Then you should rush to publish these demonstrations. You could be the next Nobel Prize Winner! 
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Darwin's Evolution?
- Thread starter Stormy
- Start date
Sampo: You are using a smoke screen.
Because I have Faith does not prevent me from seeing truth.
I have a logical mind that accepts truth. I ask for answers for evolution that does not include God. I did not ask you to believe.
You have talked all around evolution but have yet to answer my questions. It is because I ask the impossible. Because you cannot see what is missing.
Perhaps the smoke is in your way.
Thanks anyway for giving it your best shot.
Because I have Faith does not prevent me from seeing truth.
I have a logical mind that accepts truth. I ask for answers for evolution that does not include God. I did not ask you to believe.
You have talked all around evolution but have yet to answer my questions. It is because I ask the impossible. Because you cannot see what is missing.
Perhaps the smoke is in your way.
Thanks anyway for giving it your best shot.
Upvote
0
Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Then you should rush to publish these demonstrations. You could be the next Nobel Prize Winner!
WooHoo!!
Upvote
0
By: Warren L. Johns, Editor
"Until May 15, the five brightest planets---Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn---will cluster together in the western sky at dusk---The last widely visible five-planet array was in February 1940, and astronomers calculate that another one won't take place until Sept. 8, 2040." (The Washington Post, Tuesday, April 23, 2002).
Sure enough, just as predicted, the alignment blazed across the evening sky in precise planetary pattern. Not just chunks of matter strung out in space without visible foundation but unique orbits cutting interrelated swaths at different speeds and angles.
Nothing random about this system of planets hanging about the sun; nothing chaotic; nothing the product of unpredictable chance!
In fact, so routinely reliable, mathematical calculations target the next comparable space show to the absolute year, month and day. Not just 38-years down the line, in 2040---but beyond!
This mind-boggling precision of cosmic convergence characterizes the entire natural world of science.
Thanks to Canada's Sudbury Observatory, operating from the 6,800 foot depth of the Creighton Nickel Mine, awesomely tiny neutrinos, one ten-millionth the mass of an electron, are being measured. These subatomic elementary particles are believed to be the most miniscule form of matter presently known to man.
Then there is the atom, also invisible to the naked eye, with its positively charged nucleus encircled by an array of electrons---the smallest unit of any element charted in the classic periodic table displayed in High School science classrooms.
Inorganic matter is so reliably constant in its identifiable properties that elements can be combined pursuant to chemical recipes that produce results that can be replicated ad infinitum.
Most middle school kids recite with assurance that two atoms of hydrogen joined to a single atom of oxygen makes water---it always has, and it always will. They also anticipate that this magic elixir of life will boil or freeze when subjected to certain temperatures and atmospheric pressures.
Living matter displays comparable consistency! Information carried by genes, present in a genome from the beginning, reflect anything but random chaos or haphazard chance. Change in the form of dazzling variety is assured, but within the genome.
Thanks to this vast smorgasbord of information, siblings with the same parents may have blue, brown, gray or green eyes. And the goldfinch at the backyard feeder boasts a black crown, capping burnished-yellow feathers that fade to dull green in the winter only to return, in the spring, to the bright gold of the previous summer.
But this natural change is not evolutionism's radical, random mutant leap to an entirely different kind of genome. A Colorado blue spruce will never sprout fig leaves nor will a bear cub wallow in a river, in quest of life as a whale.
From the microscopic minutiae to the cosmic; from the inorganic to the living; natural world science is marked by precision!!!!
The glaring exception to this universal commonality of the science of order and the mathematically real is evolutionism's mutant "science." The logic of the measurable equation is thrown to the winds in favor of unproven and unprovable myth. In the face of impossible odds, stalwart disciples of Darwin put their minds and their money behind a blank check endorsing the obscenity that some unidentified fish lurks as ancient grand pappy to man.
Every discipline of natural science demands precision. Unproven hypothesis, built on random chance, doesn't qualify as science. Evolutionism ignores the real and postulates the unreal. Slick diagrams and full-color pictures are not enough to cloak neo-Darwinism with respectability. Remove the bells, whistles, and fancy rhetoric and all that remains is mutant science.
