Comments on: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?

By: jcdenton100

jcdenton100 — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:03:41 +0000

Do you remember how the myans believed that the world ended three times? One in fire, one in ice, and another in water. All of those happened! The first was the asteroied that killed off most of the dinos, and the asteroied messed up the worlds climates and caused the ice age which killed the rest of the dinos. And then Noah and the great flood happened.

By: jcdenton100

jcdenton100 — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:25:29 +0000

I think its possible to be a christian and believe in evolution at the same time. Remember 1 second to God is like 5 million years to us, so mabey he clapped his hands and caused the big bang. And mabey he formed the earth just like scientists say it was formed. Mabey evolution did happen and God made it happen.

By: Reiko_Shiramori

Reiko_Shiramori — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 05:48:04 +0000

Not being a scientist nor a theologist, bear with my explanations and perhaps misguided learnings. I would like to know what transistion fossils that have been found that show one species changing into another during the time frame in which evolution from marine animal to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, etc. Another point to think on, going back further than evolution, but to creation itself: what caused the universe to come into existance? What could cause something so gargantuous to happen? What could cause the BIg Bang?(if you happen to beleive in it) As we know, every bang MUST have a "bang-er" as things don't just happen on their own. If there was no "bang-er" and the universe has existed forever, then what caused life to happen on our planet? I have heard speculations about how "the ingredients of life" existed and "came together to form microscopic organisms", but with the complexity of JUST ONE CELL, holding information equivalent to that of 1000 ENCYCLOPEDIAS, how can that be possible? Our planet shows such great design and the fingerprints of a creator, making it hard to believe that anything happened by accident.

By: Brandon Snider

Brandon Snider — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:24:02 +0000

/Agree

By: Brandon Snider

Brandon Snider — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:23:28 +0000

Are you a raving atheist? Because I was an atheist at one point in my life, but nothing I ever said sounded as arrogant and offensive as your comments.

By: LordTiberivs

LordTiberivs — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:06:17 +0000

Evolution has proof as well as holes Ian. Even though Darwins "Origin of the Species" is flawed it details time oriented changes in species which DID happen. Animals and humans have changed over long periods of time to adapt to surroundings. This is irrefutable. The scientific definition of the word theory includes the clause that it must have proof to back up its hypothesis, so while it is not yet a scientific law like gravity and planetary motion it cannot be called a theory without a modicum of provable data.

I ask again, where is the proof of creationism. I can prove species on this planet have changed over the last several millions years through fossil records and geographical changes. You however cannot prove that man was created through dust of the Earth, nor that woman sprang into existence from mans rib….

Without evidence creationism is NOT a theory, it is a story.

By: LordTiberivs

LordTiberivs — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:00:52 +0000

carbon 14 has a half-life of 5730 years not 50,000. The reason were are so sure about carbon's half -life is because it is so short. Using mass spectrometers and gas chromographs we can count the number of carbon 14 atoms in a sample. Upon death all living things have a balanced amount of carbon 12 vs carbon 14. As the creature decays the carbon 14 decays also, but the carbon 12 stays the same. So by counting the number of carbon 14 atoms and comparing it to the stable number of carbon 12 atoms you can see how many half-lifes the sample has gone through.

Being that carbon 14's half-life is so small we can easily count minor changes in c14 numbers over short time intervals with high accuracy. Say a sample taken in controlled laboratory conditions, monitored initially with equal carbon levels is allowed to decay over a set period of time, the results are easily measured rather than an element with a higher half-life count.

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:21:05 +0000

Evolution has some holes in its theory as does creationism. After all they are both "theories"

I dont believe either one because we will never know the truth until we die anyway.

By: Pusty

Pusty — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:55:51 +0000

So how can you be sure that it is accurate, how can you be sure that outside variables haven’t tainted the results? Can you say that the age of something is correct and have nothing to measure it against? And no I’ve never heard of agegenesis.com, also how do we know that carbon14 has a half-life of 50,000 years? I’d be interested in knowing how scientists came up with that number.

By: LordTiberivs

LordTiberivs — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:12:01 +0000

But radio carbon dating isn't used for ancient samples aside from defining the fact that radio carbon is inaccurate over 50,000 years (give or take a few 1000). For ancient samples we use alternative methods of dating using isotopes and elements with much longer half lifes.
i.e.: Uranium thorium dating, uranium lead dating, potassium argon, fission track dating, Optically stimulated luminescence dating…. all these methods and more, expand our understanding of the timeline of our planet. You can't just go to agegenesis.com and read only about the inaccuracy of carbon dating if you aren't going to look for alternative methods.