Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scientists Question Darwinism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I want to point out some of the reasons evolution is actually very unscientific. I've spoken to the first of these reason I'm going to list already, but I couldn't find my resource book at the time and I gave evolutionists way too much credit in that post.

    The evolutionists use the geological column in a very arbritrary, and dishonest way. Here are the statistics for how much of it is found in order, partial order, etc.... The following quote is from a geologist named Stephen A. Austin.
    The notion that the earth's crust has an "onion skin" structure with with successive layers containing all strata systems distributed on a global scale is not according to the facts. Data from continents and ocean basins show that the ten systems are poorly represented on a global scale: approximately 77% of the earth's surface area on land and under the sea 7 or more (70% or more) of the strata systems missing beneath: 94% of the earth's surface has 3 or more systems missing beneath: and an estimated 99.6% has one missing system. Only a few locations on earth (.04% of it's area) have been described with the succession of the ten systems beneath (west Nepal, west Bolivia, and central Poland).... The entire column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists. "Ten Misconceptions About the Geologic Column" Impact 137 (November 1984)
    Science News says the following about the geologic column:
    In many places, the oceanic sediments of which mountains are composed are inverted, with the older sediments lying on top of the younger sediments. "Mountain Building in the Mediterranean" October 17,1970
    Now let's look at some statments from geologists on the quality of the reasoning used in the field of geology to support evolution.

    Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (of which there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we say the fossil record supports this theory. Ronald R. West, assistant professor of paleobiology at Kansas State University "Paleoecology and Uniformitarianism" Compass May 1968
    A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of particular theory of evolution, inspect the the interpretation, and then note it supports the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?
    Paleontologist Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Puncuated Equilibrea page 52 published by Simon and Schuster 1985
    I have several more quotes but as my scanner died writing these all out by hand gets really tedious. However, the two quotes I gave show the logical fallacies employed by evolutionists pretty well. As logical fallacy is a polite way to say someone is lying it's plain that much of the support for evolution taught in schools is just flat out dishonest. And evolutionists say creationists don't understand science? We do. We notice just how poorly constructed the entire theory is and how flawed its mechanisms of explanations are.

    All of these quotes, and a whole lot more, are found in James Perloff's book, Tornado in a Junkyard, in the chapter titled Rocks of Ages. This book by Perloff is an excellent resource for anyone who debates with evolutionists.
    “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    “One and God make a majority.”
    ― Frederick Douglass

    Comment


    • Ken Ham Ejected From Theater For Yelling 'WRONG' Every Time 'Jurassic World' Actors Say ‘65 Million Years'
      https://babylonbee.com/news/ken-ham-...-million-years

      Young Earth Creationist Parents Force Child To Play With Human Action Figures, Dinosaurs At Same Time
      https://babylonbee.com/news/young-ea...s-at-same-time

      Comment


      • Barbarian thinks these are MSM stories.
        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
        E≈mc2
        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
        -Bob B.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
          I want to point out some of the reasons evolution is actually very unscientific. I've spoken to the first of these reason I'm going to list already, but I couldn't find my resource book at the time and I gave evolutionists way too much credit in that post.
          Since it's directly observed, there really isn't much chance of it being "unscientific." I suppose you don't actually know what "evolution" is. Most creationists confuse the theory of evolution, with phenomenon of evolution, with the consequences of evolution.

          To get you started, how about giving us a testable definition of "evolution" and tell us about the five points of Darwinian theory, and how that was changed by the modern synthesis?

          Then we can deal with the errors in your post. Here's one to start:

          The entire column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists. "Ten Misconceptions About the Geologic Column" Impact 137 (November 1984)
          North Dakota, for example:
          The W. H. Hunt Trust Estate Larson #1 will in Section 10 Township 148 N Range 101 W was drilled to 15,064 feet deep. This well was drilled just west of the outcrop of the Golden Valley formation and begins in the Tertiary Fort Union Formation. The various horizons described above were encountered at the following depths (Fm=formation; Grp=Group; Lm=Limestone):

          Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet
          Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm .......................4910 feet
          Cretaceous Mowry Fm........................... 5370 feet
          Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm.......................5790 feet
          Jurassic Rierdon Fm............................6690 feet
          Triassic Spearfish Fm..........................7325 feet
          Permian Opeche Fm..............................7740 feet
          Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm........................7990 feet
          Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm.........................8245 feet
          Mississippian Otter Fm.........................8440 feet
          Mississippian Kibbey Lm........................8780 feet
          Mississippian Charles Fm.......................8945 feet
          Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm................9775 feet
          Mississippian Lodgepole Fm....................10255 feet
          Devonian Bakken Fm............................11085 feet
          Devonian Birdbear Fm..........................11340 feet
          Devonian Duperow Fm...........................11422 feet
          Devonian Souris River Fm......................11832 feet
          Devonian Dawson Bay Fm........................12089 feet
          Devonian Prairie Fm...........................12180 feet
          Devonian Winnipegosis Grp.....................12310 feet
          Silurian Interlake Fm.........................12539 feet
          Ordovician Stonewall Fm.......................13250 feet
          Ordovician Red River Dolomite.................13630 feet
          Ordovician Winnipeg Grp.......................14210 feet
          Ordovician Black Island Fm....................14355 feet
          Cambrian Deadwood Fm..........................14445 feet
          Precambrian...................................1494 5 feet


          When you get those answers, we can go on.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
            [Evolution is] directly observed.


            I suppose you don't actually know what "evolution" is.
            Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.

            It is Darwinists who refuse to stick to this definition.

            The theory of evolution, [the] phenomenon of evolution ... the consequences of evolution.
            See.

            When you get those answers, we can go on.
            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
            E≈mc2
            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
            -Bob B.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
              Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.
              Don't forget about the part where life came from non-life by some unknown and miraculous event.
              All of my ancestors are human.
              Originally posted by Squeaky
              That explains why your an idiot.
              Originally posted by God's Truth
              Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
              Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
              (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

              1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
              (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

              Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                Since it's directly observed, there really isn't much chance of it being "unscientific." I suppose you don't actually know what "evolution" is. Most creationists confuse the theory of evolution, with phenomenon of evolution, with the consequences of evolution.

                To get you started, how about giving us a testable definition of "evolution" and tell us about the five points of Darwinian theory, and how that was changed by the modern synthesis?

                Then we can deal with the errors in your post. Here's one to start:



                North Dakota, for example:
                The W. H. Hunt Trust Estate Larson #1 will in Section 10 Township 148 N Range 101 W was drilled to 15,064 feet deep. This well was drilled just west of the outcrop of the Golden Valley formation and begins in the Tertiary Fort Union Formation. The various horizons described above were encountered at the following depths (Fm=formation; Grp=Group; Lm=Limestone):

                Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet
                Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm .......................4910 feet
                Cretaceous Mowry Fm........................... 5370 feet
                Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm.......................5790 feet
                Jurassic Rierdon Fm............................6690 feet
                Triassic Spearfish Fm..........................7325 feet
                Permian Opeche Fm..............................7740 feet
                Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm........................7990 feet
                Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm.........................8245 feet
                Mississippian Otter Fm.........................8440 feet
                Mississippian Kibbey Lm........................8780 feet
                Mississippian Charles Fm.......................8945 feet
                Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm................9775 feet
                Mississippian Lodgepole Fm....................10255 feet
                Devonian Bakken Fm............................11085 feet
                Devonian Birdbear Fm..........................11340 feet
                Devonian Duperow Fm...........................11422 feet
                Devonian Souris River Fm......................11832 feet
                Devonian Dawson Bay Fm........................12089 feet
                Devonian Prairie Fm...........................12180 feet
                Devonian Winnipegosis Grp.....................12310 feet
                Silurian Interlake Fm.........................12539 feet
                Ordovician Stonewall Fm.......................13250 feet
                Ordovician Red River Dolomite.................13630 feet
                Ordovician Winnipeg Grp.......................14210 feet
                Ordovician Black Island Fm....................14355 feet
                Cambrian Deadwood Fm..........................14445 feet
                Precambrian...................................1494 5 feet


                When you get those answers, we can go on.
                You just can't help yourself. You just gotta do it again. I'm talking about your reliance on logical fallacies. You lift one sentence out of the context of the entire paragraph, where by the way, the author noted that there were three geographic areas where the geologic column does actually exist, and pretend that sentence is all that was said. That's what's known as the straw man fallacy. You know it, yet create it anyway. Did you think no one would recognize it and call you on your lack of sound reasoning?

                It's just like the rest of my post showed. Evolutionists tend to rely a lot on fallacious reasoning to support their theory. You've created two in this thread alone and I've pointed out the reliance on fallacious reasoning of using the theory to read the fossil evidence and then saying fossil evidence supports the theory. You'll never convince anyone you're correct by using logical fallacies for logical fallacies are just cleverly constructed lies.

                Also, I have to laugh at your request for me to explain the theory you support using logical falllacies. You must think I'm some ignorant hick that just fell of the turnip wagon. If the theory was valid no one would be using logical fallacies to make it sound good. But, evolutionists are forced into it because the theory just doesn't hold water. Oh, and your "directly observed" evidence? Like Lucy? Like the Piltdown man? And the rest of the frauds perpetrated by evolutionists because they can't fill in the missing links? How about the odds against evolution being true? I will quote Francis Crick who won the Nobel Prize for his part in determining the DNA sequence. He is speaking, in the following quote about proteins and how complex their structure is
                If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an event would this be? .... Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long: this is, if anything, rather less than the average length proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20 to the 200th power and is approximately equal to 10 to the 260th power, that is a 1 followed by 260 zeros. That number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension.... The great majority of sequnces can never have been synthesized at all. Harold G. Coffin Origin by Design page 376
                Hemoglobin has an protein sequence that is 287 amino acids long. Having just one of them out of sequence results in sickle cell anemia. That means that protein, one of a huge number of proteins in the human body, had to come together perfectly the very first time otherwise the person died for without modern medical treatments sickle cell anemia is fatal. And then look at all the proteins that life requires. They had to come together perfectly the very first time. The odds against that? Coffin, from the above quote, figured the odds for a cell 1/10 the size of the smallest cell known to scientists coming together, by chance, perfectly so the organism would have the necessary molecules, amino acids, and proteins to support life is 1 followed by 340 million zeros. That number is greater than the number of molecules in the universe. And remember the way odds work. One random attempt does not increase the odds of the next random attempt. The odds remain at 1 followed by 340 million zeros.
                “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
                ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

                “One and God make a majority.”
                ― Frederick Douglass

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
                  Did you think no one would recognize it and call you on your lack of sound reasoning?
                  He knows he will get called on them; he just counts on being able to keep peddling nonsense. I guess he gets a kick out of it.
                  Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                  E≈mc2
                  "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                  "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                  -Bob B.

                  Comment


                  • he's a troll

                    trolls gotta troll

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                      He knows he will get called on them; he just counts on being able to keep peddling nonsense. I guess he gets a kick out of it.
                      Yeah, you may be right, but what I post isn't really for him at all as I know he will ignore it and keep on with his same line of baloney. I post it for those out there who read and haven't actually made up their mind as yet as to what is true. I just try to give them both sides of the question and point out the fallacies inherent in evolution. It's up to them what they will believe, but the honest in heart will turn away from evolution as they will follow truth rather than error.
                      “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
                      ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

                      “One and God make a majority.”
                      ― Frederick Douglass

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
                        Yeah, you may be right, but what I post isn't really for him at all as I know he will ignore it and keep on with his same line of baloney. I post it for those out there who read and haven't actually made up their mind as yet as to what is true. I just try to give them both sides of the question and point out the fallacies inherent in evolution. It's up to them what they will believe, but the honest in heart will turn away from evolution as they will follow truth rather than error.
                        i learned from your post - keep up the good work!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                          i learned from your post - keep up the good work!
                          Thanks. I try to present as much evidence as this type of communication allows. If you like my posts you would love the book I am taking this information out of: Tornado in a Junkyard by James Perloff. You can get a used copy for less than $10 from thriftbooks.com . If you buy $10.01, or more, of books the shipping is free. I buy quite a few books from there and they carry several of James Perloff's books. His books Shadows of Power and Truth is a Lonely Warrior on the Council on Foreign Relations are excellent books for understanding what has been happening to the US for the last 100+ years and why it has been happening. They're a good way to really begin to understand the foundations of the deep state. They are as well-documented as Tornado in a Junkyard.
                          “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
                          ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

                          “One and God make a majority.”
                          ― Frederick Douglass

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
                            You just can't help yourself. You just gotta do it again. I'm talking about your reliance on logical fallacies. You lift one sentence out of the context of the entire paragraph, where by the way, the author noted that there were three geographic areas where the geologic column does actually exist, and pretend that sentence is all that was said.
                            Let's take a look...he wrote:

                            The entire column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists.

                            This is quite false, of course. He contradicted himself, yes. But as you now realize, the entire geological column exists in more places than mentioned. Which is pretty remarkable, when you realize how unlikely it is that there was more deposition than erosion in those areas over every geological period.

                            If your guy was right, it wouldn't exist anywhere. I was merely pointing out that he was wrong to say that the geological column exists only in geologists' charts.

                            That's what's known as the straw man fallacy.
                            No, it's a simple falsehood. What he wrote is false.

