In the name and spirit of “Evolution is Dead”, here are some fun quotes from prominent worldwide scientists lambasting the so-called “theory” of evolution, adding to the continuing erosion of this antiquated and primitive “140-Year Scientific Dark Age” that the 19th century Uniformitarian/Evolutionary Model has duped Modernity into blindly embracing.
Prominent Swiss scientist, Dr. Louis Bounoure, "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
Dr. Norman Macbeth, "Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."
Arthur N. Field, "What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen; belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."
D.B. Gower, "The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."
Dr. J. Alan Feduccia, "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that."
For more fun quotes check out the following link:
http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?author=&cat=&keyword=&search=yes&source=&submit=Search
Full Version: Scientists Lambast Evolution
Christian-Forum.net > Debates (NOT FOR THOSE EASILY OFFENDED!) > Evidence for the bible and creationism debates
How wonderful to hear the Truth!
Truth is so often denied by the Many,,,,,,,,,and Truth is Loved by the Few.
Thanks!
you can't build DNA without protein,,,,,,,,,,and you can't build protein without DNA.............which came first?
Darwin would have never suggested evolution if he had had an ELECTRON MICROSCOPE...........the inner workings of the simplest living cell is very complicated.
where did the first DNA come from?.............not by accident!
Truth is so often denied by the Many,,,,,,,,,and Truth is Loved by the Few.
Thanks!
you can't build DNA without protein,,,,,,,,,,and you can't build protein without DNA.............which came first?
Darwin would have never suggested evolution if he had had an ELECTRON MICROSCOPE...........the inner workings of the simplest living cell is very complicated.
where did the first DNA come from?.............not by accident!
dennis,
If you watch the movie, "Expelled" (which I would recommend), there is a sequence where Ben Stein is interviewing several atheistic/evolutionary scientists. In one of those sequences, he interviews Dr. Michael Ruse (I think it was), who proposes that DNA, or the first replicating molecules, formed on clay, or crystals, using the clay or crystal as a sort of "scaffold" to get the whole shebang started. It was pretty funny listening to him, actually, especially when Ben Stein asked him how life got started, and he huffily responded by saying, in effect, "I already told you", and Ben Stein asked if by that he meant the "clay/crystal piggyback scenario", and Ruse replied "Yes", without realizing that his explanation was more akin to science fiction than a scientific explanation. It was just really funny to watch.
QUOTE
where did the first DNA come from?.............not by accident!
If you watch the movie, "Expelled" (which I would recommend), there is a sequence where Ben Stein is interviewing several atheistic/evolutionary scientists. In one of those sequences, he interviews Dr. Michael Ruse (I think it was), who proposes that DNA, or the first replicating molecules, formed on clay, or crystals, using the clay or crystal as a sort of "scaffold" to get the whole shebang started. It was pretty funny listening to him, actually, especially when Ben Stein asked him how life got started, and he huffily responded by saying, in effect, "I already told you", and Ben Stein asked if by that he meant the "clay/crystal piggyback scenario", and Ruse replied "Yes", without realizing that his explanation was more akin to science fiction than a scientific explanation. It was just really funny to watch.
QUOTE (dennis mann @ Apr 29 2008, 04:20 AM) 
How wonderful to hear the Truth!
Truth is so often denied by the Many,,,,,,,,,and Truth is Loved by the Few.
Thanks!
you can't build DNA without protein,,,,,,,,,,and you can't build protein without DNA.............which came first?
Darwin would have never suggested evolution if he had had an ELECTRON MICROSCOPE...........the inner workings of the simplest living cell is very complicated.
where did the first DNA come from?.............not by accident!
Truth is so often denied by the Many,,,,,,,,,and Truth is Loved by the Few.
Thanks!
you can't build DNA without protein,,,,,,,,,,and you can't build protein without DNA.............which came first?
Darwin would have never suggested evolution if he had had an ELECTRON MICROSCOPE...........the inner workings of the simplest living cell is very complicated.
where did the first DNA come from?.............not by accident!
Thanks, Dennis. It's so absolutely true, instead of simple forms, complex life forms are the eldest found in the Fossil Record (the mud stratification from Noah’s Global Flood), just as the recent and surprising admission from scientists stating last month that the complex jellyfish is older than the simplistic primordial sea sponges that evolutionists had held onto for years as the most ancient life.
The fact is that the ENTIRE evolutionary paradigm is severe misconjecture of the data. There is “another mechanism” to the whole origin of life process that science has overlooked and has been detoured from, due to the false foundation of the Evolutionary/Uniformitarian Model, blindsiding the true process of empirical observation, thus reaching erroneous and skewed conclusions. Consequently, this intellectual diversion has focused immense energy into creating this behemoth rationale of convoluted circular reasoning that is simply NOT TRUE, and has lead the unwitty to swallow it, hook, line and sinker, as “fact”.
This was demonstrated to me when I ordered from the Discovery Channel a book entitled, “Atlas of the Prehistoric World”, by Douglas Palmer and the result of 50 contributing scientific editors, making it the most definitive book for the education of the public on the relationship between the evolutionary timeline superimposed over the geological timeline and depicting the gradual changes in the continents of the earth (Pangaea and Continental Drift of Plate Tectonics). Well, needless to say I found the book extremely AMUSING. All this scientific know-how and energy was used to hammer out this book with impressive graphics, images and incrementally illustrated depictions of the primordial earth progressing through the geological timeline showing in each sequence how the continents formed until their relative orientation in our modern age.
The problem is… it NEVER happened. My research indicates that earth did not form via the fictional “Protoplanet Hypothesis”… instead, I postulate that sea floor spreading is a recent phenomenon as a post-percussion feature from mass celestial bombardment… to this day geologists have NEVER established a triggering mechanism for the FIRST appearance of rift faults, fracture zones and sea floor spreading… and the “assumption” that continental drift occurs merely by citing that the shoreline of east South America and the shoreline of west Africa “appear” to fit like a puzzle is an “optical assumption” which is NOT fact.
I propose that the continents have always been in the same location they currently are relative to each other, there was, and is, no continental drift at all… and for the following reason. The earth formed from a “plasmosphere” of magmatic stellar plasma in the protracted ejecta tail of our primordial star when it ejected from a mega molecular cloud. ([GENESIS 1: 2] --- “And the earth was without form, and void…”) This plasmosphere coalesced and condensed into the earth. As a plasmosphere it had to subdivide its globular regions into positively and negatively charged electromagnetic convection zones, much as our Sun does. Wherever a positive zone existed, a negative zone was antipodal to it, i.e. located on the opposite side of the sphere in an inverted-reverse shape of the same size. The liquid magma recessed into the sphere in the locations of the cooler negative convection zones, and it ascended to the surface of the sphere in the location of the hotter positive convection zones. Crustal formation first occurred in the hotter zones where crustal thickening occurred. The last areas to “solidify” were in the cooler negative convection zones, thus causing “lowland” depressions to form having a thinner crust. Hence, higher elevated “highlands” formed in the areas of thicker crustal formation of the hotter positive convection zones. As the elements suspended in the proto-atmosphere coalesced, water formed and filled the “lowlands”, thus created the oceanic basins and the great seas, while the “highlands” above sea level became what we today call the “continents”. ([GENESIS 1: 9-10] --- “And God said, ‘Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear’: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas…”)
Now, it’s interesting to note that the entire “Africa-Euro-Asia Highland” is an antipodal inverted-reverse shape to the “Pacific Ocean Lowland”; the “Antarctic Highland” is antipodal to the “Arctic Ocean Lowland”; the “Australia Highland” is antipodal to the “North Atlantic Ocean Lowland”; the “North & Meso American Highland” is antipodal to the “Indian Ocean Lowland”; and the “South American Highland” is antipodal to the “China-Yellow Sea & West Pacific Ocean Lowland”. Consequently, the current location of the continents relative to each other have always been their same location since the creation of the Edenic Earth… there was no continental drift.
Originally, the crust of the earth was seamless having a “perilithosphere” that was unfractured and without rift faults, fracture zones and sea floor spreading. These, as I said before, are “post-percussion features” the direct result from mass celestial bombardment where the thinnest part of the earth split and cracked open, being the thinner crust of the “lowlands”… i.e. the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. These are RECENT features, and are part of the cosmocataclysmic event that precipitated the Global Flood of Noah.
This also means that the current scientific conjecture of the "Lunar Splash Theory" is also FALSE... a theory that postulates that the Moon formed when a planetoid smashed into the molten primodial earth in which the ejected molten debris orbited the earth and aggregated into a sphere that became our Moon, while the collision dug out a great depression into the earth which ultimately became the Pacific Basin... NOT TRUE, it is, again, severe misconjecture and radical misinterpretation of the data.
So as you can see, evolutionary-geologists and the entire "Evolutionary Scientific Orthodoxy," have erroneously inferred the wrong conclusions from the data… primarily because their minds are tainted by the constraints of the evolutionary paradigm which dictates to them limited and skewed perceptions regarding all things scientific. This is why Dr. Louis Bounoure's statement is true, "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." And, that's why I call Evolutionism "SCIENCE FICTION". LOL!!!
Blessings,
-7
QUOTE (Godsword @ Apr 29 2008, 09:59 AM)
dennis,
If you watch the movie, "Expelled" (which I would recommend), there is a sequence where Ben Stein is interviewing several atheistic/evolutionary scientists. In one of those sequences, he interviews Dr. Michael Ruse (I think it was), who proposes that DNA, or the first replicating molecules, formed on clay, or crystals, using the clay or crystal as a sort of "scaffold" to get the whole shebang started. It was pretty funny listening to him, actually, especially when Ben Stein asked him how life got started, and he huffily responded by saying, in effect, "I already told you", and Ben Stein asked if by that he meant the "clay/crystal piggyback scenario", and Ruse replied "Yes", without realizing that his explanation was more akin to science fiction than a scientific explanation. It was just really funny to watch.
QUOTE
where did the first DNA come from?.............not by accident!
If you watch the movie, "Expelled" (which I would recommend), there is a sequence where Ben Stein is interviewing several atheistic/evolutionary scientists. In one of those sequences, he interviews Dr. Michael Ruse (I think it was), who proposes that DNA, or the first replicating molecules, formed on clay, or crystals, using the clay or crystal as a sort of "scaffold" to get the whole shebang started. It was pretty funny listening to him, actually, especially when Ben Stein asked him how life got started, and he huffily responded by saying, in effect, "I already told you", and Ben Stein asked if by that he meant the "clay/crystal piggyback scenario", and Ruse replied "Yes", without realizing that his explanation was more akin to science fiction than a scientific explanation. It was just really funny to watch.
Yes, I plan on seeing that movie when it gets up here to Canada (if it isn't already here). I read some reviews about it in several newspapers and one gets the feeling that the movie insulted their little monkey god! ee! ee!
Remember this....
http://www.christianlaw.org/articles/un-science.html
QUOTE
Has Modern Evolutionary "Science" Become Unscientific?
Dr. Nathaniel Abraham, Ph.D., is a biologist, scholar, and research scientist specializing in zebrafish, developmental biology, and programmed cell death. He was fired from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, a highly esteemed research facility based in New England in March of 2004. The reason? Dr. Abraham believes in Creation and does not accept evolution as a scientific fact. With his termination, Dr. Abraham became one of many scientists and academics who have dedicated years of their lives to the pursuit of scientific knowledge; but because they are unwilling to spout the "party line" with respect to evolution, they are being forced out of their field.
Read how CLA is defending the rights of this Christian scientist to practice his profession consistent with his faith.
Dr. Abraham came to the United States from India to earn his Ph.D. in biology at St. John's University in New York. While at St. John's, he became an expert in zebrafish. He did a groundbreaking doctoral dissertation in his area of research science. Dr. Abraham was well respected at St. John's, and it was no secret that he was a strong Christian who believed the Bible and believed in Creation. Many of his colleagues there enjoyed asking him questions about issues of science and religion. In the first sentence of the acknowledgements in his doctoral thesis, Dr. Abraham thanks his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Fired for His Faith
While Dr. Abraham was completing his Ph.D. program at St. John's, he began to look for a postdoctoral position where he could continue his research. He married, brought his wife to America, and they were expecting their first child. Life was looking very good. He applied for a research position at Woods Hole after seeing the opportunity listed on the Internet. Scientists at Woods Hole were interested in expanding their toxicology laboratory to include programmed cell death research using the zebrafish benchmark model, which was Dr. Abraham's specialty. In fact, Dr. Abraham was so valuable to them in this endeavor that he assisted them for several months in designing and building their lab before he was able to join them fulltime as a researcher. Dr. Abraham contributed greatly to the design of the new facility and his superiors were pleased with his work.
The relationship between Dr. Abraham and Woods Hole was mutually beneficial and productive until one lunchtime shortly after Dr. Abraham began working fulltime at Woods Hole. In a passing conversation with his supervisor, Dr. Abraham happened to mention that he believed in Creation. His supervisor expressed concern that if Dr. Abraham believed in Creation, he was not qualified to do the job he had been hired to do.
Dr. Abraham told his superiors in writing that he was willing to analyze his research using evolutionary concepts if that was warranted, but he was not willing to personally renounce his belief in Creation or accept evolution as a scientific fact. Dr. Abraham pointed out that his belief in Creation was irrelevant to the research he was doing. After all, he had developed his research specialty and expertise at St. John's University, where his faith had not been an issue. Dr. Abraham believed a scientist should merely do the experiments and follow the evidence wherever it led.
