|
Post by Chris Kaufman on Jan 4, 2008 10:58:25 GMT -5
if you cut off the tails of 1000 generations of rats. will they still be born with tails? How did this turn into another evolution debate? Anyway, outside of Canyon City, CO a bunch of people in the city used to go rattlesnake hunting, not quite sure why, but over the years the only rattlesnakes that survived were the ones that either had no rattles or defective rattles. So I guess now, I'm not sure if all, but a majority of the rattlesnakes down there don't have rattles anymore so they get confused with bull snakes. Wouldn't that be evolution at least on a small scale?
|
|
|
Post by Pete & Tim on Jan 4, 2008 10:59:00 GMT -5
How did a discussion about Lincoln turn into a debate about nipples?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Layton on Jan 4, 2008 13:38:28 GMT -5
Read a science book about evolution you will find your answer. Basic summary: in evolution by natural selection, if animal B evolves from animal A, animal A is not required to disappear from the planet. It is perfectly acceptable for animal A and animal B to co-exist. This is why we have so many different forms of life on this planet and evolution is a basic principle of biology. I must be old - the last time I opened a science book Evolution was still being taught as the Theory of Evolution. I had not realized that it was proven. Evolution is both a theory and a fact, like gravity. This quote by the late scientist Stephen Jay Gould is a good summary: "Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
|
|
|
Post by Bill Maenza on Jan 4, 2008 14:35:39 GMT -5
(MODIFICATION - Engin had a great post about evolution. He deleted it so mine makes less sense). Yeah - what he said ...and then took down
|
|
|
Post by Robert Bishop on Jan 4, 2008 19:58:26 GMT -5
so Tim your saying because a couple people drempt up a theory that its fact? But than you have said the bible was a fairy tail which dose'nt make alot of sense to me
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jan 4, 2008 20:27:36 GMT -5
So you believe the Bible is a history book and should be treated as absolute truth? No chance perhaps some of the Bible's stories were anecdotal for the sake of making a point?
On a related note, my highschool sweetheart didn't believe in dinosaurs...because they were never mentioned in the Bible.
...but scientists probably just dreamt them up too.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Kaufman on Jan 4, 2008 20:30:02 GMT -5
GOOD ONE^^^^
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Jan 4, 2008 20:35:33 GMT -5
ive addressed the dinosaur issue in another thread. i believe they are mentioned in the bible. i believe man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. but not in the same place, for the most part anyway. thus the reference the the "champy website".... a reference to the lochness monster...in mockery of me and my belief about dinos this thread has definatly gotten off track....and it wasnt my fault......i dont think.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Bishop on Jan 4, 2008 20:57:01 GMT -5
tell me then what it means in Genesis 6 where it says back in the days when giants roamed the earth. Did you ever stop and think that maybe all animals god wanted to save went into the Ark and the rest drowned
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jan 4, 2008 21:25:43 GMT -5
The Bible never used the word "dinosaur". So you're interpreting the Bible. I could do the same with the story of Adam and Eve. The "dust of the earth" may refer to the cosmic fallout of a big bang, and the passing of Adam's rib to Eve may be a reference to the evolving genetic makeup of homo sapiens.
|
|
|
Post by A L L E N F I S H E R on Jan 4, 2008 22:14:47 GMT -5
How Do The Dinosaurs Fit In? by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
When first exposed to the creation model of earth history, Christians and non-Christians alike usually ask the same question: "What about the dinosaurs?" It seems that decades of evolutionary brainwashing have led many people to equate dinosaurs with evolution. Dinosaurs have long been an effective tool for teaching evolutionary dogma, but they really did exist, and therefore must somehow fit into the Biblical framework.
The Bible says that all things were created during the six-day creation week (Exodus 20:11, etc.), including dinosaurs. The reptilian dinosaurs were (by definition) land animals which were created on Day Six under the category of "beast of the earth" (Genesis 1:24, 25). There were also large marine reptiles created on Day Five (v. 21). Along with all animals and mankind, they were created to be plant eaters (vs. 29,30), for there was no death before Adam and Eve rebelled against God.
Of the many dinosaur fossils found, almost all give evidence of being plant eaters exclusively. Several of the dinosaur fossil types, however, do possess sharp teeth, sharp claws, spikes, armor plates, etc., perhaps used for a variety of offensive or defensive purposes. Of course scientists can never be certain about a creature's habits when they only have bits of dead ones to study, and most dinosaur fossils are extremely fragmentary, usually consisting of part of a single bone. And many animals alive today that have sharp teeth use them for strictly peaceful ends. But enough is known of dinosaurs to strongly suspect that some of them ate meat.
The Bible doesn't say when they gained that ability, but I feel it does give us a clue. When Adam and Eve rebelled, God pronounced the awful curse of death on all of creation. In doing so, He not only fulfilled His promise that they would begin to die (2:17), but evidently He actually changed the genetic makeup of each "kind" so that all their descendants would forever be different. He changed Eve's body structure (3:16); the plants (v. 18), and the animals, as well (v. 14). Perhaps at this time dinosaurs and other animals acquired or began to acquire body parts designed for aggression or protection. This may be over-speculation, but sin ruins everything, and before long the entire planet was corrupt (6:11,12, 7).
God had told Noah to bring pairs of each kind of land animal on board the Ark, including, evidently, the dinosaurs (7:15). Recognizing that as reptiles, dinosaurs would have continued to grow as long as they lived, implying that the oldest would be the largest, there was plenty of room on board the Ark for the younger ones. Thus the dinosaurs on board the Ark probably would have been young adults, no bigger than a cow perhaps. But the world after the Flood was much different than before, with much less vegetation and a colder, harsher climate, and evidently the dinosaurs gradually died out. Perhaps they were even hunted to extinction, as would be indicated by the many legends of dragons, the descriptions of which closely resemble dinosaurs.
At any rate, Biblical history has an explanation for dinosaurs, their creation, life-style, and extinction. Christian parents are encouraged to use them to teach Biblical truth.
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
|
|
|
Post by A L L E N F I S H E R on Jan 4, 2008 22:15:55 GMT -5
Walkin' With the Dinosaurs Week of July 28, 2001 Evolutionists believe dinosaurs lived and died millions of years before man. So any evidence linking men and dinosaurs would sort of throw a "monkey wrench" into this belief. What does the evidence tell us? www.icr.org/radio/view/378
|
|
|
Post by Mat Helmer on Jan 4, 2008 23:51:38 GMT -5
tell me then what it means in Genesis 6 where it says back in the days when giants roamed the earth. Did you ever stop and think that maybe all animals god wanted to save went into the Ark and the rest drowned I don't think GIANTS are dinosaurs, unless the women were having children with the dinosaurs? 4. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renownI don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jan 5, 2008 0:14:03 GMT -5
^The most common interpretation of that verse is that the "sons of God" are fallen angels. The reference to 'giants' seems unrelated, and almost out of place...unless the 'giants' refer to the 'mighty men' referred to later in the verse.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Bishop on Jan 5, 2008 14:44:20 GMT -5
^The most common interpretation of that verse is that the "sons of God" are fallen angels. The reference to 'giants' seems unrelated, and almost out of place...unless the 'giants' refer to the 'mighty men' referred to later in the verse. hear the the 14 minute audio because it was good stuff. I agree with what Allen has said
|
|