knowing that you have no way of proving anything your saying? "THEORY" look it up in the dictionary
 
were did I say in this post anything about me believing creation? how do you know what I believe? do you think that I believe creation simply because I don't believe evolution? again your making this into a creation vs evolution. I do believe evolution has happened, and continues to on a daily basis. how can anyone argue this. but saying we evolved from apes is a whole other story. you asked me to critique your theory. I do not know your personal theory, therefore I cannot critique it. it seems like every single one of you have a different view on this, making sure not to state your theory very clearly so know one truly knows what you believe. so until you state your case, i cannot do so. and I do not wish to fall into your little guessing game i know you guess love to play, avoiding the truth at every cause.

My point is every evolutionist/atheist is not 100% sure. and I personally have know 3 of the strongest evolutionist/atheist who have turned there back on this theory because they know it is BS after researching it for years.
I know for a fact you yourself are not 100% sure about your theory, so therefore you should not makes such assumptions as you have.
 
Imnotdutch said:


Well in evolution the individual need only survive to reproduce. So you have a competition really. Every individual wants to attract mates and reproduce as quickly and as often as possible. The characteristics need not increase the chances of survival.........just increase the chances of an individual reproducing. The tail attracts mates.........even if it is a hindrance the benefits outweight the negatives.


But I would think the tail would cause it to be more likely killed before it mated.
 
No one knows shit about this. Anyone trying to answer this question is being intellectually dishonest. No one can prove Darwin's theory or evolution and no one can prove the existence of God. Try to prove either theory and you will fall short. I for one, have faith that God exists. Others might have faith that evolutoion happened.
 
muscle_geek said:
No one knows shit about this. Anyone trying to answer this question is being intellectually dishonest. No one can prove Darwin's theory or evolution and no one can prove the existence of God. Try to prove either theory and you will fall short. I for one, have faith that God exists. Others might have faith that evolutoion happened.


Are you a guidance counselor somewhere?
 
Really? Says who? How do you know that the benefits dont outweigh the risks?

You stated that you thought that a peacock could not evolve (I'm ad libbing a bit). So you must have strong evidence saying that the benefits (attracting mates) dont outweigh the risks (increased risk of precation). Right?


skaman607 said:



But I would think the tail would cause it to be more likely killed before it mated.
 
I'm not saying absolutely, it just seems like that to me. It just seems like it is an exception to the "survival of the fittest" rule, because I feel that the feathers would be a hindrance, but I'm no scientist, so I can't really back that up
 
muscle_geek said:
No one knows shit about this. Anyone trying to answer this question is being intellectually dishonest. No one can prove Darwin's theory or evolution and no one can prove the existence of God. Try to prove either theory and you will fall short. I for one, have faith that God exists. Others might have faith that evolutoion happened.

Muscle_geek........altohugh I am quoting you, this is not directed directly at you in particular...........

Your point is well made. However, I think you are implying that there is no evidence for evolution. There is. The theory of evolution has been devised following many careful observations. Micro-evolution can be seen happening within a lifetime. Selective breeding can be used to show that characteristics can be selected for (artificially in this case). Bottom line is there is evidence for this theory. It is not as concrete a theory as many would like to think.......but it does have a good foundation.

Science is about formulating an understanding of how the world works and how it came to be. However, this understanding must be built on observations.......fairy tales dont exist in science. The point of science is always to seek to DISPROVE its own theories using careful observation. Thats right, I said science seeks to DISPROVE itas own theories. This has not happened yet. Nobody from any field has been able to put up a strong argument that disproves the theory of evolution........all of BBB's arguments have been shown to be failing many times.

So, where does that leave us. Well, the Theory of Evolution is our best attempt to date to understand how life on Earth has changed..........using TESTABLE CAREFUL OBSERVATIONS.

Ok so you might scoff at this........perhaps not (some would). But understand this........science works in the same way that the human mind works. Throughout your life you seek to understand the world and you build up a framework of how it works. These same methods were used to deduce that God exists or does not exist. So if you say God exists, all you are doing is building a theory........the same as we do when formulating scientific theories. However, science uses TESTABLE observations and indeed it tests extensively. I dont believe the existence of God has been tested at all.

I fail to see where the TESTABLE evidence for the existence of God is.........but that is a separate issue anyway (as I previously stated).
 
skaman607 said:
I'm not saying absolutely, it just seems like that to me. It just seems like it is an exception to the "survival of the fittest" rule, because I feel that the feathers would be a hindrance, but I'm no scientist, so I can't really back that up

I totally agree that the feathers could hinder survival. However, the key question is whether the peacock with long bright tail feathers will produce more off-spring than the one with shorter duller tail feathers before it dies.

I hope I didnt come over as too harsh in the last post..........you made an interesting point.
 
big_bad_buff said:
this is my point

Really?

Can I point something out? You believe in the theory that God exists? Yet you cant even consider the theory of evolution?

Isn't that extremely hypocritical?
 
The dutchmiester was quite right about the bird. The feathers sole purpose on the peacock is to impress the female and increase its chances of sexual plumage, hence genetic passing. That is the meaning of life after all, reproduction. Even though it's a hindrance to the animal, in the location they evolved there was obviously not that high an amount of natural predators so it survived.

The bright colors and long tail indicate a good genetic stock in that bird, and hundreds of other animals use similar tactics like; song, dance, coloration, physical appearance and pheromones. Fitness, by definition is the potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection. The expressed phenotype of big peacock feathers could very well indicate a more favorable genotype for that species.
 