The "establishment" scientists at Woods Hole were not convinced. They wanted Dr. Abraham to share their wholehearted acceptance of evolution as a scientific fact, or they felt he was not "fit" to work in the field of science-at least not at their prestigious laboratory. They finally told Dr. Abraham he would have to leave if he did not accept evolution as fact.
Dr. Abraham's decision to hold to his Biblical faith and to his belief in Creation was a very costly decision for him. His wife was about to have their baby. Without a job, Dr. Abraham would lose his visa, which would soon expire. Woods Hole was not willing to even permit Dr. Abraham to complete the first year of his potential three-year employment. As a result, Dr. Abraham was forced to send his expectant wife home to India, and he missed the birth of his first child.
Attorneys for the Christian Law Association are now representing Dr. Abraham in a lawsuit against Woods Hole to test whether America's courts will permit this sort of blatant religious discrimination against scientists in America.
Religious Discrimination in the Scientific Community
Dr. Abraham's private Biblical faith did not affect his ability to do the job for which he had been hired, but his supervisors refused to tolerate his belief in Creation. This is a phenomenon that is becoming increasingly common in both the academic and scientific research communities. "Establishment" scientists have become increasingly willing to require that everyone who works in the field of science must accept the tenets of evolution as fact or be banned from the profession.
Attorneys for the Christian Law Association believe that Title VII antidiscrimination laws protect scientists from being terminated because of their religious beliefs. In addition to limiting opportunities for Christian scientists and researchers, highly qualified professors are also losing their jobs and being denied tenure at some American universities merely because they do not toe the line regarding evolution.
What the scientific community seems to be saying to creationists or to those who hold to intelligent design, is that if you are not willing to accept an evolutionary philosophy, we will indeed shun you, terminate you, and push you out of the field of science. Does that mean that in the future scientists will be forced to deny their belief in God or their belief that an intelligent designer played a part in the origins of the universe or of life on earth in order to work? Just where would such a repressive attitude lead?
Interestingly, just as some secular university science departments and research laboratories are forbidding anyone to defy the new scientific principle recognizing "evolution's role as the central organizing principle of modern biology" (a quote from the press release for a new book called Science, Evolution and Creationism, published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences along with the Institute of Medicine, both advisory bodies to the U.S. government in the area of science and medicine), more and more scientists are coming to the conclusion that there is increasing scientific evidence for intelligent design in the universe. The Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, has compiled a list of over 700 scientists who have signed the following statement.
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
CLA believes it is very important at this point in history to defend Dr. Abraham's right to work as a scientific researcher no matter what his personal religious beliefs. We agree with Dr. Abraham that scientists should follow the evidence wherever it leads. Establishment scientists should not be allowed to put a thumb on the scale of evolutionary research outcomes.
Dr. Abraham's lawsuit against Woods Hole represents more than one person's termination for refusing to abandon his religious beliefs. If those in the scientific establishment in America's laboratories and universities are permitted to fire anyone who does not accept evolution as "the central organizing principle of modern biology," America will be on a slippery slope toward renouncing the traditional rules of scientific inquiry, which are based upon experimentation and observation that is always open to testing by competing theories.
What is True Science?
True science is founded on the proposition that everything we think we know about the natural world can, in principle, be rejected if it does not meet the test of observation and experiment. The very practice of science, at its core, is a constant exercise of extending what we do know about the world, and then correcting what we thought we knew for sure. The Academic Press Dictionary defines science as "the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts."
We should remember that it was their observation of order in the universe that led the scientists of the Middle Ages to begin their quest to discern that order. Many of these early scientists were Christians who believed that the Creator God had made an orderly universe and that His order could be discerned by using scientific methods of experimentation and observation.
The consideration of alternative explanations for scientific claims is vital to the development of a scientific mind. There are actually four terms used in science to address the results of experimentation and observation. They are hypothesis, theory, fact (near-certainty), and law.
A scientific hypothesis is a testable scientific idea that can be proved right or wrong with experiments. It is an educated guess that can be verified or disproven by observation or experimentation. A scientific theory is defined as the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence; thus, it represents the most powerful explanations scientists have to offer. The closest we can get to absolute truth in science are indisputable observations which we call facts or near-certainty. Finally, a scientific law generalizes a body of observations to which no exceptions have been found.
It appears that modern establishment scientists, such as those at the Woods Hole research laboratory, no longer think of evolution as merely a "hypothesis" or even a "theory." Instead, evolution has now become more like a "law." In fact, the scientific establishment is now claiming that evolution is "the central organizing principle of modern biology," a conclusion from which no working scientist or academic can apparently deviate.
How did this happen? Did someone find the "missing link" that scientists have searched for to prove that men were formerly monkeys and we somehow missed it? If some scientist has conclusively demonstrated in a laboratory that evolution produced life on earth, we must have missed that too.
Did some recent experiment contradict the work of Louis Pasteur who conclusively demonstrated in the mid-19th century that life cannot spring spontaneously from non-life? Pasteur's work in developing pasteurization through that experiment still appears to be valid in our milk cartons, and no verified ape/man is as yet on display in the Smithsonian Institute. Instead, evolutionary scientists appear to have taken a "leap of faith" and declared without evidence or proof that evolution is a verified "fact" or "law," no matter how it is defined.
The unsupported conclusory statement being touted not only by establishment scientists, but also by many high school and university teachers that "evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence" throws an incendiary bomb directly into the heart of the traditional scientific method.
The Evolution of Evolution
In reality, the word evolution is a very slippery term. When simply defined as "change over time" within species it is relatively non-controversial. Fruit flies, moths, and Galapagos finches all provide examples of change over time. However, when modern scientists tout evolution as a near fact or law and then extrapolate from this meaning that it is also a fact that flies, moths, and finches all evolved from a remote common ancestor, the word becomes extremely problematic.
When modern scientists or educators propound the philosophical notion that "evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology," they are not confirming some grand new scientific development in our understanding the concept of evolution. What we have instead is merely evidence that the term evolution itself has now evolved. This gigantic leap in the evolution of evolution provides research facilities like Woods Hole with a rationale to fire a world renowned scientist like Dr. Abraham merely because he has a different belief-one based on the Bible and not on evolutionary philosophy.
What is at Stake?
When establishment scientists declare evolution as the winner in the contest of determining the origins of the universe and of life, their conclusion has nothing at all to do with traditional science. Darwin merely provided a rationale for science to reject religion and God. Ponder carefully that if evolution is allowed to become the "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology" by which all of life must be interpreted and understood, many more eminent and qualified scientists like Dr. Abraham will lose their jobs. In fact, we could reach a point in America where believing in God automatically disqualifies a person from working in the field of science, despite the fact that the whole field of modern science developed because early scientists believed God had created a rational and orderly universe with controlling principles that could be known.
There is a connection between the termination of Dr. Abraham, the release of the new National Academy of Sciences book cited above, and high school and university science standards that prohibit teaching anything other than evolution as "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology." We see in all of these developments evidence of a rapidly growing movement in the scientific establishment to mandate a philosophical worldview that definitively eliminates God. Dr. Abraham has been the victim of a modern science "inquisition" that mandates a personal belief in the philosophy of evolution and bans a personal belief in God as the Creator.
Please pray that CLA's defense of Dr. Abraham will be successful and that our courts will determine that Christians who believe in a Creator God may not be excluded from working in the field of science when they are otherwise qualified. Pray also that a philosophy based on a nonscientific view of evolution will not become required teaching in the science classrooms of America's public schools and universities.
The attack against the Word of God in our culture begins against the very first verse in Genesis. "In the beginning God" is not accepted by many in our nation. CLA is honored to stand and defend those Christians who remain true to what they believe based on the Bible regardless of the consequences.
Dr. Nathaniel Abraham, Ph.D., is a biologist, scholar, and research scientist specializing in zebrafish, developmental biology, and programmed cell death. He was fired from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, a highly esteemed research facility based in New England in March of 2004. The reason? Dr. Abraham believes in Creation and does not accept evolution as a scientific fact. With his termination, Dr. Abraham became one of many scientists and academics who have dedicated years of their lives to the pursuit of scientific knowledge; but because they are unwilling to spout the "party line" with respect to evolution, they are being forced out of their field.
Read how CLA is defending the rights of this Christian scientist to practice his profession consistent with his faith.
Dr. Abraham came to the United States from India to earn his Ph.D. in biology at St. John's University in New York. While at St. John's, he became an expert in zebrafish. He did a groundbreaking doctoral dissertation in his area of research science. Dr. Abraham was well respected at St. John's, and it was no secret that he was a strong Christian who believed the Bible and believed in Creation. Many of his colleagues there enjoyed asking him questions about issues of science and religion. In the first sentence of the acknowledgements in his doctoral thesis, Dr. Abraham thanks his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Fired for His Faith
While Dr. Abraham was completing his Ph.D. program at St. John's, he began to look for a postdoctoral position where he could continue his research. He married, brought his wife to America, and they were expecting their first child. Life was looking very good. He applied for a research position at Woods Hole after seeing the opportunity listed on the Internet. Scientists at Woods Hole were interested in expanding their toxicology laboratory to include programmed cell death research using the zebrafish benchmark model, which was Dr. Abraham's specialty. In fact, Dr. Abraham was so valuable to them in this endeavor that he assisted them for several months in designing and building their lab before he was able to join them fulltime as a researcher. Dr. Abraham contributed greatly to the design of the new facility and his superiors were pleased with his work.
The relationship between Dr. Abraham and Woods Hole was mutually beneficial and productive until one lunchtime shortly after Dr. Abraham began working fulltime at Woods Hole. In a passing conversation with his supervisor, Dr. Abraham happened to mention that he believed in Creation. His supervisor expressed concern that if Dr. Abraham believed in Creation, he was not qualified to do the job he had been hired to do.
Dr. Abraham told his superiors in writing that he was willing to analyze his research using evolutionary concepts if that was warranted, but he was not willing to personally renounce his belief in Creation or accept evolution as a scientific fact. Dr. Abraham pointed out that his belief in Creation was irrelevant to the research he was doing. After all, he had developed his research specialty and expertise at St. John's University, where his faith had not been an issue. Dr. Abraham believed a scientist should merely do the experiments and follow the evidence wherever it led.
The "establishment" scientists at Woods Hole were not convinced. They wanted Dr. Abraham to share their wholehearted acceptance of evolution as a scientific fact, or they felt he was not "fit" to work in the field of science-at least not at their prestigious laboratory. They finally told Dr. Abraham he would have to leave if he did not accept evolution as fact.
Dr. Abraham's decision to hold to his Biblical faith and to his belief in Creation was a very costly decision for him. His wife was about to have their baby. Without a job, Dr. Abraham would lose his visa, which would soon expire. Woods Hole was not willing to even permit Dr. Abraham to complete the first year of his potential three-year employment. As a result, Dr. Abraham was forced to send his expectant wife home to India, and he missed the birth of his first child.
Attorneys for the Christian Law Association are now representing Dr. Abraham in a lawsuit against Woods Hole to test whether America's courts will permit this sort of blatant religious discrimination against scientists in America.
Religious Discrimination in the Scientific Community
Dr. Abraham's private Biblical faith did not affect his ability to do the job for which he had been hired, but his supervisors refused to tolerate his belief in Creation. This is a phenomenon that is becoming increasingly common in both the academic and scientific research communities. "Establishment" scientists have become increasingly willing to require that everyone who works in the field of science must accept the tenets of evolution as fact or be banned from the profession.
Attorneys for the Christian Law Association believe that Title VII antidiscrimination laws protect scientists from being terminated because of their religious beliefs. In addition to limiting opportunities for Christian scientists and researchers, highly qualified professors are also losing their jobs and being denied tenure at some American universities merely because they do not toe the line regarding evolution.
What the scientific community seems to be saying to creationists or to those who hold to intelligent design, is that if you are not willing to accept an evolutionary philosophy, we will indeed shun you, terminate you, and push you out of the field of science. Does that mean that in the future scientists will be forced to deny their belief in God or their belief that an intelligent designer played a part in the origins of the universe or of life on earth in order to work? Just where would such a repressive attitude lead?
Interestingly, just as some secular university science departments and research laboratories are forbidding anyone to defy the new scientific principle recognizing "evolution's role as the central organizing principle of modern biology" (a quote from the press release for a new book called Science, Evolution and Creationism, published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences along with the Institute of Medicine, both advisory bodies to the U.S. government in the area of science and medicine), more and more scientists are coming to the conclusion that there is increasing scientific evidence for intelligent design in the universe. The Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, has compiled a list of over 700 scientists who have signed the following statement.
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
CLA believes it is very important at this point in history to defend Dr. Abraham's right to work as a scientific researcher no matter what his personal religious beliefs. We agree with Dr. Abraham that scientists should follow the evidence wherever it leads. Establishment scientists should not be allowed to put a thumb on the scale of evolutionary research outcomes.
Dr. Abraham's lawsuit against Woods Hole represents more than one person's termination for refusing to abandon his religious beliefs. If those in the scientific establishment in America's laboratories and universities are permitted to fire anyone who does not accept evolution as "the central organizing principle of modern biology," America will be on a slippery slope toward renouncing the traditional rules of scientific inquiry, which are based upon experimentation and observation that is always open to testing by competing theories.
What is True Science?
True science is founded on the proposition that everything we think we know about the natural world can, in principle, be rejected if it does not meet the test of observation and experiment. The very practice of science, at its core, is a constant exercise of extending what we do know about the world, and then correcting what we thought we knew for sure. The Academic Press Dictionary defines science as "the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts."
