[_ Old Earth _] Evolutıon????

[NOTW]

Evolution is and has been quicky turning out to be quite the joke. A little research away from atheist websites will show what good science is finding. As for God, aka the creator. It is an overvaluing of ourselves to reduce all to the narrow measure of our capacities, and to conclude all things impossible to be done, whose manner of doing exceeds our comprehension. This is to make our comprehension infinite, or God finite, when what He can do is limited to what we can conceive of it. If you do not understand the operations of your own finite mind, that thinking thing within you, do not deem it strange that you cannot comprehend the operations of that eternal infinite Mind, who made and governs all things, and whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution is and has been quicky turning out to be quite the joke.

If so, it's the best-kept secret in history. As one prediction of the theory after another is verified, scientists are much more confident of the theory now, than at any time since Darwin first proposed it. And there's more research involving evolution than at any time in the past.

A little research away from atheist websites will show what good science is finding.

For science, you should stick to websites that have no religious axe to grind, one way or another.

As for God, aka the creator. It is an overvaluing of ourselves to reduce all to the narrow measure of our capacities, and to conclude all things impossible to be done, whose manner of doing exceeds our comprehension. This is to make our comprehension infinite, or God finite, when what He can do is limited to what we can conceive of it.

True, but this is the sin of arrogance that gives rise to ID, not science. Science can't even consider the supernatural, much less limit it.

If you do not understand the operations of your own finite mind, that thinking thing within you, do not deem it strange that you cannot comprehend the operations of that eternal infinite Mind, who made and governs all things, and whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain.

Fortunately, He made the universe knowable to us, by giving us curiosity and intelligence. Some of us, at least.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Evolution is and has been quicky turning out to be quite the joke. A little research away from atheist websites will show what good science is finding. As for God, aka the creator. It is an overvaluing of ourselves to reduce all to the narrow measure of our capacities, and to conclude all things impossible to be done, whose manner of doing exceeds our comprehension. This is to make our comprehension infinite, or God finite, when what He can do is limited to what we can conceive of it. If you do not understand the operations of your own finite mind, that thinking thing within you, do not deem it strange that you cannot comprehend the operations of that eternal infinite Mind, who made and governs all things, and whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain.

What is it that you consider an atheist website? Biology databases? University Research Institutes? What?

Your attempt to prove God's existence through poorly worded, incomprehensible arguments is as implied not a good one. You haven't given a good account of why your god/realm of infinities is objectively better than anyone elses.

I mean really, saying logic comes from god requires you to do a number of things, among them show that god exists without logic and show that logic is from god, without logic. And then you're trying to use this as an argument against atheists using logic which is just silly. The atheistic worldview just assumes that the world is a certain way and through empirical analysis of the world we can make statements about how the world works. This is applicable to logic as well as science.

If you want a real challenge, try showing that logic comes from your god and not Vishnu.

 

[NOTW]

Evolution is and has been quicky turning out to be quite the joke. A little research away from atheist websites will show what good science is finding. As for God, aka the creator. It is an overvaluing of ourselves to reduce all to the narrow measure of our capacities, and to conclude all things impossible to be done, whose manner of doing exceeds our comprehension. This is to make our comprehension infinite, or God finite, when what He can do is limited to what we can conceive of it. If you do not understand the operations of your own finite mind, that thinking thing within you, do not deem it strange that you cannot comprehend the operations of that eternal infinite Mind, who made and governs all things, and whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain.

What is it that you consider an atheist website? Biology databases? University Research Institutes? What?

Your attempt to prove God's existence through poorly worded, incomprehensible arguments is as implied not a good one. You haven't given a good account of why your god/realm of infinities is objectively better than anyone elses.

I mean really, saying logic comes from god requires you to do a number of things, among them show that god exists without logic and show that logic is from god, without logic. And then you're trying to use this as an argument against atheists using logic which is just silly. The atheistic worldview just assumes that the world is a certain way and through empirical analysis of the world we can make statements about how the world works. This is applicable to logic as well as science.

If you want a real challenge, try showing that logic comes from your god and not Vishnu.

If you think your so logical, why not tell me where you get your logic from?

