The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution

[Necrosis]

A transitional fossil would be the hundreds of different types of dogs that exist and take another known species and a have a transition between the dog and another species for example the changes between the dog and the other species have to be the same increments as the changes within different variation of dogs, sorry not good at explaining things, but you get my point and that type of transition has never occured between two species, the word species is what you accepted as the definition in another post, at least that's the way I am using it here for lack of a better term

that is exactly what has been found, they have whale fossils showing slow progression into the whales we have today. New species have been created in labs from existing ones such that they can no longer mate making them different species.

changes in a species must be beneficial hence you will never see a fossil that is half bird half human because evolution doesn't work that way, every fossil is a transitional fossil. You only see whole organisms because that is the only way they would survive, what sense would it make for a bird to evolve into a half breed retard species that cannot survive?

[Man of Steel]

that is exactly what has been found, they have whale fossils showing slow progression into the whales we have today. New species have been created in labs from existing ones such that they can no longer mate making them different species.

changes in a species must be beneficial hence you will never see a fossil that is half bird half human because evolution doesn't work that way, every fossil is a transitional fossil. You only see whole organisms because that is the only way they would survive, what sense would it make for a bird to evolve into a half breed retard species that cannot survive?

So whales transitioned into whales?  And in 2 billion years, does evidence suggest that today's transitioned whale will become an even more transitioned whale?  Or a thale perhaps?  Or does evidence suggest it'll transition into a new type of fur-covered, four-legged house pet similar in size to the common cat or dog?  I don't know all the biology and genetics.  I have a Christian brain so if the topic doesn't involve the passing of a collection plate or beating someone with a rod or stone with intense religious zeal I'm a bit lost.

[avxo]

So whales transitioned into whales?  And in 2 billion years, does evidence suggest that today's transitioned whale will become an even more transitioned whale?  Or a thale perhaps?  Or does evidence suggest it'll transition into a new type of fur-covered, four-legged house pet similar in size to the common cat or dog?  I don't know all the biology and genetics.  I have a Christian brain so if the topic doesn't involve the passing of a collection plate or beating someone with a rod or stone with intense religious zeal I'm a bit lost.

Lost perhaps - but not without a sense of humor. Kudos

[OTHstrong]

So whales transitioned into whales?  And in 2 billion years, does evidence suggest that today's transitioned whale will become an even more transitioned whale?  Or a thale perhaps?  Or does evidence suggest it'll transition into a new type of fur-covered, four-legged house pet similar in size to the common cat or dog?  I don't know all the biology and genetics.  I have a Christian brain so if the topic doesn't involve the passing of a collection plate or beating someone with a rod or stone with intense religious zeal I'm a bit lost.

Now that's funny

[Necrosis]

So whales transitioned into whales?  And in 2 billion years, does evidence suggest that today's transitioned whale will become an even more transitioned whale?  Or a thale perhaps?  Or does evidence suggest it'll transition into a new type of fur-covered, four-legged house pet similar in size to the common cat or dog?  I don't know all the biology and genetics.  I have a Christian brain so if the topic doesn't involve the passing of a collection plate or beating someone with a rod or stone with intense religious zeal I'm a bit lost.

i honestly think you believe some of what you wrote, like a whale evolving into a housecat is somehow beneficial for a whale. What we have are species of water mammals which all exhibit features more and more distant from land mammals.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

here you go if you would like to learn.

[Man of Steel]

i honestly think you believe some of what you wrote, like a whale evolving into a housecat is somehow beneficial for a whale. What we have are species of water mammals which all exhibit features more and more distant from land mammals.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

here you go if you would like to learn.

Actually, I asked if evidence suggests that over time the current transitioned whales will transition into something similar in size to a dog or cat.  I ask only because dinosaurs are believed to have evolved/transitioned into birds and primates evolved/transitioned into humans, so I thought it a fair question.  

What I didn't state was "whales will become cats".