Imnotdutch said:

think you are implying that there is no evidence for evolution. There is. The theory of evolution has been devised following many careful observations. Micro-evolution can be seen happening within a lifetime. Selective breeding can be used to show that characteristics can be selected for (artificially in this case). Bottom line is there is evidence for this theory. It is not as concrete a theory as many would like to think.......but it does have a good foundation.


none of this implies that apes + time=man. in fact nothing you have said so far has anything to do with how man came about, not one word of it. we all know what science is, does etc, but you have yet to state your theory of how man came to exist, and nothing you have said so far backs anything to do with the theory of man coming from apes, your simply avoiding the question because you know there is no scientific fact that backs this. the points your trying to make that there is truth to science, and evolution is true, but this has nothing to do with the topic. so quite trying to impress people with your scientific studies that don't apply here. because all that you have said do not back this theory, nor can they in any way, shape, or form. no there is no evidence for this theory, if there was, I don't think there would a christian left on planet earth.
 
You are deliberately being thick right? The theory of evolution does nothing to contradict the Bible or the existence of God. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The two are not linked at all. That shows me that you know nothing of this theory........if you understood it, you would know that there is no link.

As for the rest, here you go.........the theory of evolution and how it applies to man is the same as for any other species........we are nothing special. We have a sequence of humanoid forms that show small changes between them........you want me to put the list on here to show you? THAT IS EVIDENCE!!!! Evidence for theory in general is plentiful. I suppose you think us humans are so special that we cant be linked to other species. If so, get a life........YOU ARE NOT SPECIAL (despite what your mom might have told you).

If you want the mechanism of evolution just say so.........you can read that in any science text. So to say that a scientific theory does not exist is bullshit. If you want a special theory that only applies to humans and apes........forget it. That theory does not exist.

Sometimes I think that you are deliberately being a dumbass........your comments concerning evolution are just plain naive and smack of ignorance concerningt he theory. How can you criticise somethnig that you clearly know nothing about? I have seen some good criticisms of evolutionary theory.........but your comments are just plain ignorant.

big_bad_buff said:


none of this implies that apes + time=man. in fact nothing you have said so far has anything to do with how man came about, not one word of it. we all know what science is, does etc, but you have yet to state your theory of how man came to exist, and nothing you have said so far backs anything to do with the theory of man coming from apes, your simply avoiding the question because you know there is no scientific fact that backs this. the points your trying to make that there is truth to science, and evolution is true, but this has nothing to do with the topic. so quite trying to impress people with your scientific studies that don't apply here. because all that you have said do not back this theory, nor can they in any way, shape, or form. no there is no evidence for this theory, if there was, I don't think there would a christian left on planet earth.
 
As to the peacock,they have wings which they'll use and those feathers pluck out pretty easily.

I used to get in these debates quite often but it really was pointless as when any kind of faith is involved (and it's there on both sides).

Some think monkey=man,it didn't happen like that nor IMO God went POOF!!!!.

There are many examples of animals that are almost unchanged from the fossil records White sharks are almost identicle to megladon,the Crocidilians,tuatara,many tortises.
Why didn't they change? they didn't have to they were successful in their niche.

Reptiles show evolution more than any other fauna on the earth,Boids(Boas and pythons have little claws by their ass,if you look on an x-ray it is connected to a bone that is clearly a rudimentary leg bone.They are considered primitive snakes.
Then you have the more advanced,pit vipers with folding fangs and heat detection pits in their head.

Their both snakes,why the variation?

Mad
 
Some good points...........

Why the variation in snakes? Why not? Many animals have heat sensitives nerves in their skin........pit vipers just took it a step further and put a high concentration in one place to enable them to make good use of them.

Asking 'why the variation?' is a strange question for me. Variation arises every timean organism reproduces........but asking why a particular line originally arose is impossible to answer.

Mad4Iron said:
As to the peacock,they have wings which they'll use and those feathers pluck out pretty easily.

I used to get in these debates quite often but it really was pointless as when any kind of faith is involved (and it's there on both sides).

Some think monkey=man,it didn't happen like that nor IMO God went POOF!!!!.

There are many examples of animals that are almost unchanged from the fossil records White sharks are almost identicle to megladon,the Crocidilians,tuatara,many tortises.
Why didn't they change? they didn't have to they were successful in their niche.

Reptiles show evolution more than any other fauna on the earth,Boids(Boas and pythons have little claws by their ass,if you look on an x-ray it is connected to a bone that is clearly a rudimentary leg bone.They are considered primitive snakes.
Then you have the more advanced,pit vipers with folding fangs and heat detection pits in their head.

Their both snakes,why the variation?

Mad
 
As i see it, you have micro-evolution that can be observed, you have fossils that show macro evolution, for example how birds came up and you have a lot of species that had the same ancestors but adopted to their habitat.
Like animals that are larger in colder areas.
Or have bigger ears in desert.
All these obversations indicate evolution.

What do you have that indicates creation in seven days?
I don´t know anything.
 
My term "Variation" was really for the Creationist as the variation just didn't happen,they evolved to that point.

Sorry to belabor the snake deal but it's something I know a bit about and it is applicable to the "conversation".

