Creation vs. Evolution

[Daniel1611]

Guess you've never flown on an airplane high enough to see the curvature of the earth.

Neither have you. You cannot see curvature from a few miles up. If you are on a sphere, you shouldn't be able to see the curve from our vantage point anyway. If its a sphere, it should look even.

If you're seeing curvature from a few miles up, you're on cylinder. The fact that you claim to see curvature when it is impossible from our vantage point just shows that you're indoctrinated to see things that you cannot see.

Either you don't see the curve from earth, or its a cylinder.

 

[seehigh]

Neither have you. You cannot see curvature from a few miles up. If you are on a sphere, you shouldn't be able to see the curve from our vantage point anyway. If its a sphere, it should look even.

If you're seeing curvature from a few miles up, you're on cylinder. The fact that you claim to see curvature when it is impossible from our vantage point just shows that you're indoctrinated to see things that you cannot see.

Either you don't see the curve from earth, or its a cylinder.

You're such a skeptic.

See from the 6 minute mark forward for yourself.

https://youtu.be/kJoMDq4AyLc

 

[The Barbarian]

Neither have you. You cannot see curvature from a few miles up.

Hmmm... should be visible from about 60,000 feet, I think. Certainly, it's visible from the ISS. However, a much easier way of noting the curvature was known in antiquity.

Approach a mountainous coast from the sea. You'll first see the tops of mountains, and only later, the lower levels. This was the first way people knew the Earth is round. It wasn't until about 300 BC that someone managed to get an accurate measure of it's circumference.

 

[Jose Fly]

I've never seen it so I don't know for sure. That's my point. Your senses tell you that you are standing upright and not flying through space. You don't see the earth as a ball. You don't feel yourself spinning. If someone is going to tell you that your own senses are wrong, they should have incontrovertible proof. And they don't. They have a few paintings from NASA.

I'll say it again....Man, fundamentalists are entertaining! :crackup:

 

[seehigh]

I'll say it again....Man, fundamentalists are entertaining! :crackup:

There should be a LIKE button

 

[6days]

Science has evolved significantly since Darwin's time. That science was built on the theories presented at the time. They have not been refuted, they have been improved.

Yes....science has evolved, or perhaps the methods and interpretations have. Yes, much of what Darwin believed has been proven wrong by science.

But the belief system itself is not falsifiable. It is like a fog that covers all landscapes. (Functionality is used as evidence for evolution, as is non functionality... ETC)

 

[6days]

Darwin was wrong about so many things. Him being wrong about rudimentary organs is just one more thing on the list.

And as you just saw, he got it exactly right. The appendix in humans no longer has the original function of digesting plant matter, but it has at least two others that are not found in the structure in other animals.

God created man from the dust.
God created woman from Adam's rib.

1. Darwin was wrong about God

We'll just have to disagree about that.

Naturally, you disagree .
Darwin blamed God for evil, death, pain, suffering and extinctions.
God tells us that the cause of evil is sin.

2. Darwin was wrong about Science ...He started with a pre-determined position

You've been misled about that, too. If he had never discovered the process of evolution by natural selection

You have been mislead.

Natural selection was discussed before Darwin. (He initially pretended it was his idea)

Evolution was also a belief long before Darwins time.

3. Darwin was wrong about Geology

His discoveries are still valid and subsequent investigation has only confirmed them, and explained the forces behind them

Nope... He assumed the Santa Cruz valley was shaped over eons of time, then used eons of time to extrapolate evolutionary beliefs.

4. Darwin was wrong about the fossilsActually.... Darwin was at least partially correct about the fossil record because he said it essentially falsified the ToE

That's quite dishonest of you. That's not what he said at all. Shame on you

Nope... Darwin ponders why the transitional fossils are missing and says thing such as "the imperfection of the fossil record, the limited exploration of the record, poor fossilization of certain body types..."

Darwin was wrong... The fossil record has pristinely preserved soft bodied creatures.

5. Darwin was wrong about the tree of life.
In 2009, the cover of New Scientist says "Darwin was Wrong...cutting down the tree of life"
The latest research shows Darwins tree is collapsing.

One of the scientists interviewed in that article W.F.Doolittle was also published in Scientific American (Feb 2000) saying the imagined tree of life is a tangled mess.