[Man of Steel]

Lost perhaps - but not without a sense of humor. Kudos

I try.  
 
I did find interesting your use of the word "lost"....I find it both insightful and ironic.

[Necrosis]

Actually, I asked if evidence suggests that over time the current transitioned whales will transition into something similar in size to a dog or cat.  I ask only because dinosaurs are believed to have evolved/transitioned into birds and primates evolved/transitioned into humans, so I thought it a fair question.  

What I didn't state was "whales will become cats".

"Or does evidence suggest it'll transition into a new type of fur-covered, four-legged house pet similar in size to the common cat or dog"

evolution has no goal so no one can predict if something will evolve or not, it is a complex process depending on the fitness of the population, genetic drift, natural selection, potentially beneficial mutations and the environment as it is rapidly changing.

evolution usually has to be beneficial to a species as genes look to propagate, hence, a whale would evolve into a creature more suited to the sea, it would not evolve into a furry  land dwelling creature because there is no pressure or selection required in that direction. humans aren't essentially more evolved, but we are for our environment, if you put us in the ocean we would die therefore adaptation in the direction is highly unlikely because natural selection would due us in from the jump.

read the link.

[Man of Steel]

"Or does evidence suggest it'll transition into a new type of fur-covered, four-legged house pet similar in size to the common cat or dog"

evolution has no goal so no one can predict if something will evolve or not, it is a complex process depending on the fitness of the population, genetic drift, natural selection, potentially beneficial mutations and the environment as it is rapidly changing.

evolution usually has to be beneficial to a species as genes look to propagate, hence, a whale would evolve into a creature more suited to the sea, it would not evolve into a furry  land dwelling creature because there is no pressure or selection required in that direction. humans aren't essentially more evolved, but we are for our environment, if you put us in the ocean we would die therefore adaptation in the direction is highly unlikely because natural selection would due us in from the jump.

read the link.

Help me understand further, so evolution is unpredictable, but a whale would evolve into a creature more suited to the sea?  And the reason they would evolve in that way is that there is no pressure or selection requiring them to transition in a different direction, correct?  I guess you could reason the flipside in that a fur-covered, four-legged house pet similar in size to the common cat or dog would not evolve into a whale for the same reason....so my questions above were kinda ridiculous?

[Necrosis]

Help me understand further, so evolution is unpredictable, but a whale would evolve into a creature more suited to the sea?  And the reason they would evolve in that way is that there is no pressure or selection requiring them to transition in a different direction, correct?  I guess you could reason the flipside in that a fur-covered, four-legged house pet similar in size to the common cat or dog would not evolve into a whale for the same reason....so my questions above were kinda ridiculous?

yes, natural selection and genetic drift are the drivers of evolution and neither would a cat be selected to live in an ocean or whale on land. The natural setting say the ocean favors creatures that can lift under water, have gills, swim well, endure the temperatures and pressure etc.

why would a cat be viable in the ocean it has none of these qualities but many suited to land, quick reflexes, nimble, athletic, keen senses etc...

you could adapt a cat to water theoretically overtime however, just introduce it to water slowly and select the generations that adapt well to water and keep breeding them over and over, but that is by intervention not natural selection or better yet selective breeding like you see in newfoundland dogs for example. They were breed to swim and rescue fisherman as such they evolved webbed paws which enables them to swim much better then other dogs and they also increased in size to ensure they could drag a man from the sea.

[Man of Steel]

yes, natural selection and genetic drift are the drivers of evolution and neither would a cat be selected to live in an ocean or whale on land. The natural setting say the ocean favors creatures that can lift under water, have gills, swim well, endure the temperatures and pressure etc.

why would a cat be viable in the ocean it has none of these qualities but many suited to land, quick reflexes, nimble, athletic, keen senses etc...

you could adapt a cat to water theoretically overtime however, just introduce it to water slowly and select the generations that adapt well to water and keep breeding them over and over, but that is by intervention not natural selection or better yet selective breeding like you see in newfoundland dogs for example. They were breed to swim and rescue fisherman as such they evolved webbed paws which enables them to swim much better then other dogs and they also increased in size to ensure they could drag a man from the sea.