                            YECs tend to rely a lot on fallacious reasoning to support their theory. You've created two in this thread alone and I've pointed out the reliance on fallacious reasoning of using the theory to read the fossil evidence and then saying fossil evidence supports the theory.[/quote]

                            And now you've given us an excellent example of a strawman. In fact, the numerous transitional series were predicted by evolutionary theory long before they were discovered, confirming the theory. Even honest YECs admit this:

                            Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
                            YEC Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

                            Wise candidly admits he prefers his reading of Genesis to the evidence. But he's honest enough to admit that the fossil records is very good evidence for "macroevolutionary theory."

                            You'll never convince anyone you're correct by using logical fallacies for logical fallacies are just cleverly constructed lies.
                            See above. You're a little confused.

                            Also, I have to laugh at your request for me to explain the theory you support using logical falllacies. You must think I'm some ignorant hick that just fell of the turnip wagon.
                            Everyone is ignorant of something. This is just one of those things you don't know much about. As Wise points out, you really don't understand the fossil evidence.

                            Oh, and your "directly observed" evidence?
                            Yep. You can observe it almost everywhere in living things. It seems that you've confused "evolution" with the agency of evolution (natural selection), and perhaps with the consequences of evolution (common descent). Perhaps we could clear that up if you told us what you think the scientific definition of "evolution" is. What do you think it is?

                            And the rest of the frauds perpetrated by evolutionists because they can't fill in the missing links?
                            Notice that an honest and informed YEC admits that the hominid series is very good evidence for evolution. He knows what you don't.

                            How about the odds against evolution being true?
                            Since it's directly observed to happen, the odds against it being true are 0.000. I'm guessing you're thinking instead of the origin of life, which most YECs conflate with evolutionary theory.

                            Hemoglobin has an protein sequence that is 287 amino acids long. Having just one of them out of sequence results in sickle cell anemia. That means that protein, one of a huge number of proteins in the human body, had to come together perfectly the very first time otherwise the person died for without modern medical treatments sickle cell anemia is fatal. And then look at all the proteins that life requires. They had to come together perfectly the very first time. The odds against that? Coffin, from the above quote, figured the odds for a cell 1/10 the size of the smallest cell known to scientists coming together, by chance, perfectly so the organism would have the necessary molecules, amino acids, and proteins to support life is 1 followed by 340 million zeros. That number is greater than the number of molecules in the universe. And remember the way odds work. One random attempt does not increase the odds of the next random attempt. The odds remain at 1 followed by 340 million zeros.
                            Since 93.5 percent of all internet statistics are just made up from imagination, let's see your calculations.

                            There's several things wrong with you guess:

                            1. Hemoglobin didn't appear out of nowhere.

                            Hemoglobins from bacteria to man: evolution of different patterns of gene expression.
                            R Hardison
                            Journal of Experimental Biology 1998 201: 1099-1117
                            The discovery of hemoglobins in virtually all kingdoms of organisms has shown (1) that the ancestral gene for hemoglobin is ancient, and (2) that hemoglobins can serve additional functions besides transport of oxygen between tissues, ranging from intracellular oxygen transport to catalysis of redox reactions. These different functions of the hemoglobins illustrate the acquisition of new roles by a pre-existing structural gene, which requires changes not only in the coding regions but also in the regulatory elements of the genes. The evolution of different regulated functions within an ancient gene family allows an examination of the types of biosequence data that are informative for various types of issues. Alignment of amino acid sequences is informative for the phylogenetic relationships among the hemoglobins in bacteria, fungi, protists, plants and animals. Although many of these diverse hemoglobins are induced by low oxygen concentrations, to date none of the molecular mechanisms for their hypoxic induction shows common regulatory proteins; hence, a search for matches in non-coding DNA sequences would not be expected to be fruitful. Indeed, alignments of non-coding DNA sequences do not reveal significant matches even between mammalian alpha- and beta-globin gene clusters, which diverged approximately 450 million years ago and are still expressed in a coordinated and balanced manner. They are in very different genomic contexts that show pronounced differences in regulatory mechanisms. The alpha-globin gene is in constitutively active chromatin and is encompassed by a CpG island, which is a dominant determinant of its regulation, whereas the beta-globin gene is in A+T-rich genomic DNA. Non-coding sequence matches are not seen between avian and mammalian beta-globin gene clusters, which diverged approximately 250 million years ago, despite the fact that regulation of both gene clusters requires tissue-specific activation of a chromatin domain regulated by a locus control region. The cis-regulatory sequences needed for domain opening and enhancement do show common binding sites for transcription factors. In contrast, alignments of non-coding sequences from species representing multiple eutherian mammalian orders, some of which diverged as long as 135 million years ago, are reliable predictors of novel cis-regulatory elements, both proximal and distal to the genes. Examples include a potential target for the hematopoietic transcription factor TAL1.