We should remember that it was their observation of order in the universe that led the scientists of the Middle Ages to begin their quest to discern that order. Many of these early scientists were Christians who believed that the Creator God had made an orderly universe and that His order could be discerned by using scientific methods of experimentation and observation.
The consideration of alternative explanations for scientific claims is vital to the development of a scientific mind. There are actually four terms used in science to address the results of experimentation and observation. They are hypothesis, theory, fact (near-certainty), and law.
A scientific hypothesis is a testable scientific idea that can be proved right or wrong with experiments. It is an educated guess that can be verified or disproven by observation or experimentation. A scientific theory is defined as the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence; thus, it represents the most powerful explanations scientists have to offer. The closest we can get to absolute truth in science are indisputable observations which we call facts or near-certainty. Finally, a scientific law generalizes a body of observations to which no exceptions have been found.
It appears that modern establishment scientists, such as those at the Woods Hole research laboratory, no longer think of evolution as merely a "hypothesis" or even a "theory." Instead, evolution has now become more like a "law." In fact, the scientific establishment is now claiming that evolution is "the central organizing principle of modern biology," a conclusion from which no working scientist or academic can apparently deviate.
How did this happen? Did someone find the "missing link" that scientists have searched for to prove that men were formerly monkeys and we somehow missed it? If some scientist has conclusively demonstrated in a laboratory that evolution produced life on earth, we must have missed that too.
Did some recent experiment contradict the work of Louis Pasteur who conclusively demonstrated in the mid-19th century that life cannot spring spontaneously from non-life? Pasteur's work in developing pasteurization through that experiment still appears to be valid in our milk cartons, and no verified ape/man is as yet on display in the Smithsonian Institute. Instead, evolutionary scientists appear to have taken a "leap of faith" and declared without evidence or proof that evolution is a verified "fact" or "law," no matter how it is defined.
The unsupported conclusory statement being touted not only by establishment scientists, but also by many high school and university teachers that "evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence" throws an incendiary bomb directly into the heart of the traditional scientific method.
The Evolution of Evolution
In reality, the word evolution is a very slippery term. When simply defined as "change over time" within species it is relatively non-controversial. Fruit flies, moths, and Galapagos finches all provide examples of change over time. However, when modern scientists tout evolution as a near fact or law and then extrapolate from this meaning that it is also a fact that flies, moths, and finches all evolved from a remote common ancestor, the word becomes extremely problematic.
When modern scientists or educators propound the philosophical notion that "evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology," they are not confirming some grand new scientific development in our understanding the concept of evolution. What we have instead is merely evidence that the term evolution itself has now evolved. This gigantic leap in the evolution of evolution provides research facilities like Woods Hole with a rationale to fire a world renowned scientist like Dr. Abraham merely because he has a different belief-one based on the Bible and not on evolutionary philosophy.
What is at Stake?
When establishment scientists declare evolution as the winner in the contest of determining the origins of the universe and of life, their conclusion has nothing at all to do with traditional science. Darwin merely provided a rationale for science to reject religion and God. Ponder carefully that if evolution is allowed to become the "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology" by which all of life must be interpreted and understood, many more eminent and qualified scientists like Dr. Abraham will lose their jobs. In fact, we could reach a point in America where believing in God automatically disqualifies a person from working in the field of science, despite the fact that the whole field of modern science developed because early scientists believed God had created a rational and orderly universe with controlling principles that could be known.
There is a connection between the termination of Dr. Abraham, the release of the new National Academy of Sciences book cited above, and high school and university science standards that prohibit teaching anything other than evolution as "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology." We see in all of these developments evidence of a rapidly growing movement in the scientific establishment to mandate a philosophical worldview that definitively eliminates God. Dr. Abraham has been the victim of a modern science "inquisition" that mandates a personal belief in the philosophy of evolution and bans a personal belief in God as the Creator.
Please pray that CLA's defense of Dr. Abraham will be successful and that our courts will determine that Christians who believe in a Creator God may not be excluded from working in the field of science when they are otherwise qualified. Pray also that a philosophy based on a nonscientific view of evolution will not become required teaching in the science classrooms of America's public schools and universities.
The attack against the Word of God in our culture begins against the very first verse in Genesis. "In the beginning God" is not accepted by many in our nation. CLA is honored to stand and defend those Christians who remain true to what they believe based on the Bible regardless of the consequences.
http://www.christianlaw.org/articles/un-science.html
Truth in thinking still has a voice and a platform.
God, Science, and the Presidential Campaign
By JOHN WEST
Published: December 26, 2007
To the dismay of many, religion is becoming one of the defining issues of the presidential election campaign. From the scrutiny of Mike Huckabee's views about evolution and Mitt Romney's Mormonism on the Republican side, to unseemly e-mails questioning the religious upbringing of Barack Obama among Democrats, religious faith is once again front and center in electoral politics.
At the same time some are paying increased notice to religion in the campaign, others are lamenting that not enough attention is being paid to science.
In an essay published in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month, physicist Lawrence Krauss faulted presidential candidates for not discussing their scientific views more fully. According to Krauss, "almost all of the major challenges we will face as a nation in this new century have a scientific or technological basis," and the next president will need to act as an "educator in chief" on science issues.
Ironically, both the preoccupation with religion and the avoidance of science in the presidential campaign may have been fueled by the scientific community itself.
Increasingly, self-proclaimed defenders of science have tried to turn "science" into an ideological weapon to attack any questioning by religious believers of the "consensus view" of scientific elites on embryonic stem-cell research, global warming, Darwinian evolution, and similar issues.
This attempt to suppress dissenting views in discussions of science and public policy is fueled by the anti-religious orientation of the majority of America's elite scientists. Nearly 95 percent of biologists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, identify themselves as atheists or agnostics.
The anti-religious fervor of leading scientists was on clear display last year at a conference on science and religion at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. According to one participant quoted by the New York Times, "with a few notable exceptions, the viewpoints at the conference have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?"
Given the effort to exclude people of faith from public debates in the supposed name of science, is it any wonder that many in religious communities are pushing back?
The current state of affairs is tragic, because religious voices in the public square can serve as a valuable check on the prejudices and pretensions of scientific elites.
During the early decades of the 20th century, America's leading evolutionary biologists at institutions such as Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia promoted eugenics and forced sterilization. Traditionalist Catholics and evangelicals were among the handful of voices challenging the validity of the eugenics crusade at a time when scientific dissenters were scant.
Scientists have their blind spots just as much as any religious believer. If they genuinely want more discussion over science and public policy, they could start by inviting religious believers to join the conversation.
John G. West, Ph.D. is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute and author of "Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science."
God, Science, and the Presidential Campaign
By JOHN WEST
Published: December 26, 2007
To the dismay of many, religion is becoming one of the defining issues of the presidential election campaign. From the scrutiny of Mike Huckabee's views about evolution and Mitt Romney's Mormonism on the Republican side, to unseemly e-mails questioning the religious upbringing of Barack Obama among Democrats, religious faith is once again front and center in electoral politics.
At the same time some are paying increased notice to religion in the campaign, others are lamenting that not enough attention is being paid to science.
In an essay published in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month, physicist Lawrence Krauss faulted presidential candidates for not discussing their scientific views more fully. According to Krauss, "almost all of the major challenges we will face as a nation in this new century have a scientific or technological basis," and the next president will need to act as an "educator in chief" on science issues.
Ironically, both the preoccupation with religion and the avoidance of science in the presidential campaign may have been fueled by the scientific community itself.
Increasingly, self-proclaimed defenders of science have tried to turn "science" into an ideological weapon to attack any questioning by religious believers of the "consensus view" of scientific elites on embryonic stem-cell research, global warming, Darwinian evolution, and similar issues.
This attempt to suppress dissenting views in discussions of science and public policy is fueled by the anti-religious orientation of the majority of America's elite scientists. Nearly 95 percent of biologists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, identify themselves as atheists or agnostics.
The anti-religious fervor of leading scientists was on clear display last year at a conference on science and religion at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. According to one participant quoted by the New York Times, "with a few notable exceptions, the viewpoints at the conference have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?"
Given the effort to exclude people of faith from public debates in the supposed name of science, is it any wonder that many in religious communities are pushing back?
The current state of affairs is tragic, because religious voices in the public square can serve as a valuable check on the prejudices and pretensions of scientific elites.
During the early decades of the 20th century, America's leading evolutionary biologists at institutions such as Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia promoted eugenics and forced sterilization. Traditionalist Catholics and evangelicals were among the handful of voices challenging the validity of the eugenics crusade at a time when scientific dissenters were scant.
Scientists have their blind spots just as much as any religious believer. If they genuinely want more discussion over science and public policy, they could start by inviting religious believers to join the conversation.
John G. West, Ph.D. is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute and author of "Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science."
Butterfly Alphabet
Miki,
Those are cool. But I never knew that "Tickle Me" Elmo could swim. It looks like water fades his fur, though.
Those are cool. But I never knew that "Tickle Me" Elmo could swim. It looks like water fades his fur, though.
Thanks Miki for these informative articles; they are quite riveting. This is why I call the current evolutionary scientific paradigm the "140-Year Scientific Dark Age" ruled by the "Scientific Orthodoxy". I think Intelligent Design/Creationism are a start in the right direction in terms of establishing a "counter response" operating "outside" the current scientific paradigm and disregarding it as "antiquated", "erroneous", "old fashion", "primitive", and even "ludicrous". These eroding points need to be continually advertised to the masses to invalidate the (so-called) integrity of evolution and those that support it. Eventually, it will be from "outside" the system that a new scientific paradigm will take hold, for paradigm-shifting scientific revolutions never occur within the system, they always come from outside it. I can see a day when a "Verascience" (true + science) will emerge being a "Neoscience", and most likely that will be under Christ's Millennial Reign on Earth.
Come quickly, Lord. Come quickly.
-7
Come quickly, Lord. Come quickly.
-7
You'll have to forgive me not responding to everything in this thread-- it's a bit overwhelming having to correct so many errors. So, I'll just stick with some of the shorter posts, the ones that presented a direct assertion. If anyone has any particular criticisms of evolution or the Darwinian Theory, please, feel free to hurl 'em at me.
Incorrect. You can't build proteins without amino acids. And the Miller-Urey experiment shows that amino acids were fully capable of being produced in the environment of ancient Earth.
Complex does not mean "impossible to produce in nature."
Presumably from the shift of the ancient RNA into a system more functional in retaining genetic information-- said DNA.
Well, considering that all living things are made from the same materials as nonliving things, it seems wholly plausible that the transition from non-living, non-replicating materials to non-living, replicating protein chains involved clays or crystals as a "scaffold" for the formation of the original protein chains. Mr. Ruse was probably simplifying his examples for the viewing audience and got misconstrued by Mr. Stein.
There's no concerted effort by scientists to bash the religious. Yet, scientists aren't making special efforts to cater objective truth to the religious either. If you count that as "bashing," you're deluded.
True. However, the fact that we no longer practice eugenics and forced sterilization shows two important aspects of science that must be remembered.
1. Science is self correcting. Unlike religions, which hold onto dogmas and worn-out creeds, science corrects errors in judgment, even if the scientific standards in question are entrenched and respected. You can see the same thing in the discovery and throwing out of the Piltdown Man.
2. Science should never be used for sociopolitcal goals. Eugenics and forced sterilizations are pseudoscientific ideals that were created to justify racism-- a forced injection of subjectivity into objective truth. Scientists nowadays are very careful, after the fiasco of Eugenics, to distance themselves from politics. And scientists found consorting their research with political or social goals are automatically suspect in the eyes of the scientific community due to fears of bias.
The article says that the man, hired to work in a field that utilizes evolutionary principles, denied that evolution was a fact. It seems logical that his boss'd fire him. Imagine a doctor who refused to believe in the Germ Theory of Disease in favor of the idea that god creates all diseases and only prayer can cure said diseases. He'd be fired on the spot, if he were even allowed on the job in the first place!
QUOTE
you can't build DNA without protein,,,,,,,,,,and you can't build protein without DNA.............which came first?
Incorrect. You can't build proteins without amino acids. And the Miller-Urey experiment shows that amino acids were fully capable of being produced in the environment of ancient Earth.
QUOTE
Darwin would have never suggested evolution if he had had an ELECTRON MICROSCOPE...........the inner workings of the simplest living cell is very complicated.
Complex does not mean "impossible to produce in nature."
QUOTE
where did the first DNA come from?.............not by accident!
Presumably from the shift of the ancient RNA into a system more functional in retaining genetic information-- said DNA.
QUOTE
who proposes that DNA, or the first replicating molecules, formed on clay, or crystals, using the clay or crystal as a sort of "scaffold" to get the whole shebang started.
Well, considering that all living things are made from the same materials as nonliving things, it seems wholly plausible that the transition from non-living, non-replicating materials to non-living, replicating protein chains involved clays or crystals as a "scaffold" for the formation of the original protein chains. Mr. Ruse was probably simplifying his examples for the viewing audience and got misconstrued by Mr. Stein.
QUOTE
Given the effort to exclude people of faith from public debates in the supposed name of science, is it any wonder that many in religious communities are pushing back?
There's no concerted effort by scientists to bash the religious. Yet, scientists aren't making special efforts to cater objective truth to the religious either. If you count that as "bashing," you're deluded.
QUOTE
During the early decades of the 20th century, America's leading evolutionary biologists at institutions such as Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia promoted eugenics and forced sterilization.
