what about Neanderthal man? and all the different homo-xx before homosapien finished evolving?
I've often wondered that if man evolved from Apes, then why do we still have apes? why didn't they evolve too?
the bible says god created the world, then created man,
science shows (through DNA testing) that whilst Neanderthal man was related to modern man (homosapien) they were a different species, evolving in different parts of the world.
(modern man evolved around the equator/africa whilst Neanderthal man evolved further towards northern Europe, where conditions were harsher, and had heavier set features possibly to help in the more harsh climate).
the bible only mentions one species of man, whilst we know that there have been at least two distinctly genetically different species of man.
following on from something said earlier.
carbon dating isn't proven, it (like most science) is best guess based, it works on the idea of a constant decay of carbon isotopes, the same as any nuclear decay, all isotopes have a half life.
trouble is that when you say something is 2 billion years old you have no constant source to base that theory on.
you can prove something is 30 years old, by measuring the amount of carbon isotopes in that, and then comparing 30 years later,
and you can say the same things about other things based in that same time range whilst measuring the same difference.
but you can't just assume that if something is constant for a minute, or even a year, that it'll be constant for 3 million years or more!
as someone said earlier...
nobody know exactly how the earth was created. everything that we are told is literally just best guess...
believing the word of the bible is just blind faith, there are historical references that suggest that there is a lot of truth in the bible however this does *not* make all of it true.
(e.g, I got up this morning, ate breakfast went to work, I used magical super powers to fly there -just because half that sentence is true, it doesn't mean it all is!)
also a lot of the bible is interpreted. it's a best guess of what was meant by original scriptures,
(like that page on dinosaurs in the bible, it's taken a reference, science says hold on there were these huge beasts before we find any reference of man in fossils, so then bible teachers say, well there is this vague reference to a beast, and it could be that...).
and incidentally, the bible doesn't say that Man was on the earth from day1, man was created on the 6th day, but man was able to live in paradise until he was cast out to the earth, (there is no distinct time frame here AFAIK
the fundamental problem with religion, is each religion says a different thing and claims it as FACT.
you can say the bible is completely correct because this will contradict traditional Jewish scriptures, the Koran, and many other text and practices, Buddhists for example believe in life force, their is life in everything this is similar to saying an omnipresent god, but is is not the same as saying there is a god as an entity, or a holy trinity etc.
you can't say that religion is true without disbelieving other religion, because we (as man) have tried to order religion into chunks that we can manage, we write it down and it becomes a holy law, that Holy law is then preached.
sometimes for better (ten commandments) sometimes for worse like the tridentine mass that prays for the conversion of the jews to accept christ into their hearts.
the problem with religion (as a concept), (in general) is it claims to be unilaterally accepting, however it is not.
there for religion is a liar.
science (as a concept) is not a liar, it never claims to accept anyone.
it has a rule set, that rule set is simple.
if you claim something as fact then the burden of proof is that that has to be repeatable, you have to be able to measure something, or show something time and time again.
if you claim something is theory then that theory can be noted and shared until it is disproved.
for example acid dissolves metals, scientific fact. when claiming something is fact the burden of proof is on the claimer to be able to show that this works time and time again, and that it is a fact.
rule 2, theory.
theory is best guess, it's the burden of proof to disclaim a theory with proof.
I can say I have a theory that acid doesn't dissolve metals.
we will call this "roots theory of substance."
now if any one cares to prove me wrong, they can (a video on you tube is sufficient in this case).
but until I am proved wrong my theory stands fast.
the more fact you can base a theory on the more it will stand the test of time.
for example, the theory of evolution is based on many many scientific findings and facts (based on genetics i.e survival of the fittest and passing on genes from desirable mates based on the likely future of offspring), therefore is has stood up.
the previous theory (that giraffe's got long neck by stretching to the highest leaves does not stand up). there for this theory has been disproved and doesn't stand and is not taught except for as a foot note to show that theory *can be wrong*.
the bible has a theory, so far it has not been disproved and hence many people believe it.
if religion were proved wrong without any shadow of doubt, then people would just stop believing in that theory.
if you don't understand the difference between fact and theory then you need to go back to school.
the theory of evolution is a theory.
biblical scriptures are a theory.
both have a lot of facts in them.
and until such a time as man can travel in time we'll never know which is true.