Actually I said, "a fur-covered, four-legged house pet similar in size to the common cat or dog" (wolves and deer are also referenced from time to time)....not necesarily a housecat of today.

That said, I know you've repeatedly requested I read the wiki link you provided (which I had), but did you read it?  

This article delphs heavily into skull morphology, but the Pakicetus fossil findings were only a few fragmented teeth and what is believed to be the back of skull....artist renderings filled in all other gaps.  Although the debate on the whales pelvis still persists.  Some claims it's merely vestigial....a remnant of some prior use in an early transitional form; although, others claim that the pelvis bones serve as muscle anchors whales need in order to reproduce today.

[Necrosis]

Actually I said, "a fur-covered, four-legged house pet similar in size to the common cat or dog" (wolves and deer are also referenced from time to time)....not necesarily a housecat of today.

That said, I know you've repeatedly requested I read the wiki link you provided (which I had), but did you read it?  

This article delphs heavily into skull morphology, but the Pakicetus fossil findings were only a few fragmented teeth and what is believed to be the back of skull....artist renderings filled in all other gaps.  Although the debate on the whales pelvis still persists.  Some claims it's merely vestigial....a remnant of some prior use in an early transitional form; although, others claim that the pelvis bones serve as muscle anchors whales need in order to reproduce today.

yes exactly, these are the debates in evolution, no one questions whether evolution occurs, genetics, nested hierarchies etc have conclusively proven it. Fossilization is a difficult process which can give us clues into how things may have progressed.

you would probably like the book by francis collins the language of god.

[OTHstrong]

yes exactly, these are the debates in evolution, no one questions whether evolution occurs, genetics, nested hierarchies etc have conclusively proven it. Fossilization is a difficult process which can give us clues into how things may have progressed.

you would probably like the book by francis collins the language of god.

Bro, you are good at making a point, yes, I will give you that.....but some time your fundamental ways get the best of you, "conclusively proven" C'mon now, lots of people far smarter then you and I think evolution is horseshit.

[Necrosis]

Bro, you are good at making a point, yes, I will give you that.....but some time your fundamental ways get the best of you, "conclusively proven" C'mon now, lots of people far smarter then you and I think evolution is horseshit.

well genetics has been conclusively proven to support evolution. What we see in genetics is that animals or better yet species that are more recent ancestors share more similar genetics. Take any pair and compare the genomes, what you see is a genetic hierarchy of sorts which evolution would predict. In fact we have two fewer chromosomes then other great apes, how could this be? well evolution predicted that some form of recombination would have to had occured and if not the  theory would obviously fail as we could not be ancestors. We didnt have the ability to test this issue until mapping of the genome was carried out, and what did we find, exactly what evolution would predict.

there is no other way to interpret this. You see evolution has never been falsified. Sure minor details have been argued and are still, that is the nature of science. But bunny rabbits haven't been found in strata in which they could not be ie jurassic period or evolution would be wrong. Things like genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium, population dynamics etc are debatable, whether evolution occured is not, for the reason that everything that has ever been tested corroborates it and modern biology would fall down if it were not true.

evolution is seen in medicine daily with mutating viruses, drug resistant bacteria etc. The facts truly speak for themselves, of course there will always be holes as we can never recover every fossil and we are looking at huge time scales, but you have to understand that every prediction that evolution has produced has been confirmed. What about evolution has you so charged up? why can't you accept it? does it go against your faith, or do you have any credible reason. Please dont say a jar of peanut butter has never gave birth to a cow or some shit, or why are there still monkeys if we evolved from them (we actually evolved from the great apes specifically).

also, 99% of the species that once existed are extinct, why would god do this? why would he create things that existed before us only to have them die out? it makes literally no sense. evolution and belief in god are not in conflict, it is only in conflict with creationism which is non-sense. Perhaps god uses evolution to create endless possibilities, always open to change and environment.

