Evolution Is A Hoax!

[Fixxxer]

I'm wondering since the earth is only around 6 thousand years old, how did we get fossils and mainly oil? those take well over the age of the earth to form.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Fixxxer' post='1206698' date='Mar 2 2007, 12:03 AM']I'm wondering since the earth is only around 6 thousand years old, how did we get fossils and mainly oil? those take well over the age of the earth to form.[/quote]
Remember the 6000 year-old theory was invented by a protestant minister in the last century. There is absolutely no basis for it other then his own opinions.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1206197' date='Mar 1 2007, 12:26 PM']No, what ther person is suggesting is that it's a little of both.

I believe that it's important to address the issue of Micro Evolution and Macro Evolution. Defining those key terms is important because if you're suggesting that nothing evolves, that's ridiculous, but also to suggest that everything evolves with no scientific proof is also ridiculous. Most of Darwin's perceptions of evolution was based upon his experience [and time spent] at the Galapagos Islands. It was there that Darwin found animals [such as Panguins] that were normally artic animals, living in a tropical climate. This was the breaking point in Darwin's theories, which sadly Darwin went to the most extreme with later in life, but the theories of things naturally [thou I'd argue is with the power of God] evolving isn't contradictory at all.

If you'd really like to get specific in regards to Genesis, it says say that the earth was created in a specific standard of time, but that can be defined differently.

1.) Who says that God's "week" is equivilent to our "week" in regards to duration of time, etc. God is much more powerful, so we can't possibly suggest that our standards, dictate his standards.
2.) After Adam and Eve were created [thou Eve wasn't named eve yet but woman], it doesn't specify the duration of time that they'd spent in the Garden of Eden, until they were removed from the garden of eden. It could have been that Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden thousands upon thousands upon thousands [possibly over 100,000?] of years before they'd sinned and were thrown from the Garden of Eden. Therefore to suggest that the earth is merely 4,000 years is to presume that you know God in his entirety.

In regards to the "Big Bang" and other theories... I'd say that without proof, we should just leave them as just that... "theories" but if an individual was curious and would like to speculate, it wouldn't be wrong to assume that God made the Big Big theory [among the others] happen to begin with and that was the method that was used to create. I mean, think about it... when human beings create, we use our hands, but when God creates, I'd imagine that he'd just made it happen by his power, strength and might.

Dont forget that our very breathe and everything that goes with that alone is just allowed to happen because of God. If it weren't for God and his power, we wouldn't even be able to take a simple breathe... its not a mistake that we're able to continue in life.

Reza[/quote]

The big-bang theory was actually developed by two people independently of each other, one of who was a Catholic priest.

And I think the distinction between macro & micro evolution is fairly important, as well.

I really love your last sentence, there, too.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Truthseeker777' post='1206647' date='Mar 1 2007, 08:15 PM']What [b]kind[/b] of animal have evolved into another [b]specie[/b]?
Love to see the scientific proof of such a miracle. [/quote]

you seem to be the kind that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You put every individual that believes in some sort of "evolutioin" as "THE EVOLUTIONIST" and put them right in there with darwin, but the problem is that that way of thinking is no different then saying all black people are of the same race and charectoristics. It's apples and oranges again. Please take the time to go back and read my previous response thou because you're dodging it.

In regard to dating fosils and rocks, carbon 14 dating has some issues, like everything else. People interpreting and translating the bible have issues too, since a "word for word" translation between two languages is impossible. Does it mean that translations are 100% false? No, they have issues but still can be accurate to some degree, despite havinig problems. Also carbon 14 dating isn't the only form of dating things. The problem is that you dont know the process, the process isn't about just starting off with 14 million years and proclaiming it. It's a mathmatical process, it's about dating something that's 5 years old, checking the reaction to the chemicals, then being able to calculate that to a specific amount of years [this is just a nutshell]. It's not perfect but no system is perfect. Carbon 14 dating doesn't work on the Mediteranian Sea either, that's a flaw of it, but it doesn't mean that it's completely inaccurate because it's also been used on biblical facts, and it's come on point several times.

