They are definitely too long
, but this debate has incorporated so many statements by each party that length becomes necessary, I suppose.
They did this with fish, piranhas, which became remarkably larger than they normally would. You don't have to make ozone to simulate a thicker ozone layer. You have to change radiation levels, pressure, etc.
And the bible is written proof. Why would they lie about the age of someone anyway? People used to become older. In the bible you can clearly read that after the humans got a lot less older, from 900 years of age (well, they probably had a different way of counting years back then, so it's not that percise) to 200. Means they died more than four times earlier. Again, why would they lie? People used to be larger too. All over the world skeletons of human beings have been found. Some of them were almost 9 feet long. Not all of them were like this though. I can't explain why, but no one ever will be able to I guess.
And about O3 to H2O. It would be a difficult reaction, but compared to the big bang, a reaction that created life, it's nothing special. That's what I ment, and clearly said too.
Would not the effects of radiation and pressure be nullified somewhat underwater? The Bible is not written proof. It's no more proof of anything than is the Koran or the Talmud. People living to be 900 years old sounds ridiculous. Also, there were no other ancient peoples who reported lifespans that long, that I've heard of anyway. The Egyptians never did, just for example. The Bible can't be used as primary source info, either, because the passages which reported such long lifespans were dealing with what was even in Moses' day the far past.
Of course we have found human skeletons all over the world (in graves), and a Robert Waldo (if I remember correctly) grew to almost 9 feet tall. Aside from that, I have never heard of scientists just kind of finding these giant humans all over the world-and you could be assured that such finds, if legitimate, would spread like wildfire in the scientific community.
It was not clear that you were referring to the big bang. Anyway, they are not the same thing, you were describing a chemical reaction-chemical reactions couldn't have occured in the big bang because the singularity was too hot and dense to have atoms; they were only formed after the bang.
But you said that in the original manuscript there's errors and contradictions. I tried to say there are not. There surely are now, which rather sad. The bible was translated at first in the middle ages. There were lots of animals not known here that lived in the Middle-East. So this is just a lack of knowledge back at that time. These translations are still used most of the time. Well, with more "modern" speech, that is.
Tell me then, how are middle eastern locusts, "conies," and bats different from european ones? Anyway, we don't have any original Biblical manuscripts, so we don't know how much of the modern Bible can be trusted, even if it is assumed that the original Bible was error free. (a highly suspect assumption) Copiers through the ages undoubtedly altered passages they didn't like to suit their particular dogmatic beliefs.
So, evidence has to be something that's proven, otherwise it would be of no value. This evidence is science, not a theory based on that evidence
Alot of this depends on how one defines science. But, in general, you are mistaken. Science does encompass theories that are based on facts, the theory of relativity, for example. Are you telling me that that's not science?
Maybe it was sarcasm? I'm sure you know what I ment by that, you're not at all a stupid guy.
I see what you mean. The only reason I responded to this was because I have heard such an argument used before in absolute earnest, and just wanted to show the problems with that statement.
Well, other evolutionists say we are fitter than apes, so what's it?
If they survive in their habitat, they would not have had a reason to evolve. If their habitat was destroyed, they wouldn't be able to survive, and would not have had the time to evolve.
Some might say it, and in a way it's true, it all depends on how you look at it. Humans are a more successful species in terms of numbers, so in that way we are more fit. But apes are still around, showing that they are still fit enough to survive. Fitness in an evolutionary sense only means the ability to survive and reproduce.
I'm not entirely sure that your last statement makes sense. Would you please try to restate your question?
Example, other than micro-evolution? (just interested)
Evolution is evolution; the only thing that changes over time is the degree to which it can occur. Enough small changes eventually become substantial change over time. Just one example would be drug-resistant bacteria.
Perhaps. Perhaps God created the mudskipper because it perfectly fitted into a biological chain. Who knows?
That is, if you believe in a god. "God did it" is not a really suitable scientific response, because an all powerful deity could do anything. The evidence is against the "god did it" view of the world, however.
Genesis 7:17 ¶ And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
Genesis 8:6 ¶ And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:
I said 30, I ment 40. Sorry.
Genesis 7:24~And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
Genesis 8:3-6~And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen. And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made:
Also, compare that Noah was 600 years old
during the flood (Gen. 7:6), and he was 601 years old after the flood. (Gen. 8:13)
The ark was a pretty huge ship. It took Noah a century to build it (human beings used to get older). I can't find it quickly right now, but you can look it up any time. There surely was enough room. There's no need to discuss that. If it is possible now to build it, it was then too. They used to have quite advanced building techniques you know? There are rocks that can't be lifted by any crane nowadays in some acient temples. If they were able to do that better than us, they could also build as large a boat as we can.
There surely was not enough room. Besides sevens of some kinds of animals, and pairs of others, Noah had to keep a tank for just about every kind of sea life in existence. (whales included) He also needed to keep just about every kind of plant in existence. All these creatures needed care, exercise, fresh air, food clean water, medical treatment, etc.
Also, it is a fact that ordinary wood would not be able to survive the stress placed upon it in such a massive boat as the ark, in seas that were in all probably extremely turbulent.
I've already mentioned some contradictions.
And you know, even Darwin admitted he was wrong in his last few years. I keep finding that rather funny..
What I find funny is that I've never heard of Darwin admitting he was wrong. And what's even funnier is that some people care, even if the tale was true was true. Evolution does not depend on what its founder thought of it, the fact is that nearly all respected modern biologists consider evolution a fact.
I think my view of the world is not narrow. I think it's logical. The evolution theory was simply created by man because he wanted to understand the world. He wanted more power over the world. It was created because man somehow can't stand not to understand things. But it needs much more wisdom to understand that the human mind is incapable of understanding 99% of what's actually going on.
If your view were based on logic, you would recognize that evolution has much more scientific support than creationism. If your view were based on logic, you would recognize how ridiculous 900 year life spans are, and how impossible the whole flood story is.
The theory of evolution was created because a man saw that the old way of thinking (creationism) did not adequately cope with all the evidence; he created a theory that dealt with his observations of both living and dead creatures. This theory has been refined by increased evidence over time until we come to our modern evolutionary theory.
You are 100% correct in saying that man wishes he could understand everything, and that he really knows very little. But what he does know is strongly in favor of the evolutionary point of view. We can only make decisions based on what we know, not on what we don't know. Evolution is the best decision out there (biologically speaking) based upon the observations and facts we do have.
I'm sorry for being so longwinded, but I felt the need to reply to each of your statements.
Topic: evolution vs. biblical theory