[Man of Steel]

well genetics has been conclusively proven to support evolution. What we see in genetics is that animals or better yet species that are more recent ancestors share more similar genetics. Take any pair and compare the genomes, what you see is a genetic hierarchy of sorts which evolution would predict. In fact we have two fewer chromosomes then other great apes, how could this be? well evolution predicted that some form of recombination would have to had occured and if not the  theory would obviously fail as we could not be ancestors. We didnt have the ability to test this issue until mapping of the genome was carried out, and what did we find, exactly what evolution would predict.

there is no other way to interpret this. You see evolution has never been falsified. Sure minor details have been argued and are still, that is the nature of science. But bunny rabbits haven't been found in strata in which they could not be ie jurassic period or evolution would be wrong. Things like genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium, population dynamics etc are debatable, whether evolution occured is not, for the reason that everything that has ever been tested corroborates it and modern biology would fall down if it were not true.

evolution is seen in medicine daily with mutating viruses, drug resistant bacteria etc. The facts truly speak for themselves, of course there will always be holes as we can never recover every fossil and we are looking at huge time scales, but you have to understand that every prediction that evolution has produced has been confirmed. What about evolution has you so charged up? why can't you accept it? does it go against your faith, or do you have any credible reason. Please dont say a jar of peanut butter has never gave birth to a cow or some shit, or why are there still monkeys if we evolved from them (we actually evolved from the great apes specifically).

also, 99% of the species that once existed are extinct, why would god do this? why would he create things that existed before us only to have them die out? it makes literally no sense. evolution and belief in god are not in conflict, it is only in conflict with creationism which is non-sense. Perhaps god uses evolution to create endless possibilities, always open to change and environment.

Now we're stepping into the realm of gap creation theory, day-age creation theory and theistic evolution theory.  To be perfectly honest, this is an area in which I struggle because I can't reconcile a full on 6-day creationist position and the accepted understanding that the earth isn't just 6000 years old (that's is more like 5.6 billion years old).  I struggle with the accepted concept of the expanse of time in that the universe itself is approx 14-15 billion years old.  I struggle with radiometric dating concepts and their verified accuracy (sure they have flaws like anything, but by and large they're accurate).  Now my faith as a whole isn't shaken one bit.  As a matter of fact, I'm far more open to the idea that slowly unlocking more answers through the vehicle of science adds tremendous color to so many topics we were once black and white on (ex: 6-day creation) and only helps broaden my faith....not reduce it.  Nonbelievers feel that science will unlock the clues to destroying religion LOL!!!  Sure, it may knock out many "religions", but it'll never remove the Holy Spirit and it's indwelling, life changing power for those that belief today in the Christian faith.  That again has nothing to do with short-sightedness or an inability to accept "the truth".  No, once the Holy Spirit fills you completely, changes your perceptions and washes over you like a flood in moments of fear or despair or worship or happiness you'll never deny the truth of Christ....you'll experience something that transcends all facets of science.  I believe God wants us to unlock the mysteries behind his creation and I think science is definitely helping make that possible.  I just don't want to latch on to some heretical position that conveniently fills a gap just for the sake of online arguement.  

[OTHstrong]