Venomous snakes,rear fanged=rear fixed fangs highly toxic venom but a weak deliverly system.
Fixed front fanged,cobras,small fangs fixed variable toxicity a step up from the rear fangs.
and the front folders,vipers, rattlesnakes.Varible venom depending on prey and an awesome delivery system.

And the $20 question,why did the less efficent survive when the others evolved?
Evolution is not a matter of 1+2+3,it is a tree branching out with many factors effecting the outcome.Some species died out,others lived.

Mad
 
Mad4Iron,

I dont think you are labouring the issue........you make some interesting points.

Your key questions seems to be, why did the less well equipped (with fangs) survive. Well the whole organism is selected for rather than individual traits. I wonder whether the new fangs would be such a large advantage......or indeed they are a huge advantage at all. I'm ducking the question really because we cant be sure of the answer.........but it is certainly a very good question.


Mad4Iron said:
My term "Variation" was really for the Creationist as the variation just didn't happen,they evolved to that point.

Sorry to belabor the snake deal but it's something I know a bit about and it is applicable to the "conversation".

Venomous snakes,rear fanged=rear fixed fangs highly toxic venom but a weak deliverly system.
Fixed front fanged,cobras,small fangs fixed variable toxicity a step up from the rear fangs.
and the front folders,vipers, rattlesnakes.Varible venom depending on prey and an awesome delivery system.

And the $20 question,why did the less efficent survive when the others evolved?
Evolution is not a matter of 1+2+3,it is a tree branching out with many factors effecting the outcome.Some species died out,others lived.

Mad
 
Why I tend to avoid these things,yeah right;)

Don't make a fuck a difference as aint noone is gonna prove the other wrong.

Mad
 
Norman Bates said:
As i see it, you have micro-evolution that can be observed, you have fossils that show macro evolution, for example how birds came up and you have a lot of species that had the same ancestors but adopted to their habitat.
Like animals that are larger in colder areas.
Or have bigger ears in desert.
All these obversations indicate evolution.

What do you have that indicates creation in seven days?
I don´t know anything.

I'm glad that somebody gets it........:)
 
Imnotdutch said:


I'm glad that somebody gets it........:)



I don't know jack shit either way. I was raised in the church, and went throughout my childhood. But for some reason, it didn't make sense to me. When you question religion, or God, or creation, and the religion can not provide an answer, the response is "You must have faith."

So for them, when a question cannot be answered, they let me know that we were not meant to understand everything, because we can't comprehend it with our physical brain, and to "have faith".

I'm not sure how someone can convince me that an invisible man that lives in the sky loves me more than I can ever comprehend, yet lets millions of his children suffer, because it's "their test".

I'm a father of 3. I love my children more than anything. More than I could ever explain. And I'm sure as shit not going to ask my children to praise me, and sing to me, and kneel before me. And I'm sure as shit not going to sit on my ass if someone is busting my kid up with a baseball bat, because "it's his test".

I know, I know... I don't know a damn thing about religion. Nor do I care to.

Do I believe in God?

Yeah... IMO there HAS to be SOMETHING there...

However, I absolutely cannot denounce entirely the theory of evolution. It wasn't just one day ape, next day WHAM! human. You're talking slight changes over a MILLION + years. THAT'S how it adapted.

If religious people are so against evolution, why aren't there still dinosaurs around? Because God put them here for shits and giggles, then killed them all, and then made some of the animals that are still on Earth today, JUST LIKE the ones that were here before man?

To absolutely denounce one theory or the other is close-minded. I don't accept all factors of both... and truly believe that they are somehow weaved together.
 
I love the God's plan deal.

Susie was raped and murdered at 6 yrs old,shit it was God's plan.

I want to have a talk with God as his plans fucked.

Mad
 
Alot of people like to think that you can not believe in GOd and the Theory of Evolution. This is totally wrong. Evolution does not say anything about whether or not God exists.........it only tells us about how organisms change. Problem is people like to stir up trouble and religion is a good way of doing it........or they like to take their ideas too far.

I am yet to decide whether I believe in God or not. It is reasonable if people want to have faith in his existence. There are many people that seek to find common ground between science and religion.........you are in good company.

Big Brother Val said:




I don't know jack shit either way. I was raised in the church, and went throughout my childhood. But for some reason, it didn't make sense to me. When you question religion, or God, or creation, and the religion can not provide an answer, the response is "You must have faith."

So for them, when a question cannot be answered, they let me know that we were not meant to understand everything, because we can't comprehend it with our physical brain, and to "have faith".

I'm not sure how someone can convince me that an invisible man that lives in the sky loves me more than I can ever comprehend, yet lets millions of his children suffer, because it's "their test".

I'm a father of 3. I love my children more than anything. More than I could ever explain. And I'm sure as shit not going to ask my children to praise me, and sing to me, and kneel before me. And I'm sure as shit not going to sit on my ass if someone is busting my kid up with a baseball bat, because "it's his test".

I know, I know... I don't know a damn thing about religion. Nor do I care to.

Do I believe in God?

Yeah... IMO there HAS to be SOMETHING there...

However, I absolutely cannot denounce entirely the theory of evolution. It wasn't just one day ape, next day WHAM! human. You're talking slight changes over a MILLION + years. THAT'S how it adapted.

If religious people are so against evolution, why aren't there still dinosaurs around? Because God put them here for shits and giggles, then killed them all, and then made some of the animals that are still on Earth today, JUST LIKE the ones that were here before man?

To absolutely denounce one theory or the other is close-minded. I don't accept all factors of both... and truly believe that they are somehow weaved together.
 
