And those are?
Real Science Friday: 2011's List of Not So Old Things Pt. 2
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
And those are?
Next suggestion to fool - if you want to comment in a substantive way on a thread it pays to have some understanding of what the thread is about.
Most execellnt advice no doubt.
:chuckle:
I'm just full of it.
Undisputed champ in that dept.
Alate_One
Well-known member
I thought Irony was his championship title . . . . . but being full of it, yup that too.
Atheists - willing to talk about anything but the issues at hand since 1999.
Right, Jellyfish.....
And......GO!
Please tell us
Well, lets see what Bob's link says;
fossilmuseum.net said:
So, I guess it says they get stranded on a beach then buried in sand.
Easy for you to say. Were you there? Hah!!!
Unfortunately nothing would remain of the jellyfish from the time it got stranded to the time the sand turned to rock. I'm afraid your explanation is extremely untenable.
The only way to fossilise jellyfish (or pretty much anything) is to cover it in sediment while it is alive and then remove all the water. Fossilisation must be a rapid process.
So - what do you think happened then?
Jukia, I'm replying to your post that I accidentally edited...
Jukia, I'm replying to your post that I accidentally edited...
Jukia, I accidentally edited your post #9 above. Sorry about that. I restored all the text that I had copied to quote in this post. So now...
Jukia, Christian basis for modern science? Yes. I enjoyed reading The Soul of Science by Pearcy & Thaxton. You can read that, or a dozen others like it, even from non-Christian science historians. Science was still born in the east, as in much of the world. Whereas the biblical view that truth exists, that truth is non-contradictory, that a rational God created a rational universe, and that therefore logic and rationality are valid, these (non-material) concepts (necessary for science to function) led some of history's greatest scientists, like Isaac Newton and Johann Kepler, to write extensively about their belief in the Scriptures and their investigation of the cosmos as the creation of the personal God of the Bible. And here's my own list of:
The Many Creationist Fathers of the Natural Sciences: These men rejected atheistic origins (like Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Cuvier, Dalton) and even after Darwin, great scientists who founded major branches of modern science (like Faraday, Mendel, Pasteur, Joule, Kelvin, Lister, Carver) continued to reject evolution. This is not an argument from authority, as a typical evolutionist might claim. Rather, this list rebuts the claim you make frequently that it's uneducated people who reject evolution! Consider these strong creationists:
Philip Paracelsus, died 1541, Chemical Medicine
Nicolas Copernicus, 1543, Scientific Revolution
Francis Bacon, 1626, Scientific Method
Johann Kepler, 1630, Physical Astronomy
Galileo Galilei, 1642, Law of falling bodies
William Harvey, 1657, Circulatory System
Blaise Pascal, 1662, Probability and Calculators
Robert Boyle, 1691, Chemistry
Isaac Newton, 1727, Gravitation
Carolus Linnaeus, 1778, Taxonomy
George Cuvier, 1832, Anatomy/Paleontology
John Dalton, 1844, Atomic Theory
For those who object that these brilliant men lived prior to the 1859 publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, consider the following scientific giants all of whom in a time of more open debate, publicly rejected natural origins and Darwinian evolution, and indicated that the evidence supports belief in a supernatural Creator:
Michael Faraday, 1867, Electromagnetism
Gregor Mendel, 1884, Genetics
Louis Pasteur, 1885, Microbiology
James Joule, 1889, Thermodynamics
Lord Kelvin, 1907, Thermodynamics
Joseph Lister, 1912, Modern Surgery
G. W. Carver, 1943, Modern Agriculture
Jukia, I know it's a long time, but can you wait another five months?
Also, "3-4" billion year old earth? Glad to see that you're realizing the earth is getting younger... about a billion years younger than stated massively in the scientific literature. That's not surprising since the universe kept getting older, seemingly about a billion years older every few years, as I was growing up.
Jukia, I'm replying to your post that I accidentally edited...
Jukia, I accidentally edited your post #9 above. Sorry about that. I restored all the text that I had copied to quote in this post. So now...
Jukia said:
Jukia, Christian basis for modern science? Yes. I enjoyed reading The Soul of Science by Pearcy & Thaxton. You can read that, or a dozen others like it, even from non-Christian science historians. Science was still born in the east, as in much of the world. Whereas the biblical view that truth exists, that truth is non-contradictory, that a rational God created a rational universe, and that therefore logic and rationality are valid, these (non-material) concepts (necessary for science to function) led some of history's greatest scientists, like Isaac Newton and Johann Kepler, to write extensively about their belief in the Scriptures and their investigation of the cosmos as the creation of the personal God of the Bible. And here's my own list of:
The Many Creationist Fathers of the Natural Sciences: These men rejected atheistic origins (like Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Cuvier, Dalton) and even after Darwin, great scientists who founded major branches of modern science (like Faraday, Mendel, Pasteur, Joule, Kelvin, Lister, Carver) continued to reject evolution. This is not an argument from authority, as a typical evolutionist might claim. Rather, this list rebuts the claim you make frequently that it's uneducated people who reject evolution! Consider these strong creationists:
Philip Paracelsus, died 1541, Chemical Medicine
Nicolas Copernicus, 1543, Scientific Revolution
Francis Bacon, 1626, Scientific Method
Johann Kepler, 1630, Physical Astronomy
Galileo Galilei, 1642, Law of falling bodies
William Harvey, 1657, Circulatory System
Blaise Pascal, 1662, Probability and Calculators
Robert Boyle, 1691, Chemistry
Isaac Newton, 1727, Gravitation
Carolus Linnaeus, 1778, Taxonomy
George Cuvier, 1832, Anatomy/Paleontology
John Dalton, 1844, Atomic Theory
For those who object that these brilliant men lived prior to the 1859 publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, consider the following scientific giants all of whom in a time of more open debate, publicly rejected natural origins and Darwinian evolution, and indicated that the evidence supports belief in a supernatural Creator:
Michael Faraday, 1867, Electromagnetism
Gregor Mendel, 1884, Genetics
Louis Pasteur, 1885, Microbiology
James Joule, 1889, Thermodynamics
Lord Kelvin, 1907, Thermodynamics
Joseph Lister, 1912, Modern Surgery
G. W. Carver, 1943, Modern Agriculture
Jukia said:
Jukia, I know it's a long time, but can you wait another five months?
