And Even More Good News From Labour.
News11 mins ago
Did God Use Evolution To Create Life?
289 Answers
Did God Use Evolution to Create Life? Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? What does the evidence reveal? Does the evidence support the Bible’s description of events, or was Darwin correct? What have discoveries over the past 150 years revealed?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by locusts. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Pixie 23.50: "ancestors are still "running around". We still have apes, wolves, wild horses... not quite sure what your point is, as pterodactyls have died out, but we still have chickens... did you have an actual point though?"
Yes, my points are 1) I have observed that evolution within a species happens, and is still happening. However, there seems to be scanty evidence that evolution happens across a species. Species appear to be distinct from each other, and no evidence of evolution 'across' species-the evolution is contained within the species.
2) If evolution across a species were true, wouldn't there be thousands of fossils of creatures in "half" stages between different creatures? If the common ancestor theory were true, there would be fossil evidence to support it.
There would be thousands of 'half species' all evolving into their current state. Where are all the fossils showing the "evolution" up to it's current species? It isnt there.
3) Why aren't there any of the earlier "varieties" running (swimming?) around? If all species came from a common ancestor- where are all the 'inbetween' stages- or did a pterodactyl evolve into a chicken, an ostrich, a penguin, an eagle but there arent any 'inbetween' stages? How unscientific.
All sounds very far-fetched to me. How seemingly intelligent people can be duped by the common ancestor theory is my point. Hope this helps your understanding.
Yes, my points are 1) I have observed that evolution within a species happens, and is still happening. However, there seems to be scanty evidence that evolution happens across a species. Species appear to be distinct from each other, and no evidence of evolution 'across' species-the evolution is contained within the species.
2) If evolution across a species were true, wouldn't there be thousands of fossils of creatures in "half" stages between different creatures? If the common ancestor theory were true, there would be fossil evidence to support it.
There would be thousands of 'half species' all evolving into their current state. Where are all the fossils showing the "evolution" up to it's current species? It isnt there.
3) Why aren't there any of the earlier "varieties" running (swimming?) around? If all species came from a common ancestor- where are all the 'inbetween' stages- or did a pterodactyl evolve into a chicken, an ostrich, a penguin, an eagle but there arent any 'inbetween' stages? How unscientific.
All sounds very far-fetched to me. How seemingly intelligent people can be duped by the common ancestor theory is my point. Hope this helps your understanding.
Our comprehensive cannot understand the God's work at all. Hell we can't even understand ourselves anymore. We[human] mass murder in the name of protection/border/land/treasure etc. The day we understand our mind/ourselves is the day we meet the real creator. And how to find the god in ourselves, well I am not fully sure otherwise I would have been in eternal peace rather than joining this bank.
Spungle//Yes, my points are 1) I have observed that evolution within a species happens, and is still happening. However, there seems to be scanty evidence that evolution happens across a species. Species appear to be distinct from each other, and no evidence of evolution 'across' species-the evolution is contained within the species.//
That's exactly how we define it. I have had this conversation with theland recently too. If humans decide a "species" are two types of animals that can't interbreed, why are you surprised that they can't? It's literally how we chose to define the word.
In any case, we have bred different species... again, mules, ligers, hinnies... There is even recent findings (not sure how accurate) that different human species interbred, from DNA samples. Although, that might only go to show that we have categorised and classed it wrongly in the first place.
That's exactly how we define it. I have had this conversation with theland recently too. If humans decide a "species" are two types of animals that can't interbreed, why are you surprised that they can't? It's literally how we chose to define the word.
In any case, we have bred different species... again, mules, ligers, hinnies... There is even recent findings (not sure how accurate) that different human species interbred, from DNA samples. Although, that might only go to show that we have categorised and classed it wrongly in the first place.
If you read up the story of human emergence you will see a host of fossils ranging from what are considered ape-like to those considered more human, right up to animals which are fully human. I can't list them all, but recent ones include Neanderthals, homo erectus, homo sapiens, Denisovans, 'hobbits' and so on.
Nightmare, long time, no see? X I think it was me who mentioned them actually first. But in any case...