True. However, the fact that we no longer practice eugenics and forced sterilization shows two important aspects of science that must be remembered.
1. Science is self correcting. Unlike religions, which hold onto dogmas and worn-out creeds, science corrects errors in judgment, even if the scientific standards in question are entrenched and respected. You can see the same thing in the discovery and throwing out of the Piltdown Man.
2. Science should never be used for sociopolitcal goals. Eugenics and forced sterilizations are pseudoscientific ideals that were created to justify racism-- a forced injection of subjectivity into objective truth. Scientists nowadays are very careful, after the fiasco of Eugenics, to distance themselves from politics. And scientists found consorting their research with political or social goals are automatically suspect in the eyes of the scientific community due to fears of bias.
QUOTE
The relationship between Dr. Abraham and Woods Hole was mutually beneficial and productive until one lunchtime shortly after Dr. Abraham began working fulltime at Woods Hole. In a passing conversation with his supervisor, Dr. Abraham happened to mention that he believed in Creation. His supervisor expressed concern that if Dr. Abraham believed in Creation, he was not qualified to do the job he had been hired to do.
Dr. Abraham told his superiors in writing that he was willing to analyze his research using evolutionary concepts if that was warranted, but he was not willing to personally renounce his belief in Creation or accept evolution as a scientific fact. Dr. Abraham pointed out that his belief in Creation was irrelevant to the research he was doing. After all, he had developed his research specialty and expertise at St. John's University, where his faith had not been an issue. Dr. Abraham believed a scientist should merely do the experiments and follow the evidence wherever it led.
The "establishment" scientists at Woods Hole were not convinced. They wanted Dr. Abraham to share their wholehearted acceptance of evolution as a scientific fact, or they felt he was not "fit" to work in the field of science-at least not at their prestigious laboratory. They finally told Dr. Abraham he would have to leave if he did not accept evolution as fact.
Dr. Abraham told his superiors in writing that he was willing to analyze his research using evolutionary concepts if that was warranted, but he was not willing to personally renounce his belief in Creation or accept evolution as a scientific fact. Dr. Abraham pointed out that his belief in Creation was irrelevant to the research he was doing. After all, he had developed his research specialty and expertise at St. John's University, where his faith had not been an issue. Dr. Abraham believed a scientist should merely do the experiments and follow the evidence wherever it led.
The "establishment" scientists at Woods Hole were not convinced. They wanted Dr. Abraham to share their wholehearted acceptance of evolution as a scientific fact, or they felt he was not "fit" to work in the field of science-at least not at their prestigious laboratory. They finally told Dr. Abraham he would have to leave if he did not accept evolution as fact.
The article says that the man, hired to work in a field that utilizes evolutionary principles, denied that evolution was a fact. It seems logical that his boss'd fire him. Imagine a doctor who refused to believe in the Germ Theory of Disease in favor of the idea that god creates all diseases and only prayer can cure said diseases. He'd be fired on the spot, if he were even allowed on the job in the first place!
Sartrian,
The Miller-Urey experiment has been debunked and discarded for decades now. The Miller-Urey experiment was based on the assumption of either a reducing or a non-reducing (I forget which) atmosphere for the early Earth, but later results showed definitively that the atmosphere of the early Earth was essentially the opposite of that which would have been necessary for the Miller-Urey experiment to show what it purported to show. Even Dr. Miller (or is that Dr. Urey?) himself later admitted that his experiment showed nothing regarding how amino acids on Earth might have been produced.
Oh, and regarding "clay scaffolds" - are you aware of the qualitative difference in order of complexity between "self-ordering systems" (including clays and crystals) and DNA and RNA, between repetitive order and organization? It seems that you don't, or else you would recognize the bankruptcy of Ruse's and other's idea of "clay or crystal scaffolding" as the means by which RNA eventually came about.
QUOTE
Incorrect. You can't build proteins without amino acids. And the Miller-Urey experiment shows that amino acids were fully capable of being produced in the environment of ancient Earth.
The Miller-Urey experiment has been debunked and discarded for decades now. The Miller-Urey experiment was based on the assumption of either a reducing or a non-reducing (I forget which) atmosphere for the early Earth, but later results showed definitively that the atmosphere of the early Earth was essentially the opposite of that which would have been necessary for the Miller-Urey experiment to show what it purported to show. Even Dr. Miller (or is that Dr. Urey?) himself later admitted that his experiment showed nothing regarding how amino acids on Earth might have been produced.
Oh, and regarding "clay scaffolds" - are you aware of the qualitative difference in order of complexity between "self-ordering systems" (including clays and crystals) and DNA and RNA, between repetitive order and organization? It seems that you don't, or else you would recognize the bankruptcy of Ruse's and other's idea of "clay or crystal scaffolding" as the means by which RNA eventually came about.
QUOTE
The Miller-Urey experiment has been debunked and discarded for decades now.
By who? Christian fundamentalists who wanted to change the "goalposts?" Please. If you're going to make an assertion, back it up with unbiased evidence.
QUOTE
The Miller-Urey experiment was based on the assumption of either a reducing or a non-reducing (I forget which) atmosphere for the early Earth, but later results showed definitively that the atmosphere of the early Earth was essentially the opposite of that which would have been necessary for the Miller-Urey experiment to show
"Some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have contained less of the reducing molecules than was thought at the time of Miller-Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller-Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules. Although the experiment created a mixture that was racemic (containing both L, D enantiomers), experiments since have shown that "when made from scratch in the lab the two versions are equally likely to appear, but in nature, L amino acids dominate." Other experiments have confirmed disproportionate amounts of L or D oriented enatiomers are possible.
Originally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly NH3 and CH4. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO2 with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N2.
In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2. The H atoms come mostly from water vapor. In fact, in order to generate aromatic amino acids under primitive earth conditions it is necessary to use less hydrogen-rich gaseous mixtures. Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been produced in variants of the Miller experiment.
More recent results may question these conclusions. The University of Waterloo and University of Colorado conducted simulations in 2005 that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen---implying a much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules. The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only one percent of the rate previously believed based on revised estimates of the upper atmosphere's temperature. One of the authors, Owen Toon notes: "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept... I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again." Outgassing calculations using a chondritic model for the early earth, complement the Waterloo/Colorado results in re-establishing the importance of the Miller-Urey experiment."
So, that's a nice way of me saying "you're rather wrong."
QUOTE
Even Dr. Miller (or is that Dr. Urey?) himself later admitted that his experiment showed nothing regarding how amino acids on Earth might have been produced.
Quotes or it never happened. Full ones, please. I know how terribly common cherry-picking is among Creationists.
QUOTE
Oh, and regarding "clay scaffolds" - are you aware of the qualitative difference in order of complexity between "self-ordering systems" (including clays and crystals) and DNA and RNA, between repetitive order and organization?
I have no idea what Mr. Russe's claims or ideas were, hence my qualification at the bottom of my post, "Mr. Ruse was probably simplifying his examples for the viewing audience and got misconstrued by Mr. Stein." I was trying to say that the idea of the earliest replicators using crystals or clay as a scaffold to build themselves on isn't a far-fetched idea. Poriferans and cnidarians scaffold themselves to rocks, why is it so far-fetched that the earliest replicators didn't do the same?
Creationists often ignore the fact that science, as opposite to religion, changes as methods of observation develop. Imagine that you are a toddler, you have just started to understand how things around you work, but you are unable to move around freely (your parents think you'll hurt yourself), when you start growing up, you'll be able to move around. You'll soon find out that there is something beyond the kitchen door. When you gain more years, you understand that the fridge does'nt magically fill itself, but someone needs to fill it. (and later on, realise that someone need to work for that food).
What I'm trying to say, that research that has been made in 1970's and beyond, works as a base for more modern studies, but isn't flawles (todays research isn't either). So by pointing out that something is wrong in a theory made 40 years ago, doesn't mean that every study that makes assumptions based on that study is wrong. Scientist and academics don't blindly believe everything that is presented to them, and peer tests are made to every theory, to make sure the theories are as accurate as possible. I study in a university and they encourage us not to take everything they give us as a matter of fact, but to think about it and critisise it if needed.
Evolution, the age of the earth, origins of earth and the universe are often dicarded all together, based on 2nd hand quotes and mistakes in old studies that have been updated several times.
Wake up people. The age of the earth can be calculated from ocean floor, different types of rocks, fossil records show us how life gets more comlicated, light from distant stars and background radiation gives us clue about the age of the universe. Try finding stuff out yourself, go to a biology course in open university. Admiting that Bible isn't accurate on this subject does not undermine your faith in any way, it isn't literal book about a history of a world. It was written and compiled by persons who looked a world on a very different light. And besides, is the main point of the Bible that God created the world, or perhaps its message of salvation and love? I'm ex-christian, I have read my fair share of the Good book, you go and find out what the biology is saying.
What I'm trying to say, that research that has been made in 1970's and beyond, works as a base for more modern studies, but isn't flawles (todays research isn't either). So by pointing out that something is wrong in a theory made 40 years ago, doesn't mean that every study that makes assumptions based on that study is wrong. Scientist and academics don't blindly believe everything that is presented to them, and peer tests are made to every theory, to make sure the theories are as accurate as possible. I study in a university and they encourage us not to take everything they give us as a matter of fact, but to think about it and critisise it if needed.
Evolution, the age of the earth, origins of earth and the universe are often dicarded all together, based on 2nd hand quotes and mistakes in old studies that have been updated several times.
Wake up people. The age of the earth can be calculated from ocean floor, different types of rocks, fossil records show us how life gets more comlicated, light from distant stars and background radiation gives us clue about the age of the universe. Try finding stuff out yourself, go to a biology course in open university. Admiting that Bible isn't accurate on this subject does not undermine your faith in any way, it isn't literal book about a history of a world. It was written and compiled by persons who looked a world on a very different light. And besides, is the main point of the Bible that God created the world, or perhaps its message of salvation and love? I'm ex-christian, I have read my fair share of the Good book, you go and find out what the biology is saying.
This is somewhat a mean-spirited thread.
Everyone whom argues for or against evolution, for or against a couple-thousand year-old age, are simply relying on sources. Sources that support the Bible and sources that support science.
But you know what? You need faith for relying on them both. This is kind of like "pick a side you like" and argue against anything against it.
So some sources say science says religion is a hoax, and some sources say religion says science is a hoax.
This is more of a popularity contest - picking the side you want, than anything based upon stuff being testable.
Just a battle of whom you have the stronger faith in.
I'm surprised no one was honest enough to say "I don't know" as an answer.
Everyone whom argues for or against evolution, for or against a couple-thousand year-old age, are simply relying on sources. Sources that support the Bible and sources that support science.
But you know what? You need faith for relying on them both. This is kind of like "pick a side you like" and argue against anything against it.
So some sources say science says religion is a hoax, and some sources say religion says science is a hoax.
This is more of a popularity contest - picking the side you want, than anything based upon stuff being testable.
Just a battle of whom you have the stronger faith in.
I'm surprised no one was honest enough to say "I don't know" as an answer.
nobody believes evolution,,,,,,,,,,but many people claim to believe evolution,,,,,,,,,,,because they hate Christ and Bible
i don't have all the answers to every question,,,,,,,,,,,but i certainly don't believe that the first living cell fell together by accident
and the Bible has tremendous evidence and proof within itself, that the bible is true
how do we get faith in God?............the Bible answers that question: we hear (and read) the Word of God (Bible).
i don't have all the answers to every question,,,,,,,,,,,but i certainly don't believe that the first living cell fell together by accident
and the Bible has tremendous evidence and proof within itself, that the bible is true
how do we get faith in God?............the Bible answers that question: we hear (and read) the Word of God (Bible).
QUOTE (Oja @ May 18 2008, 01:29 PM)
So by pointing out that something is wrong in a theory made 40 years ago, doesn't mean that every study that makes assumptions based on that study is wrong.
Excuse me, but every subsequent theory based on a wrong primary theory stands on a false foundation, an erroneous falsehood that is most likely and eventually apt to collapse due to its porous and hollow foundation.
Consider the following:
EVOLUTION AND DAWKINS SMASHED TO PIECES WITH PROOF OF GOD SERIES 1 - 4:
Dr. Robert V. Gentry’s Primordial Polonium Radio Halos in Granite Completely Collapses the Uniformitarian/Evolutionary Model
DR. GENTRY'S PRIMORDIAL POLONIUM RADIO HALO RESEARCH
The science of Evolutionists has been intentionally disingenuous and refuses to counter Dr. Gentry’s amazing discovery and research because this TRUTH threatens the false scientific paradigm of Evolutionists, their 140-YEAR SCIENTIFIC DARK AGE.
"Excuse me, but every subsequent theory based on a wrong primary theory stands on a false foundation, an erroneous falsehood that is most likely and eventually apt to collapse due to its porous and hollow foundation."
What I was trying to say, is that if a study claims for example that gravity is transmited via gravitons (correct) which pull everything around us together with a weak force (true) and gravitons are created by flying spaghetti monster (false), first two parts are found to be correct by peer research and alternative studies, but we get no clue about the monster, we start to develop further theories based on the first and second.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
talk origins saves again. Try checking out that site. Of course if you find that talk origins isn't neutral or twistes the facts, check out the sources and read the main articles.
Evolutionary theory, or science itself, isn't an attack against religion in any way. It's modern way of viewing the world and anwsering the questions that we have needed "magic" to explain. Science doesn't say that "God exists" or "God does not exist!". That is stuff for philosophers.
