Quote:
Originally Posted by Megan1
It wasn’t me who talked about taking science in high school.
|
Apologies, was someone else then. But if you didn't take science in high-school, how can you know much about science? I find no reason to think you're motivated to do your own studying on your own time on the subject, so where did you gain the knowledge of biological evolution you mentioned?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Megan1
About the flood……Not all fossils would be the same depth underground because some animals died before the flood and after the flood. All of the animals that died in the flood would be in the same depth, but there were some animals who died long before the flood and some that died long after- so those wouldn’t be in the same place. And the bible specifically says that God put a curse on the Earth, making it age quicker; that explains why the fossils appear to be millions of years old when it reality they are only thousands of years old.
|
So the dating processes used by scientists are all incorrect?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Megan1
And I’m not exactly sure what you mean my “fossilized humans”. About the sprinkling blood thing, I haven’t read the whole way through Leviticus yet to know what context that was in….but off the top of my head I’d say that it may have been a healing ritual of some sort that God took part in that couldn’t be done without Him. Or maybe it COULD still work now and scientists just won’t fund something like that to find out. Um….there are probably even more logical options, but that it off the top of my head. I’ll have to ask someone about that.
|
It is in Leviticus Chapters 13-14. The context is if someone in a village has an ailment, it describes how the citizens should react and what the priest should do. In it, the priest is the one who decapitates 1 living dove and immediately after, sets a second dove free to fly away.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Megan1
When I said evolution, I just meant evolution of humans. I don’t know much about evolution of bacteria or anything like that, and I didn’t mean to say that that isn’t true. I just know that evolution (as in humans coming from monkeys) is still considered a theory, there is still missing links that makes the theory incomplete, and that there is a chance that it is false.
|
Fair enough you don't know much on evolution of bacteria. I mentioned it because it's one of the quickest and reliable ways to observe evolution happening in front of you. It can be done with fruit flies and such because their lifespan is brief, whereas for, say, a cow or a monkey, it'd take extremely long.
It is false, the theory does not say humans came from monkeys. That is a misunderstanding echoed from people who do not have a partial grasp on the concept of biological evolution pertaining to humans. Either the source(s) you read are complete bullshit or they're correct but you don't have a partial grasp on it, doesn't matter to me which is the case. Instead, it says humans came from a monkey-looking ancestor but humans and monkeys evolved separately. For example, one proposed taxonomy idea is that Euarchontoglires clade were common ancestors for various animals, ranging from rabbits to rats to humans. As this group evolved, it branched and eventually formed the family Hominidae. From this family, humans evolved parallel to monkeys, that is, they evolved from a common ancestor but not from each other. Later, this led to the genus Homo and you had Homo erectus, Homo neandrethalis and so forth.
It's not a detailed answer but here are 2 diagrams because pictures are worth a thousand words. First is from Wikipedia the second is from Nature (very large, well-respected scientific journal)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../Hominidae.PNG
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...28475a_F2.html
If you want to go back further, you'll eventually discuss evolution of fish, reptiles and so forth. I'm not going to explain that because it's far too long and uses far too many terms, I'd be giving half a page of terms before starting any explanation. Evidence from this also involves molecular genetics, some of which I know although it involves discussion of many other animals, although you'd be better off finding someone else to discuss with for that as I only know of some of the molecular processes.
Yes there is a chance it is not correct, it's redundant to keep saying it. No explanations in science will be considered factual. Evolution is sometimes said to be a "fact" for the reason it has not encountered strong scientific opposition and there's more and more evidence being added to the books of evidence that already exists. I were to go to a science conference or guest lecture and say to the person "well that's good and all but ____ theory is just a theory, it's may be wrong", just about everyone in the room would immediately think something along the lines of "who the fuck is this moron?".