English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

How do you rationalize the animals native ONLY to certain geographic regions could have possibly got there in that short of time and had only that short a time period to adapt, also,
how do you rationalize that humans got to different geographic locations and changed so quickly,
Surely, you must find it odd that the natives of Australia look so different from Europe, and that of Africa and China, that there has to be some type of leap of logic and reason to get your head around how all of that happened in only 6000 years.
If you can believe that people can change that drastically of feature and color in that short a time, you must believe in hyper-evolution,
So what new races do you see popping up now since it happens so quickly?
And are you aware of the species native ONLY to certain continents? How do you rationalize why and when that happened?

2007-03-10 02:53:03 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

14 answers

How in the world can a family of brunettes end up with a red haired child in just one generation? Odder things have happened in less time. And, like clay that hardens in time, we do not know how pliable and adaptable the genetic material was in the early days post-flood.

2007-03-10 02:57:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5 2

Where did you get the whole idea of 6000 years? Where does the Bible say that? NO WHERE!

God said that 1 day to him is an eternity to man. Therefore we don't know exactly how long each of the 6 "days" he used to create the earth really were.

Scientist will be looking forever for that final link to prove the whole theory of evolution and the big bang theory but they will never find that final link of proof. WHY? Because it is in front of their face and they want to use science instead of faith to justify their beliefs. The Bible is all the answer we need.

Not to be rude, but I grew up in a religious house and my father has studied the Bible inside and out for years and years. I just think it is funny when someone tries to use the Bible to misprove something that Christians believe and yet they can't even get their facts straight. Any question that someone has, all they have to do is research it and they will find the answer in the Bible.

2007-03-10 03:17:38 · answer #2 · answered by LittleMermaid 5 · 0 0

Species native only to certain continents are explained because when Pangea (one only large continent) existed and then started to divide, it caused that groups of animals were isolated in different places and they evolved different... It's so logic.
Then, about the human beings and the differences and the 6000 years (not true, it's more)... Anyway 100 or 1000000 years were enough to make us what we are today. How do you explain than in only 1 or 2 years a fetus learns to walk, eat, talk, grows hair and teeth, etc., etc.?

2007-03-10 03:05:19 · answer #3 · answered by ? 2 · 0 1

well as for the animals have you ever thought that that is the way god designed them. And as for the ppl How do you know it was 6000 yrs? I think could have been a longer time span. We are only humans and we cannot not figure everything out even if we want to. Look at it this way we are trying to figure out thing about our Creator. Lets face it some things we just do not know. Accept it but it is our nature to try and fugure things out.

2007-03-10 03:04:34 · answer #4 · answered by CHAEI 6 · 1 0

"Surely, you must find it odd that the natives of Australia look so different from Europe, and that of Africa and China". So you believe that all humans are not equal? Some are more "evolved" than others?
Note: the belief in a creator does not mean a belief in 6000 years of existence.
Also, I find it waaay easier to explain creationism than life springing forth from non-life, and life "evolving" all kinds of useless features (like an appendix or wings on penguins), a complete lack of transitionary fossils, and the fact that we cannot see evolution taking place right now (i.e. one kind morphing into another kind).

2007-03-10 03:02:42 · answer #5 · answered by Cybeq 5 · 1 2

I can answer ALL your little questions this way ------

Obviously, since YOU believe in ‘the theory of evolution’; you HAVE to accept the following data as well ….

a) Supercontinents ---

In reverse-chronological order (stratolithic order) comprising nearly all land at the time.
• Pangaea Ultima or Amasia (~250 – ~400 million years from now (future supercontinent))
• Austro-Antarctica-Eurafrasia (~130 million years from now (future supercontinent))
• Austro-Eurafrasia (~60 million years from now (future supercontinent))
• Eurafrasia (~30 million years from now (future supercontinent))
• Americas (~ 15 mya present-day supercontinent)
• Eurasia (~ 60 mya present-day supercontinent)
• Gondwana (~600 – ~30 million years ago)
• Laurasia (~ 300 – ~60 million years ago)
• Pangaea (~300 – ~180 million years ago)
• Euramerica (~ – ~300 million years ago)
• Pannotia (~600 – ~540 million years ago)
• Rodinia (~1.1 Ga – ~750 million years ago)
• Columbia, also called Nuna, (~1.8–1.5 Ga ago)
• Kenorland (~2.7 Ga. Neoarchean sanukitoid cratons and new continental crust formed Kenorland. Protracted tectonic magna plume rifting occurred 2.48 to 2.45 Ga and this contributed to the Paleoproterozoic glacial events in 2.45 to 2.22 Ga. Final breakup occurred ~2.1 Ga.)
• Ur (~3 Ga ago, though probably not a supercontinent; but still however, the earliest known continent. Ur, however, was probably the largest, perhaps even the only continent three billion years ago, so one can argue that Ur was a supercontinent for its time, even if it was smaller than Australia is today). Still an older rock formation now located in Greenland dates back from hadean
• Komatii Formation (3.475 Ga)
• Vaalbara (~3.6 Ga ago. Evidence is the Yilgarn Craton, Western Australia and the world-wide Archean greenstone belts that were subsequently spread out across Gondwana and Laurasia)
• Yilgarn (Zircon crystals from the Jack Hills of the Narryer Gneiss Terrane, Yilgarn craton, Western Australia and also 300 km. south point to a continental crust formation between 4.4-4.3 Ga. Evidence is the high Oxygen-18 values of 8.5 and micro-inclusions of SiO2 in these zircon crystals consistent with growth from a granitic source supracrustal material, low-temperature interactions and a liquid ocean.)

Obviously, IF there was at one point in our history only One Continent. That means ALL the humans and animals would have to live on that One Land Mass. This also means that humans and animals would be able to migrate ALL over the One Continent and never actually leave the One Continent.

Then as the One Continent began to break up, those migrating humans and animals would eventually find themself on a different continent. Without a way to get to where they were. I am somewhat surprised that a 'believer' in "the theory of evolution", did not know about this data.

You can think about all this while you continue to have "belief" in 'the theory of evolution'. I will continue to have faith in the One True Living God, who created all things in, on, and around us. And continue to know that pin-pointing the age of this planet, is not important to me; in this life or my eternal salvation. All your questions lead me to one conclusion: once again 'the theory of evolution' has let its 'followers and believers' down.

2007-03-10 03:53:09 · answer #6 · answered by yahweh_is_the_lord 3 · 1 1

I've often heard this 6,000 year figure, but never from people advocating creationism. Of all the believers I know, none of them subscribe to a concrete time frame. Definitions of time are relative; no one knows what constituted a "day" in the first chapter of Genesis.

Nice try, though.

2007-03-10 03:08:27 · answer #7 · answered by Rob D 5 · 0 1

The 6000 figure is a religious teaching. Some one somewhere came up with that figure.
It is ridiculous to go on with the 6000 year figure.
The world and universe has been here far longer than that.
Man however has only been here about 1,000,000 years and I am a Christian.
I don't go along with ridiculous religious teachings such as 6000 years.

2007-03-10 02:59:27 · answer #8 · answered by chris p 6 · 1 2

and the belief in the bible-Noah brought animals to the boat-2 by 2. all other countries were populated by animals the same way. someone wanted an animal to be on their continent. the person bought an animal and transported the animal by boat. A belief system can not be changed by one statement.

2007-03-10 02:59:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Rationalize? No intelligent and rational person would believe the world is 6000 years old.

2007-03-10 02:57:33 · answer #10 · answered by Gorgeoustxwoman2013 7 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers