Where do Creationists think the Theory of Evolution comes from?

1. As I said I don't intend to get into off topic stuff here, but briefly, the emerging cashless mark and number world monetary system as prophesied in Revelation 13 would be an example of prophecy emerging into fulfillment.
2. Most Biblical scholars estimate about a third of the Bible as prophetic, either past fulfillments, emerging ones or future ones not yet fulfilled.I just wanted to answer the OP question, so please don't expect me to digress into all your off topic questions.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Fair enough, though I should let you know that most Biblical scholar recognize that most of what's in the Bible was put there in 1348.Don't ask me to go into details, like you I'm just making unfounded remarks.

The prophecies in it were assembled from much older manuscripts of which we have relatively early copies.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Let me throw in that the Bible was written by men, not "faxed from god". If you agree with this statement, then you almost inherently agree that humans are psychic, for them to prophesise future events. Interesting train of thought.This message has been edited by Damouse, 12-18-2005 08:29 PM

Hey,Jar, that almost sounds like a description of sex. O.k., mebbe not Holmes` variety. :-p

I have a feeling that this could get badly out of hand.Also, no replies to this message.Adminnemooseus

---

Nope. Many Biblical Scholars openly admit that the oldest copies of what we now know as the Bible date to 1348."Older" copies were made to look older to trick people.Don't want to get off topic though

"Evolution was a paradigmatic shift...it was an idea who's time had come."Too true. The notion had already been in the human mindset. From a personal standpoint, much of the thought process had it's beginnings from those such as David Hume (1711-1766) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831).Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - Wikipedia
David Hume - Wikipedia
Anthropology - Wikipedia

what do you mean by "Who's time had come"?

---

-I believe in God, I just call it Nature
-One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion.
-People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men.
-Religion is the opiate of the masses

Actually, the more I study evolution, the more I believe in a supreme being. I know this is gonna really twist some creationist knickers but I humbly present the following:1)The Bibile states that the world was created in 7 days...it
does not state the length of said 7 days, so they could
have been much, much longer ("A thousand years are but a
day in Thy sight...")2)The Creator did not deign to tell us exactly what happened
in those seven days...only the very rough outline given in
in the first chapter of Genesis. It might have been
instant creation or He may have let evolution do its
thing. The fact is that we do not know--and short of
to Heaven and being told the whole story, we may never
know.3)I find it humbling and beautiful that the Creator MAY
have taken a humble species of ape and given said species
souls. Remember, every one, it is His universe and He
can do whatever He wants.I honestly do not see a problem with a believer in Creationism also believing in evolution. No sane scientist would say that evolution is the whole story...if he or she does, then obviously they are working to a non-beliving agenda.Also, I suspect that science takes a non-creationist approach because there are other religions out there besides Christianity...so, whose Creation story do you teach or endorse? This may offend the evangelical Christian mind, but you do not gain converts by willfully
insulting another's belief, no matter how stupid you might think it is.Edited by Lights, : No reason given.

I received the following email with this reply\question\comment from ICANT:
(also see Message 168 and Where do Creationists think the Theory of Evolution comes from?, Message 77) I'll post my answer here, and let others comment as well: Don't confuse a single "book" with the complete compilation of all known books. This is just one area where almost all the species are known - ones that fall into the foraminifera order (a taxonomic grouping above "family" "genus" and "species") for the time period in question. See Message 4 for more explanation and a discussion of what this evidence means for evolution. First, something like 2.5 billion years passed between the first single cell life and the first multicellular life - as recorded in the fossil record - so evolutionary expectations would be low if expected at all ... Evolution is not driven to become some predetermined end or result, and thus would not think it necessary for these forams to evolve into something walking on land. For evolution they just need to continue to survive and reproduce to be succesful. After 3.5+ billion years of evolution there is not only still single cell life, but single cell life very similar to those first fossils found (cyanobacteria) that are 3.5 billion years old: why should the forams be any different?See http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm for more.Then it took another half billion years before the first rudimentary life moved onto land (again according to the fossil record)See Timeline of the evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia for basic time-lines.The predominant form of life on this planet is still single cell. This is because single cellular life is succesful at survival and reproduction: the requirements set by evolution for continued existence.See Image - Wikipediahylogenetic_tree.svg and note that the very right hand end has three small "branches" for all the multicellular life forms (I used to have a link to an interactive tree that you could zoom in on each branch, but I had a computer crash and had to rebuild from ghost image 6 months old - at least I had that backup eh?).Second, IF forams evolved into something that moved onto land and out of the sea, how would the evidence for that show up in the fossils of sea life in the sediments? How would you know whether they had or not - wouldn't you be looking in the wrong place? And dogs would always still be dogs - whether they evolve wings, tentacles and x-ray vision ... or not.Of course what you see here are still free-floating forams, because that is what they were looking for. Think of it this way: instead of looking for what forams might evolve into, this study shows the evolutionary history of current foraminifera. It does NOT show the evolutionary history of other organisms that may or may not have evolved from earlier forams -- those are removed from the study because ... they are not identified as free-floating forams for the study. Any multicellular life fossils would not be included.In the same way we can trace the history of modern cyanobacteria back to those first fossils of life by looking at all the fossil evidence for cyanobacteria in the records known. All other single cell life and what evolved from them would be neglected as not being in the cyanobacteria group being sought out for the study. One of the best ones is this foram forum, where you can ask questions and have actual professionals in the field(s) answer. They will be happy to load you down with more information than you thought was possible on many somewhat esoteric topics.That's part of the fun.Enjoy.and welcome to the fray.Edited by RAZD, : subtitleEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Thanks RAZD:Looks like you gave me enough to chew on for a couple of months.So I better get busy studying.Then I will be back if not sooner.

Cool. Take you time with it, and if you have any questions feel free to ask.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

"Well, in this case, we've got a relatively complete library. The 'books' are in excellent shape. You can see every page, every word."

---

Arnold claimed to have the complete library. That sounds like wonder dog the cartoon.Fun aside I am a farm boy so I know about different breeds of dogs, hogs, cows, chickens. Different types or corn, cotton tobacco tomatoes. So I can understand about different types of forams.
I also know that the most amazing tool we had on the farm was a mule and the only way you could produce one was to cross a jack and a mare. You could not create a new species of mules that could reproduce.As I have stated in posts I got left out when evolution was supposed to be taught in school as my teachers refused to teach it. It was not that they did not know it they just refused to teach it. This was in the 1950's.I also stated that I was here reading trying to learn.

Are you stating here that all living life forms came from the first single cell life form?If so how long did it take that single cell life form to come into existence?Where did it come from?What caused it to come into existence?Remember you are talking to a very old ignorant person when it comes to evolution so keep the answers simple and straight to the point or it will go right over my head. Thanks