Reza

[TruthSeeker777]

[quote name='Fixxxer' post='1206698' date='Mar 2 2007, 07:03 AM']I'm wondering since the earth is only around 6 thousand years old, how did we get fossils and mainly oil? those take well over the age of the earth to form.[/quote]

[b]Fossils from the flood[/b],remember the earth were covered with thousands of layers of mud.
Just like the Mount of the Mississipi river building up huge layers.Many fossils that were found were standing upright.
Thats a good basis for flood evidence.
The Flood came incredibly quick,water from above and below.

[b]Oil[/b], its been proven by scientists that they can create oil from plants within a couple of hours in a Lab.
If you take in account the 300ft. fossilised tree they found while drilling for oil in Alaska.You can imagine
that the earth looked quite different from now ,it was mainly land and amazing forests and trees.
The eart will be restored just like that when Jesus returns to rule for a thousand years.

Which by the way i believe will be the 7th millenuim.
Just like God created the earth in six days,the earth will stand for 6 centuries.
God will rest on the 7th
And thats why i believe Jesus will reign for that Millenuim.
Just my thoughts from what i've learned and it make a lot of sense
when you look at what the number 7 means for God.

[Anomaly]

Actually, the type of oil produced from plants in the lab isn't really close to the type of oil pumped from underground.

Although, there currently are scientists that are exploring new theories that oil is not neccesarily created from dinosaurs and plants, there are other chemical and physic causes that create oil.

Not that I believe Evolution is a hoax, but I do believe evolution caused soley by random genetic mutations then natural selection is scientifically unsound simply according to the math. The rate of genetic mutation observed during a period of time does not allow sufficient time for the number of mutations to occur to come up with the wide variety of life forms. This theory, buy the way, is one of the foundations of the "Guided Evolution" theories, or "Intelligent Design" theories. Origianl mitocondria DNA was originally created in such a manner that it's seemingly random evolution fulfills an organized and intended final design.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Truthseeker777' post='1206811' date='Mar 2 2007, 09:32 AM'][b]Fossils from the flood[/b],remember the earth were covered with thousands of layers of mud.
Just like the Mount of the Mississipi river building up huge layers.Many fossils that were found were standing upright.
Thats a good basis for flood evidence.
The Flood came incredibly quick,water from above and below.[/quote]

Really.So you are gonna explain all the fossils on earth to the flood? Explain to me when in the last 6000 years the earth bent and separated the Applachians fossils found here to specific points in Mexico and Scotland and Morocco and buried them deep, and nowhere in between. THey are buried 50-1000 feet below ground? How are you going to explain the multiple layers of sandstone, siltstone, and coal or was there more than one flood? All those different layers had to grow and die and grow and die. Or the 4000 ft thick Catskill Delta? Are you gonna tell me the Appalachian mountains which go up to 3000 feet high were flat and underwater and reached their current height in 6000 years? Then explain to me how the Himalyas did it, as they have sedimentary rocks as well. Mount Everest is 4 miles high.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1206797' date='Mar 2 2007, 12:47 PM']you seem to be the kind that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You put every individual that believes in some sort of "evolutioin" as "THE EVOLUTIONIST" and put them right in there with darwin, but the problem is that that way of thinking is no different then saying all black people are of the same race and charectoristics. It's apples and oranges again. Please take the time to go back and read my previous response thou because you're dodging it.

In regard to dating fosils and rocks, carbon 14 dating has some issues, like everything else. People interpreting and translating the bible have issues too, since a "word for word" translation between two languages is impossible. Does it mean that translations are 100% false? No, they have issues but still can be accurate to some degree, despite havinig problems. Also carbon 14 dating isn't the only form of dating things. The problem is that you dont know the process, the process isn't about just starting off with 14 million years and proclaiming it. It's a mathmatical process, it's about dating something that's 5 years old, checking the reaction to the chemicals, then being able to calculate that to a specific amount of years [this is just a nutshell]. It's not perfect but no system is perfect. Carbon 14 dating doesn't work on the Mediteranian Sea either, that's a flaw of it, but it doesn't mean that it's completely inaccurate because it's also been used on biblical facts, and it's come on point several times.

Reza[/quote]

Yeah, that's why you have to calibrate carbon dating. And it's incredibly expensive, so many artefacts aren't dated like that. When they are they send samples to different labs to make sure one lab wasn't contaminated or something. And there are other methods of dating. C-14 is just the best known.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1206899' date='Mar 2 2007, 04:31 PM']Yeah, that's why you have to calibrate carbon dating. And it's incredibly expensive, so many artefacts aren't dated like that. When they are they send samples to different labs to make sure one lab wasn't contaminated or something. And there are other methods of dating. C-14 is just the best known. [/quote]
Have you dated any human artifacts older than 6000 years?

