[Vautrin]

Originally Posted by sweetbilly

However, there is there is no signifigant evidence for evolution. No links between man and ape have ever been found (no missing links). Simply because the link never existed. Yes it is true we share a signifigant amount of DNA with primates but that is circumstantial. "from ashes to ashes and dust to dust" <---- God.

Actually there are a lot of possibilities. One is, that one of the creatures that is in existence today was the shared ancestor. The other is, that shared ancestor is not in existence anymore. Mind you the number of apes alive today is very limited, and the climates they live in, are very hard on decomposing bodies, i.e. often with a few years time, there is no trace left.

Man, ape, dogs, horses etc... were all physically created from the same elements and the same God, so should it be so amazing that we share very similar physical attributes? Dosen't really prove one thing or another; however, how can the disparagement in intelligence between man and animal be explaned through evolution? it can't.

It can be explained. One of the most important steps in the evolution was walking upright. Thus freeing the hands to do whatever task was at hand. Fighting, hunting, you name it. Deprive a human baby of doing that, and no intelligence will develop.
Sometimes there are stories of children which were raised by non-humans. They cannot develop speech, and even the most simple tasks are too complex for them. Intelligence is a potential, for which contact with culture is required.

First, where are all of the bodies/fossils of humans? The world has an average birth rate of 1%. Those who believe in evolution believe that humans have been around for 50,000 + yrs. At an average birth rate of 1%, and i don't believe that would change much from present days, the population would be about 600 billion.

And dying? Giving birth could result in the death of both mother and child. The only estimate I know of, is that there were 10 million people 12.000 years ago.

Where are all of the bodies? Even if we threw in a whole bunch of mass extinctions and said man has meet with extinction over and over again it still makes no sence. lets just say for instance evolution happened and those extinctions did happen, If many mass extinctions were to take place and just about wiped out man over the duration of 50,000 yrs, there's still a problem.

I am no archaeologist, so I can't make claims on mass extinctions. But the argument is invalid. Where are all the bodies of the American Civil War? Can't find them? Does that mean the Civil War was not fought? I don't want to see the graves. But the bodies.

Man would not be able to copulate enough to replenish the race without going extinct during this time.

And you believe that seven people, would be enough to copulate on this massive scale?
If inbreeding is bad nowadays, can you imagine the damage inbreeding would have had then?

However, if we calcutate the average birth rate at 1% over 6000 yrs it adds up to alost exactally 6 million people.

And dying? I did the calculation with 1 person only. The number of persons at the end of the calculation was 847770100073679271260704765. Does not seem right. It may be the case however that you fumbled the terms a bit, as birth rates are usually given per 1000 women of the population in the fertile age bracket. But then life expectancy et cetera plays a role, and everything becomes highly complex.

Secondly, all of mans genes can be traced back to seven people, not Adam and Eve but to Noah his sons ect... seven of them got off the ark; the first seven people after the flood.

How could they copulate sufficiently? I can state that all man's genes can be traced back to seven people, but I never have seen any proof of that claim.

Take the first law of thermodynamics for instance, energy cannot make or destroy it's self, but yet we have energy. How could we get energy from nothing without it being created? what is creatintg it?

The first law of thermodynamics is "that the change in internal energy of a system is equal to the heat added to the system minus the work done by the system."
I don't see a contradiction in us having energy. There is a reason we eat food.

Or how about the fact that astronomers have discovered that the expansion of the universe, from a singe point in space, has not have exceded the growth expected over a 6000 year duration. In other words, the noble gasses, nebulas clouds etc... have not expanded farther than 6000 yrs would have allowed.

It would only be possible if the expansion of the universe occured a a multitude of the speed of light. But then it would be only waiting for the storm before our planet would be swept away. Could God violate his own laws in the universe? I doubt that is the case.
I think the case for roughly 12-15 billion years does make more sense.

So how do we squeeze the theory of evolution into 6000 years? it's impossible.

Of course that is impossible. But why would we limit ourselves to 6000 years? It does not make sense.