Imnotdutch said:
Alot of people like to think that you can not believe in GOd and the Theory of Evolution. This is totally wrong. Evolution does not say anything about whether or not God exists.........it only tells us about how organisms change. Problem is people like to stir up trouble and religion is a good way of doing it........or they like to take their ideas too far.

I am yet to decide whether I believe in God or not. It is reasonable if people want to have faith in his existence. There are many people that seek to find common ground between science and religion.........you are in good company.



I think religion is great for people who believe. It gives them hope, happiness, and something to look forward to after death. That's all good and dandy... but I have a hard time thinking that God would demand we all believe in him because of a book that was written 2 thousand years ago that could be translated into so many different things, and yet give us so many reasons not to believe.

There are too many similarities between man and ape. Actual physical characteristics. A snake is built like another breed of snake, right? A bird is similar to another species of bird, correct? And we all accept that they are birds... just different.

We have just as many similarites with ape... and yet no one can accept the fact that we just MIGHT be related SOMEHOW?

I believe THAT is where "thick-headed" comes into play. If birds that are different can still be birds... what would you call the relationship of man to ape?

Totally unrelated?

I'd like to hear an explanation on that.
 
Forgive me as I don't remember how many pieces of DNA separate us from a Chimpanzee,I think it's like 2 out of the millions.

Sounds like a plan Eh?

Mad
 
Mad4Iron said:
Forgive me as I don't remember how many pieces of DNA separate us from a Chimpanzee,I think it's like 2 out of the millions.

Sounds like a plan Eh?

Mad



As far as I understand, we're closer to apes than some frogs are to other species of frogs, or something like that. Yet, everyone from evolutionists, to religious people ACCEPT the fact that a FROG is a FROG... even though they're a bit different... some poisonous, others not, some small some HUGE...
 
I wont insult ya by saying your wrong but "frog" is meaningless to science.

Bufo,Rana,ect are different genus of amphibians.The difference is huge as Chimps and say Oranguatauns.
Scientific classifcation get ridiculus as alot has to do with getting your name on a species.

Mad
 
Mad4Iron said:
I wont insult ya by saying your wrong but "frog" is meaningless to science.

Bufo,Rana,ect are different genus of amphibians.The difference is huge as Chimps and say Oranguatauns.
Scientific classifcation get ridiculus as alot has to do with getting your name on a species.

Mad


Aha. As I said before, I have NO CLUE what I'm really talking about.

But I think you get my point.
 
You are the stupidest person I have ever had a conversation with in my life, and i don't say this because I think you got me, or taught me a lesson, I say it because I honestly believe you are stupid.



Imnotdutch said:
You are deliberately being thick right? The theory of evolution does nothing to contradict the Bible or the existence of God. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The two are not linked at all. That shows me that you know nothing of this theory........if you understood it, you would know that there is no link.

As for the rest, here you go.........the theory of evolution and how it applies to man is the same as for any other species........we are nothing special. We have a sequence of humanoid forms that show small changes between them........you want me to put the list on here to show you? THAT IS EVIDENCE!!!! Evidence for theory in general is plentiful. I suppose you think us humans are so special that we cant be linked to other species. If so, get a life........YOU ARE NOT SPECIAL (despite what your mom might have told you).

If you want the mechanism of evolution just say so.........you can read that in any science text. So to say that a scientific theory does not exist is bullshit. If you want a special theory that only applies to humans and apes........forget it. That theory does not exist.

Sometimes I think that you are deliberately being a dumbass........your comments concerning evolution are just plain naive and smack of ignorance concerningt he theory. How can you criticise somethnig that you clearly know nothing about? I have seen some good criticisms of evolutionary theory.........but your comments are just plain ignorant.

 
big_bad_buff said:
You are the stupidest person I have ever had a conversation with in my life, and i don't say this because I think you got me, or taught me a lesson, I say it because I honestly believe you are stupid.






Please visit my Noah's Ark thread. I could use your input there.
 
big_bad_buff said:
You are the stupidest person I have ever had a conversation with in my life, and i don't say this because I think you got me, or taught me a lesson, I say it because I honestly believe you are stupid.

Don't be a sore loser sport, nobody wins them all.

No offence, but from where I stand, he is the one whom answered all of your questions. Very well in fact, with explanations and various proofs, keeping an open mind the entire time and even guiding you though like a two year old. You on the other hand couldn't explain zilch because your arguement has no solid facts, hence you could only try to poke holes in his theory which had actual quantitative merit. For someone who himself believes in something with no evidence, you calling him stupid is like a autistic kid calling someone a retard.
 
KnoXville said:


Don't be a sore loser sport, nobody wins them all.

No offence, but from where I stand, he is the one whom answered all of your questions. Very well in fact, with explanations and various proofs, keeping an open mind the entire time and even guiding you though like a two year old. You on the other hand couldn't explain zilch because your arguement has no solid facts, hence you could only try to poke holes in his theory which had actual quantitative merit. For someone who himself believes in something with no evidence, you calling someone stupid is like a autistic kid calling someone a retard.



Shhhhhhhhh!

I want him to go to my Noah thread. I really want someone's opinion on that. If you haven't noticed, not one person who believes in it has posted in it's defense yet.
 
Mad4Iron said:
a fucking big boat with animals?

Come on Bud,how'd you do with the tooth fairy?

Mad



Hey... the tooth fairy is REAL.

