Although I have adopted a religion myself (not christian) I cannot dispute the thesis of evolution, it's predominately fact. Despite evolution as fact, one has to still think that pre cambrian was not subjective to evolution and in correlation with my religion I believe that it may of been subject to celestial intervention.
Genesis alludes to the same chronology, the fossil record has laid down for the fundamentals of paleontology. Everything from algae and the earliest plant ancestors (non-photosynthetic fungi) , the huge gap itself hints the sun was not present, followed by the introduction of animals which came from "the waters". Followed by earliest man (which are described as vegetarian). And Adam, described as not the first human, but FIRST FARMER.
Darwinism itself, a theory (not proven) but theorized, based on scientific evidence?
Many theories and beliefs are based on scientific evidence.
It is when people read a book, take a blind shot at meaning (fail to take things into consideration such as, Heb. "day" was yowm, which also meant "epoch" or "indefinate period of time" and since some erroneously say it means only a 24 hour day (wrong), deny all of established science.
Evolution is a fact, maybe there are many things have to be proven but the structure of Evolution is solid. Creation is only a Babylonian and Egyptian mythology
What are you babbling about. You obviously have no comprehension of content. Atheists who were spreading MYTHS: i.e., the reptile to bird myth for starters, and that includes the feathered-Dinosaur-bird myths and Dr. Alan Feduccia came out blasting Darwinists in media, for spreading those lies, pointing out the non-scientific absurdity of the theories.
Atheists hold no monopoly on absolute truth. Ah, but they do preach and evangelize as though they do! ATHEISM IS RELIGION.
I have set forth the challenge to both Darwinists and Creationists alike: Where is a word for "Design" or "(Hand)Created" even used, in the text related to the ancestors of plants? Na da... God stood afar, and commanded the Earth to bring forth (ah, sounds like Evolution to me).
God stood afar off, and Gen. 1:20 commands the Waters (precise to scientific theory), WATERS WERE INDEED WHERE ANIMAL LIFE BEGAN (See Carl Zimmer's "At theWater's Edge"), and the waters brought forth..
True to Evolution/fossil record: the WATERS brought forth animal life, and 95% of species went extinct. At the time of whales (45 Mya), is the first time "Create" is even mentioned, and God merely "creates every (extant) species after its kind, which the waters had brought forth."
DESIGN is not found. WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING WITH? YEC?
Hebrew "After Their Kind" alludes to Evolution, "in likeness of earlier species." This was already proposed. It's the "Fine Tuner Hypothesis".
Hebrew term for Day "Yowm" doesn't always imply 24 hour literal days. Sometimes that term is used to imply an indefinate period of time, an epoch, and Darwin's rival, Louis Agassiz (famed for glacial epoch theory) proposed (in light of fossil record), "Epochs of Creation". Both men were prestigious colleagues. In light of fossil record, if "Epochs of Creation," was good enough for Louis Agassiz, then its good enough for me.
According to text of Genesis, both men were correct.
Creationists need to learn science before they attack it .Prior to the Cmbrian explosion the animals where too soft to have body parts fossilized ,they DID leave footprints galore .
I am not attacking science, I agree with it. Sunlight's absent=Extinction. Somewhere between the time of the Late Precambrian and Middle Cambrian, I BELIEVE the sun began the process of nuclear fusion. It was around this time period, animal life began fostering in the waters. Following the introduction of the sunlight, it doesn't say, the first creatures.... Genesis 1:20 says, "let the WATERS bring forth abundantly, the moving creatures". Sunlight would force creatures to evolve hard body plans.
The Bible says that the Universe was created of the fourth day,so if a day is 24 hours and now according to the Bible we have been living on earth for 6000 years, how come we can see the light of the near star which is 100,000 light year away
My goodness. You do have a problem with filtering everything you read thru your fundamentalist YEC narrow-brain understanding of Hebrew. IT DOES NOT SAY GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE ON THE FOURTH DAY. It said that God formed TWO LIGHTS... *hel l l o o o" TWO LIGHTS, which would well explain why the whole planet was littered with either non-photosynthetic species (Late Precambrian) or limited algae photosynthesizing around hydrothermal vents for THREE AND A HALF BILLION YEARS.
You utterly failed to read. I wrote: The Hebrew word "Yowm" for "Day" often implies INDEFINATE PERIOD OF TIME, an EPOCH. The fourth "epoch" the sun began nuclear fusion (2 lights). Earth's fossil record testifies when Sunlight reached Earth = Proliferation of animal life. The KT Boundary and other catastrophic events = EXTINCTION. As was seen for 3.5 billion years of Earth's earliest history. The Cambrian Explosion marks when the Sun began nuclear fusion.
Although I have adopted a religion myself (not christian) I cannot dispute the thesis of evolution, it's predominately fact. Despite evolution as fact, one has to still think that pre cambrian was not subjective to evolution and in correlation with my religion I believe that it may of been subject to celestial intervention.
kuniva101 7 months ago
Just because something hasn't been explained yet doesn't mean a supreme being must have done it.
elbowtido27 2 years ago
@elbowtido27
You are missing the point entirely.
Genesis alludes to the same chronology, the fossil record has laid down for the fundamentals of paleontology. Everything from algae and the earliest plant ancestors (non-photosynthetic fungi) , the huge gap itself hints the sun was not present, followed by the introduction of animals which came from "the waters". Followed by earliest man (which are described as vegetarian). And Adam, described as not the first human, but FIRST FARMER.