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1206913' date='Mar 2 2007, 09:44 PM']Have you dated any human artifacts older than 6000 years?[/quote]

Me personally, on one of my digs, no. I dug in the US at a Big Sandy period site that was around 3000 B.C., and my work now is around 2500 B.C. However, the leader of my dig in the US also dug earlier sites (He might have dug a Clovis site, but I'm not sure now). I do look some at predynastic Egypt, around the time of the unification of Egypt (c. 3100 BC), but again, I haven't been on a site that has dated an object. In my experience they date an object or two, but they also come up with stylistic relative chronologies and then fit them together. It also helps that the Egyptians actually kept records, biased though they may be. Anyway, I've gotten close in my studies, but I don't usually go back quite that far.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1206913' date='Mar 2 2007, 02:44 PM']Have you dated any human artifacts older than 6000 years?[/quote]
I once considered dating a guy 11 years older than me, but I wouldn't call him an "artifact." Maybe in a few thousand years ...

[cmotherofpirl]

Cool beans . The neighboring hill here was a trading spot for Indians so I have a box of various arrowheads, knives, scapers and a possible tommahawk head collected from there. Meadowcroft is just two counties from me.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1206929' date='Mar 2 2007, 10:08 PM']Cool beans . The neighboring hill here was a trading spot for Indians so I have a box of various arrowheads, knives, scapers and a possible tommahawk head collected from there. Meadowcroft is just two counties from me.[/quote]

Cool. I lived in KY, so I dug there first, and visited Cahokia of course.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1206943' date='Mar 2 2007, 05:47 PM']Cool. I lived in KY, so I dug there first, and visited Cahokia of course. [/quote]
Lucky

[Urib2007]

[quote name='Fixxxer' post='1206167' date='Feb 28 2007, 10:48 PM']I think believing the earth is only about 6000 years old is pretty stupid, we can prove such things like dinosaur fossils are much older than 6000 years old.[/quote]

Fixxxer,

Dinosaurs were around when God created the heaven and the earth. That means that Adam and Eve saw dinosaurs. You won't see the term "dinosaurs" in the Bible since that word was invented in 1841 by Sir Richard Owen. The Bible speaks of dinosaurs, but in the Bible they are known as "dragons."
Dragons are mentioned 35 times in the Bible.

Reptiles never stop growing, so imagine having reptiles living in the Garden of Eden. They'd live to be over 900 years old and be really big. Look at how long Noah lived. It wasn't until after the flood when things became much different. So, how did Noah fit them into the Ark? Noah was smart enough to know that you don't have to bring the biggest animals. Noah was 600 years old and very intelligent when he went inside the ark. He brought in baby animals (two of each kind). It's just we are so used to seeing illustrations, paintings, etc. of Noah's Ark with full-grown animals. However, Noah didn't bring in full-grown animals.
He brought in babies because they're smaller, weigh less, eat less, sleep more, tougher, and they'll live longer after the flood in order to produce more offspring.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Urib2007' post='1207004' date='Mar 2 2007, 07:25 PM']Fixxxer,

Dinosaurs were around when God created the heaven and the earth. That means that Adam and Eve saw dinosaurs. You won't see the term "dinosaurs" in the Bible since that word was invented in 1841 by Sir Richard Owen. The Bible speaks of dinosaurs, but in the Bible they are known as "dragons."
Dragons are mentioned 35 times in the Bible.

Reptiles never stop growing, so imagine having reptiles living in the Garden of Eden. They'd live to be over 900 years old and be really big. Look at how long Noah lived. It wasn't until after the flood when things became much different. So, how did Noah fit them into the Ark? Noah was smart enough to know that you don't have to bring the biggest animals. Noah was 600 years old and very intelligent when he went inside the ark. He brought in baby animals (two of each kind). It's just we are so used to seeing illustrations, paintings, etc. of Noah's Ark with full-grown animals. However, Noah didn't bring in full-grown animals.
He brought in babies because they're smaller, weigh less, eat less, sleep more, tougher, and they'll live longer after the flood in order to produce more offspring.[/quote]
You have no proof that dinosaurs were around when God created heaven and earth. The bible does not ever mention dinosaurs. The term "tanin" is mentioned several times, but is translated as sea monster in most bibles.
In the NT the greek term "drakon" and refers to the devil.
Explain how reptiles never stop growing. Are you saying they never die or just keep getting bigger. Both assertions are false. Nowhere does it say Noah brought in baby animals, instead of adults.