You said, The atheistic worldview just assumes that the world is a certain way and through empirical analysis of the world we can make statements about how the world works.

Please, enlighten me with your atheistic worldview which should account for all life, reason, and logic to back up your worldview. I'd love to hear it!


As for the evolution statement above, you couldnt be more wrong as good scientists have discovered their reaching their limits. Darwin's theory while interesting, is way off and is in fact missing many links includeing transitional fossils. Scientists are tired of sitting by the swamp waiting for a single cell to emerge from mud that will recreate all life as we know it. It's just not gonna happen period! When i grow some wing's, i'll fly over your house and we can chat about this in person!

NOTW............ :angel:

 

[Barbarian]

As for the evolution statement above, you couldnt be more wrong as good scientists have discovered their reaching their limits. Darwin's theory while interesting, is way off and is in fact missing many links includeing transitional fossils.

Sounds like a testable claim. Show us your evidence, and we'll take a look.

Scientists are tired of sitting by the swamp waiting for a single cell to emerge from mud that will recreate all life as we know it.

Don't you think you'd be in a better position to criticize evolution, if you had a clue about what it is?

It's just not gonna happen period! When i grow some wing's, i'll fly over your house and we can chat about this in person!

Wow. No wonder you hate science! I'd hate it too, if I thought it was like that.

Again, I think you'd be a whole lot more effective, if you knew what you were talking about.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Re: Many top scientists agree

From microbiology to astronomy, hundreds of top scientists - MSc/PhD level - find so much evidence of Intelligent Design that they reject the atheism of their education & worship the Almighty Creator

I just have 10 minutes, so I'll recommend the excellent 16-page A4 size magazine, "Design Revolution" from New Life Publishing, Nottingham

It sprang from public response to last autumn's lecture tour, "Darwin Revisited", by Prof Phil Johnson & Dr Adrian Snelling, & has been featured in Elim's Direction Magazine & AoG's Joy Magazine & others

I subsequently read both The Revised & Expanded Answers Book, & Refuting Evolution 2, by Dr Jonathan Sarfati, published by http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org - who also produce Creation Magazine

A comprehensive menu of very readable & informative articles is @ http://www.creationism.org

Briefly, there are MILLIONS of missing links, at every so-called step of the so-called evolutionary ladder

The fact we can so clearly distinguish not only dog from fox from wolf, but even King Charles Spaniel from Cocker, for example, shows each species of life to be Designer made by the Most Brilliant Brain ever

No 2 snowflakes are identical; no 2 grains of sand are either - the Almighty Creator is abundant in His creativity

Small wonder that Romans 1:20 says that no-one has any excuse for ignoring God, just from creation alone!

Must go!

This was the 2nd post of this 2-page thread, but though several later posts assert lack of evidence, no-one has said that they actually clicked on the 2 sites I gave, or read any of the comprehensive menu of articles

If Darwin were right, the differences between so-called adjacent steps on his so-called evolutionary ladder would be as minute as those between adjoining frames of a movie, but in both living species & in fossils, we in fact see clear differences between species - even leading evolutionist Richard Dawkins conceded that what we see around us looks like every species was designed with a purpose

Richard Dwonkin even admitted the absurdity of the evolutionist argument & conceded, "We simply cannot let a Divine foot in the door"

Every mutation observed by science is detrimental, & quickly corrected - not beneficial & continued

Neo-Darwinism contradicts @ the most established law of science: that all things, left to themselves, tend to decay - not to improve

Must go![/i]

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

So much bad science going on in this thread. The second law of thermodynamics being misused, strawman versions of evolution being used to support positions.

Please, enlighten me with your atheistic worldview which should account for all life, reason, and logic to back up your worldview. I'd love to hear it!

That is, amongst other things, a philosophical problem, and like all philosophical problems it's more likely that you've simply attempted to express something which can only follow logically in your own mind. Logic is a set of principles that we see in action in nature. But there are lots and lots of problems in logic and we have no full account of why logic works the way it does. We just know that it does work a certain way, because the universe is a certain way and has continued to be that way for the duration of observable time.