Now we're stepping into the realm of gap creation theory, day-age creation theory and theistic evolution theory.  To be perfectly honest, this is an area in which I struggle because I can't reconcile a full on 6-day creationist position and the accepted understanding that the earth isn't just 6000 years old (that's is more like 5.6 billion years old).  I struggle with the accepted concept of the expanse of time in that the universe itself is approx 14-15 billion years old.  I struggle with radiometric dating concepts and their verified accuracy (sure they have flaws like anything, but by and large they're accurate).  Now my faith as a whole isn't shaken one bit.  As a matter of fact, I'm far more open to the idea that slowly unlocking more answers through the vehicle of science adds tremendous color to so many topics we were once black and white on (ex: 6-day creation) and only helps broaden my faith....not reduce it.  Nonbelievers feel that science will unlock the clues to destroying religion LOL!!!  Sure, it may knock out many "religions", but it'll never remove the Holy Spirit and it's indwelling, life changing power for those that belief today in the Christian faith.  That again has nothing to do with short-sightedness or an inability to accept "the truth".  No, once the Holy Spirit fills you completely, changes your perceptions and washes over you like a flood in moments of fear or despair or worship or happiness you'll never deny the truth of Christ....you'll experience something that transcends all facets of science.  I believe God wants us to unlock the mysteries behind his creation and I think science is definitely helping make that possible.  I just don't want to latch on to some heretical position that conveniently fills a gap just for the sake of online arguement.  

6 literal days is the only way to view Genesis, the gap theory makes it seem like there could be great distances in time between day 1, day 2 etc, but this is not possible for the simple reason that on day 3 God created the plants and day 4 God created the sun.

[Man of Steel]

6 literal days is the only way to view Genesis, the gap theory makes it seem like there could be great distances in time between day 1, day 2 etc, but this is not possible for the simple reason that on day 3 God created the plants and day 4 God created the sun.

I can fully accept the inerrancy of scripture, but what I can't reconcile away is the radiometric dating of things that shows objects to be millions or hundreds of thousands of years old.  A literal 6-day creation would mean that radiometric dating and the cosmological dating of the universe at approx 14 billion years old is flat out wrong.  Now, I can accept that it is wrong, but so much evidence indicates it to be correct.  I can't speak to the intracies of the science behind it (despite my attempts to) and I understand that carbon dating is flawed in some regards, but other more accurate forms of radiometric dating exist using altogether different isotopes.  Again, it's not the creation account I struggle with, it's the age of things that leaves me flat.  If I go google a Christian scientist's refutation of radiometic dating I'll find a 100 atheist/agnostic scathing refutations of that Christian study with tons and tons of peer-reviewed support to back it up.  How does a believer reconcile this concept alone?

[OTHstrong]

I can fully accept the inerrancy of scripture, but what I can't reconcile away is the radiometric dating of things that shows objects to be millions or hundreds of thousands of years old.  A literal 6-day creation would mean that radiometric dating and the cosmological dating of the universe at approx 14 billion years old is flat out wrong.  Now, I can accept that it is wrong, but so much evidence indicates it to be correct.  I can't speak to the intracies of the science behind it (despite my attempts to) and I understand that carbon dating is flawed in some regards, but other more accurate forms of radiometric dating exist using altogether different isotopes.  Again, it's not the creation account I struggle with, it's the age of things that leaves me flat.  If I go google a Christian scientist's refutation of radiometic dating I'll find a 100 atheist/agnostic scathing refutations of that Christian study with tons and tons of peer-reviewed support to back it up.  How does a believer reconcile this concept alone?

Do you accept that Adam Eve where put on earth as babies or fully developed and mature. The speed of light is not set at one speed, in the lab it has been slowed down and a more reasent discovery shows that the speed has been exceeded, so measuring time by the speed of light is not set in stone and even it was God said over 12 times in the scriptures that he has streched out the heavens and those dating methods you've mention only work under conditions known to man today, imagine having the harshes strongest chemicals applied to a bone in a matter of minutes the bone can read an age of a hundrted thousand years, I can make an apple decompose in an hour but surely it takes days for an apple to decompose right? Imagine what the atmospheric preasure would have been likepre-flood if a human could live for 969 years and have an eye sight that wont diminsh for 900 years, certainly not the same condition we have today. If you believe in the flood then just imagine title waves a mile high and the fault line bursting open with lava gushing out, there is no limit to the amount of activities and chemical imbalances that could have aged thing instantly. In a high school science text book they show that the glaciers leave annual rings so when you cut through ice if the rings are a foot apart you would know that the ice builds up in that area a foot per year right? sounds good until someone dug up a ww2 fighter plane under a thousand annual rings.