[Urib2007]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1206264' date='Mar 1 2007, 09:11 AM']Well I havn't seen you prove with facts that creationism is true and evolution is false either... [/quote]

There have been numerous amounts of carvings found depicting images of dinosaurs, such as the ones found on the old walls of Babylon. According to the book [i]The Rise of Babylon[/i] by Charles Dyer, they found carvings of dragons there. Dragons were also seen on a gate in Babylon. That image can be seen in Vorderaslatisches (I think that's how you spell it) Museum in Berlin.

How did they know about dragons in 600 B.C.?

Nebuchadnezzar even had a dragon in a cage. In 300 B.C. Alexander the Great reported that when he conquered parts of what is now India in 326 B.C., his soldiers were scared by the great dragons that lived in caves.
There are even Roman mosaics illustrating two long necked dragons in the 2nd century A.D. How did the Romans know about dragons in the 2nd century after Christ?

St. George is famous for slaying a dragon in 275 A.D. St. George was martyred for his faith on April 23, 303 A.D. He is the patron saint of England and Portugal.

There are dragon legends from countries all over the world. There's an ancient pottery from the first dynasty of Egypt showing long necked dragons. There's a slate pallette from Heirakonpolis, showing triumph of King Nar-mer (first Pharaoh of a united Egypt) and long necked dragons ([i] The Ancient Near East in Pictures[/i] by Pritchard)

There's a long necked creature found a hippo tusk in a tomb in Inherka, 12th century B.C. in Egypt.
You can see more regarding ancient dinosaur artwork at www.rae.org

Marco Polo lived in China for 17 years around 1271 A.D. and reported that the emperor raised dragons to pull his chariots in parades. Why would he come back and tell a story like that? Maybe because there were dragons. :-)

In 1611, the Chinese emperor appointed the post of a "Royal Dragon Feeder." Books even tell of Chinese families raising dragons to use their blood for medicines and highly prizing their eggs. ([i]The Dragon in China & Japan,[/i] by Devisser, Marinus Willem, 1969)

The city of Nerluc, France was renamed in honor of the "dragon" slain there. It was described as being bigger than an ox and having long, sharp, pointed horns on its head.

The Indians used to carve pictures on the Grand Canyons. There was an Indian pictograph from the Grand Canyon found in the Havasupai Canyon in Grand Canyon. One of the pictures they found was a dinosaur. Now how did the Indians know about dinosaurs? Maybe they hunted them.

[Urib2007]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1207011' date='Mar 2 2007, 04:42 PM']You have no proof that dinosaurs were around when God created heaven and earth. The bible does not ever mention dinosaurs. The term "tanin" is mentioned several times, but is translated as sea monster in most bibles.
In the NT the greek term "drakon" and refers to the devil.
Explain how reptiles never stop growing. Are you saying they never die or just keep getting bigger. Both assertions are false. Nowhere does it say Noah brought in baby animals, instead of adults.[/quote]

Of course the Bible doesn't mention "dinosaurs" because like I mentioned earlier, that term was invented in 1841. Dinosaurs were known as dragons in the Bible. When you look at a picture of a dragon, don't they somewhat resemble a dinosaur? Dragons are mentioned 35 times in the Bible.

