And ignored scripture in favor of his evidence-free notions.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!
- Thread starter ThisIsMyUserName
- Start date
And ignored scripture in favor of his evidence-free notions.
Nope. You do not face people who claim that things do not change. You face a challenge to the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.
Darwinists will do anything to insulate themselves from science — ie, working to falsify ideas.
Which is just "change" with lots of superfluous babble around it to give the impression of a well-reasoned theory. For example, there is no difference between the ideas conveyed by the word "change" and the phrase "change over time." The "over time" is entirely redundant. Allele frequencies can't change in anything but a population, so that gets rid of "in a population." And Darwinists will commonly point to changes that have nothing to do with genetics and claim evolution. I once saw a Darwinist suggest that a bird changing its song was "speciation." It's safe to read "change in allele frequencies in a population over time" as simply "change."
But Darwinists are not challenged to defend the idea that things change. They just want the discussion to be that because they cannot survive in a discussion without their obfuscations and other fallacies...
Other fallacies such as question begging.
And the fallacy of asserting what someone else believes as if it is relevant to the discussion.
And the Darwinist favorite — the appeal to popularity.
When will they learn to engage rationally?
Right off the bat we are on the wrong foot. Biological evolution is not a fact, it is a theory, except where non-species changing adaptations are called "evolution" just to try to give false legitimacy to Darwin's fictionary science speculations about species changes.
It is likely that weeds, diseases, viruses, and so forth were the results of sin entering the world after Adam fell. That does not in any way prove God did not create the universe and life on earth.
Darwin believe more the more advanced humans from the evolutionary process were destined to exterminate the lesser advanced humans, he called savages, in less than 300 years.
ok doser
Well-known member
We came pretty close with the Australian aboriginals and the Maori
The Bible suggests God created the universe from nothing. Atheists and assorted secularists refuse to believe that and, instead, wish to believe that some form of matter or energy has always existed. Really? Matter has always existed but God has not? This is not science, it is speculation.
Just because quacks see changes in different populations does not mean those populations are defying their genetic codes, changing their numbers of chromosomes, and taking on strange new features never before seen in history. One might as well surmise that monkeys descended from stupid humans as to surmise that stupid humans foolishly believe they descended from monkeys.
Right Divider
Body part
Personally, I have found it very difficult to discuss science with people that think that that they are descended from monkeys.
ok doser
Well-known member
It's easier than you might think. You just have to offer them some bananas first.
Hershkowitz and Gopher must not have found the remains of Methuselah who lived more than 900 years. But, of course, that was before the flood, and life expectancy was much different then.
If we go by a standard of probability then we must assume the earth is far less than a billion years old due to the fact that if it was older than that the moon would have begun its recession for earth from inside the earth, using the known rate of recession. If probability is to be a factor then abiogenesis apart from God's intervention was impossible.
I take it you think Dr. Brown was wrong. Who do you think you are to flippantly disregard the wisdom of someone so highly respected among the scientific community?
Right Divider
Body part
Extrapolations like this are always problematic.
A very small number of researchers have studied ice cores and their findings have hardly been irrefutably proven. In fact, scientific data has done more to disprove their conclusions than prove them. For example, consider the discovery of the Lost Squadron in Greenland.
Plane found Under 90 metres of Ice - Jennifer Marohasy
AFTER about ninety minutes of flying through dense cloud cover, the coastal mountains appeared through an opening. But where on the west coast were they … they were back on the east coast of Greenland… fuel would only last another twenty minutes. They landed on top of a remote ice cap in...
jennifermarohasy.com
"Many years later a group of WWII veterans and enthusiastic military aircraft guys decided to find the lost squadron on the Greenlandic Icecap. It was easy to find the area by using the coordinates from the rescue mission, but it wasn’t easy to find the airplanes, expected to be around or about 15-20 meters under the surface according to the precipitation data for the last 50 years (1942-92).
But there must be something wrong with the precipitation data because the squadron was found at a depth of 268 feet (about 90 meters) under the surface of the Icecap."
Notice the fact "But there must be something wrong" with the scientific calculation. Of course Bible-rejecters think the precipitation data must have been wrong, but that is silly since precipitation data and accumulations rates have been measured the whole time since the planes were lost. What the secularists overlooked is that the ice core assumptions were wrong and had never been disproven before due to the fact that they had never before had a way to test their assumptions using actual datable standards.
Another evidence that disproves ice core assumptions is found in Alaska where flattened tropical forests lie beneath 2,000' of frozen muck filled with the debris from that broken tropical forest.
Temperate Climates at the Poles | Genesis Park
www.genesispark.com
“Though the ground is frozen for 1,900 feet down from the surface at Prudhoe Bay, everywhere the oil companies drilled around this area they discovered an ancient tropical forest. It was in frozen state, not in petrified state. It is between 1,100 and 1,700 feet down. There are palm trees, pine trees, and tropical foliage in great profusion. In fact, they found them lapped all over each other, just as though they had fallen in that position.” (Williams, Lindsey, The Energy Non-Crisis, 1980, p. 54.)
Y chromosome data proves human ancestors could not have emerged from chimp ancestors as early as 6 million years ago.
New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims
A recent high-profile article in the journal Nature released the results of a study with implications that shocked the scientific community because they contradict long-held claims of human-chimp DNA similarity.1 A previous Acts & Facts article showed that much of the research surrounding the...
Scientists made some erroneous assumptions about mitochondrial DNA which were later refuted by new evidence. That is so typical of science assumptions based upon Bible-rejecting philosophy. Evolution itself is fiction science based upon Bible-rejecting philosophy. Using known rates of mutations in mitochondrial DNA scientists erroneously arrived at an age for 'Mitochondrial Eve' at around 200,000 years. They could neither prove nor disprove their assumptions and the lazy secular scientific community simply but wrongly adopted the bad assumptions as fact.
Mother of All Humans Lived 6,000 Years Ago
Inside a human cell's mitochondria--the tiny organelles that provide energy--there is a small and unique chromosome. This loop of DNA is passed from mother to child in every generation and provides an intriguing source of information about mankind's past. Geneticists are using that information...
Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old. No one thinks that's the case, but at what point should models switch from one mtDNA time zone to the other?1
The gorge cut by Niagara Falls is the right length to have been cut in about 7,000 years.
The Chixulub theory was invented less than 50 years ago by men seeking to explain the extinction of dinosaurs while denying the universal flood. The additional volcanic eruption was added recently. Both theories are nothing but opinions supporting atheistic and humanistic theology, supported by cherry-picked misinterpreted data and not proven by irrefutable scientific facts.
The geological column and estimates of billions of years are based upon atheistic foolishness and opinions, not facts. Here is one of many reasons the geological column foolishness is unscientific:
Geological Column and Inherent Problems - Creation Studies Institute
The Geological Column is contrary to the idea of a sudden catastrophic worldwide Flood.