WLJ
04/30/02
www.CreationDigest.com
CDigest@aol.com
"Until May 15, the five brightest planets---Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn---will cluster together in the western sky at dusk---The last widely visible five-planet array was in February 1940, and astronomers calculate that another one won't take place until Sept. 8, 2040." (The Washington Post, Tuesday, April 23, 2002).
Sure enough, just as predicted, the alignment blazed across the evening sky in precise planetary pattern. Not just chunks of matter strung out in space without visible foundation but unique orbits cutting interrelated swaths at different speeds and angles.
Nothing random about this system of planets hanging about the sun; nothing chaotic; nothing the product of unpredictable chance!
In fact, so routinely reliable, mathematical calculations target the next comparable space show to the absolute year, month and day. Not just 38-years down the line, in 2040---but beyond!
This mind-boggling precision of cosmic convergence characterizes the entire natural world of science.
Thanks to Canada's Sudbury Observatory, operating from the 6,800 foot depth of the Creighton Nickel Mine, awesomely tiny neutrinos, one ten-millionth the mass of an electron, are being measured. These subatomic elementary particles are believed to be the most miniscule form of matter presently known to man.
Then there is the atom, also invisible to the naked eye, with its positively charged nucleus encircled by an array of electrons---the smallest unit of any element charted in the classic periodic table displayed in High School science classrooms.
Inorganic matter is so reliably constant in its identifiable properties that elements can be combined pursuant to chemical recipes that produce results that can be replicated ad infinitum.
Most middle school kids recite with assurance that two atoms of hydrogen joined to a single atom of oxygen makes water---it always has, and it always will. They also anticipate that this magic elixir of life will boil or freeze when subjected to certain temperatures and atmospheric pressures.
Living matter displays comparable consistency! Information carried by genes, present in a genome from the beginning, reflect anything but random chaos or haphazard chance. Change in the form of dazzling variety is assured, but within the genome.
Thanks to this vast smorgasbord of information, siblings with the same parents may have blue, brown, gray or green eyes. And the goldfinch at the backyard feeder boasts a black crown, capping burnished-yellow feathers that fade to dull green in the winter only to return, in the spring, to the bright gold of the previous summer.
But this natural change is not evolutionism's radical, random mutant leap to an entirely different kind of genome. A Colorado blue spruce will never sprout fig leaves nor will a bear cub wallow in a river, in quest of life as a whale.
From the microscopic minutiae to the cosmic; from the inorganic to the living; natural world science is marked by precision!!!!
The glaring exception to this universal commonality of the science of order and the mathematically real is evolutionism's mutant "science." The logic of the measurable equation is thrown to the winds in favor of unproven and unprovable myth. In the face of impossible odds, stalwart disciples of Darwin put their minds and their money behind a blank check endorsing the obscenity that some unidentified fish lurks as ancient grand pappy to man.
Every discipline of natural science demands precision. Unproven hypothesis, built on random chance, doesn't qualify as science. Evolutionism ignores the real and postulates the unreal. Slick diagrams and full-color pictures are not enough to cloak neo-Darwinism with respectability. Remove the bells, whistles, and fancy rhetoric and all that remains is mutant science.
WLJ
04/30/02
www.CreationDigest.com
CDigest@aol.com
Upvote
0
Thank you s0uljah! God is Great! 
God has taken care of all the mysteries of life that most take for granted.
I should relax and enjoy instead of being consumed with knowing all that I can.
But then again.. That is not my nature.
God has taken care of all the mysteries of life that most take for granted.
I should relax and enjoy instead of being consumed with knowing all that I can.
But then again.. That is not my nature.
Upvote
0
s0uljah,
That is one of the finest examples of a Strawman of Evolution I have ever seen!! Good Work!!
Also, I noticed you posted this in another thread:
"I see the logic in knowing that the decay rates are constant, but I don't think that answers my question. I am asking about how we would know they are constant for 1,000 years or more, since we can't see agreement among multiple tests over that long of time. "
Perhaps this quote from the article you posted can help you answer that question.
" Inorganic matter is so reliably constant in its identifiable properties that elements can be combined pursuant to chemical recipes that produce results that can be replicated ad infinitum."
That is one of the finest examples of a Strawman of Evolution I have ever seen!! Good Work!!