Haven't you read the book about her?

After all, if they wrote a book about her, she has to be real, right?
 
Fucker,ya got me.

That fucking bitch owes me like 60 bucks for a impacted wisdom tooth when I was 18.

And no discount for grabbing the nurses tits when I was "Woosy".

Mad
 
KnoXville said:


Don't be a sore loser sport, nobody wins them all.

No offence, but from where I stand, he is the one whom answered all of your questions. Very well in fact, with explanations and various proofs, keeping an open mind the entire time and even guiding you though like a two year old. You on the other hand couldn't explain zilch because your arguement has no solid facts, hence you could only try to poke holes in his theory which had actual quantitative merit. For someone who himself believes in something with no evidence, you calling him stupid is like a autistic kid calling someone a retard.

not once did he state a fact, not once. he said a bunch of other garbage that doesn't mean anything at all.
 
big_bad_buff said:

not once did he state a fact, not once. he said a bunch of other garbage that doesn't mean anything at all.

This 'garbage' seems to mean more than you can comprehend. Battling what Dutch had explained, you could go to the highest cerebral establishments in the world and preach your theory of religion, but when it comes time to present the facts I think your the one that will come up empty handed.

Grabbed a couple quotes, which one of these are not fact?

Originally posted by Dutch


Offspring tend to resemble the parents
Some people can't accept that they arent anything special
Heres variation for you........hair colour, height, athletic ability, IQ
Characteristics make us into individuals AND are selected against
Every animal wants to attract mates and reproduce as quickly and as often as possible.
The tail attracts mates.........even if it is a hindrance the benefits outweight the negatives.
Darwin is far from the last word in evolution
Micro-evolution can be seen happening within a lifetime.
Variation arises every timean organism reproduces
 
KnoXville said:


This 'garbage' seems to mean more than you can comprehend. Battling what Dutch had explained, you could go to the highest cerebral establishments in the world and preach your theory of religion, but when it comes time to present the facts I think your the one that will come up empty handed.

Grabbed a couple quotes, which one of these are not fact?


Thanks for the support Knoxville...........

I have been through this with BBB before. When he cant answer something he resorts to name calling.........but its all good. BBB is just one the sad cases that cant believe that there isnt a great war between religion and science.
 
Oh I am so offended.........no really I am. I bet you cant explain whilst I'm stupid, can you? You couldnt explain anything else so why would you be able to explain this.....



big_bad_buff said:
You are the stupidest person I have ever had a conversation with in my life, and i don't say this because I think you got me, or taught me a lesson, I say it because I honestly believe you are stupid.
 
it takes only ONE fact to prove the earth is young.


Universe Is Not "Billions of Years" Old
The general theory of evolution is based on several faulty assumptions. (Note: It is important to understand by this statement that we are not disputing simple variations that some call "microevolution," whose micro-changes are often observed but never lead to a fundamentally different kind of plant or animal.) The following assumptions of evolutionary theory are easy to prove false:

1. the universe is billions of years old,

2. life spontaneously arose from nonliving minerals,

3. mutations create or improve a species,

4. natural selection has creative power.

In this section we will deal with the first of these assumptions. The others will be dealt with elsewhere. If, in fact, it could be demonstrated that the universe is not billions of years old, all other arguments about evolution become meaningless and unnecessary.

In children’s fairy tales, we are told:
frog + magic spell (usually a kiss) = prince

In modern "science" textbooks we are told:
frog + time = prince

The same basic fairy tale (evolution) is being promoted in textbooks today, but the new magic potion cited is time. When the theory of evolution is discussed, time is the panacea for all the thousands of problems that arise.

In nearly all discussions and debates about evolution that I have held at universities and colleges, I ask the evolutionists how certain things could have evolved by chance. Their answer is nearly always "Given enough time..." Time is the evolutionists’ god. Time is able to accomplish anything the evolutionists can propose. Time can easily turn a frog into a prince. Time can create matter from nothing and life from matter. According to evolutionists, time can create order from chaos.

But let’s remove time from the above equation. There would be the following three results:

1. Evolution becomes obviously impossible.

2. Evolutionists will scream like a baby whose pacifier has been pulled out because they know that if time is removed, their religion (evolution is religion, not science) is silly.

3. Creation becomes the only reasonable alternative explanation for the existence of this complex universe.

Let’s imagine we are exploring an old gold mine, and we find a Casio Databank watch half buried in the mud on the floor of the mine. Suppose also that the correct time and date are displayed on the watch and it is still running smoothly. Then imagine that I tell you the watch has been there for over one thousand years.

"That’s impossible!" you say. "That watch could not have been there for a thousand years, and I can prove it!"

"How can you prove I’m wrong?" I say.

"Well, for one thing, this mine was just dug 150 years ago," you say.

"Okay," I admit, "you’re right about the thousand years being too much, but the watch has been here for 150 years at least!"

"No!" you say. "Casio didn’t make the Databank watch until twelve years ago."

"All right," I say. "The watch was dropped here twelve years ago then."

"Impossible!" you say. "The batteries only last five years on that watch, and it’s still running. That proves it has been here less than five years."

While we still can’t prove exactly when the watch was left there, you have logically limited the date to five years at the most. You have effectively proven that my initial statement about the watch being 1000 years old is wrong. The larger numbers prove nothing in this debate. Even if I were to radiometric-date the mud or the plastic in the watch to try to prove that it is thousands of years old, my data would be meaningless. The same logic can be applied to finding the age of the earth. If several factors limit the age of the earth to a few thousand years, the earth cannot be older than a few thousand years! Even if a few indicators seem to show a greater age for the earth, it takes only ONE fact to prove the earth is young.