Plus our boy Necrosis just admitted that evolution is false when he said "if a rabbit is found in the Jurassic layer".....you see according to national geographic lot of human artifacts have been found in the Jurassic layer, 1 particular article stands out (*will dig it up later) plus lot of misplaced objects in layers that don't correspond to their layers including a human foot print in the cambrian period and how does Necrosis explain Polystrate fossils?

[Necrosis]

Do you accept that Adam Eve where put on earth as babies or fully developed and mature. The speed of light is not set at one speed, in the lab it has been slowed down and a more reasent discovery shows that the speed has been exceeded, so measuring time by the speed of light is not set in stone and even it was God said over 12 times in the scriptures that he has streched out the heavens and those dating methods you've mention only work under conditions known to man today, imagine having the harshes strongest chemicals applied to a bone in a matter of minutes the bone can read an age of a hundrted thousand years, I can make an apple decompose in an hour but surely it takes days for an apple to decompose right? Imagine what the atmospheric preasure would have been likepre-flood if a human could live for 969 years and have an eye sight that wont diminsh for 900 years, certainly not the same condition we have today. If you believe in the flood then just imagine title waves a mile high and the fault line bursting open with lava gushing out, there is no limit to the amount of activities and chemical imbalances that could have aged thing instantly. In a high school science text book they show that the glaciers leave annual rings so when you cut through ice if the rings are a foot apart you would know that the ice builds up in that area a foot per year right? sounds good until someone dug up a ww2 fighter plane under a thousand annual rings.

Plus our boy Necrosis just admitted that evolution is false when he said "if a rabbit is found in the Jurassic layer".....you see according to national geographic lot of human artifacts have been found in the Jurassic layer, 1 particular article stands out (*will dig it up later) plus lot of misplaced objects in layers that don't correspond to their layers including a human foot print in the cambrian period and how does Necrosis explain Polystrate fossils?

you sound like a conspiracy theorist, post up your evidence and all the creationist arguments you can find, it would be fun to tear them apart.

radiometric dating is very accurate, and to make it more accurate they use several methods independently to arrive at the age, they all agree. Its clear you are swamped with creationist propaganda.
 

you are full of half truths and all this non-sense is laughable, please i beg you post the creationist arguments that disprove evolution.

here is the dinosaur blood and the polystrate trees debunked

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/dinosaur-blood-and-polystrate-trees-debunked-t6324.html

you think humans lived for 969 years? lol why would they, what evidence do you have. From all evidence in human history lifespan has been increasing with techonology and advancements in science. You are lost my friend, caught up in a web of lies unable to think for yourself.

your example of chemicals and bones shows you dont understand how radiometric dating works. applying harsh chemicals will not alter nuclide half life, so your statement is false. Do you see a pattern here? you make all these claims that are either lies or just downright propaganda.

The WW2 fighter plane is also laughable

http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/cre-ice.html

check the snowfall for the area and then look at this morons reference, its an article in a time magazine LMAO..

honestly i cant tell if you are trolling or not, do you still believe what you wrote despite me debunking it?

[Man of Steel]

Do you accept that Adam Eve where put on earth as babies or fully developed and mature. The speed of light is not set at one speed, in the lab it has been slowed down and a more reasent discovery shows that the speed has been exceeded, so measuring time by the speed of light is not set in stone and even it was God said over 12 times in the scriptures that he has streched out the heavens and those dating methods you've mention only work under conditions known to man today, imagine having the harshes strongest chemicals applied to a bone in a matter of minutes the bone can read an age of a hundrted thousand years, I can make an apple decompose in an hour but surely it takes days for an apple to decompose right? Imagine what the atmospheric preasure would have been likepre-flood if a human could live for 969 years and have an eye sight that wont diminsh for 900 years, certainly not the same condition we have today. If you believe in the flood then just imagine title waves a mile high and the fault line bursting open with lava gushing out, there is no limit to the amount of activities and chemical imbalances that could have aged thing instantly. In a high school science text book they show that the glaciers leave annual rings so when you cut through ice if the rings are a foot apart you would know that the ice builds up in that area a foot per year right? sounds good until someone dug up a ww2 fighter plane under a thousand annual rings.