What I was trying to say, is that if a study claims for example that gravity is transmited via gravitons (correct) which pull everything around us together with a weak force (true) and gravitons are created by flying spaghetti monster (false), first two parts are found to be correct by peer research and alternative studies, but we get no clue about the monster, we start to develop further theories based on the first and second.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
talk origins saves again. Try checking out that site. Of course if you find that talk origins isn't neutral or twistes the facts, check out the sources and read the main articles.
Evolutionary theory, or science itself, isn't an attack against religion in any way. It's modern way of viewing the world and anwsering the questions that we have needed "magic" to explain. Science doesn't say that "God exists" or "God does not exist!". That is stuff for philosophers.
"Talk.origins". The most unbiased and objective science site around. Completely fair-minded, without any prejudice, and noble-minded to a fault. Evidence only, there - no agenda or worldview-skewed interpretations. Trustworthy, reliable, and ready to be corrected at any moment.
Anyway, Oja, you seem to not understand that it is possible to find evidence which points to a Designer, without that evidence suggesting anything about the nature of the Designer. Even Dawkins himself thinks it is possible that life has been designed, and says that biology is the study of things which give the appearance of being designed.
Evolutionary theory, the theory that all of life shares common ancestry, directly conflicts with the Biblical account of the origin of life, of mankind and of the other living creatures. More importantly, it directly conflicts with the Biblical account of the nature and origin of death, and thus would have an implicit conflict with the Gospel message itself.
Anyway, Oja, you seem to not understand that it is possible to find evidence which points to a Designer, without that evidence suggesting anything about the nature of the Designer. Even Dawkins himself thinks it is possible that life has been designed, and says that biology is the study of things which give the appearance of being designed.
Evolutionary theory, the theory that all of life shares common ancestry, directly conflicts with the Biblical account of the origin of life, of mankind and of the other living creatures. More importantly, it directly conflicts with the Biblical account of the nature and origin of death, and thus would have an implicit conflict with the Gospel message itself.
Well, at least they tell where their facts come from and you can check them out. Usually pro-creation research is made by single scientists with wrong tools for the job, perhaps not even a proper education for that kind of research and are usually corrected by peer research.
I'm not saying that there isn't a some form of a mastermind behind all this. All I say that it's highly unlikely.
A highly amusing fact: allmost 100% of the scientists working in the relevant field (biology ect.) define themselfs as atheists. Wonder why...
I'm not saying that there isn't a some form of a mastermind behind all this. All I say that it's highly unlikely.
A highly amusing fact: allmost 100% of the scientists working in the relevant field (biology ect.) define themselfs as atheists. Wonder why...
Oja,
Because generally scientists in the field of biology aren't as intelligent as Mathematicians, Physicist, or Engineers, the majority of whom define themselves as NOT being atheist. (And, you can look up the relative IQs of scientists by doing a search on "IQ" and "scientist" and "field", or just the first two - Mathematicians generally, as a group, come out first, followed by Physicists, or vice versa.)
Another reason is that the theory of Evolution has had a monopoly on science education for decades - children trust their authority figures, even when those authority figures don't understand the evidence for and against Evolution. Furthermore, Evolutionists are so confident in their theory that they fight tooth and nail, or tooth and claw, to prevent the problems with Evolutionary theory from being taught, or even mentioned. And belief in Evolution naturally leads to atheism.
QUOTE
A highly amusing fact: almost 100% of the scientists working in the relevant field (biology ect.) define themselves as atheists. Wonder why....
Because generally scientists in the field of biology aren't as intelligent as Mathematicians, Physicist, or Engineers, the majority of whom define themselves as NOT being atheist. (And, you can look up the relative IQs of scientists by doing a search on "IQ" and "scientist" and "field", or just the first two - Mathematicians generally, as a group, come out first, followed by Physicists, or vice versa.)
Another reason is that the theory of Evolution has had a monopoly on science education for decades - children trust their authority figures, even when those authority figures don't understand the evidence for and against Evolution. Furthermore, Evolutionists are so confident in their theory that they fight tooth and nail, or tooth and claw, to prevent the problems with Evolutionary theory from being taught, or even mentioned. And belief in Evolution naturally leads to atheism.
In Finland we have this saying "Mitä vittua?" which describes my first reaction, try look it up.
"Because generally scientists in the field of biology aren't as intelligent as Mathematicians, Physicist, or Engineers, the majority of whom define themselves as NOT being atheist. (And, you can look up the relative IQs of scientists by doing a search on "IQ" and "scientist" and "field", or just the first two - Mathematicians generally, as a group, come out first, followed by Physicists, or vice versa.)"
Are you seriously implying that because biologists aren't intelligent, they do not believe in God, and thus are evolutionists? Please correct me. The fact that they STUDY the field and have a damn good understanding how living organisms work, couldn't be the main reason they tend to be on the anti-creation camp?
Not to mention that IQ measures your mathemathical, linguistic and geomethrical skills. Top biologists might score relatively low, because none of thoise skills are essential in biology. That's also the explanation for mathematicians, engineers and physicists being on top 3.
I don't know when or where did YOU wen't to school as a kid, or how far did you went, but: When I was in comprehensive school I was taught to question and think about stuff myself. Highschool encourages even more to think with your own brains.
And the reason for Evolution being the only thing that they teach to the kids, is that it's the ONLY real scientific theory of our origins. In religions class, we are presented with christian, amongst others, view of orgins. Religion needs to be taught is schools, but religion isn't a thing to be taught in science class. If we choose to teach creation or inteligent design, we might as well start teaching about astrology and divination.
"Because generally scientists in the field of biology aren't as intelligent as Mathematicians, Physicist, or Engineers, the majority of whom define themselves as NOT being atheist. (And, you can look up the relative IQs of scientists by doing a search on "IQ" and "scientist" and "field", or just the first two - Mathematicians generally, as a group, come out first, followed by Physicists, or vice versa.)"
Are you seriously implying that because biologists aren't intelligent, they do not believe in God, and thus are evolutionists? Please correct me. The fact that they STUDY the field and have a damn good understanding how living organisms work, couldn't be the main reason they tend to be on the anti-creation camp?
Not to mention that IQ measures your mathemathical, linguistic and geomethrical skills. Top biologists might score relatively low, because none of thoise skills are essential in biology. That's also the explanation for mathematicians, engineers and physicists being on top 3.
I don't know when or where did YOU wen't to school as a kid, or how far did you went, but: When I was in comprehensive school I was taught to question and think about stuff myself. Highschool encourages even more to think with your own brains.
And the reason for Evolution being the only thing that they teach to the kids, is that it's the ONLY real scientific theory of our origins. In religions class, we are presented with christian, amongst others, view of orgins. Religion needs to be taught is schools, but religion isn't a thing to be taught in science class. If we choose to teach creation or inteligent design, we might as well start teaching about astrology and divination.
QUOTE (Oja @ May 19 2008, 06:52 AM)
"Excuse me, but every subsequent theory based on a wrong primary theory stands on a false foundation, an erroneous falsehood that is most likely and eventually apt to collapse due to its porous and hollow foundation."
What I was trying to say, is that if a study claims for example that gravity is transmited via gravitons (correct) which pull everything around us together with a weak force (true) and gravitons are created by flying spaghetti monster (false), first two parts are found to be correct by peer research and alternative studies, but we get no clue about the monster, we start to develop further theories based on the first and second.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
talk origins saves again. Try checking out that site. Of course if you find that talk origins isn't neutral or twistes the facts, check out the sources and read the main articles.
Evolutionary theory, or science itself, isn't an attack against religion in any way. It's modern way of viewing the world and anwsering the questions that we have needed "magic" to explain. Science doesn't say that "God exists" or "God does not exist!". That is stuff for philosophers.
What I was trying to say, is that if a study claims for example that gravity is transmited via gravitons (correct) which pull everything around us together with a weak force (true) and gravitons are created by flying spaghetti monster (false), first two parts are found to be correct by peer research and alternative studies, but we get no clue about the monster, we start to develop further theories based on the first and second.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
talk origins saves again. Try checking out that site. Of course if you find that talk origins isn't neutral or twistes the facts, check out the sources and read the main articles.
Evolutionary theory, or science itself, isn't an attack against religion in any way. It's modern way of viewing the world and anwsering the questions that we have needed "magic" to explain. Science doesn't say that "God exists" or "God does not exist!". That is stuff for philosophers.
You said:
"That is stuff for philosophers"
no, Jesus Christ is a scientific fact, whether we agree with the facts or not.
the Bible contains it's own proof, that the bible is true
fulfilled prophecy (predictions of the future) is just one of the Proofs.
Sure, Jesus could have existed.
"the Bible contains it's own proof, that the bible is true"
"the Bible contains it's own proof, that the bible is true"
Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
It is amazing how most of the world understood (at one time) how it was God that created ALL things, and there was very little doubt as to how things came into being.
But the Bible tells us (and in the process proves itself once again to be accurate) that the time will come, and is certainly here, when men will no longer seek the truth, but will devise all sorts of ways to explain how God does not exist, nor did any GOD create this "creation".
And, here we see some defending this position of how life somehow comes from death.???
And they reconcile this incredible feat by adding time to it and trusting that somehow it simply just happened....
Jesus is Lord and creator.
In Him,
Chris
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
It is amazing how most of the world understood (at one time) how it was God that created ALL things, and there was very little doubt as to how things came into being.
But the Bible tells us (and in the process proves itself once again to be accurate) that the time will come, and is certainly here, when men will no longer seek the truth, but will devise all sorts of ways to explain how God does not exist, nor did any GOD create this "creation".
And, here we see some defending this position of how life somehow comes from death.???
And they reconcile this incredible feat by adding time to it and trusting that somehow it simply just happened....
Jesus is Lord and creator.
In Him,
Chris
And we stop this track right there. There is no point arguing about ones belief or disbelief to a higher being. End of story. Im just pointing out that you cannot proof something to be accurate on the mere fact that it claims to be. Lets carry on with the dead evolution thingie
Oja,
Do you realize that without a Designer designing the "first" DNA or RNA molecules, or their self-replicating precursors, Evolution couldn't even get off the ground? Do you realize the best atheists can come up with for an explanation of the origin of life (of RNA/DNA) is to propose that some molecules "piggy-backed" on some clay, using the clay as a "scaffolding" to develop the more complex forms necessary? Do you realize how stupid such a proposal is? Were you aware that Richard Dawkins has said that biology is "the study of things which give the appearance of having been designed" (probably paraphrased), or that Dr. Watson (the discoverer of DNA), in considering the evidence, came to the conclusion that life could not have arisen on Earth, but was "seeded" from outer space (either by aliens or by the necessary molecules forming on another planet then arriving here via "asteroid express")? Doesn't that all seem like they are rather desperately trying to avoid having to admit the evidence points to a Creator?
And, in spite of there being NO fossil evidence of Evolution, where there should be such evidence everywhere and in great detail, did you know that Evolutionists will concoct any old story to explain away the lack of evidence? Ever heard of "Punctuated Equilibria"? It's the "Multiverse" theory of Evolution, and has just as much evidentiary support - none.
Do you realize that without a Designer designing the "first" DNA or RNA molecules, or their self-replicating precursors, Evolution couldn't even get off the ground? Do you realize the best atheists can come up with for an explanation of the origin of life (of RNA/DNA) is to propose that some molecules "piggy-backed" on some clay, using the clay as a "scaffolding" to develop the more complex forms necessary? Do you realize how stupid such a proposal is? Were you aware that Richard Dawkins has said that biology is "the study of things which give the appearance of having been designed" (probably paraphrased), or that Dr. Watson (the discoverer of DNA), in considering the evidence, came to the conclusion that life could not have arisen on Earth, but was "seeded" from outer space (either by aliens or by the necessary molecules forming on another planet then arriving here via "asteroid express")? Doesn't that all seem like they are rather desperately trying to avoid having to admit the evidence points to a Creator?
And, in spite of there being NO fossil evidence of Evolution, where there should be such evidence everywhere and in great detail, did you know that Evolutionists will concoct any old story to explain away the lack of evidence? Ever heard of "Punctuated Equilibria"? It's the "Multiverse" theory of Evolution, and has just as much evidentiary support - none.
QUOTE (Godsword @ May 19 2008, 07:32 PM)
[font="Times New Roman"][size=3] Do you realize that without a Designer designing the "first" DNA or RNA molecules, or their self-replicating precursors, Evolution couldn't even get off the ground?
Check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/o...e.html#RNAworld for possible scenario, not 100% sure, but possible and gives us an option. Again this is a discussion about EVOLUTION not ORIGINS OF LIFE. Two completely different subjects. QUOTE (Godsword @ May 19 2008, 07:32 PM)
...life could not have arisen on Earth, but was "seeded" from outer space (either by aliens or by the necessary molecules forming on another planet then arriving here via "asteroid express")?
Sure, they sound bit ankward, but again, they are completely possible (only bit unlikely). Bacteria can survive almost anything, check out bacteria living on ocean floor, nuclear reactors ect. Don't start making arguments about origins, that's not the point of this threath.NO evidence at all.
The English moth is fine example of macroevolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
http://vuletic.com/hume/cefec/5-3.html
http://vuletic.com/hume/cefec/5-5.html
check out the entire site.
I'm not bothering to look for pictures of fossils, I'm not and I make a bold assumpsion that no-one else here is much of an expert on fossil analysis. Instead texts above give kind of a clear example that there exists fossils that point out gradual transition towards more complicated an adaptive species.
