Forums → WEPR → Evolutionism or creationism
| 1486 | 248014 |
im just opening this topic so that people can have a NICE, FREINDLY place to talk about their beliefs, i Myself believe in evolutionism
- 1,486 Replies
Well Rafterman, even if we can't prove how the universe began, or what got the world starting, but once it did, God had no hand in getting life to begin, because all of the non-living particles grew to living organisms, over time.
That's what I believe(about the non-living particles growing into organisms), my statement was mainly for the Christians who say something like " well how did everything come to be" or something like that.
i believe that humans evolve and adapt to there surroundings over generations, but i'm not too sure about the evolving from apes thing.
i believe that humans evolve and adapt to there surroundings over generations, but i'm not too sure about the evolving from apes thing.
Okay Then where do you think humans came from?
Have ANY OF YOU ever heard of Evolutionary Creationism, where you believe that God made evolution.
Okay Then where do you think humans came from?
From a now extinct ancestor.
Have ANY OF YOU ever heard of Evolutionary Creationism, where you believe that God made evolution.
It's called the retreat of Creationists. Which will continue over time as we learn more about where we come from.
Here's my question. If god created everything, then who created god? You can't just have something that has always existed, because you can't define anything without the opposite. You can't call something good unlees you know what bad is, so on so forth. As for if there is a god, there is scientific evidence that things evoloved, but we as humans can only see it from the perspective of when we were created, therefore, if there is a god, that god would have created the START of life and it thus continued from there. My family is christian, (I'm not) so I know the bible and all that, and in it, the starting point is two full thinking people. People didn't gain cognitive thought until we actually seperated from our closest lineage. To me it seems you can't have one without the other, because no matter what you do, if god created Adam and Eve, things have evolved since then.
Here's my question. If god created everything, then who created god? You can't just have something that has always existed, because you can't define anything without the opposite. You can't call something good unlees you know what bad is, so on so forth. As for if there is a god, there is scientific evidence that things evoloved, but we as humans can only see it from the perspective of when we were created, therefore, if there is a god, that god would have created the START of life and it thus continued from there. My family is christian, (I'm not) so I know the bible and all that, and in it, the starting point is two full thinking people. People didn't gain cognitive thought until we actually seperated from our closest lineage. To me it seems you can't have one without the other, because no matter what you do, if god created Adam and Eve, things have evolved since then.
That's what I don't get. Creationists always say, well what created the universe? We say it's always been there. They say well SOMETHING made it, and it was god. Then we ask what made god and they say "he's always been there."
If god created everything, then who created god?
Personally, I am a creationist who asks myself that time and time again. But really, evolution does not make sense. Where's the missing link? Scientists have found monkey(before) skeletons and cavemen(after) skeletons? Where's the in between stage? Did they just evolve in one generation? Somehow, that looks pretty unlikely.
Sorry for double post, but I'm a grammar nazi. Period after before/after sentence.
Personally, I am a creationist who asks myself that time and time again. But really, evolution does not make sense. Where's the missing link? Scientists have found monkey(before) skeletons and cavemen(after) skeletons? Where's the in between stage? Did they just evolve in one generation? Somehow, that looks pretty unlikely.
From basically apes we evolved into homo antecessor and then into homo rhodesienses and finally into Homo sapiens.
That would have taken millions of years. We did not just become freaking humans overnight. You should check these things out before you say something that is easily falsifiable. Scientists have found many different types of bones that were in fact older and different. They weren't all the exact same and then just human bones.
Personally, I am a creationist who asks myself that time and time again. But really, evolution does not make sense. Where's the missing link? Scientists have found monkey(before) skeletons and cavemen(after) skeletons? Where's the in between stage? Did they just evolve in one generation? Somehow, that looks pretty unlikely.
We have loads of transitional forms throughout the fossil record.
There are no transitional fossils
Transitional Forms 3.0
Quest for Truth: Transitional Species
Ida Know
balerion07 had asked...
Also Darwin said that if we didn't find missing links all over the place then his whole theory was bogus... so where are they?
Where are all the transitional fossils (a.k.a. missing links)? Well here are some examples. While not all direct ancestors they do help to represent the evolutionary step to the next form.
This is what I was able to dig up from just a couple of sources and a quick google search. There are many more then these. Sorry of odd code as a result of copy/paste or being types in Notpad.
invertebrate-vertebrate
1. Pikaia gracilens (get back bone man...)
2. Conodont
3. Haikouichthys
4. Arandaspis prionotolepis (it's a fish)
fish-amphibian
5. Osteolepis
6. Eusthenopteron
7. Panderichthys
8. Tiktaalik
9. Ventastega
10. Elginerpeton
11. Acanthostega
12. Ichthyostega
13. Hynerpeton
14. Tulerpeton (a reptiliomorpha, reptilian like amphibian. Considered one of the first true tetrapods)
15. Pederpes
16. Eryops (semi-aquatic amphibian)
amphibian-reptile
17. Proterogyrinus
18. Limnoscelis
19. Tseajaia
20. Solenodonsaurus
21. Hylonomus (early reptile)
22. Paleothyris
dinosaur evolution
23. Chasmatosaurus
24. Dromomeron
25. Marasuchus
26. Eoraptor
reptile-mammal
27. Protoclepsydrops (Begins the change from reptiles to mammals.)
28. Clepsydrops
29. Dimetrodon
30. Procynosuchus
31. Thrinaxodon (mammal like reptile)
32. Morganucodon (early mammals)
33. Yanoconodon
dinosaur-bird
34. Pedopenna
35. Anchiornis
36. Archaeopteryx
37. Confuciusornis
38. Eoalulavis
39. Sinornis
40. Vorona
41. Ichthyornis
And now we have modern day birds
42. Protungulatum (first herbivorous placental mammal)
land mammal-whales
43. Mesonychid
44. Pakicetus
45. Ambulocetus
46. Dalanistes
47. Rodhocetus
48. Takracetus
49. Gaviocetus
50. Dorudon
51. Basilosaurus
Thar be Whales!
horse evolution
52. Hyracotherium
53. Orohippus
54. Mesohippus
55. Miohippus
56. Parahippus
57. Merychippus
58. Pliohippus
59. Dinohippus
Horses...
human/primeape evolution
60. Darwinius
61. Apidium
62. Aegyptopithecus
63. Proconsul
64. Pierolapithecus
65. Ardipithecus
66. Australopithecus afarensis
67. Australopithecus africanus
68. Homo habilis
69. Homo erectus
70. Homo heidelbergensis
Homo sapiens (us!)
Considering the difficulty in getting a fossil to form in the first place. What we have found in the fossil record is like looking for a needle in a hay stack, and finding an almost complete sewing kit.
So yes we have found "missing links" all over the place.
But really, evolution does not make sense. Where's the missing link?
But really, creationism does not make sense. Where's the evidence?
*Points to Mage's post*
The evolution side of the argument has collected plenty of evidence, and the only argument creationists have is a 2000 year old book and the ability to point out flaws in the oppposing argument, which grow fewer and fewer as time passes on.
To make me take you seriously please introduce some peer reviewed evidence that supports creationist claims.
Thread is locked!