[Bible and evolution] It's not a hard concept at all guys, really.

-=TTC=-Serpreme · Jul 4, 2008

Back then, you mean thousands of years ago? Look up the dinosaurs?

-=TTC=-Serpreme · Jul 5, 2008

Come on, lets talk about this some more. I thought we were really making progress.

hyung · Jul 5, 2008

I don't think it's worth discussing intellectually any topic if my opponent thinks dinosaurs were around thousands of years ago.

-=TTC=-Serpreme · Jul 5, 2008

opsayo said:
A lot of people find it silly that humans in biblical times lived in the hundreds of years (up to 969 to be exact), and think that it is proof that the scripture cannot be taken literally. There are many theories that would help to explain this phenomena, and here is the leading one that is accepted by most people in the scientific community (obviously there is rarely a consensus when it comes to the scientific community, but it is very close - intelligent design anyone?).

Noah and the great flood is the very first mention of any rain in the Bible. This can be backed up with the fossil record that there was no rain to exist on the earth before that time. It is theorized (and there is both atmospheric and terrestrial data to support this) that the planet was encompassed by a large shell of water, much thicker than our current atmosphere. This condensation shielded the earth from the ultraviolet rays of the sun and created a climate that allowed humans to live for much longer years.

Once the first rain commenced, the climate became more humid, hotter, and species adapted to it. In an age where there is little random mutation or sun damage species can survive for hundreds if not thousands of years. This would explain how the early humans like Adam and Eve lived for so long.

Also, you can expect that over time mutations would accumulate and that our overall DNA structure is much weaker than it was back then when it was first crafted by God's hand.

These two facts in conjunction with a little common sense are useful to clear up the misconception that the Biblical record conflicts with the evolutionary record or otherwise.

Feel free to post if you have any questions.

Oh i'm sorry, i read this and took you for a young earth creationist. so your not?

hyung · Jul 5, 2008

you're not your

are you really worth arguing with at this point?

-=TTC=-Serpreme · Jul 5, 2008

opsayo said:
you're not your.

are you really worth arguing with at this point?

Use correct grammar if you're going to insult someone else's and use it as a cheap way out.

Also i thought we were debating, not arguing?

But yes, lets avoid the questions, clear up any confusions and go back to picking on peoples grammar. Because thats clearly more important.

hyung · Jul 5, 2008

being too lazy to put punctuation is nothing like misusing you're and your

keep trying

hyung · Jul 5, 2008

-=TTC=-Serpreme said:
Use correct grammar if you're going to insult someone else's and use it as a cheap way out.

Also i thought we were debating, not arguing?

But yes, lets avoid the questions, clear up any confusions and go back to picking on peoples grammar. Because thats clearly more important.

fragment

that's

:lol:

-=TTC=-Serpreme · Jul 5, 2008

i guess you concede you're a loony. Works for me.

hyung · Jul 5, 2008

you're the one who can't formulate a decent point, comprehend a basic paragraph, or master basic grammar

and you think you're worth "debating" with?

-=TTC=-Serpreme · Jul 5, 2008

Every personal insult only further drives home the point you don't have any intellectual ground to stand on.

You're basically saying I'm wrong because i didn't care enough to use proper grammar, just like you are doing now.

But the real difference is, I'm willing to expand upon these
subjects, you are only willing to degrade it because you know anything you say will come across crazy.

-=TTC=-Serpreme · Jul 5, 2008

I'm going to walk to subway, should be back in a hour or so. Try to pull it together by then would you?

Wowbagger · Jul 5, 2008

-=TTC=-Serpreme said:
I'm going to walk to subway, should be back in a hour or so. Try to pull it together by then would you?

Yes please hurry back so you can continuing this fascinating discussion.

Quiksilver · Jul 5, 2008

IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED,

OPSAYO, AKA HAWAIIAN,

IS ALWAYS TROLLING

STOP FEEDING HIM

Sojourn · Jul 5, 2008

Wowbagger said:
You guys realize he didn't make this up right?

A lot of creationists seriously believe this.

The one that gets me is that, if some humans lived so long, what about the other humans? Even if you extrapolate out that the 969 years was, say, 96 years, does that mean the other humans only lived to be about 6-7 years old? That kind of sucks, doesn't it?

Sojourn · Jul 5, 2008

opsayo said:
Ever heard of evolution? There weren't that many animal types back then.

Evolution means some species evolve and other species die. There were still thousands of species of mammals, and thousands of species of avians, reptiles, and amphibians, as well as at least a million species of insects.

hyung · Jul 5, 2008

Sojourn said:
Evolution means some species evolve and other species die. There were still thousands of species of mammals, and thousands of species of avians, reptiles, and amphibians, as well as at least a million species of insects.

As species evolve you get divergent branches of evolution leading to greater complexity and increased speciation. The number of species increase as well as their habitats and the features that make them unique and enable them to survive.

You are pretty silly if you think there were the same amount of species there were then that there are now!

-=TTC=-Serpreme · Jul 5, 2008

opsayo said:
As species evolve you get divergent branches of evolution leading to greater complexity and increased speciation. The number of species increase as well as their habitats and the features that make them unique and enable them to survive.

You are pretty silly if you think there were the same amount of species there were then that there are now!

lol

Sojourn · Jul 5, 2008

opsayo said:
As species evolve you get divergent branches of evolution leading to greater complexity and increased speciation. The number of species increase as well as their habitats and the features that make them unique and enable them to survive.

You are pretty silly if you think there were the same amount of species there were then that there are now!

Who said anything about the same amount of species? It's estimated that there are about 15,000 species of mammals right now. Do you really think that number went from even a few hundred to fifteen thousand in that span of time? If that were true we'd be able to see both micro and macroevolution on much larger scales than we do currently.

styr · Jul 5, 2008

-=TTC=-Serpreme said:
Back then, you mean thousands of years ago? Look up the dinosaurs?

everything started from single celled organisms. we have quite a bit of species now, i remember something about a huge extinction event (not the comet 65m years ago) that wiped out like 90% of the earths species, im not sure if there was more or less species now or then

humans are a pretty good superpredator