I agree with my post ONLY because of the IF in the beginning of the statement. I don't believe the evolutionary model is correct, true, or even valid science. If it is, then the latter part of the quote is just as likely as anything that has already occurred up to this point. Given enough time, ANYTHING is possible and likely. And that IS the key element required to make the evolutionary model plausible and believable.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/ Also the fossil record provides substantial proof of evolution, and there's very very strong genetic evidence. Scientist have found fossils that are 3.4 billions years old, isn't that amazing! http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/worlds-oldest-fossil-found-in-western-australia.htm

by Anonymous 10 years ago

//Science is based on and derived from observations of the world around us from which interpretations are made. **I observe fossils and interpret evolution.//** That is science, yes. //...concerning things that are verifiable by observation, experience...//**"god" does not fall into this category.**

by Anonymous 10 years ago

A Bible and Savior are every bit as observable and verifiable as a few scattered bones that are not showing any evolutionary process in action or occurrence.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Do think scientists carry out their tasks like they have blindfolds on and are playing pin the tail on the donkey? First of all fossils are can be dated from the sediments they have been deposited in through Uranium dating which can date all the way back to 4.5 billion years (among other ways, but this one's the most refined). Law of superposition, look it up. If we go up a sequence of rock layers we can see more simpler organisms at the older layers, and as we go up organisms become more complex. This is observed all over the world. Here a good e.g. http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Missing-Link-between-Fish-and-Four-Legged-Land-Animals-Was-Found-21028.shtml

by Anonymous 10 years ago

um, no, there are not.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

That is the difference of believing in God and taking Him at His Word versus believing in a bunch of atheists who deny God's existence and want to rewrite His story of how it all happened.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Agreed. One uses faith as a method of accepting "knowledge" and the other relies on evidence and actual observation of the real world to accept knowledge. Faith is not evidence, the bible is not evidence, the Savior is not observable, measurable or in any way confirmable phenomena - it is simple conjecture and is outside the realm of science.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Millions and billions of years IS faith no matter how you state it or gloss it over. You just refuse to admit that your system requires just as much faith (I say even more) as mine. Biblical faith IS evidence and the Bible IS evidence. Both are based on human witnesses and experience. That is why there are people who can testify of a changed life and a complete turn around from one thing to another. The Savior was observable by those alive when He walked the Earth. They recorded many of their dealings with Him in Scripture. If you refuse to acknowledge or accept that, that is your loss.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Fair enough. My understanding is that none of the four accepted gospels was written by any person alive while Jesus walked the Earth. I may be mistaken. I have read the Gospel of Judas which was debunked by the early church but which was potential written by a person who actually lived contemporaneously with Jesus. Also enjoyed reading the Gospels of Thomas, Mary and Philip which do not appear to be contemporaneous but which give interesting insights into the various interpretations of the four "main" gospels.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I do want to remain friends with you, and this format is probably not the best suited for holding Bible lessons. We are probably violating someone's rights, freedoms, or offending them. I would highly recommend (if you have a real interest in such matters) that you find a copy of "More Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell. If nothing else, it is a great intellectual read. Another very excellent read is "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. Lewis can not be ignored and was no academic slouch. And I mean no ill will towards you or anyone. If at times I come across as arrogant or belligerent, it is only because I refuse to accept the conventional "wisdom" of fallible human thinking.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

While I will not say it's impossible for those things to happen, evolution follows the "survival of the fittest" route, and that does not necessarily mean pigs will fly, or horses will develop horns. The likelihood of that is very slim, because the pigs would most likely have to change their entire body structure (and not be pigs any more). Why would pigs even need to fly anyways? Or why would horses need to develop horns? Nice way of passive-aggressively saying evolution's stupid, OP.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

If you or I are the final product from a fish, then yes, anything can happen. It only takes time and lots of imagination.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Oh, and a PhD to qualify the story line...........

by Anonymous 10 years ago

That's exactly why I said it's not impossible, just highly unlikely.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Well, you're not entirely wrong. With the amount of planets in the universe, as small as the odds may be, there could be as many as a billion other planets exactly like earth, if that few. So yes, there are probably planets out there with a version of flying pigs, and perhaps, unicorns.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Scroll up several comments and find the one that begins with: At least we are talking rationally........... That is the one I said refute.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

What would have to happen is that pigs with hollower bones were given an environmental advantage slowly, then ones that could jump farther, then ones with more aerodynamic bodies, then with more bird-like bodies, then whose front legs grew skin attached to the torso to flap, then with legs higher up, then who could balance on hind legs (perhaps wider, less bulky hooves), and eventually flight. A lot of these would have to occur simultaneously, like the front legs becoming like arms. With pigs it's a real stretch, but with other adaptations it's not. The reason stuff like this doesn't usually happen is because animals don't usually face such drastic change in what helps them survive. But when they do, mutations that help them are the ones that get passed on. There was an instance of when in forests, white moths and black moths coexisted. But there was a big fire and afterwards, only the black moths had camouflage and all the white moths died out. Now, all the moths in that forest are black. Evolution is like that, but more slow with tons of mutations being present at the same time.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I thought (I could be wrong) that evolution occurs only when an organism or something needs to adapt to its environment in order to survive and eventually when enough changes occur it turns into another species. So those examples you gave like pigs flying are ridiculous.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

That isn't how evolution works.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Did you happen to watch the debate on this subject between Ken Ham and Bill Nye?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

No - I was working. Would love to find it and watch still.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Here you go- I thought you'd find it interesting. I don't know if your opinion is exactly that of Ken Ham's, but he did a great job. I still completely agree with Bill Nye, but Ken really knows how to make a case for himself. I didn't watch the whole thing, but what I watched was good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

by Anonymous 10 years ago

You seem to be under the impression that scientists are claiming that evolution is some sort of instantaneous process where an animal magically poofs into a new form. That's not how it is and that's not what they're claiming. Could God have created the Big Bang and played puppet master to evolution? Sure. But creationism in the sense that He blew some dust and man was formed and then created a woman out of a rib.... no. Never.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Because the changes that would be mutated would have to be beneficial to the survival of the mutated gene, like a gene that allowed the female of a species to reproduce much faster, or camouflage, or the ability to run faster, etc... Pigs would benefit none from having the introduction of wings, let alone the ability to fly. Horses wouldn't benefit much from having a horn, and if a cow were able to jump into space, it would die, and therefore not pass on its genes.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Now, I understand you were making a joke, hopefully, but I've heard arguments like this way too many times. Ray Comfort and Eric Hovind are too good at making straw men arguments like that, such as the Crocoduck.

by Anonymous 9 years ago