The Bible teaches that: God created the universe approximately 6000 years ago, ex nihilo (out of nothing) in six literal, twenty-four hour days. Then, approximately 4400 years ago, the earth was destroyed by a worldwide Flood. This devastating, year-long Flood was responsible for the sediment layers being deposited (the water was going and returning, Gen. 8:3-5). As the mountains rose and the ocean basins sank after the Flood (Psalm 104:5-8, Gen. 8:1), the waters rushed off the rising mountains into the new ocean basins. This rapid-erosion through still-soft, unprotected sediments formed the topography we still see today, in places like the Grand Canyon. The uniformitarian assumption—that today’s slow erosion rates that take place through solid rock are the same as has always been—is faulty logic, and ignores catastrophes like the Flood. (2 Pet. 3:3-8 says that the scoffers are "willingly ignorant" of the Flood.)

Listed below are some of the factors from various branches of science that limit the age of the universe (including earth) to within the last few thousand years. Though it cannot be scientifically proven exactly when the universe was created, its age can be shown to not be billions of years old. Each of the following evidences of a young earth is described in great detail in the books referenced below. Source number and page number are given for the following statements (at the bottom of this page):

Evidence from Space

The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive. (1, p. 169; 2, p. 30; 4, pp. 56-63; 5, p. 26; 6, p. 43

The 0.5 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. (2, p. 26; 3, p. 22; 4, p. 15; 6, p. 35; 7; 9, p. 25) *Insufficient evidence to be positive (almost all estimates before the lunar landing anticipated great quantities of dust.)

"I get a picture therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice, level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first, and sinking majestically out of sight." -- Isaac Asimov, Science Digest, January, 1959, p 36

Lyttleton felt that the X-rays and UV light striking exposed moon rocks "could, during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep." -- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, vol. 115, pp. 585-604

The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old. (2, p. 31; 3, p. 27; 4, p. 35; 6, p. 37; 7)

Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks. (4, p. 26)

The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents. (3, p. 25; 6, p. 43; 7)

The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old. (8, p. 177; see also 4, p. 51, for information on rock "flow")

The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young. (3, p. 29; 6, p.44)

At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years. (3, p. 29; 4, pp. 30 and 59; 6, p. 44)

Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old. (4, p. 45)

Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old. (5, p. 26; 4, p. 43; Jupiter’s moon, Io, is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old. (4, p. 3)

Among other factors to consider is that all the ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star—today it is a white dwarf star. Since today’s textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied.

Evidence from Earth

The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions. (1, p. 157; 2, p. 27; 3, p. 20; 5, p. 23; 6, p. 42; 9, p. 25; 10, p. 38)

The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while "the fountains of the deep were broken up," most of the earth’s lava was deposited rapidly. (1, p. 156)

Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation. (1, p. 153; 5, p. 24; 6, p. 42)

The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium which would reduce the age more.) (1, p. 151; 6, p. 42; 9, p. 25)

The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils. (2, p. 31; 6, p 38; American Science Vol 56 p 356-374)

Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation. (6, p. 38)

Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.) (6, p. 39; 7)

The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years. (2, p. 32; 3, p. 24; 5, p. 24; 6, p. 37; 7)

The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah’s day could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.) (3, p. 23; 6, p. 38; 7)

The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution. (3, p. 25; 7)

A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution. (1, p. 155; 6, p. 28; 7)

The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have easily formed in about 4400 years. (5, p. 27; 6, p. 39; 7)

The Sahara desert is expanding. It easily could have been formed in a few thousand years. See any earth science textbook.

The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now. (7; 9, p. 26; 10, p. 37)

Ice cores at the south pole and Greenland have a maximum depth of 10-14,000 feet. The aircraft that crash-landed in Greenland in 1942 and excavated in 1990 were under 263 feet of ice after only 48 years. This indicates all of the ice could have accumulated in 4400 years. (7)

Evidence from Biology

The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years. (1, p. 167; 3, p. 27; 6, p. 41; 7)

The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old. (6, p. 39; 7)

The oldest living tree in the world is about 4300 years old. (6, p. 40; 7)

Another factor to consider: The genetic load in man is increasing. Geneticists have cataloged nearly 1300 genetic disorders in the human race. It is certainly reasonable to believe that the human race was created perfect from the hand of the Creator but has been going downhill as a result of our disobedience to the laws established by the Creator and the increased radiation from the sun. The Bible teaches that we live in a sin-cursed world as a result of Adam’s sin.

Evidence from History

The oldest known historical records are less than 6000 years old. (1, p. 160)

Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide Flood. Nearly 300 of these Flood legends are now known.

Biblical dates add up to about 6000 years.