You seem to have it in your head that logic is a set of absolute laws that are creatable, but really it is simply the way that nature works and our ideas work best and have the greatest likelihood of being correct if they follow those pathways. My worldview doesn't account for the fullness of metaphysical complexity, but that doesn't give me any reason to take your position(that god created the universe in this specific way) is the correct one. Just as our conception of any science is not complete, is not a reason to believe in any specific god as the cause for it. It is simply a lack of completeness, as my signature quotes Wittgenstein, "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent." Nothing definite or rational may be said of the existence of god, thus there is no reason to believe in such an entity.

However I seem to have neglected something that you have assumed, that the secular scientific body of knowledge is an atheistic one. This is incorrect, it simply cannot take a position on religion, thus it is secular.

If Darwin were right, the differences between so-called adjacent steps on his so-called evolutionary ladder would be as minute as those between adjoining frames

Have you noticed how you look similar to but different from your parents? There you go.

Neo-Darwinism contradicts @ the most established law of science: that all things, left to themselves, tend to decay - not to improve

Yet another misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermo.*sigh*

 

[Barbarian]

If Darwin were right, the differences between so-called adjacent steps on his so-called evolutionary ladder would be as minute as those between adjoining frames of a movie,

Right. In the few cases where we actually have that many fossils so that there's an essentially continuous record, that's exactly what we see.

but in both living species & in fossils, we in fact see clear differences between species

Of course, that only happens when we don't have the intermediates between the species. In such cases, we have a very hard time figuring out where to draw the line.

even leading evolutionist Richard Dawkins conceded that what we see around us looks like every species was designed with a purpose

As you know, he pointed out that this is what natural selection does. It tends to fit a population to the environment. We have documented this process happening, so we know that's what it is.

Richard Dwonkin even admitted the absurdity of the evolutionist argument & conceded,

Nope. Someone's taken advantage of your gullibility on that one. He never said such a thing.

"We simply cannot let a Divine foot in the door"

Sorry. Dawkins didn't say that, either. On your honor as a Christian now, you never read any article by Dawkins in which he wrote either of those, did you?

Every mutation observed by science is detrimental, & quickly corrected - not beneficial & continued

They lied to you about that, too. I can show you some, if you like. If they will lie to you about such things as these, what makes you trust them at all?

Neo-Darwinism contradicts @ the most established law of science: that all things, left to themselves, tend to decay - not to improve

Never heard of it. How do you explain babies growing up, or complex ecosystems forming on new islands? Lied to you again? Yep.

Time to go and take a look, and do some thinking for yourself.

 

[MrVersatile48]

See the 16-page magazine..

see editted post below: sorry!

 

[MrVersatile48]

See the 16-page magazine..

..Design Revolution - published in March by public response to the Darwin Revisited UK lecture tour, last Oct/Nov, by Dr Adrian Snelling - (whose exemplary work exposing the gross inaccuracies alone has been assessed as bringing down the philosophical house of cards that neo-Darwinism represents) with Prof Phil Johnson

I don't have my copy, but I'll bring in The Revised & Expanded Answers Book by Dr Jonathan Sarfati & his Refuting Evolution 2 on Wed

I'll just see the comprehensivemenu @ http://www.creationism.org & post a few tasters for now..

From their mutations link:-:-

"Evolutionists have serious problems with their theory. There is still no mechanism for *how* evolution could have happened, to bolster their underlying belief system that there just can't be a God to have to answer to.
Testable-repeatable science shows very, very different results than evolution teaches. Mutations are almost always harmful or (if not fatal) get reabsorbed into successive generations in any event.
Inbreeding causes serious problems, not magical automatic improvements. They keep thinking that somewhere on Earth they'll find some bona fide transitional fossils. But while billions upon billions of fossils have been dug up over the years there are still zero transitional fossils that stand up to scientific scrutiny over time.
All amphibians remain amphibians (reproducing within preset variational limits). All fish remain fish. All mammals have always been mammals, and within mammals (just like "kinds" within amphibians or fish, etc.), there are dog-kind of animals that keep producing only a variety of dogs as offspring.
Why, you'd think that some wise Designer had encoded specific, but flexible, instructions into each type of life at the outset then let them propagate down through time.

A good engineer does not re-invent the wheel with each new model.