If we are indeed designed by a perfect creator, why we have such a badly designed body, (only one heart, but two kidneys, spine is relatively unguarded against outside trauma, relatively bad eyesight, ability smell, low speed and agility compared to rest of the animal kingdom).
Why there are species that became extinct without humans interfering, for example dinosaurs and trilobites, wouldn't it be kind of waste of time to first create something and then just let it be destroyed.
Why australia has such an unique wildlife, wouldn't it be practical to fill australia with same animals used on europe or africa?
Why there are different animals competing on the same food source? In pursuit of making a perfect ecosystem, wouldn't it be more logical to use one species to eat plant A, another to eat plant B, instead of A is used by two or more species, that is bound to end. Why bother to create species B in the first place?
Trilobites. Someone explain how they fit into whole creation, they were, there are huge amount of fossils and they just disapeared. Not by flood. They are marine. Creators's wrath?
No I haven't heard about Punctuated Equilibria, and I'm in a rush. Please tell me about it.
QUOTE (Oja @ May 19 2008, 04:29 AM)
Creationists often ignore the fact that science, as opposite to religion, changes as methods of observation develop. Imagine that you are a toddler, you have just started to understand how things around you work, but you are unable to move around freely (your parents think you'll hurt yourself), when you start growing up, you'll be able to move around. You'll soon find out that there is something beyond the kitchen door. When you gain more years, you understand that the fridge does'nt magically fill itself, but someone needs to fill it. (and later on, realise that someone need to work for that food).
What I'm trying to say, that research that has been made in 1970's and beyond, works as a base for more modern studies, but isn't flawles (todays research isn't either). So by pointing out that something is wrong in a theory made 40 years ago, doesn't mean that every study that makes assumptions based on that study is wrong. Scientist and academics don't blindly believe everything that is presented to them, and peer tests are made to every theory, to make sure the theories are as accurate as possible. I study in a university and they encourage us not to take everything they give us as a matter of fact, but to think about it and critisise it if needed.
Evolution, the age of the earth, origins of earth and the universe are often dicarded all together, based on 2nd hand quotes and mistakes in old studies that have been updated several times.
Wake up people. The age of the earth can be calculated from ocean floor, different types of rocks, fossil records show us how life gets more comlicated, light from distant stars and background radiation gives us clue about the age of the universe. Try finding stuff out yourself, go to a biology course in open university. Admiting that Bible isn't accurate on this subject does not undermine your faith in any way, it isn't literal book about a history of a world. It was written and compiled by persons who looked a world on a very different light. And besides, is the main point of the Bible that God created the world, or perhaps its message of salvation and love? I'm ex-christian, I have read my fair share of the Good book, you go and find out what the biology is saying.
What I'm trying to say, that research that has been made in 1970's and beyond, works as a base for more modern studies, but isn't flawles (todays research isn't either). So by pointing out that something is wrong in a theory made 40 years ago, doesn't mean that every study that makes assumptions based on that study is wrong. Scientist and academics don't blindly believe everything that is presented to them, and peer tests are made to every theory, to make sure the theories are as accurate as possible. I study in a university and they encourage us not to take everything they give us as a matter of fact, but to think about it and critisise it if needed.
Evolution, the age of the earth, origins of earth and the universe are often dicarded all together, based on 2nd hand quotes and mistakes in old studies that have been updated several times.
Wake up people. The age of the earth can be calculated from ocean floor, different types of rocks, fossil records show us how life gets more comlicated, light from distant stars and background radiation gives us clue about the age of the universe. Try finding stuff out yourself, go to a biology course in open university. Admiting that Bible isn't accurate on this subject does not undermine your faith in any way, it isn't literal book about a history of a world. It was written and compiled by persons who looked a world on a very different light. And besides, is the main point of the Bible that God created the world, or perhaps its message of salvation and love? I'm ex-christian, I have read my fair share of the Good book, you go and find out what the biology is saying.
The geological evidence is obvious that a great cataclysm caused the geological formations of the world today. The Grand Canyon for example could not possibly have been formed by gradual erosion and deposits over millions of years. All of the formations we see in the Grand Canyon were observed forming almost overnight after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. The scientific evidence is completely observable today but scientists reject it because it does not fit with their world view.
See this thread here for further evidence of enormous canyons appearing immediately after cataclysmic events.
http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?s...c=12540&hl=
Can I also point you to a fantastic online book at www.creationscience.com. The scientist here brilliantly reveals the mechanism by which rock strata is formed during a cataclysm. He also explains in detail what happened to the world during the flood, all of which perfectly adds up with the observed geology of the earth
QUOTE (excubitor @ May 20 2008, 09:39 AM)
The geological evidence is obvious that a great cataclysm caused the geological formations of the world today. The Grand Canyon for example could not possibly have been formed by gradual erosion and deposits over millions of years. All of the formations we see in the Grand Canyon were observed forming almost overnight after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. The scientific evidence is completely observable today but scientists reject it because it does not fit with their world view.
"The sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is easily eroded. The Grand Canyon was carved into harder materials, including well-consolidated sandstone and limestone, hard metamorphosed sediments (the Vishnu schist), plus a touch of relatively recent basalt.
The walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon slope 45 degrees. The walls of the Grand Canyon are vertical in places.
The canyon was not entirely formed suddenly. The canyon along Toutle River has a river continuously contributing to its formation. Another canyon also cited as evidence of catastrophic erosion is Engineer's Canyon, which was formed via water pumped out of Spirit Lake over several days by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The streams flowing down Mount St. Helens flow at a steeper grade than the Colorado River does, allowing greater erosion.
The Grand Canyon (and canyons further up and down the Colorado River) is more than 100,000 times larger than the canyon on Mount St. Helens. The two are not really comparable." From Talk origins.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html
There's another.
And if great canyons could form in relative ease, why don't we se more of theise breathtaking canyons? Is it simply because the creator wanted to give americans something breathtaking that asians or africans don't have?
Fortunately:
"How the Nile Canyon Formed
Evaporation of the Mediterranean profoundly affected the streams that flowed into it, as well described by University of Texas (Dallas) geologists. (8) “As the level of the Mediterranean got lower and lower, streams that once flowed placidly into it began to cut down in to the underlying rocks, becoming steeper and with more erosive power as sea level dropped and the stream cut down into relatively soft limestones. The enhanced erosive power allowed its upper tributaries to extend into the headwaters and ‘capture’ upstream drainages. The increased water from the captured streams further increased the stream’s erosive power, further stimulating the expansion of the drainage system upstream. This led to the development of the so-called ‘Eonile’ [more below] which carved the huge canyon that was deeper than the Grand Canyon of Arizona and many times longer…”
Hsu found by examining sediments from the bottom of the Mediterranean that the Mediterranean basin reflooded when “the flood gate at the Strait of Gibraltar apparently swung open and shut repeatedly during the Late Miocene” (Miocene 24.6 million to 5.1 million years ago), and finally was crushed during the “final deluge” when one-way flooding from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean occurred unimpeded at the beginning of the Pliocene (5.1 million years ago). The Pliocene marine ooze from this gush that Hsu found in Mediterranean floor sediments was the same Pliocene marine ooze that Chumakov found at Aswan.
When the barrier at Gibraltar ruptured for good, the Atlantic water not only refilled the Mediterranean basin, but flooded the newly-created Nile Canyon, now, in essence, a “drowned river valley or estuary”, similar to the fjords of Norway. (8) “Slowly this estuary filled with sediments brought in by the ‘Paleonile’ [more below] flowing from the south, and a landscape not too different from the present was established by 3 or 4 million years ago.” (8)"
A logical explanation.
"How the Nile Canyon Formed
Evaporation of the Mediterranean profoundly affected the streams that flowed into it, as well described by University of Texas (Dallas) geologists. (8) “As the level of the Mediterranean got lower and lower, streams that once flowed placidly into it began to cut down in to the underlying rocks, becoming steeper and with more erosive power as sea level dropped and the stream cut down into relatively soft limestones. The enhanced erosive power allowed its upper tributaries to extend into the headwaters and ‘capture’ upstream drainages. The increased water from the captured streams further increased the stream’s erosive power, further stimulating the expansion of the drainage system upstream. This led to the development of the so-called ‘Eonile’ [more below] which carved the huge canyon that was deeper than the Grand Canyon of Arizona and many times longer…”
Hsu found by examining sediments from the bottom of the Mediterranean that the Mediterranean basin reflooded when “the flood gate at the Strait of Gibraltar apparently swung open and shut repeatedly during the Late Miocene” (Miocene 24.6 million to 5.1 million years ago), and finally was crushed during the “final deluge” when one-way flooding from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean occurred unimpeded at the beginning of the Pliocene (5.1 million years ago). The Pliocene marine ooze from this gush that Hsu found in Mediterranean floor sediments was the same Pliocene marine ooze that Chumakov found at Aswan.
When the barrier at Gibraltar ruptured for good, the Atlantic water not only refilled the Mediterranean basin, but flooded the newly-created Nile Canyon, now, in essence, a “drowned river valley or estuary”, similar to the fjords of Norway. (8) “Slowly this estuary filled with sediments brought in by the ‘Paleonile’ [more below] flowing from the south, and a landscape not too different from the present was established by 3 or 4 million years ago.” (8)"
A logical explanation.
Anyone with a mere discerning eye can detect on any satellite topography map clear and OBVIOUS evidence in the topographical structures indicating the former presence of massive quantities of water that once blanketed entire continents. Dichotomy lines of ancient shorelines can vividly be seen... as in the Mississippi Valley and its eastern escarpment (shoreline); a former inland sea that had formed in the post-Flood period; and the drainage patterns and directions of the hydraulic run off is clear having shaped ancient islands and the tributary structures that are valleys and ravines of today in the direction of the run off from a higher elevation to lower elevation incline slope. It doesn't require a rocket scientist to see this, just a set of eye balls and a brain untainted and not jaded by the ridiculous dogma of Evolution and the ludicrous gargantuan ages of Uniformitarianism.
Oja,
You've got to be kidding. Are they still promoting that long-refuted idea? Evolutionists must really be desperate for evidence if they still point to that as strong support for Evolution.
The English moth is a fine example of nothing more than variation WITHIN species, something Creationists have LONG accepted. Dog breeds are even finer examples of the same thing. As are "Darwin's Finches". Oh, and fruit flies, too. NONE provide one iota of evidence for macroevolution, however. No NEW INFORMATION is seen arising - rather, previously existing information is seen manifesting or not, depending on the circumstances.
QUOTE
The English moth is a fine example of macroevolution.
You've got to be kidding. Are they still promoting that long-refuted idea? Evolutionists must really be desperate for evidence if they still point to that as strong support for Evolution.
The English moth is a fine example of nothing more than variation WITHIN species, something Creationists have LONG accepted. Dog breeds are even finer examples of the same thing. As are "Darwin's Finches". Oh, and fruit flies, too. NONE provide one iota of evidence for macroevolution, however. No NEW INFORMATION is seen arising - rather, previously existing information is seen manifesting or not, depending on the circumstances.
Oja,
No, they are NOT "completely different subjects". They are quite closely related. The "origin of the species" can't really be fully explained without also dealing with the origin of life, and Evolution pretends to explain the "origin of species". They are as closely related as the nervous system and the brain.
QUOTE
Again this is a discussion about EVOLUTION not ORIGINS OF LIFE. Two completely different subjects.
No, they are NOT "completely different subjects". They are quite closely related. The "origin of the species" can't really be fully explained without also dealing with the origin of life, and Evolution pretends to explain the "origin of species". They are as closely related as the nervous system and the brain.
Sure, theory of evolution and origins of life are closely linked, not two different subjects, my bad wording. But they are completely different field of studies, origins explain how life itself got started in the first place, evolution explains how it got on from that point. If indeed a god gave a little push to get us started, life could have developed from that point on by itself with help of two magic words, random mutations and natural selection.
Can't variation within species seen as prelude to two different species? Enough time and distance, two populations can go into very different directions. Bear in mind that we speak about such huge quantities of time that entire human civilization hasn't existed that long. Example one population of dogs heading north other for south, ones in north would certainly benefit from thick fur, other would eventually get larger ears to help cooling, lose fur and perhaps high speed to help catch prey, given enough time, they could (and will) grow so different, that they lose the ability to mate together (or atleast create sterile offspring). Evolution on it's finest. Time is the key here
I must leave now for two weeks, I'm doing military service. While I'm gone, please anwser following questions, either to my PM, or here, (preferably both)
Why australia has such an unique wildlife, wouldn't it be practical to fill australia with same animals used on europe or africa?
Trilobites. Someone explain how they fit into whole creation, they were, there are huge amount of fossils to proof it and they just disapeared. Not by flood. They are marine. Creators's wrath?
Extinct species, why to create something just to be killed later on?
And if water levels rose, how could have clear/saltwater creatures survive? Their chances of surviving in wrong kind of water are practically zero (not counting one or two species)
Are you young earth or the other variety of creationists?
Younglings can wonder why we find fossils well over 6000 years old. And yes, carbon dating is damn accurate.
And ice age happened 10000bc, I have to walk 100m to find proof for it, if world is 6000years old, the ice age can't quite fit in..