//Birds evolved from a group of meat-eating dinosaurs called theropods. That's the same group that Tyrannosaurus rex belonged to, although birds evolved from small theropods, not huge ones like T. rex. The oldest bird fossils are about 150 million years old.//
//Birds evolved from a group of meat-eating dinosaurs called theropods. That's the same group that Tyrannosaurus rex belonged to, although birds evolved from small theropods, not huge ones like T. rex. The oldest bird fossils are about 150 million years old.//
Pixie: "That's exactly how we define it. I have had this conversation with theland recently too. If humans decide a "species" are two types of animals that can't interbreed, why are you surprised that they can't?"
Thanks, Pixie. It seems we are in agreement. I am not surprised at all that different species cannot interbreed, it only seems to confirm the ridiculous notion of a common ancestor. Whales cannot breed with butterflies, rhino's can't breed with rabbits. In plant life, wheat never becomes rice and barley never becomes cress. The bible does explain this using the words 'after their kind' and 'after its seed'.
Atheist: "If you read up the story of human emergence you will see a host of fossils ranging from what are considered ape-like to those considered more human" Thanks Atheist, sure, there are fossils of neanderthals and the like, but to say that humans came from chimps is simplistic nonsense.
Nightmare: spungle,
"if you seriously think that "pterodactyls" as you call them are in any way connected to the lineage of birds, you are even more ill-informed than I thought". I certainly dont think that, and if I gave that impression, I apologise. I believe pterodactyls were created as pterodactyls, chickens as chickens, flamingos as flamingos.
Thanks, Pixie. It seems we are in agreement. I am not surprised at all that different species cannot interbreed, it only seems to confirm the ridiculous notion of a common ancestor. Whales cannot breed with butterflies, rhino's can't breed with rabbits. In plant life, wheat never becomes rice and barley never becomes cress. The bible does explain this using the words 'after their kind' and 'after its seed'.
Atheist: "If you read up the story of human emergence you will see a host of fossils ranging from what are considered ape-like to those considered more human" Thanks Atheist, sure, there are fossils of neanderthals and the like, but to say that humans came from chimps is simplistic nonsense.
Nightmare: spungle,
"if you seriously think that "pterodactyls" as you call them are in any way connected to the lineage of birds, you are even more ill-informed than I thought". I certainly dont think that, and if I gave that impression, I apologise. I believe pterodactyls were created as pterodactyls, chickens as chickens, flamingos as flamingos.
Pixie, I certainly didnt make reference to any common ancestor first, as I dont believe in that suggestion. But that's just an aside.
I thought I had made my views pretty clear- I believe that it is possible that there is evolution within a species. Never from a common ancestor, or across different species. The fossil record that life on earth began suddenly and in huge diversity. I personally believe in Creation, ie that a human began as a human, that a horse began as a horse, that a T-rex began as a T-rex etc. Yes, some species are similar. But the theory we all began as some sort of amoeba in the primordial soup and evolved into different species is not backed up by the evidence. Hope this helps. What do you believe about evolution?
I thought I had made my views pretty clear- I believe that it is possible that there is evolution within a species. Never from a common ancestor, or across different species. The fossil record that life on earth began suddenly and in huge diversity. I personally believe in Creation, ie that a human began as a human, that a horse began as a horse, that a T-rex began as a T-rex etc. Yes, some species are similar. But the theory we all began as some sort of amoeba in the primordial soup and evolved into different species is not backed up by the evidence. Hope this helps. What do you believe about evolution?
Atheist 12:45 Sat 05th Jun 2021 If you read up the story of human emergence you will see a host of fossils ranging from what are considered ape-like to those considered more human,
cope /peats
The Missing Link That Wasn’t
The Evidence of the Fossil Record
// Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed by scientists, and these are called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of living thing evolving into another kind. But the Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History commented: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favour of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.
cope /peats
The Missing Link That Wasn’t
The Evidence of the Fossil Record
// Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed by scientists, and these are called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of living thing evolving into another kind. But the Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History commented: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favour of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
Film, Media & TV17 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.