Coragyps

Speak for yourself, or at least say "most modern people," until you've been to someplace like Worthyboards.....

Kevbo

:banghead:

judge

Of course evolution exists. We see populations change and evolve all the time. Different versions of genes become more and less frequent in populations.

The differences between the races that we see are merely different versions of some genes becoming more (or less) frequent in these populations.

What creationists say is that there are many seperate genomes which evolve independently (that is whilst remainig separate ).

Also strictly speaking we all came from one human not two (sorr to be pedantic )

goat37

The problem you run into with this argument is that Creationists will call that 'microevolution', which they believe in. What they don't believe in is macroevolution, which would be a whole new species coming from a different species (from what i understand anyway) which is why they don't believe we came from monkeys.

The problem with this view, is that 250 million years ago, mammals didn't exist. Neither did birds. So that would mean one would have to assume that mammals came from nonmammals and birds came from non-birds (which might explain why birds have the proper genes to make teeth).

But you run into another problem when you use this against a creationist... They don't believe that the earth is that old, they believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. So those fossils of dinosaurs you see in the museum, fake, or at least from less than 6,000 years ago. And that Ice Age? Yep... either never happened, or sooner than 6,000 years ago. All of the different sub-species of animals evolved in less than 6,000 years... although, 6,000 years ago there was already organized society.

It's a scary thought when you could point your finger at visual proof that life was around more than 6000 years ago (let alone the earth itself), and they still don't believe you.

judge

Hi,
What do you mean by organised society?
What evidence is there of this in 4000 b.c.

It seems to me that real evidence of man "as we know him", i.e. singing, dancing, marrying, getting divorced, playing games, making contracts, breaking contracts, wearing fancy clothes, building temples, etc...etc....comes between 3000 and 4000 b.c. .
Which is just where it would be expected if the flood (whatever that was ) happened around 3500 b.c.

KeithHarwood

There is abundant archeological evidence of a continuous and evolving culture in the Nile valley from 6000BC to the present day. There are ruins of towns in the fertile cresent from 8000BC, even older ones in the Indus valley. Living floors in southern Europe show post-holes indicative of permanent buildings from 25000BC. Cave paitings and cultural artifacts date from 45000BC, as do fine needles suitable for making fancy clothes.

The cultural changes in 3-4000BC arose from the invention of bureaucracy and the subsequent paperwork. (All right, clay-tablet-work. Stone-monument-work.)

conkermaniac

Their silly belief in turn disproves Noah's ark, as that would mean that Noah would have had to bring tons and tons of animals aboard the ark...certainly an impossibility!

Roller

It is enough to look at Dolne Vestonice situated in Central Europe, Czech Republic, for this.

Roland98

Ah, but that's why they emphasize the "kind" of each animal--Noah brought 2 of each kind, which then rapidly speciated into the diversity we see today after the flood. Convenient, eh?

Roller

We can always call for good ole' "sin and the Curse"

From christiananswers.net
"Every person has two sets of genes, there being some 130,000 pairs that specify how a person is put together and functions. Each person inherits one gene of each pair from each parent. Unfortunately, genes today contain many mistakes (because of sin and the Curse) , and these mistakes show up in a variety of ways."

Now, evilutionists, can't you see that the ultimate source on which natural selection operates is "sin and the Curse"!

Evolution is change in frequency between sin and the Curse in population.