Open up your Bible and look at these verses:

"Their wine is the poison of [color="#FF0000"]dragons[/color]" - Deut. 32-33

"thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters" - Psalm 74:13

If you get a Catholic Bible, you'll find that in the Book of Daniel there's two extra chapters. Daniel 13 & 14. It says, "And there was a [color="#FF0000"]great dragon in that place[/color] and the Babylonians worshipped him." - Daniel 14:22

"And the king said to Daniel: Behold thou canst not say now that is not a living god: adore him therefore." - Daniel 14:23

"And Daniel said: I adore the Lord my God: for he is the living God: but that is no living god." - Daniel 14:24

"But give me leave, O king, and [color="#FF0000"]I will kill this dragon[/color] without sword or club. And the king said, I give thee leave." - Daniel 14:25

"Then Daniel took pitch, and fat, and hair, and boiled them together: and he made lumps, and put them into the [color="#FF0000"]dragon's mouth, and the dragon burst asunder."[/color] - Daniel 14:26

When the dinosaurs got off the ark, they faced a hostile climate. Remember they weren't protected by the firmament anymore. Before the flood they lived to be over 900 years old. Many dinosaurs died from the climate changes within the first few hundred years after the flood.
The average age before the flood was 912. Now it's 70-80 years old. Why? Most likely because of the firmament. The canopy of water that used to protect them was gone. Dinosaurs had two serious problems after the flood:

1) They climate was very different. They just couldn't live long enough to reproduce. Some species totally went extinct.

2) People began hunting them.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Urib2007' post='1207024' date='Mar 2 2007, 07:58 PM']Of course the Bible doesn't mention "dinosaurs" because like I mentioned earlier, that term was invented in 1841. Dinosaurs were known as dragons in the Bible.[/quote]


You have absolutely no proof that dinosaurs and dragons are the same thing.


OT references to the word dragon
2 in Esdras are referring to an attacking army.
2 in Ezekiel are referring to a water animal.
1 in Isaiah is referring to a twisting serpent.
Isaiah 51:9 refers to a dragon, but doesn't define what a dragon is.
Psalm 74 refers to a sea animal again.

Draco refers to any large land or sea serpent or reptile.

[Urib2007]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1207040' date='Mar 2 2007, 05:38 PM']You have absolutely no proof that dinosaurs and dragons are the same thing.
OT references to the word dragon
2 in Esdras are referring to an attacking army.
2 in Ezekiel are referring to a water animal.
1 in Isaiah is referring to a twisting serpent.
Isaiah 51:9 refers to a dragon, but doesn't define what a dragon is.
Psalm 74 refers to a sea animal again.

Draco refers to any large land or sea serpent or reptile.[/quote]

Ok, first let me clarify your last sentence regarding how "draco refers to any large land or sea serpent or reptile." [b]What do you think a dinosaur is? A mammal? It's a large lizard. What is a lizard? A REPTILE. What is a dinosaur? A REPTILE
[/b]
There were even fire breathing dragons and the Bible speaks of this.

"Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a [color="#FF0000"]fiery flying serpent.[/color]" -- Isaiah 14:29

"Out of his (Leviathan) mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of [color="#FF0000"]fire leap out[/color]." -- Job 41:19

"Out of his (Leviathan) nostrils [color="#FF0000"]goeth smoke[/color], as out of a seething pot of cauldron." -- Job 41:20

"His (Leviathan) breath kindleth coals, and a [color="#FF0000"]flame goeth out of his mouth[/color]." -- Job 41:24

[size=3]"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox." -- Job 40:15[/size]

Now who is behemoth? Some reference bibles say he could be an elephant or a hippopotamus. No, it cannot be either of those animals. Behemoth was probably a brachiosaurus. There are 13 different types of long necked dinosaurs anyway. Plus, a lot of animals eat grass. Just look at this next verse.

"Lo now, [color="#0000FF"]his strength is in his loins[/color], and the force is in the navel of his belly." -- Job 40:16

So, that means the biggest part of him is in his belly. Now let's read this next verse:

"He moveth [color="#0000FF"]his tail like a cedar[/color]: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together." -- Job 40:17

Okay, his tail is like a cedar tree. Have you seen an elephant's tail? or a hippo's tail? Do they look like they have tails resembling cedar trees? I think not.

[center][img]http://houstonzooblog.typepad.com/zoo/images/elephants_grass_on_back.jpg[/img][/center]

[center][img]http://www.dinofish.com/wmgallery/images/hippo,%20side.jpg[/img][/center]

"His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like [color="#0000FF"]bars of iron.[/color]" -- Job 40:18

"He is the [color="#0000FF"]CHIEF of the ways of God:[/color] he that made him can make his sword approach unto him" -- Job 40:19

Do you think the chief would be an elephant and/or a hippo?

Edited March 3, 2007 by Urib2007