Plus our boy Necrosis just admitted that evolution is false when he said "if a rabbit is found in the Jurassic layer".....you see according to national geographic lot of human artifacts have been found in the Jurassic layer, 1 particular article stands out (*will dig it up later) plus lot of misplaced objects in layers that don't correspond to their layers including a human foot print in the cambrian period and how does Necrosis explain Polystrate fossils?

Yes, this is the kind of information I haven't read and it puts a different spin on the situation.  I'm fairly certain that any supporting evidence from scientists will return the usual "that guy is a known quack in his field" from aths/ags.....par for the course I suppose.   

Adam and Eve were created as full grown adults.  Again, I fully accept and believe that God transcends our finite perceptions and that our studies don't grasp his infinite scope.  Thereinlies the rub, God goes beyond our natural world and occupies both natural and supernatural and for aths/ags whose church resides in the lab the concept of immeasurable supernatural qualities simply can't be.

[Necrosis]

Yes, this is the kind of information I haven't read and it puts a different spin on the situation.  I'm fairly certain that any supporting evidence from scientists will return the usual "that guy is a known quack in his field" from aths/ags.....par for the course I suppose.   

Adam and Eve were created as full grown adults.  Again, I fully accept and believe that God transcends our finite perceptions and that our studies don't grasp his infinite scope.  Thereinlies the rub, God goes beyond our natural world and occupies both natural and supernatural and for aths/ags whose church resides in the lab the concept of immeasurable supernatural qualities simply can't be.

so god works in a way we cant know and this is how you know science can't fully elucidate his magic? seems logical

oh ya, so theres adam and eve, they have sex and create a baby, who does the baby have sex with to propagate the species? i mean if it started with only two then incest is the only option, strange option for god to choose.

[Man of Steel]

so god works in a way we cant know and this is how you know science can't fully elucidate his magic? seems logical

oh ya, so theres adam and eve, they have sex and create a baby, who does the baby have sex with to propagate the species? i mean if it started with only two then incest is the only option, strange option for god to choose.

As always the sarcasm is noted LOL, but in essence that is the situation.  If you don't belief, if the Holy Spirit does not indwell in you then the concept of God is merely illogical.  There is no reconciliation between God and science because your heart has not first been reconciled with God.  I've said this time and time again.   Science can shed light on many, many things, but it's scope is finite and regardless of agreement between experts in different scientific disciplines most concepts are still theoretical (I do grasp that's a gross generalization).  Does that mean the concepts are invalid?  Absolutely not.  I've made it quite clear that science is a great vehicle for helping us unlock the mysteries behind God's creation.  My position doesn't become somehow black and white because we disagree...that's a position aths/ags continually take.  It's as extremist as the "narrow-minded" Christian perspective we're accussed of having.  I'm open to new information, but I'm not open to a adopting a heretical stance that defies all scripture and seeks to eliminate God (ex: a cosmological theory that attempts to remove a creation singularity). 

Yes, incest was the means for propogating the species.  As the generational lines grew God outlawed incestual relationships altogether.  It's the answer to classic:  Where did Cain get his wife from?   