There is no tree of life. hundreds of different imaginary trees are in textbooks and journals all based on a belief system and similarities

Turns out that DNA analysis confirms the tree first discovered by Linnaeus to a high degree of precision.

Darwins tree is a tangled mess. DNA analysis confirms we have been fearfully and wonderfully made. e DO have a common Designer... not a common non human ancestor.

6. Darwin was wrong about Nature of Life.
Darwin thought life was simple..(.it 'ain't'. A single cell can be compared to a huge city with manufacturing plants, busy highways, side streets., workers etc. Its information system is like the internet. single cell has an energy system like a citys energy grid. And... This 'city' has a design that allows rapid duplication. ).... Darwin said "But if we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts (These are all over the world) light, heat, electricity ETC...that a protein (Ha, Darwin had no idea how complex a protein is) compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes"

Darwin said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case"

Darwin was wrong because he didn't know anything about genetics or modern biology. (No one did 150+ year ago)

Darwin supposed that God just created the first organisms. Why do you think that's wrong?

Darwin supposed a warm little pond since he had no idea how complex life is.

7. Darwin was wrong about natural selection
Darwin made the mistake of unbounded extrapolation. He said "Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do much by his powers of artificial selection, I see no limit to the amount of change...by natures power of selection". (Breeders understand there are limits to selection) Funny and sad, but Darwin believed given enough time nature could change a bear into a whale.

Lynn Margulis, evolutionary biologist and one time wife of Carl Sagan explained that natural selection can elimininate...it can not creat.

Anyways... Darwin was wrong about what selection can do. It helps to preserve life forms but can't create.

Does it matter that Darwin, one of the most famous people in history was wrong?

Well...It mattered to Darwin. He seems to have literally sold his soul to obtain fame, and went to a Christless eternity.

It mattered to Darwins family (sons) who also rejected Christ and ended up leading a eugenics movement.

It matters that Darwin was wrong to the hundreds of millions of souls who rejected the gospel over a false belief system.

The evidence shows that it changed ungulates to whales

The evidence shows no such thing. You have been mislead. Arranging fossils in a pattern to fit preconceived beliefs is not science. God's Word tells us He created the great sea creatures BEFORE the ungulates

Darwinism is toxic to to faith in our Savior, Jesus Christ. Encourage your family and those you know to move away from the darkness that results from Darwinism, and accept the true light of the world.... Jesus

 

[StanJ]

I am not familiar with cosmology that postulates that the universe is cylindrical. Can you elaborate?

Not really....look up Dr. Michio Kaku

 

[gcthomas]

From my reading of his books, he suggests that the dimensions of the universe are wrapped up, on a small scale, into Calabi-Yau manifolds, using the idea of small cylinders to show how you could imagine a fourth special dimension could be wrapped up, before discussing how up to a dozen dimensions could be involved.

Kaku is a string theorist, so he wasn't talking about the geometry of the universe as a whole.

 

[StanJ]

From my reading of his books, he suggests that the dimensions of the universe are wrapped up, on a small scale, into Calabi-Yau manifolds, using the idea of small cylinders to show how you could imagine a fourth special dimension could be wrapped up, before discussing how up to a dozen dimensions could be involved.

Kaku is a string theorist, so he wasn't talking about the geometry of the universe as a whole.

He was talking about two different theories when I watched him on TV. One was his personal favorite that the universes was flat or lightly curved like a lens on a telescope, and the other was cylindrical. Apparently he also believes in multiple universes so I kind lost interest after that.

Some of his shows are interesting and some are weird.

 

[The Barbarian]

All these facts of been available to him, but I doubt reiterating them will have any positives.

Perhaps not. But he serves a useful purpose, when others read about it, as does his post with strategic deletions and excuses.

 

[gcthomas]

He was talking about two different theories when I watched him on TV. One was his personal favorite that the universes was flat or lightly curved like a lens on a telescope, and the other was cylindrical. Apparently he also believes in multiple universes so I kind lost interest after that.

Some of his shows are interesting and some are weird.

It is possible he was referring to 'flat' Gaussian curvature, which is sometimes called 'cylindrical' by mathemeticians, since you can make it out of an undistorted piece of flat paper and the geometry is the same as for the sheet of paper.