Do you think that any of the engineers at GM, Toyota or Ford would even consider doing this when they're preparing a new automobile design?

Of course not. We know that many reptile and mammal skeletons look almost the same structurally, even though the rest of each creature is extremely different. Of course!

They were designed, not randomly evolved in some mystical-evolutionary sequence.
Our Designer may have "mixed & matched" parts when He was designing. The human eye is closely related to the octopus eye. Human milk is closest to that of donkeys. The human skeleton may be close to that of some primates - but so many of our other biological parts are not!

Evolution is a myth and underneath the covers it is actually a spiritual deception. What we see in the fossil record and in life today is actually evidence of a common Designer of it all.

Now read on @ http://www.creationism.org/topbar/mutations.htm

 

[MrVersatile48]

& from their carbon-14 click..

CARBON-14 -Evolution needs time. It has to have it. Creation theory can survive either way - either 6,000 years, or long ages that "God" started and put into motion.

But for strict evolutionists lots and lots of time is required ... particularly since we don't see evolution happening in our world today!

Carbon-14 is but one of several radiometric dating methods that evolutionists consult when they build consensus on the age of particular fossils and (again by consensus, not by testable-repeatable science) decide how to arrange what they think our ancient history must have been.
They believe that with enough time and chance - just maybe some unscientific reactions may beat the odds and "improve all by themselves." God can then be ignored and evolutionists can claim to be logical and forward thinking in their ignorance of what's most important in this life.

But if the long eons just weren't there in the first place then evolution falls like a house of cards. The radioactive dating methods like Carbon-14, Potassium-Argon, and others, employ assumptions.

Parts of each measurement are based in known solid science, but there are assumed portions! And it is a fact that often, even when they get the radiometric dates back from a sample they'll reject it in favor of their consensus instead.

But separate from that - there are other (non-radiometric) dating methods based upon Earth processes. We live on a dynamic (not static) planet; things are changing.

Evolutionary dating methods do not work and different methods used on the same sample often contradict each other.

Secondly, derived supposed dates (from the same material samples) often completely contradict each other using the same radioactive dating method!

Creationists can show example, after example, after example of documented bogus radiometric dates. (Please see the article links below.)

"Young Earth Creationists" believe that there is no good evidence supporting the notion that the Earth could be over 10,000 years old. The true evidence just isn't there.

But there is very good evidence supporting belief in a very *young* Earth.

We're not "standing against science" in stating this - in fact we're the ones, though in the minority today, who are making the distinctions between bad evolutionary science (to prop up a particular religious belief system: atheism) and good, reliable science.

The major rivers (Nile, Mississippi, Yangtzee, etc.) all show only *thousands* of years of deposition.

The Earth isn't millions of years old - that's part of the religion of evolution, one that stands against science more often than it stands with science.

Now read on @ http://www.creationism.org/topbar/carbon14.htm

 

[Quath]

If the Universe were yooung, why can we see light from places that are over billions of light years away? I have seen 2 answers to this.

1. God changed the speed of light. The speed of light determines the radius of atoms and distance of forces. So if you double the speed of light, everything cancels out and becomes twice as far away. The speed of light is the ratio of travel in time to travel in space. It is always exactly equal to 1. So changing this does nothing to the universe. It is a relative measurement.

2. Goc created the light in flight. Then God is deceptive because He created the light in such a way that it makes everything look billions of years old and He even made it seem that everything had come from the Big Bang.

It is like going into a villiage in which you have no idea how old you are, You see people that look like you (and they say they are 30 years old). You also see old people and babies. So looking at all of this, you conclude that you are a baby. It goes against observation, but it is required to maintain your belief system.

Quath

 

[MrVersatile48]

Just time to post this..

link to the fossil evidence:-

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/fossils.htm

Then click back to homepage & click Intelligent Design & many others

See ya Wed

God bless!

Ian

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

They were designed, not randomly evolved in some mystical-evolutionary sequence.

If you think evolution is mystical or random then you really don't understand it at all, you have no place criticizing something you don't understand to the point of discerning true and false claims about it.

If I said "evolution claims that life started out as inorganic goo secreted from Dick Clark's pores" then you would not be able to say whether or not that was true, because you don't know what the theory of evolution actually says.