Cya in two weeks
Can't variation within species seen as prelude to two different species? Enough time and distance, two populations can go into very different directions. Bear in mind that we speak about such huge quantities of time that entire human civilization hasn't existed that long. Example one population of dogs heading north other for south, ones in north would certainly benefit from thick fur, other would eventually get larger ears to help cooling, lose fur and perhaps high speed to help catch prey, given enough time, they could (and will) grow so different, that they lose the ability to mate together (or atleast create sterile offspring). Evolution on it's finest. Time is the key here
I must leave now for two weeks, I'm doing military service. While I'm gone, please anwser following questions, either to my PM, or here, (preferably both)
Why australia has such an unique wildlife, wouldn't it be practical to fill australia with same animals used on europe or africa?
Trilobites. Someone explain how they fit into whole creation, they were, there are huge amount of fossils to proof it and they just disapeared. Not by flood. They are marine. Creators's wrath?
Extinct species, why to create something just to be killed later on?
And if water levels rose, how could have clear/saltwater creatures survive? Their chances of surviving in wrong kind of water are practically zero (not counting one or two species)
Are you young earth or the other variety of creationists?
Younglings can wonder why we find fossils well over 6000 years old. And yes, carbon dating is damn accurate.
And ice age happened 10000bc, I have to walk 100m to find proof for it, if world is 6000years old, the ice age can't quite fit in..
Cya in two weeks
QUOTE (Oja @ May 20 2008, 06:10 AM)
Sure, theory of evolution and origins of life are closely linked, not two different subjects, my bad wording. But they are completely different field of studies, origins explain how life itself got started in the first place, evolution explains how it got on from that point. If indeed a god gave a little push to get us started, life could have developed from that point on by itself with help of two magic words, random mutations and natural selection.
Can't variation within species seen as prelude to two different species? Enough time and distance, two populations can go into very different directions. Bear in mind that we speak about such huge quantities of time that entire human civilization hasn't existed that long. Example one population of dogs heading north other for south, ones in north would certainly benefit from thick fur, other would eventually get larger ears to help cooling, lose fur and perhaps high speed to help catch prey, given enough time, they could (and will) grow so different, that they lose the ability to mate together (or atleast create sterile offspring). Evolution on it's finest. Time is the key here
I must leave now for two weeks, I'm doing military service. While I'm gone, please anwser following questions, either to my PM, or here, (preferably both)
Why australia has such an unique wildlife, wouldn't it be practical to fill australia with same animals used on europe or africa?
Trilobites. Someone explain how they fit into whole creation, they were, there are huge amount of fossils to proof it and they just disapeared. Not by flood. They are marine. Creators's wrath?
Extinct species, why to create something just to be killed later on?
And if water levels rose, how could have clear/saltwater creatures survive? Their chances of surviving in wrong kind of water are practically zero (not counting one or two species)
Are you young earth or the other variety of creationists?
Younglings can wonder why we find fossils well over 6000 years old. And yes, carbon dating is damn accurate.
And ice age happened 10000bc, I have to walk 100m to find proof for it, if world is 6000years old, the ice age can't quite fit in..
Cya in two weeks
Can't variation within species seen as prelude to two different species? Enough time and distance, two populations can go into very different directions. Bear in mind that we speak about such huge quantities of time that entire human civilization hasn't existed that long. Example one population of dogs heading north other for south, ones in north would certainly benefit from thick fur, other would eventually get larger ears to help cooling, lose fur and perhaps high speed to help catch prey, given enough time, they could (and will) grow so different, that they lose the ability to mate together (or atleast create sterile offspring). Evolution on it's finest. Time is the key here
I must leave now for two weeks, I'm doing military service. While I'm gone, please anwser following questions, either to my PM, or here, (preferably both)
Why australia has such an unique wildlife, wouldn't it be practical to fill australia with same animals used on europe or africa?
Trilobites. Someone explain how they fit into whole creation, they were, there are huge amount of fossils to proof it and they just disapeared. Not by flood. They are marine. Creators's wrath?
Extinct species, why to create something just to be killed later on?
And if water levels rose, how could have clear/saltwater creatures survive? Their chances of surviving in wrong kind of water are practically zero (not counting one or two species)
Are you young earth or the other variety of creationists?
Younglings can wonder why we find fossils well over 6000 years old. And yes, carbon dating is damn accurate.
And ice age happened 10000bc, I have to walk 100m to find proof for it, if world is 6000years old, the ice age can't quite fit in..
Cya in two weeks
These are excellent questions. Perhaps another is how would we rate the theory of evolution without religious bias? Would it stand on the evidence and observations that have been compiled? What are our scientific qualifications (educational) to make that judgment? Can we study and understand the science and then apply our theist convictions? When an argument is reduced to emotional reaction, how will we ever settle the debate?
LogicandReason,
Failed, and foolish. I was an atheist for about 8 years, from right after high school, and I can absolutely tell you that if I had known then what I now know about Evolution and the evidence, I'd have been spitting fire at all the lies Evolutionists had willfully or incompetently taught, even though I probably would have turned to a "New Age" sort of "faith", and not Christianity.
Absolutely not. There is not one shred of evidence for macroevolution, for Evolution "proper".
First, there is only a minimum of "scientific qualifications (educational)" which would be necessary in order to see that Evolution is a fraud. In fact, NO "scientific qualification" is really needed in order to understand that the fossil record disproves Evolution; and only a reasonable amount of "logic and reason" is required in order to see that the theory of "Punctuated Equilibria" is an ad hoc explaining away of a failed Evolutionary prediction, and as such is not itself scientific or reasonable. For myself, I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Mathematics, with a Minor in Computer Science, and had been (and plan to continue when I am able) pursuing a Master of Science degree in Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, with a focus in Applied Mathematics, and a planned thesis topic dealing with DNA, Topology, and Evolution (or something related, like something in Bioinformatics). I am fairly widely read in various issues related to Evolution, but mostly at an "educated layperson's" level. I am not stupid, and in fact started studying high school material when I was 10 (and I expect, if the elementary school had allowed me to continue at that accelerated pace, I likely could have graduated from high school when I was 12). I think my educational background stacks up quite well against, say, Charles Darwin's, who had been educated as a theologian when he came up with his theory of Evolution.
Certainly. We can also use our theist convictions to direct us in our scientific pursuits, informing us of likely scientific results and potentially fruitful scientific endeavors. It's unfortunate that most Evolutionists have actually applied their ATHEISTIC CONVICTIONS prior to examining the scientific evidence, and as a result they exclude anything that might possibly contradict their metaphysical convictions, even before examining the facts.
Amen. But why aren't you on an atheism board, rather than a Christian board, sharing this? Have you not noticed the incredibly emotional reactions from atheists and Evolutionists in trying to defend Evolution?
QUOTE
These are excellent questions. Perhaps another is how would we rate the theory of evolution without religious bias?
Failed, and foolish. I was an atheist for about 8 years, from right after high school, and I can absolutely tell you that if I had known then what I now know about Evolution and the evidence, I'd have been spitting fire at all the lies Evolutionists had willfully or incompetently taught, even though I probably would have turned to a "New Age" sort of "faith", and not Christianity.
QUOTE
Would it stand on the evidence and observations that have been compiled?
Absolutely not. There is not one shred of evidence for macroevolution, for Evolution "proper".
QUOTE
What are our scientific qualifications (educational) to make that judgment?
First, there is only a minimum of "scientific qualifications (educational)" which would be necessary in order to see that Evolution is a fraud. In fact, NO "scientific qualification" is really needed in order to understand that the fossil record disproves Evolution; and only a reasonable amount of "logic and reason" is required in order to see that the theory of "Punctuated Equilibria" is an ad hoc explaining away of a failed Evolutionary prediction, and as such is not itself scientific or reasonable. For myself, I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Mathematics, with a Minor in Computer Science, and had been (and plan to continue when I am able) pursuing a Master of Science degree in Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, with a focus in Applied Mathematics, and a planned thesis topic dealing with DNA, Topology, and Evolution (or something related, like something in Bioinformatics). I am fairly widely read in various issues related to Evolution, but mostly at an "educated layperson's" level. I am not stupid, and in fact started studying high school material when I was 10 (and I expect, if the elementary school had allowed me to continue at that accelerated pace, I likely could have graduated from high school when I was 12). I think my educational background stacks up quite well against, say, Charles Darwin's, who had been educated as a theologian when he came up with his theory of Evolution.
QUOTE
Can we study and understand the science and then apply our theist convictions?
Certainly. We can also use our theist convictions to direct us in our scientific pursuits, informing us of likely scientific results and potentially fruitful scientific endeavors. It's unfortunate that most Evolutionists have actually applied their ATHEISTIC CONVICTIONS prior to examining the scientific evidence, and as a result they exclude anything that might possibly contradict their metaphysical convictions, even before examining the facts.
QUOTE
When an argument is reduced to emotional reaction, how will we ever settle the debate?
Amen. But why aren't you on an atheism board, rather than a Christian board, sharing this? Have you not noticed the incredibly emotional reactions from atheists and Evolutionists in trying to defend Evolution?
Godsword, I appreciate your perspective.
So, your converting to Christianity and being a former Atheist has something to do with the evidence or lack of evidence. I don't follow.
I agree with you my friend, there is no evidence of Macroevolution. There are plenty for Microevloution. Evolutionary biologist say that we do not have enough time to observe Macroevolution; I'm not a scientist so I can not comment on that statement. Both Evolution and Creationism as absolutes seem a stretch to me.
I didn't realize it was so simple a proof. Perhaps you can solve this question once and for all.
This would be a great opportunity for you to share such proofs in the fossil record.
I'm impressed with your qualifications. Perhaps you can then easily disprove the Theory and show us laymen how observations and failure to predict outcome makes this issue a simple application of logic and reason.
Yes, it is discouraging to see people apply any bias to their pursuit of knowledge. I would like to believe that universal truth is truth and any biased research will eventually be exposed as such. This is why yo would not mind me asking such questions and allowing you a forum to exhibit your proofs.
I would think that you would welcome me here...to hear the other side. As a father, I would no more wish for my children to be educated with bad information than you. And Godsword, what advantage is there for me to go to any site that will only agree with my posits and appeal to my narcissism? I seek answers as do you. Is the truth not the truth? Atheist is such a funny word; it defines a person by a belief system they do not believe. If I didn't know better, I might think that believers were trying to lump non-believers into a pile of human rubbish with such titles as communist or social Darwinist. Yes, I have been on the Atheist websites too...arguing that social Darwinism and Eugenics were justified directly by Darwin's theory (though Darwin did not link them and Spencer came before Darwin) and asking that we all look closely at the absolutisms people try to promote.
QUOTE (Godsword @ May 20 2008, 10:28 AM)
Failed, and foolish. I was an atheist for about 8 years, from right after high school, and I can absolutely tell you that if I had known then what I now know about Evolution and the evidence, I'd have been spitting fire at all the lies Evolutionists had willfully or incompetently taught, even though I probably would have turned to a "New Age" sort of "faith", and not Christianity.
So, your converting to Christianity and being a former Atheist has something to do with the evidence or lack of evidence. I don't follow.
QUOTE
Absolutely not. There is not one shred of evidence for macroevolution, for Evolution "proper".
I agree with you my friend, there is no evidence of Macroevolution. There are plenty for Microevloution. Evolutionary biologist say that we do not have enough time to observe Macroevolution; I'm not a scientist so I can not comment on that statement. Both Evolution and Creationism as absolutes seem a stretch to me.
QUOTE
First, there is only a minimum of "scientific qualifications (educational)" which would be necessary in order to see that Evolution is a fraud.
I didn't realize it was so simple a proof. Perhaps you can solve this question once and for all.
QUOTE
In fact, NO "scientific qualification" is really needed in order to understand that the fossil record disproves Evolution; and only a reasonable amount of "logic and reason" is required in order to see that the theory of "Punctuated Equilibria" is an ad hoc explaining away of a failed Evolutionary prediction, and as such is not itself scientific or reasonable.
This would be a great opportunity for you to share such proofs in the fossil record.
QUOTE
For myself, I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Mathematics, with a Minor in Computer Science, and had been (and plan to continue when I am able) pursuing a Master of Science degree in Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, with a focus in Applied Mathematics, and a planned thesis topic dealing with DNA, Topology, and Evolution (or something related, like something in Bioinformatics). I am fairly widely read in various issues related to Evolution, but mostly at an "educated layperson's" level. I am not stupid, and in fact started studying high school material when I was 10 (and I expect, if the elementary school had allowed me to continue at that accelerated pace, I likely could have graduated from high school when I was 12). I think my educational background stacks up quite well against, say, Charles Darwin's, who had been educated as a theologian when he came up with his theory of Evolution.
I'm impressed with your qualifications. Perhaps you can then easily disprove the Theory and show us laymen how observations and failure to predict outcome makes this issue a simple application of logic and reason.
QUOTE
Certainly. We can also use our theist convictions to direct us in our scientific pursuits, informing us of likely scientific results and potentially fruitful scientific endeavors. It's unfortunate that most Evolutionists have actually applied their ATHEISTIC CONVICTIONS prior to examining the scientific evidence, and as a result they exclude anything that might possibly contradict their metaphysical convictions, even before examining the facts.
Yes, it is discouraging to see people apply any bias to their pursuit of knowledge. I would like to believe that universal truth is truth and any biased research will eventually be exposed as such. This is why yo would not mind me asking such questions and allowing you a forum to exhibit your proofs.
QUOTE
Amen. But why aren't you on an atheism board, rather than a Christian board, sharing this? Have you not noticed the incredibly emotional reactions from atheists and Evolutionists in trying to defend Evolution?