SaltWaterDiatoms 2 years ago
You could interpret many religions to support scientific research if you really wanted to convince yourself, though.
elbowtido27 2 years ago
@elbowtido27
Darwinism itself, a theory (not proven) but theorized, based on scientific evidence?
Many theories and beliefs are based on scientific evidence.
It is when people read a book, take a blind shot at meaning (fail to take things into consideration such as, Heb. "day" was yowm, which also meant "epoch" or "indefinate period of time" and since some erroneously say it means only a 24 hour day (wrong), deny all of established science.
That is a problem. Science facts, first.
SaltWaterDiatoms 2 years ago
Evolution is a fact, maybe there are many things have to be proven but the structure of Evolution is solid. Creation is only a Babylonian and Egyptian mythology
51cacheton 2 years ago
@51cacheton
What are you babbling about. You obviously have no comprehension of content. Atheists who were spreading MYTHS: i.e., the reptile to bird myth for starters, and that includes the feathered-Dinosaur-bird myths and Dr. Alan Feduccia came out blasting Darwinists in media, for spreading those lies, pointing out the non-scientific absurdity of the theories.
Atheists hold no monopoly on absolute truth. Ah, but they do preach and evangelize as though they do! ATHEISM IS RELIGION.
SaltWaterDiatoms 2 years ago
@51cacheton
You were not using your reading and listening and comprehension skills.
THIS VIDEO SUPPORTS EVOLUTION.
*chuckles*
so who or what are you arguing with?
Typical atheist. Not thinking and using critical thinking skills, before speaking!
SaltWaterDiatoms 2 years ago
@51cacheton
I have set forth the challenge to both Darwinists and Creationists alike: Where is a word for "Design" or "(Hand)Created" even used, in the text related to the ancestors of plants? Na da... God stood afar, and commanded the Earth to bring forth (ah, sounds like Evolution to me).
God stood afar off, and Gen. 1:20 commands the Waters (precise to scientific theory), WATERS WERE INDEED WHERE ANIMAL LIFE BEGAN (See Carl Zimmer's "At theWater's Edge"), and the waters brought forth..
SaltWaterDiatoms 2 years ago
@51cacheton
True to Evolution/fossil record: the WATERS brought forth animal life, and 95% of species went extinct. At the time of whales (45 Mya), is the first time "Create" is even mentioned, and God merely "creates every (extant) species after its kind, which the waters had brought forth."
DESIGN is not found. WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING WITH? YEC?
Hebrew "After Their Kind" alludes to Evolution, "in likeness of earlier species." This was already proposed. It's the "Fine Tuner Hypothesis".
SaltWaterDiatoms 2 years ago
@51cacheton
Hebrew term for Day "Yowm" doesn't always imply 24 hour literal days. Sometimes that term is used to imply an indefinate period of time, an epoch, and Darwin's rival, Louis Agassiz (famed for glacial epoch theory) proposed (in light of fossil record), "Epochs of Creation". Both men were prestigious colleagues. In light of fossil record, if "Epochs of Creation," was good enough for Louis Agassiz, then its good enough for me.
According to text of Genesis, both men were correct.
SaltWaterDiatoms 2 years ago
The largerst animal in the Cambrian is only 3 feet long , most are mere inches .
flyingscience 2 years ago
Creationists need to learn science before they attack it .Prior to the Cmbrian explosion the animals where too soft to have body parts fossilized ,they DID leave footprints galore .
flyingscience 2 years ago
I am not attacking science, I agree with it. Sunlight's absent=Extinction. Somewhere between the time of the Late Precambrian and Middle Cambrian, I BELIEVE the sun began the process of nuclear fusion. It was around this time period, animal life began fostering in the waters. Following the introduction of the sunlight, it doesn't say, the first creatures.... Genesis 1:20 says, "let the WATERS bring forth abundantly, the moving creatures". Sunlight would force creatures to evolve hard body plans.
SaltWaterDiatoms 2 years ago
The Bible says that the Universe was created of the fourth day,so if a day is 24 hours and now according to the Bible we have been living on earth for 6000 years, how come we can see the light of the near star which is 100,000 light year away
51cacheton 2 years ago
@51cacheton
My goodness. You do have a problem with filtering everything you read thru your fundamentalist YEC narrow-brain understanding of Hebrew. IT DOES NOT SAY GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE ON THE FOURTH DAY. It said that God formed TWO LIGHTS... *hel l l o o o" TWO LIGHTS, which would well explain why the whole planet was littered with either non-photosynthetic species (Late Precambrian) or limited algae photosynthesizing around hydrothermal vents for THREE AND A HALF BILLION YEARS.
SaltWaterDiatoms 2 years ago
@51cacheton
You utterly failed to read. I wrote: The Hebrew word "Yowm" for "Day" often implies INDEFINATE PERIOD OF TIME, an EPOCH. The fourth "epoch" the sun began nuclear fusion (2 lights). Earth's fossil record testifies when Sunlight reached Earth = Proliferation of animal life. The KT Boundary and other catastrophic events = EXTINCTION. As was seen for 3.5 billion years of Earth's earliest history. The Cambrian Explosion marks when the Sun began nuclear fusion.
Go argue with YEC.
SaltWaterDiatoms 2 years ago