[Necrosis]

As always the sarcasm is noted LOL, but in essence that is the situation.  If you don't belief, if the Holy Spirit does not indwell in you then the concept of God is merely illogical.  There is no reconciliation between God and science because your heart has not first been reconciled with God.  I've said this time and time again.   Science can shed light on many, many things, but it's scope is finite and regardless of agreement between experts in different scientific disciplines most concepts are still theoretical (I do grasp that's a gross generalization).  Does that mean the concepts are invalid?  Absolutely not.  I've made it quite clear that science is a great vehicle for helping us unlock the mysteries behind God's creation.  My position doesn't become somehow black and white because we disagree...that's a position aths/ags continually take.  It's as extremist as the "narrow-minded" Christian perspective we're accussed of having.  I'm open to new information, but I'm not open to a adopting a heretical stance that defies all scripture and seeks to eliminate God (ex: a cosmological theory that attempts to remove a creation singularity). 

Yes, incest was the means for propogating the species.  As the generational lines grew God outlawed incestual relationships altogether.  It's the answer to classic:  Where did Cain get his wife from?   

you fit the definition of narrow-minded, you however realize this. You are open to new concepts with a qualifier they cannot refute the bible nor can they interfere with god and his word. That is not open at all. I on the other hand am, if evidence for a supernatural being existed i would accept it with open arms, i have no stake in truth one way or the other, i simply follow truth where ever the evidence leads.

That is such a bad way to propagate a species, it is in fact dangerous and could be if you believed in what you said the cause for many genetic illnesses seen today. I appreciate your honesty however you are a true christian unlike many of the lying,bigots i interact with or that are are faith healers stealing money from the sick. Loco and stella are also good people and i am fine with you believing what you like, i oppose religion on moral grounds and that is my beef. I feel it impedes knowledge because it claims to have all the answers and leads otherwise moral people to commit terrible acts.

[Necrosis]

Now we're stepping into the realm of gap creation theory, day-age creation theory and theistic evolution theory.  To be perfectly honest, this is an area in which I struggle because I can't reconcile a full on 6-day creationist position and the accepted understanding that the earth isn't just 6000 years old (that's is more like 5.6 billion years old).  

they arent theories because they contain no testable hypotheses, they are guesses and conjecture only. I just want that to be clear.

[OTHstrong]

you sound like a conspiracy theorist, post up your evidence and all the creationist arguments you can find, it would be fun to tear them apart.

radiometric dating is very accurate, and to make it more accurate they use several methods independently to arrive at the age, they all agree. Its clear you are swamped with creationist propaganda.
 

you are full of half truths and all this non-sense is laughable, please i beg you post the creationist arguments that disprove evolution.

here is the dinosaur blood and the polystrate trees debunked

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/dinosaur-blood-and-polystrate-trees-debunked-t6324.html

you think humans lived for 969 years? lol why would they, what evidence do you have. From all evidence in human history lifespan has been increasing with techonology and advancements in science. You are lost my friend, caught up in a web of lies unable to think for yourself.

your example of chemicals and bones shows you dont understand how radiometric dating works. applying harsh chemicals will not alter nuclide half life, so your statement is false. Do you see a pattern here? you make all these claims that are either lies or just downright propaganda.

The WW2 fighter plane is also laughable

http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/cre-ice.html

check the snowfall for the area and then look at this morons reference, its an article in a time magazine LMAO..

honestly i cant tell if you are trolling or not, do you still believe what you wrote despite me debunking it?

I never said that this is the way things are, I am simply stateing that all the methods shown by evolution of dating things are horse shit and a lot of people are recognizing this today, don't be dumb and gullible to believe that when a bone comes out of the ground it can tell you that it's 65 million years old by some silly made up column that has a million flaws found throughout every single day. And no offence but you are a complete fool if you think that potassium argon or carbon 14 will yield the same results if artifacts from jupiter atmosphere would be tested, duh, obviously they would show completely different numbers in age cause things age differently there cause there environment is completerly different then ours, stupid.
 I am not claiming to know anything all I am claiming is your fundemental evolutionary ways are fanatic and the claims are not only outrages but laughable, no proof at all that monkeys and us share a common ancestor, this is the 90's news, not many people believe this anymore, maybe you are the gimmick