Oh, and don't give up on the multiple universes thing - in cosmology it doesn't refer to parallel existences, but to far distant regions where the laws of physics may be different, connected to us but unreachable due to expansion/inflation of the space between here and there.

 

[Daniel1611]

Academia is filled with trekkie freaks now. "God? Ridiculous. Life after death? Preposterous. Angels? Insane. ...the universe is a giant cylindrical hologram with infinite dimensions and life on earth was seeded by aliens? Hard science.".

Lol.

 

[StanJ]

It is possible he was referring to 'flat' Gaussian curvature, which is sometimes called 'cylindrical' by mathemeticians, since you can make it out of an undistorted piece of flat paper and the geometry is the same as for the sheet of paper.

Oh, and don't give up on the multiple universes thing - in cosmology it doesn't refer to parallel existences, but to far distant regions where the laws of physics may be different, connected to us but unreachable due to expansion/inflation of the space between here and there.

They did use CG effects so it was pretty clear on both options, but my point is/was that it changes all the time. The more we/scientists know the less sure they seem to be about anything.
Just as I don't believe in ETs, I don't believe in MUs.

 

[MichaelCadry]

You don't feel yourself moving. You feel yourself standing upright. The horizon appears to be flat. All your senses tell you that you are on a flat stationary object. It should take monumental proofs to accept that your senses are wrong. A few composite pictures that NASA drew are no incontrovertible proof, IMO.

Dear Daniel 1611,

You don't feel yourself moving, yet we are hurling through space and spinning at quite a lot of mph. Maybe the size of the planet makes a difference. I don't know. You're right! It does feel that we're on a flat stationary object. But, I still trust NASA to supply what is truth. I mean, all of it has already been established.

Praise The Lord!!

Michael

:rapture: :guitar: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :jump:

 

[gcthomas]

They did use CG effects so it was pretty clear on both options, but my point is/was that it changes all the time. The more we/scientists know the less sure they seem to be about anything.
Just as I don't believe in ETs, I don't believe in MUs.

No - what you are discussing is thatspeculative and untested theories will change continually until one is found that outperforms the rest in experiment.

Established science is just that - established and proven beyond all reaonable doubt. That is where most science is, and no-one is changing their minds about that at all. Newtonian physics is still used and accepted, alongside Relativity and Quantum physics. String theory and some cosmological theories are still up for grabs, but that is not a marker for all science.

Multiple universes (in the cosmological sense) are not demonstrated to be true, and no physicist discusses tham as such. Kaku certainly only talks about them as a possibility, although experimental evidence strongly indicating their existence could be published inside the next few months.

 

[Daniel1611]

Dear Daniel 1611,

You don't feel yourself moving, yet we are hurling through space and spinning at quite a lot of mph. Maybe the size of the planet makes a difference. I don't know. You're right! It does feel that we're on a flat stationary object. But, I still trust NASA to supply what is truth. I mean, all of it has already been established.

Praise The Lord!!

Michael

:rapture: :guitar: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :jump:

It hasn't been established. It rests on a few NASA cgi images and the magical force of gravity. Gravity holds the oceans in place, but it doesn't stop smoke from rising from a chimney for instance.

It's all based on fake pictures and people illusion that they see the curve from their house. There needs to be more proof than that if you're going to tell me that people in Australia are upside down on a ball, spinning around and flying through space. Fact is, the ball was decided on centuries before anyone could get to space to see if it was true. And if they went and saw that it wasn't a ball after all, they wouldn't tell you.

 

[seehigh]

It hasn't been established. It rests on a few NASA cgi images and the magical force of gravity. Gravity holds the oceans in place, but it doesn't stop smoke from rising from a chimney for instance.

It's all based on fake pictures and people illusion that they see the curve from their house. There needs to be more proof than that if you're going to tell me that people in Australia are upside down on a ball, spinning around and flying through space. Fact is, the ball was decided on centuries before anyone could get to space to see if it was true. And if they went and saw that it wasn't a ball after all, they wouldn't tell you.

I think you should join this.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

 

[Daniel1611]

I think you should join this.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

I wouldn't join anything.

 

[Jose Fly]

Gravity holds the oceans in place, but it doesn't stop smoke from rising from a chimney for instance.

That's Gold!