Also, "3-4" billion year old earth? Glad to see that you're realizing the earth is getting younger... about a billion years younger than stated massively in the scientific literature. That's not surprising since the universe kept getting older, seemingly about a billion years older every few years, as I was growing up.
Jukia, Christians who commit crimes, and make excuses for those who have done wrong in Christ's name, can be condemned by the teachings of Christ. Those atheistic Darwinist regimes who have killed tens of millions in the last century cannot be condemned by godlessness nor by "Survival of the Fittest," the term Darwin finally put on the cover of his Origins book. Whereas Jesus warned the world about His followers who would come in His name. Don't let them obscure your look at Him.Jukia said:
God has the authority, which He has not delegated to men, to take any human being from this life to the after life; from their moment here on earth, to an eternity beyond. Those children went into His loving care, and He also forgave any of their parents who repented of their rebellion against God, and called out to Him for forgiveness.Jukia said:
Alate_One
Well-known member
Mendel and Darwin were not aware of one another despite being close in time period. No offense, but physicists do not have the knowledge base to comment on a biological process. Nor do surgeons necessarily.
I am not able to find a citation where Carver "rejected Darwinism", perhaps you can provide one?
Now, lets make a list of great scientists that are Christians that SUPPORT evolution/old earth! (Funny these people never get mentioned)
Theodosius Dobzhansky - 1937 - Author of Modern Evolutionary synthesis and "Nothing in Biology Makes sense Except in Light of Evolution"
Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître- 1927 - Originator of the Big Bang theory
Asa Gray - 1871- Important American Botanist, contemporary and friend of Darwin.
Charles D. Walcott - 1921 - Discoverer of the Burgess Shale (evidence of the Cambrian Explosion)
Of course there are plenty more scientists today that are both Christians and "Evolutionists" than those that are Christians and YECs.
AO, you're wrong about Mendel, and about that list...
AO, you're wrong about Mendel, and about that list...
And then AO, as to your list, perhaps you didn't understand the point of our list. It's not to prove that creation is correct. It's to disprove the claim that only scientifically ignorant people believe in creation. Since so many of the fathers of the natural sciences, both before and after Darwin, reject evolution and natural origins, the above list falsifies that common atheist claim.
So while Newton & Kepler, etc., wrote extensively on the truth of the Bible, you list some Christian scientists who don't believe in special creation of man or the universe, like Dobzhansky, Lemaître, & Walcott. And that proves? And as to...
AO, we were listing the FATHERS of the branches of science, and Google 1 for: father of modern biology is Linnaeus, and he's in our list.
And as for Walcott and the Cambrian Explosion, adding to his being stunned by the complexity of life so low in the geologic column, I imagine you've thought through the stunning discoveries in microbiology that supercharges the "explosive" part of all that variety?
And now, reportedly, sponges are genetically 70% the same as humans? And what was so much of the genetic toolbox doing in "ancient" species that would not need those tools for tens and hundreds of millions of years?
AO, you might dismiss all this, but it's part of the powerful evidence that's been lining up that forced New Scientist to do their cover story admitting that DARWIN WAS WRONG: on the tree of life! Check it out at KGOV.com! And now, we're just waiting for Darwin's other shoe to drop...
-Bob Enyart
AO, you're wrong about Mendel, and about that list...
AO, I couldn't imagine that Mendel could live and work for 25 years after Origins, and not know of it. I wonder why you assumed that. Just look at the first result after searching for mendel darwin, and you get, from PBS and Google 1: "Mendel read Darwin with deep interest, but he disagreed..."
And then AO, as to your list, perhaps you didn't understand the point of our list. It's not to prove that creation is correct. It's to disprove the claim that only scientifically ignorant people believe in creation. Since so many of the fathers of the natural sciences, both before and after Darwin, reject evolution and natural origins, the above list falsifies that common atheist claim.
So while Newton & Kepler, etc., wrote extensively on the truth of the Bible, you list some Christian scientists who don't believe in special creation of man or the universe, like Dobzhansky, Lemaître, & Walcott. And that proves? And as to...
AO, we were listing the FATHERS of the branches of science, and Google 1 for: father of modern biology is Linnaeus, and he's in our list.
And as for Walcott and the Cambrian Explosion, adding to his being stunned by the complexity of life so low in the geologic column, I imagine you've thought through the stunning discoveries in microbiology that supercharges the "explosive" part of all that variety?
And now, reportedly, sponges are genetically 70% the same as humans? And what was so much of the genetic toolbox doing in "ancient" species that would not need those tools for tens and hundreds of millions of years?
AO, you might dismiss all this, but it's part of the powerful evidence that's been lining up that forced New Scientist to do their cover story admitting that DARWIN WAS WRONG: on the tree of life! Check it out at KGOV.com! And now, we're just waiting for Darwin's other shoe to drop...
-Bob Enyart
Last edited:
:first: POTD
- Status