For instance you claim that the theory of evolution doesn't have a mechanism, which is to anyone who actually knows the theory, utter falsity.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Hundreds of top scientists..

MSc/PhD-level, who were brainwashed in Darwinism, now see so much evidence, from micro-biology to astronomy, of Intelligent Design, that they now reject atheism & worship the Almighty Creator

Right back with ID link..

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/designtheory.htm

If I recall right, http://www.discovery.org/csc is devoted to ID

 

[Quath]

Re: Hundreds of top scientists..

MSc/PhD-level, who were brainwashed in Darwinism, now see so much evidence, from micro-biology to astronomy, of Intelligent Design, that they now reject atheism & worship the Almighty Creator

I am a scientist and I can tell you that the reverse is the case. If such web sites give out this kind of lies, what other lies will they tell you to sell their version of the "truth"?

Quath

 

[Solo]

Re: Hundreds of top scientists..

MSc/PhD-level, who were brainwashed in Darwinism, now see so much evidence, from micro-biology to astronomy, of Intelligent Design, that they now reject atheism & worship the Almighty Creator

I am a scientist and I can tell you that the reverse is the case. If such web sites give out this kind of lies, what other lies will they tell you to sell their version of the "truth"?

Quath

Exactly. What kind of lies will an evolutionist tell to keep God out of the picture. Many, many, many. Evolution has absolutely no evidence that life evolved from a single-celled life source. NONE.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Re: Hundreds of top scientists..

MSc/PhD-level, who were brainwashed in Darwinism, now see so much evidence, from micro-biology to astronomy, of Intelligent Design, that they now reject atheism & worship the Almighty Creator

I am a scientist and I can tell you that the reverse is the case. If such web sites give out this kind of lies, what other lies will they tell you to sell their version of the "truth"?

Quath

Exactly. What kind of lies will an evolutionist tell to keep God out of the picture. Many, many, many. Evolution has absolutely no evidence that life evolved from a single-celled life source. NONE.

Evolutionists don't need to lie. This is the way nature is with or without god.

Evolution has plenty of evidence supporting it, your ignorance or blindness to it not withstanding.

 

[Solo]

Re: Hundreds of top scientists..

MSc/PhD-level, who were brainwashed in Darwinism, now see so much evidence, from micro-biology to astronomy, of Intelligent Design, that they now reject atheism & worship the Almighty Creator

I am a scientist and I can tell you that the reverse is the case. If such web sites give out this kind of lies, what other lies will they tell you to sell their version of the "truth"?

Quath

Exactly. What kind of lies will an evolutionist tell to keep God out of the picture. Many, many, many. Evolution has absolutely no evidence that life evolved from a single-celled life source. NONE.

Evolutionists don't need to lie. This is the way nature is with or without god.

Evolution has plenty of evidence supporting it, your ignorance or blindness to it not withstanding.

You either haven't been around long enough or you are in the mode of denial, but many,many lies have supported the false theory of evolution from day one. There are so many hoaxes and lies within evolution's short history that it is a joke that the scientific community has no guts to admit the garbage that it has propagated as fact to millions of children in the public school system each year. The ignorance and blindness that is prevelant in the evolutionist community is so anti-intellectual that it is not even funny. But I would not expect for a public educated scholar to be any more alert to the truth since nothing other than evolution theory is taught. It takes much more time and energy to examine the entire deception against scientific truths that is rejected from the antiChristian liberal curriculum taught in the public arena. I am up with all of the evolutionist theory dogmas that are out there (it doesn't take much time to become literate in this area), and much more scientific evidence exists disputing evolution than supporting it. Evolution is more of a philosophical venture than it is a scientific study of our origins. There is absolutely NO PROOF that all life evolved from a single-celled lifeform. There is absolutely NO PROOF that a created animal kind evolved into another animal kind. FOSSIL REMAINS show individual animal kinds that are extinct or in existence today. NO MISSING LINKS.

 

[Barbarian]

It seems paranoid beyond reason to imagine that all those scientists are covering up a lie. No conspiracy that size could stand up for long.

Christians have no problem with evolution, or anything in science. How could they? Nature is God's creation, and it works the way He wills it to work.