Creation? Evolution?

You know, I used to for a long time, and then someone pointed out to me that even though there are tectonic plates floating on magma, the continents are still landlocked under the oceans.

 

come again? landlocked?

take a look at a topographic map that inlcude the ocean floor. the mid-atlantic ridge pretty much splits down the middle between the americas and europe/africa. the continental contours even match up. the atlantic seafloor is expanding, driving the continents and the seafloor in this area in different directions. what causes this? aside from "hotspots" under the surface, it's hard to say. and i any such anomoly would likely be transitory, so they'd come and go thru time -- but geologic time, not human-scale time.

this suggests that the current configuration of connecting landmasses hasn't always been as it is. the typical theory is that there was one big landmass, pangea -- the evidence for which is cross-referenced among a number of divergent scientific fields, including biology and the radiation of species.

 

my personal take on evolution that i haven't actually heard anywhere, so maybe it's completely bogus, is that recessive genes are the key. having a "dual" genetic code with dominant traits overriding recessive ones would mean that stability is achieved when there's a large number of mates to choose from. as the number of mates dwindles, the likelihood of recessive traits increases.

you can see this in dog breeding. you breed pure blood lines of relatively thin gene pools. you get dogs that are very unique, but also tend to have health problems. you let them intermingle and in a couple generations, you get pretty normal looking dogs once the dominant genes show themselves. however, there's still a chance that the right combo of recessive traits will pop up and produce something odd.

it's the same thing with british royalty.

so in my estimation, you'd get naturally "puncuated" evolution as gene pools dwindle -- say, as after a cataclysmic event or perhaps some form of forced isolation.

 

I have seen the topo maps. Yes, there are enormous mountain ranges and chasms in the ocean floors, both in the Atlantic and Pacific. But even disregarding volcanic activity (which IMO should not be disregarded), I don't see the topography of the ocean floors adding up to the kind of massive continental shifts that pangeic theory suggests, even over the space of time speculated.

Yes, I'll agree that many of the continental coastlines do look like they might be pieces of the same puzzle, and I'll even concede that it's a strong bit of evidence. But how does one get around shifting what amounts to roughly 75% of the earth's total surface area when the amount of physical evidence to support such a premise is somewhat questionable at best?

 

the pacific lacks this feature, actually, because it is shrinking. the northamerican plate and eurasian plate are "running over" the pacific plate. there's not much subduction going on with the north american boundy, but there's a lot going with the eurasian plate. the "ring of fire" that circles the pacific rim is due to the volcanism associated with plate subduction. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Ring_of_Fire)

it's not shifting 75% of it, it's shifting all of it. the thing is, you gotta figure that on the scale of the universe, the planet is more like a ball of molten wax than a chunk of rock. for the most part, the planet is liquid. the crust is like 65km at the continents (something like 5km for the oceans). the earth's radius is 6375km. so that's, what, 1% of the radius that is "solid".

 

It was the devil in the likeness of a serpent, the visible shape and appearance of a serpent; or perhaps a real serpent posessed by the devil..whichever, we can't be certain. But this we do know, Satan chose to act his part in a serpent, but God cursed the serpent and made it to begin crawling on its belly.

 

Chapt 1 gives us the order of creation
1) Light 2) the firmament (heaven) 3) Dry land-earth, grass, herbs, trees . 4) Sun, moon stars - he set in the Heavens..the light before had no order 5)water creatures and fowl 6) Living creatures, cattle creeping things and beasts of the earth...that was the first part of the 6th day's creation..And in verse 26..he made man in his own image...giving him dominion over the fish, fowl and over all the earth every creeping thing; male and female he created them, and blessed them and told them to be fruitful and multiply.

He made Adam and Eve on the sixth day..

In Chapt 2-v1 says the heavens and earth were finished etc..Chapt.2 just gives us more details ..it looks back to chapter 1..with more detail into how God made Eve from Adam's side while he slept..and Adam named her woman.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but can tell you that as a child I came to Christ with a child like faith, just as we are told to come as children. But after exposure to the Theory of Evolution, I no longer believed the Bible, and thought it to be a fairytale, along with Santa Claus and other tales I had been told as a child.

I began to live life in a way that led me far from Christ. It was not until I began reading the Bible again in my 30's that God began to show me its truths, and to speak to me personally through his word.

I don't know a whole lot more than I do know about the Bible..and never will have a complete understanding.

"Now we see a blurred image in a mirror. Then we will see very clearly. Now my knowledge is incomplete. Then I will have complete knowledge as God has complete knowledge of me." (1Co 13:12)

 

Maybe we have our head in the clouds? Don't have a fish, but a lot of us are just getting older and don't drive as well...

 

do you believe the flood story? if so, do you think it's coincidence that the marsupials all pretty much ended up in australia and that placental mammals pretty much didn't? or do you think that australia is the marsupial israel, promised by god to his chosen animals? or perhaps they were created in place? do you believe in plate techtonics at all?[/quote]


Yes, I believe layers of buried fossils are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.