Also, I noticed you posted this in another thread:
"I see the logic in knowing that the decay rates are constant, but I don't think that answers my question. I am asking about how we would know they are constant for 1,000 years or more, since we can't see agreement among multiple tests over that long of time. "
Perhaps this quote from the article you posted can help you answer that question.
" Inorganic matter is so reliably constant in its identifiable properties that elements can be combined pursuant to chemical recipes that produce results that can be replicated ad infinitum."
Upvote
0
Morat-
Oh...well personally I don't buy most of our structures having evolved randomly. But I'm not going for a nobel prize, so my opinion is sufficient for me.
Oh...well personally I don't buy most of our structures having evolved randomly. But I'm not going for a nobel prize, so my opinion is sufficient for me.
Upvote
0
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't quantum mechanics lack precision, i.e., there's a lot of randomness to it?
- Joe
Upvote
0
- Uh? Which questions haven't been answered? I've re-read the thread and I don't see any... can you repost them here?
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Stormy, was that a question, or just a link to one guy's opinion?
It has been shown that irreducible complexity (such as we find in nature) can evolve. After we get through with the first round of questions, we can take a look at the explanations of why irreducible complexity doesn't defeat evolution by mutation and natural selection.
It has been shown that irreducible complexity (such as we find in nature) can evolve. After we get through with the first round of questions, we can take a look at the explanations of why irreducible complexity doesn't defeat evolution by mutation and natural selection.
Upvote
0
Why am I not surprised that Stormy's request for a transitional fossil (something easily shown) has now "Evolved" into abiogenesis and IC?
Stormy: If you still want that transitional fossil, I'll be glad to show you several. Just tell me what features you think makes a transitional fossil "transitional".
Stormy: If you still want that transitional fossil, I'll be glad to show you several. Just tell me what features you think makes a transitional fossil "transitional".
Upvote
0
- Well, that's the thing. I'm not certain exactly what her questions are... I think she is proceeding under some false assumptions.
- She asked earlier how amphibians could have evolved into birds since birds didn't exist yet and had no DNA to combine with the amphibians. That leads me to believe that she's been told some very wrong things about evolution, and that she doesn't understand the very basic, core tenets of evolutionary theory.
- Now Stormy, I'm not saying that this is in any way your fault, I'm just saying that I don't think you understand the way evolution works from the get go. We need the Cliff's Notes for evolution. Or perhaps Jerry should author an "Evolution for Dummies" book! I'd buy it.
- She asked earlier how amphibians could have evolved into birds since birds didn't exist yet and had no DNA to combine with the amphibians. That leads me to believe that she's been told some very wrong things about evolution, and that she doesn't understand the very basic, core tenets of evolutionary theory.
- Now Stormy, I'm not saying that this is in any way your fault, I'm just saying that I don't think you understand the way evolution works from the get go. We need the Cliff's Notes for evolution.
Or perhaps Jerry should author an "Evolution for Dummies" book! I'd buy it.
Upvote
0
Gould and a few others did a nice big book full of pictures and such on evolution. I can't remember the EXACT name of it (might've just been "Evolution"), but it was a pretty good "Evolution for Dummies"-style book. I'd recommend that one.
But I'd buy one of Jerry's books, too.
- Joe
But I'd buy one of Jerry's books, too.
- Joe
Upvote
0
That's why I tend to ask questions. If they tell me what they expect to see, it's generally a good idea of the grasp they have on evolution.
An often telling claim is wanting to see a "half-this, half-that" and objecting to things like Archy for being "obviously a whole creature".
I've used the phrase "Technically, all fossils are transitional" more times than I can count.
An often telling claim is wanting to see a "half-this, half-that" and objecting to things like Archy for being "obviously a whole creature".
I've used the phrase "Technically, all fossils are transitional" more times than I can count.
Upvote
0
Morat: You are sweet. But I am growing tired of the debate element of this thread. Maybe I will try again later. But at first you were right. I was only looking for the proof that evolution ran smooth without the boost that I seem to KNOW had happened. But right away someone told me that at the beginning of evolution there was radiation of changes. They went on to tell me it did not mean radiation as I was thinking but instead a boost in the evolution.