The following Bible verses tell when "the beginning" was:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Gen. 1:1)
Moses because of the hardness of your hearts permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Mt. 19:8)
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Mk. 10:6)
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. (Jn. 1:1)
That which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our eyes and our hands have handled, of the Word of life. (1 Jn. 1:1)
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. (1 Jn. 3:8)
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time. (Mt. 24:21)
Ye are of your father the devil.... He was a murderer from the beginning. (Jn. 8:44)
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel. (Lk. 11:50, 51)
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth. (Heb. 1:10)
For in six days the Lord made heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is. (Ex. 20:11)
Since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (2 Pet. 3:4)
The works were finished from the foundation of the world. For God did rest the seventh day from all his works. (Heb. 4:3, 4)
For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created to this time. (Mk. 13:19)
Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? Have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? (Is. 40:21)
Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the Lord am he. (Is. 41:4)
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? (Mt. 19:4)
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. (Ro. 1:20)
Those who believe the earth is billions of years old will typically try to discredit one or two of these evidences and then mistakenly think that they have successfully proven the entire list wrong. This is not logical, of course. Each evidence stands independently: it only takes one to prove the earth is young. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists if they expect all taxpayers to fund the teaching of their religion in the school system. Many who believe in evolution are great at "straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel" (Mt. 23:24).

Evolutionists love to assume uniformitarian processes. Many of the preceding evidences follow the same logic evolutionists use all the time in dealing with carbon dating, strata formation, genetic drift, etc.

It is interesting to read the ramblings of nay-sayers like Scott, Matson, Babinski, etc. as they try to answer theses evidences for a young universe. See how many times they use words like: we believe, perhaps, could have, there is some reason to believe, etc. Evolutionists may need billions of years to make people believe a rock can turn into a rocket scientist, but that time just isn’t available.

Sources


Morris, Henry M. Scientific Creationism. El Cajon, Calif.: Master Books, April 1985.

McLean, G. S.; McLean, Larry; Oakland, Roger. The Bible Key to Understanding the Early Earth. Oklahoma City, Okla.: Southwest Radio Church, 1987.

Huse, Scott M. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1983.

Ackerman, Paul D. It’s a Young World After All. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1986.

Blick, Edward F. A Scientific Analysis of Genesis. Oklahoma City, Okla.: Hearthstone Publ. Ltd., 1991.

Petersen, Dennis R. Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation. South Lake Tahoe, Calif.: Christian Equippers International, 1987.

Hovind, Kent E. Creation Seminar, Parts 1-7 (most items referenced onscreen—available from Creation Science Evangelism, 29 Cummings Road, Pensacola, Fla. 32503).

Wysong, R. L. The Creation-Evolution Controversy. Midland, Mich.: Inquiry Press, 1976.

Baker, Sylvia. Bone of Contention. Creation Science Foundation Ltd., Sunnybank, Queensland 4109 Australia: 1990.

Moore, John N. Questions and Answers on Creation-Evolution. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1977.

Brown, Walt. In the Beginning--available from CSE ($20.50)
 
Last edited:
it takes only ONE fact to prove the earth is young.

//Even if a billion proof the world is old? It is the balance that is important (BTW a billion is just an exaggeration).


Universe Is Not "Billions of Years" Old
The general theory of evolution is based on several faulty assumptions. (Note: It is important to understand by this statement that we are not disputing simple variations that some call "microevolution," whose micro-changes are often observed but never lead to a fundamentally different kind of plant or animal.) The following assumptions of evolutionary theory are easy to prove false:

1. the universe is billions of years old,

2. life spontaneously arose from nonliving minerals,

3. mutations create or improve a species,

//Actually mutatyions are not necessarily involved. This is only the Dawkins point of view........he is in a minority amongst evolutionists.

4. natural selection has creative power.

//Natural selection has SELECTIVE power. It does not create new things.

In this section we will deal with the first of these assumptions. The others will be dealt with elsewhere. If, in fact, it could be demonstrated that the universe is not billions of years old, all other arguments about evolution become meaningless and unnecessary.

//This idea has been addressed many times. Each time soembody posts saying the world is tohusands of years old their science is ripped apart and shown to be false.........but anyway I'll read this seeing as I'm interested.

In children’s fairy tales, we are told:
frog + magic spell (usually a kiss) = prince

In modern "science" textbooks we are told:
frog + time = prince

//Different branch of the evolutionary tree so this isn't the case.

The same basic fairy tale (evolution) is being promoted in textbooks today, but the new magic potion cited is time. When the theory of evolution is discussed, time is the panacea for all the thousands of problems that arise.

//Time is important.

In nearly all discussions and debates about evolution that I have held at universities and colleges, I ask the evolutionists how certain things could have evolved by chance. Their answer is nearly always "Given enough time..." Time is the evolutionists’ god. Time is able to accomplish anything the evolutionists can propose. Time can easily turn a frog into a prince. Time can create matter from nothing and life from matter. According to evolutionists, time can create order from chaos.

But let’s remove time from the above equation. There would be the following three results:

1. Evolution becomes obviously impossible.

//True........

2. Evolutionists will scream like a baby whose pacifier has been pulled out because they know that if time is removed, their religion (evolution is religion, not science) is silly.

//Depends how good a scientist they are. They will critique the evidence.......that is different than screaming like a baby.

3. Creation becomes the only reasonable alternative explanation for the existence of this complex universe.

//Maybe.........

Let’s imagine we are exploring an old gold mine, and we find a Casio Databank watch half buried in the mud on the floor of the mine. Suppose also that the correct time and date are displayed on the watch and it is still running smoothly. Then imagine that I tell you the watch has been there for over one thousand years.

"That’s impossible!" you say. "That watch could not have been there for a thousand years, and I can prove it!"

"How can you prove I’m wrong?" I say.

"Well, for one thing, this mine was just dug 150 years ago," you say.