I would think that you would welcome me here...to hear the other side. As a father, I would no more wish for my children to be educated with bad information than you. And Godsword, what advantage is there for me to go to any site that will only agree with my posits and appeal to my narcissism? I seek answers as do you. Is the truth not the truth? Atheist is such a funny word; it defines a person by a belief system they do not believe. If I didn't know better, I might think that believers were trying to lump non-believers into a pile of human rubbish with such titles as communist or social Darwinist. Yes, I have been on the Atheist websites too...arguing that social Darwinism and Eugenics were justified directly by Darwin's theory (though Darwin did not link them and Spencer came before Darwin) and asking that we all look closely at the absolutisms people try to promote.
From a spiritual perspective, why would people reject evolution? How do you, anyone that cares to answer, see evolution in conflict with the Bible?
QUOTE (Jack777 @ May 20 2008, 09:10 PM)
From a spiritual perspective, why would people reject evolution? How do you, anyone that cares to answer, see evolution in conflict with the Bible?
What an excellent question. Outside of a desire to interpret Genesis literally (with the many controversies about it's authorship, origin and multiple translations) neither is mutually exclusive. Further, outside of what I consider good evidence for natural selection, there are interpretations of evolution that may change in the future with more observations and more understand of physics and biology. Absolutism has not proved a good place to hang one's hat if we study history.
Jack777,
Evolution and the Bible directly and strongly conflict on the origin and cause of physical death. A very important issue. Also, Evolution and the Bible conflict on how life began and was created (where Evolution says life was "created" via millions of years of natural selection acting on random mutations and other genetic variations; while the Bible says God created life "as is", essentially instantaneously, and that "like begets like"). Furthermore, Evolution and the Bible conflict in how old each claims the Earth is - Evolution requires millions, likely billions, of years for the Earth; the Bible clearly indicates that the Earth is only around 6000 "Earth-years" old.
QUOTE
From a spiritual perspective, why would people reject evolution? How do you, anyone that cares to answer, see evolution in conflict with the Bible?
Evolution and the Bible directly and strongly conflict on the origin and cause of physical death. A very important issue. Also, Evolution and the Bible conflict on how life began and was created (where Evolution says life was "created" via millions of years of natural selection acting on random mutations and other genetic variations; while the Bible says God created life "as is", essentially instantaneously, and that "like begets like"). Furthermore, Evolution and the Bible conflict in how old each claims the Earth is - Evolution requires millions, likely billions, of years for the Earth; the Bible clearly indicates that the Earth is only around 6000 "Earth-years" old.
QUOTE (Godsword @ May 20 2008, 10:15 PM)
Evolution and the Bible directly and strongly conflict on the origin and cause of physical death.
Please give me a source reference concerning evolution and the cause of physical death. And is the cause of physical death (per the Bible) sin?
QUOTE
the Bible clearly indicates that the Earth is only around 6000 "Earth-years" old.
Godsword, there are societies with histories older than that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_millennium_BC Since you are the scientist here, by education, please show us some source references for the above proclamations.
QUOTE (THE SEVEN THUNDERS @ Apr 29 2008, 02:12 AM)
In the name and spirit of “Evolution is Dead”, here are some fun quotes from prominent worldwide scientists lambasting the so-called “theory” of evolution, adding to the continuing erosion of this antiquated and primitive “140-Year Scientific Dark Age” that the 19th century Uniformitarian/Evolutionary Model has duped Modernity into blindly embracing.
Prominent Swiss scientist, Dr. Louis Bounoure, "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
Dr. Norman Macbeth, "Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."
Arthur N. Field, "What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen; belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."
D.B. Gower, "The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."
Dr. J. Alan Feduccia, "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that."
For more fun quotes check out the following link:
http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?author=&cat=&keyword=&search=yes&source=&submit=Search
Prominent Swiss scientist, Dr. Louis Bounoure, "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
Dr. Norman Macbeth, "Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."
Arthur N. Field, "What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen; belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."
D.B. Gower, "The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."
Dr. J. Alan Feduccia, "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that."
For more fun quotes check out the following link:
http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?author=&cat=&keyword=&search=yes&source=&submit=Search
Does anybody source check any of these claims? Famous Professors? Some are not scientist at all! Let's see what the largest paid subscription, peer-reviewed journal has to say on the subject:Look Here At a time when our children need all the science and math training they can receive you are trying to promote your pseudo-science. Thousands of real scientist refute the piffle above.
QUOTE
Me: Evolution and the Bible directly and strongly conflict on the origin and cause of physical death.
LaR: Please give me a source reference concerning evolution and the cause of physical death.
LaR: Please give me a source reference concerning evolution and the cause of physical death.
What? Are you not aware that Evolution teaches that death has been a part of life since the beginning? (I think, ultimately, that the "cause" of physical death, according to Evolution, would be Thermodynamics, or an aspect of it - but that's not important.)
QUOTE
LaR: And is the cause of physical death (per the Bible) sin?
Yes. The implication is that there was no physical death, even among animals, prior to Adam and Eve's sin. It was after Adam and Eve's sin that the Earth was cursed "for their sakes" (because of their rebellion, and in order to make people aware of their sinful state [lest they think sin has no consequence in life]).
QUOTE
Me: ...the Bible clearly indicates that the Earth is only around 6000 "Earth-years" old.
LaR: Godsword, there are societies with histories older than that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_millennium_BC .
LaR: Godsword, there are societies with histories older than that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_millennium_BC .
LaR, perhaps you might want to reconsider trusting everything you read on Wikipedia. And, you might want to ponder how those historians/archaeologists/whatever arrived at those years - I would imagine if you carefully dug through their reasoning and justifications, you'd find a fair number of unsupported assumptions and unjustified extrapolations. I imagine you'd find quite a few gaps which they have had to "fill in" to the best of their imagination.
QUOTE
LaR: Since you are the scientist here, by education, please show us some source references for the above proclamations.
For those I made regarding Evolution, I refer you to any reasonably thorough article or book about Evolution. As it is, one really only needs to consider the theory itself to understand what Evolution says about the origin of death - nothing "caused" death, specifically; it's just always been a part of life, due to imperfect "natural mechanisms" breaking down over time or due to trauma or disease.
Regarding my other "proclamations" - my "source reference" for my proclamations regarding the Bible is, ummmm, the Bible. I thought that was obvious from my prefacing those "proclamations" by saying "the Bible". If you're looking for a specific chapter or verse, I can refer you to the Genesis Creation account (Genesis 1) which shows that Adam and Eve (and the Earth) were created within a literal 6-Day period, and I can refer you to the genealogies in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 which give a total of roughly 2008 years from the creation of Adam until the birth of Abraham (Terah, Abraham's father, was actually 130 years old when Abraham was born, not 70 years as Genesis 11:26 seems to indicate [comparing the fact that Genesis 11:32 says that Terah died at 205 years of age with Acts 7:4 which says that Abraham left Haran after his father, Terah, had died, and with Genesis 12:4 which says that Abraham was 75 years old when he left Haran, one finds that Terah must have been 130 years old when Abraham was born]), to Abraham's begetting Isaac at 100 years of age (Genesis 21:5), to Isaac being 60 years old when he begat Jacob (Genesis 25:26), to Jacob being 130 years old when he (and the "embryo" nation of Israel, including his sons and family) entered Egypt (Genesis 47:9), to the 430 years (400 years of oppression) that Israel was in Egypt (Exodus 12:40), to the 40 years Israel wandered in the wilderness (Exodus 16:35), to Joshua leading Israel for 30 years (he was 40 when Israel left Egypt, 80 when he led Israel into the Promised Land, and 110 when he died [various verses]), to there having been roughly 554 years (I Kings 6:1 says "in the 480th year after Israel came out of the land of Egypt", but if you count the number of years for the various judges of Israel, including Joshua, the total is 554, of which 114 were years Israel was in rebellion against God), after Israel had entered the Promised Land until Solomon began to build (in his 4th year [so one needs to subtract about 3.5 years, which are otherwise counted twice]) the Temple (I Kings 6:1), to the total length of time (about 365 years) for the kings of Israel after Solomon until the Babylonian captivity in 587 B.C. (various verses in I & II Kings, and I & II Chronicles), gives a total of about 3718 years from the creation of Adam until the Babylonian captivity. Those years are almost certainly "Biblical" years (of 360 days each), so to convert for our calendar, 3718 "Biblical" years is roughly equal to 3660 "Gregorian" (or, similarly, "Tropical") years. Since there was no "0 A.D.", there would have been roughly 3660 + 586 = 4246 "Gregorian"/"Tropical" years from the creation of Adam until 1/1/1 A.D.. From 1/1/1/ A.D. until now is roughly 2007 "Gregorian" years. Therefore, according to the Bible, there have been roughly 4246 + 2007 = 6253 "Gregorian"/"Tropical" years (or 6344 "Biblical" years) from the creation of Adam until now.
As the example of "in the 480th year after Israel came out of the land of Egypt" shows, God apparently did not count those periods in which Israel was in disobedience to Him, while in their land - those periods of rebellion totalled roughly 114 years (during the judges and kings). Since God counted years using "Biblical" years, and the two periods mentioned just above were in "Biblical" years, there remains an "excess" over 6000 years of roughly 230 "Biblical" years, which might be accounted for by some other periods of rebellion (the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness, etc.). In any case, the Bible is clear that the Earth is only roughly around 6000 years (specifically, apparently, 6253 "Gregorian"/"Tropical" years) old.
QUOTE (Godsword @ May 21 2008, 01:31 AM)
[font="Times New Roman"][size=3]
QUOTE
Me: Evolution and the Bible directly and strongly conflict on the origin and cause of physical death.
LaR: Please give me a source reference concerning evolution and the cause of physical death.
LaR: Please give me a source reference concerning evolution and the cause of physical death.
QUOTE
What? Are you not aware that Evolution teaches that death has been a part of life since the beginning? (I think, ultimately, that the "cause" of physical death, according to Evolution, would be Thermodynamics, or an aspect of it - but that's not important.)
QUOTE
LaR: And is the cause of physical death (per the Bible) sin?
QUOTE
Yes. The implication is that there was no physical death, even among animals, prior to Adam and Eve's sin. It was after Adam and Eve's sin that the Earth was cursed "for their sakes" (because of their rebellion, and in order to make people aware of their sinful state [lest they think sin has no consequence in life]).
QUOTE
Me: ...the Bible clearly indicates that the Earth is only around 6000 "Earth-years" old.
What book would you point a reader to that shows evolution has some exclusive hold on the idea that living things have lived and died on Earth? In any culture before the publishing of Darwin's Origin of Species, was it a notion that living things have always been born and died?
Would you demonstrate from the Bible that physical death is the cause of sin?
Would you demonstrate from the Bible that the cause of physical death on Earth was due to Adam and Eve?
Would you demonstrate from the Bible that the Earth was cursed for the sake of Adam and Eve?
Would you demonstrate from the Bible that the Earth is 6000 years old?
I am very thankful for the answers so far. Can anyone differentiate between spiritual and physical perspectives as regards this topic?
QUOTE (Godsword @ May 21 2008, 12:31 AM)
What? Are you not aware that Evolution teaches that death has been a part of life since the beginning? (I think, ultimately, that the "cause" of physical death, according to Evolution, would be Thermodynamics, or an aspect of it - but that's not important.)
Last I checked Godsword, we all die. Fear of death is how you and others promote your fear mongering. Now I'm obviously not the scholar such as you, and I may have as many questions about evolution as you do, but I've done some reading on the subject and none of the books I have read make any speculations about death, I think you know this and lack any examples.
QUOTE
Yes. The implication is that there was no physical death, even among animals, prior to Adam and Eve's sin. It was after Adam and Eve's sin that the Earth was cursed "for their sakes" (because of their rebellion, and in order to make people aware of their sinful state [lest they think sin has no consequence in life]).
My, God really demonstrates his love in strange ways...a death sentence for breaking a dietary rule. But he handed out many death-sentences in the OT didn't he?
QUOTE
LaR, perhaps you might want to reconsider trusting everything you read on Wikipedia. And, you might want to ponder how those historians/archaeologists/whatever arrived at those years - I would imagine if you carefully dug through their reasoning and justifications, you'd find a fair number of unsupported assumptions and unjustified extrapolations. I imagine you'd find quite a few gaps which they have had to "fill in" to the best of their imagination.
But the authors of the Bible, written by an almost illiterate people, knew all the facts. But you are right Godsword, I read everything with a good dose of skepticism. Try that sometime with the Bible.
QUOTE
For those I made regarding Evolution, I refer you to any reasonably thorough article or book about Evolution. As it is, one really only needs to consider the theory itself to understand what Evolution says about the origin of death - nothing "caused" death, specifically; it's just always been a part of life, due to imperfect "natural mechanisms" breaking down over time or due to trauma or disease.
Just as I suspected, you can't cite any because you have not read any. I'm not a scientist like you, just a geeky consultant who reads incessantly. Again, there are many parts to the Theory of Evolution taht I question and I will not be surprised when in the future some of our beliefs about evolution change. You are simply trying to protect a fiction (the creation story) from revelation. Quit trying to discuss subjects in which you have no knowledge or educated opinion.
QUOTE
Regarding my other "proclamations" - my "source reference" for my proclamations regarding the Bible is, ummmm, the Bible. I thought that was obvious from my prefacing those "proclamations" by saying "the Bible". If you're looking for a specific chapter or verse, I can refer you to the Genesis Creation account (Genesis 1) which shows that Adam and Eve (and the Earth) were created within a literal 6-Day period, and I can refer you to the genealogies in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 which give a total of roughly 2008 years from the creation of Adam until the birth of Abraham (Terah