I was looking for a smooth transition of evolution supported by actual fossil and not merely the human thought. But I know that is impossible.
Then my mind wandered and I began questioning another aspect of evolution. I do not want to get into it again. If you are interested you can read the thread. But it becomes clear that I am not satisfied by the answers I am given. I seem to be creating a climate of debate rather than research and understanding... such is a waste of time.
It is a puzzle to me that more people are not inclined to see the Intelligence behind evolution. The creation of this world and its creatures screams Creator to me.
Thanks Everyone!
I was looking for a smooth transition of evolution supported by actual fossil and not merely the human thought. But I know that is impossible.
Then my mind wandered and I began questioning another aspect of evolution. I do not want to get into it again. If you are interested you can read the thread. But it becomes clear that I am not satisfied by the answers I am given. I seem to be creating a climate of debate rather than research and understanding... such is a waste of time.
It is a puzzle to me that more people are not inclined to see the Intelligence behind evolution. The creation of this world and its creatures screams Creator to me.
Thanks Everyone!
Upvote
0
You are obviously as confused about the definition of logic as you are the definition of evolution. Allow me to demonstrate logic for you....
You believe that god created the universe and everything in it, correct? Correct. My source for this assertion? Your own words.
You believe that life could not have emerged without divine intervention. Correct? Yes. Source? Your own words.
You think that what is taught in school in regard to evolution is not truth, asnd that for it to be truth creation should be taught as well. Correct? Yes. My source? Your words. You have stated on several occasions that what they teach in school is not truth. You have further balked at valid websites that could answer your questions, saying you found no truth there (I am assuming, again, that this was because god was left out of the equation).
So, taking the above things as fact, one can logically assume one of two things. Either you are...
A: Asking questions you don't really want an answer to (Becausse you know the answer - "godidit" - as you have stated yourself) or...
B: Your faith in god as the creator of it all is not as strong as you think, or as you would like others to think.
Is there another option I am missing?
I have only been here since Tuesday, and already I can tell that you, although you pretend to be, are not very tolerant of anyone who is not a believer or professed christian. Almost evey time a non-christian or non-believer responds to you, you get defensive.
I suggest that you examine your motives for being here and for asking such questions before you accuse someone of hiding behind a smoke screen.
Your questions have no answer apparently, at least not one that would satisfy you, because they have already been answered. I sam not going to waste my time answering questions that you don't want to know the answer to anyway.
You believe that god created the universe and everything in it, correct? Correct. My source for this assertion? Your own words.
You believe that life could not have emerged without divine intervention. Correct? Yes. Source? Your own words.
You think that what is taught in school in regard to evolution is not truth, asnd that for it to be truth creation should be taught as well. Correct? Yes. My source? Your words. You have stated on several occasions that what they teach in school is not truth. You have further balked at valid websites that could answer your questions, saying you found no truth there (I am assuming, again, that this was because god was left out of the equation).
So, taking the above things as fact, one can logically assume one of two things. Either you are...
A: Asking questions you don't really want an answer to (Becausse you know the answer - "godidit" - as you have stated yourself) or...
B: Your faith in god as the creator of it all is not as strong as you think, or as you would like others to think.
Is there another option I am missing?
I have only been here since Tuesday, and already I can tell that you, although you pretend to be, are not very tolerant of anyone who is not a believer or professed christian. Almost evey time a non-christian or non-believer responds to you, you get defensive.
I suggest that you examine your motives for being here and for asking such questions before you accuse someone of hiding behind a smoke screen.
Your questions have no answer apparently, at least not one that would satisfy you, because they have already been answered. I sam not going to waste my time answering questions that you don't want to know the answer to anyway.
Upvote
0
Sampo: You are all messed up! LOL
I read a little of what you are saying. You are wrong. Yes I have an undying faith in Jesus Christ. I love my God and Creator. But intelligent design is not promoting a religion. It is in the recognizing that there is a design to all of this that we call our life and home. You can believe it came from a space alien if you like!
I read a little of what you are saying. You are wrong. Yes I have an undying faith in Jesus Christ. I love my God and Creator. But intelligent design is not promoting a religion. It is in the recognizing that there is a design to all of this that we call our life and home. You can believe it came from a space alien if you like!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