"Okay," I admit, "you’re right about the thousand years being too much, but the watch has been here for 150 years at least!"

"No!" you say. "Casio didn’t make the Databank watch until twelve years ago."

"All right," I say. "The watch was dropped here twelve years ago then."

"Impossible!" you say. "The batteries only last five years on that watch, and it’s still running. That proves it has been here less than five years."

While we still can’t prove exactly when the watch was left there, you have logically limited the date to five years at the most. You have effectively proven that my initial statement about the watch being 1000 years old is wrong. The larger numbers prove nothing in this debate. Even if I were to radiometric-date the mud or the plastic in the watch to try to prove that it is thousands of years old, my data would be meaningless. The same logic can be applied to finding the age of the earth. If several factors limit the age of the earth to a few thousand years, the earth cannot be older than a few thousand years! Even if a few indicators seem to show a greater age for the earth, it takes only ONE fact to prove the earth is young.

//assuming that you are sure that the watch wasn't touched prior to you finding it.

The Bible teaches that: God created the universe approximately 6000 years ago, ex nihilo (out of nothing) in six literal, twenty-four hour days. Then, approximately 4400 years ago, the earth was destroyed by a worldwide Flood. This devastating, year-long Flood was responsible for the sediment layers being deposited (the water was going and returning, Gen. 8:3-5). As the mountains rose and the ocean basins sank after the Flood (Psalm 104:5-8, Gen. 8:1), the waters rushed off the rising mountains into the new ocean basins. This rapid-erosion through still-soft, unprotected sediments formed the topography we still see today, in places like the Grand Canyon. The uniformitarian assumption—that today’s slow erosion rates that take place through solid rock are the same as has always been—is faulty logic, and ignores catastrophes like the Flood. (2 Pet. 3:3-8 says that the scoffers are "willingly ignorant" of the Flood.)

//The flood doesnt account for a stratified sediment layer does it?

Listed below are some of the factors from various branches of science that limit the age of the universe (including earth) to within the last few thousand years. Though it cannot be scientifically proven exactly when the universe was created, its age can be shown to not be billions of years old. Each of the following evidences of a young earth is described in great detail in the books referenced below. Source number and page number are given for the following statements (at the bottom of this page):

Evidence from Space

The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive. (1, p. 169; 2, p. 30; 4, pp. 56-63; 5, p. 26; 6, p. 43

//The shrinking size would affect the planets orbits. The orbit would become bigger but it is unlikely to get destroyed. BTW nobody has said that current life has been around for billions of years so there is no way of saying that life could not exist in previous times (for example some bacteria survive very harsh conditions).

The 0.5 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. (2, p. 26; 3, p. 22; 4, p. 15; 6, p. 35; 7; 9, p. 25) *Insufficient evidence to be positive (almost all estimates before the lunar landing anticipated great quantities of dust.)

"I get a picture therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice, level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first, and sinking majestically out of sight." -- Isaac Asimov, Science Digest, January, 1959, p 36

//Isaac Asimov.........you quoting a sci-fi writer as evidence?

Lyttleton felt that the X-rays and UV light striking exposed moon rocks "could, during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep." -- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, vol. 115, pp. 585-604

//Key word here is 'felt' something would happen. This is an opinion witohut objective support.

The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old. (2, p. 31; 3, p. 27; 4, p. 35; 6, p. 37; 7)

//Really?

Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks. (4, p. 26)

//Uh exactly how many meteorites do you expect to find? And would you be looking for them in the first place? It is extremely unlikely that your average archeologist would be able to spot these even if he/she had the resources.

The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents. (3, p. 25; 6, p. 43; 7)

//Says who? This is just another subjective opinion that fails to take into account the changing nature of the planets surface.

The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old. (8, p. 177; see also 4, p. 51, for information on rock "flow")

//I would have to look up the numbers for formation and loss.......I doubt that we have the evidence from the moon to back up this statement.

The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young. (3, p. 29; 6, p.44)

At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years. (3, p. 29; 4, pp. 30 and 59; 6, p. 44)

//Other sources disagree.

Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old. (4, p. 45)

Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old. (5, p. 26; 4, p. 43; Jupiter’s moon, Io, is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old. (4, p. 3)

//And the starting temperature was what? Thats right.........unknown.

Among other factors to consider is that all the ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star—today it is a white dwarf star. Since today’s textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied.

//Astronomers from 200 years ago might easily have made that mistake. Look at the technology that they had.

Evidence from Earth

The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions. (1, p. 157; 2, p. 27; 3, p. 20; 5, p. 23; 6, p. 42; 9, p. 25; 10, p. 38)

//The Earths magnetic field flips quite often. The decay is not well understood and could easily be related to this. As such, it is weak evidence for anythig.

The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while "the fountains of the deep were broken up," most of the earth’s lava was deposited rapidly. (1, p. 156)

//huh?

Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation. (1, p. 153; 5, p. 24; 6, p. 42)

//Again failing to undestand the changing nature of the Earth. We as a species add alot of minerals that wouldnt otherwise have been added. Again didgy numbers.

//Ok let me point something out. Most of this evidence fails to take into account that situations change. nobody is saying that the Earth always was as it is today........far from it. The Earth and its surroundings are a dynamic situation. I might come back to write more later but alot of this sounds like pseudo-science to me.
BTW many of these ideas have been disputed many times by scientists.
[/B][/QUOTE]
 
Top Bottom