                            2. As I said, evolutionary theory isn't about the way life began. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things:

                            There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
                            Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1878

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                              There's several things wrong with you guess:
                              Usually "several" means more than two.

                              But even those two are questionable:
                              1. Hemoglobin didn't appear out of nowhere.

                              Hemoglobins from bacteria to man: evolution of different patterns of gene expression.
                              R Hardison
                              Journal of Experimental Biology 1998 201: 1099-1117
                              The discovery of hemoglobins in virtually all kingdoms of organisms has shown (1) that the ancestral gene for hemoglobin is ancient, and (2) that hemoglobins can serve additional functions besides transport of oxygen between tissues, ranging from intracellular oxygen transport to catalysis of redox reactions. These different functions of the hemoglobins illustrate the acquisition of new roles by a pre-existing structural gene, which requires changes not only in the coding regions but also in the regulatory elements of the genes. The evolution of different regulated functions within an ancient gene family allows an examination of the types of biosequence data that are informative for various types of issues. Alignment of amino acid sequences is informative for the phylogenetic relationships among the hemoglobins in bacteria, fungi, protists, plants and animals. Although many of these diverse hemoglobins are induced by low oxygen concentrations, to date none of the molecular mechanisms for their hypoxic induction shows common regulatory proteins; hence, a search for matches in non-coding DNA sequences would not be expected to be fruitful. Indeed, alignments of non-coding DNA sequences do not reveal significant matches even between mammalian alpha- and beta-globin gene clusters, which diverged approximately 450 million years ago and are still expressed in a coordinated and balanced manner. They are in very different genomic contexts that show pronounced differences in regulatory mechanisms. The alpha-globin gene is in constitutively active chromatin and is encompassed by a CpG island, which is a dominant determinant of its regulation, whereas the beta-globin gene is in A+T-rich genomic DNA. Non-coding sequence matches are not seen between avian and mammalian beta-globin gene clusters, which diverged approximately 250 million years ago, despite the fact that regulation of both gene clusters requires tissue-specific activation of a chromatin domain regulated by a locus control region. The cis-regulatory sequences needed for domain opening and enhancement do show common binding sites for transcription factors. In contrast, alignments of non-coding sequences from species representing multiple eutherian mammalian orders, some of which diverged as long as 135 million years ago, are reliable predictors of novel cis-regulatory elements, both proximal and distal to the genes. Examples include a potential target for the hematopoietic transcription factor TAL1.
                              If you read the text you posted here, it says that hemoglobin is different enough between creatures that it doesn't follow single-ancestry expectations. In other words, for multiple different animal types, hemoglobin DID appear out of nowhere. That's exactly what your paragraph is saying. And the only effort the author makes to dispel such a conclusion is to arbitrarily throw in millions of years to make it seem like there's a valid reason for the differences he can't explain.

                              2. As I said, evolutionary theory isn't about the way life began. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things:

                              There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
                              Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1878
                              Evolutionary theory, even if Darwin's feeble attempt to retain some support from Christians is genuine, still gives glory to the creature over the creator, because it says God isn't needed to design wonderfully designed creatures. And it completely turns on its head the Genesis' contention that creatures reproduce after their kind. Grandeur it might seem to someone fixated on removing God from the picture, but it's a hopeless grandeur--all vanity.

                              And it has wasted much scientific thought and energy on a pursuit to show God isn't needed. Much more good science could have been done by acknowledging God's creative prowess and studying it to find out how it works.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Derf View Post
                                Usually "several" means more than two.

                                But even those two are questionable:

                                If you read the text you posted here, it says that hemoglobin is different enough between creatures that it doesn't follow single-ancestry expectations. In other words, for multiple different animal types, hemoglobin DID appear out of nowhere. That's exactly what your paragraph is saying. And the only effort the author makes to dispel such a conclusion is to arbitrarily throw in millions of years to make it seem like there's a valid reason for the differences he can't explain.


                                Evolutionary theory, even if Darwin's feeble attempt to retain some support from Christians is genuine, still gives glory to the creature over the creator, because it says God isn't needed to design wonderfully designed creatures. And it completely turns on its head the Genesis' contention that creatures reproduce after their kind. Grandeur it might seem to someone fixated on removing God from the picture, but it's a hopeless grandeur--all vanity.

                                And it has wasted much scientific thought and energy on a pursuit to show God isn't needed. Much more good science could have been done by acknowledging God's creative prowess and studying it to find out how it works.
                                NIce post, Derf.
                                “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
                                ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

                                “One and God make a majority.”
                                ― Frederick Douglass

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X