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.
Right because nobody is financially invested in perpetuating the Evolutionary narrative. After all, it's not like these institutions draw worldwide public support from being seen as the keepers of the truth about the origins of everything in the universe.
That is a resounding no. First of all, evolution as defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations is the base of "Evolution" which is unquestioned and without doubt. It is the philosophical areas that are not as unquestioned nor without doubt. It is what is meant by evolution and what drive is behind it that is in question for some. Natural selection has always been the main driving force behind those changes and that is being questioned by some scientists and some are being ridiculed due to that.You don't think you could gain a lot more funding by proving the current explanation wrong, providing a viable alternative, and providing evidence for said alternative?
Yes, a technique borrowed from Archeologists and Paleontologists; and what solutions are used makes a big difference. Many decalcifaciation solutions do in fact affect biological matter depending upon what they are as well as the concentration and pH of the solutions.Strawman. Demineralizing solutions are used to clean silkworm silk from cocoons. Doesn't affect the biological matter at all.
Oh! You agree preservation is excellent? Then why did you previously say it wasn't? Furthermore, the preservation has absolutely nothing to do with the age of it. The T-rex and other similar fossils possessing those characteristics were contained in Cretaceous strata. Would you care to engage me in a formal debate concerning dating methods? Hmmmm?Oh I agree the preservation is excellent - which is why we can discount claims of billions of years and quit pretending luck of the draw did it.
Then provide a specific citation.I wasn't referring to Schweitzer's work. There has been more than one discovery you know.
That is a resounding no. First of all, evolution as defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations is the base of "Evolution" which is unquestioned and without doubt. It is the philosophical areas that are not as unquestioned nor without doubt. It is what is meant by evolution and what drive is behind it that is in question for some. Natural selection has always been the main driving force behind those changes and that is being questioned by some scientists and some are being ridiculed due to that.
How would someone who disproved modern evolutionary theory, came up with an alternative, and provided actual evidence not receive every grant we currently have? He'll, they'd probably name a new grant after the scientist!
You would have been correct in days past. However, now with the head to head war between "Creationists" and "evolutionists" that is no longer true. New ideas that might be something "creationists" might use to support their position are strongly avoided and in some cases those who bring them are ridiculed as ID supporters even if they are not.How would someone who disproved modern evolutionary theory, came up with an alternative, and provided actual evidence not receive every grant we currently have? He'll, they'd probably name a new grant after the scientist!
If you want to claim the future is the same in the future told in the bible, when we live forever, and need no light of the sun, and animals change to eating grass, and we have spiritual bodies, and etc etc etc etc ...well you can make a fool of yourself by trying to make a case it is the same. Since all the stars fall and the very universe rolls up and is no more before that, and there are new heavens and earth also, I think lurkers should know you are not a serious debater. The past where Adam was to live forever, animals ate grass, spirits were among men, and all the things described in Genesis also cannot be waved away even if you hold your breath till you turn blue.dad, you are of course being a hypocrite by using the very science that you deny. And your claims are not even biblical.
Right because nobody is financially invested in perpetuating the Evolutionary narrative. After all, it's not like these institutions draw worldwide public support from being seen as the keepers of the truth about the origins of everything in the universe.
You would have been correct in days past. However, now with the head to head war between "Creationists" and "evolutionists" that is no longer true. New ideas that might be something "creationists" might use to support their position are strongly avoided and in some cases those who bring them are ridiculed as ID supporters even if they are not.
You are quite mistaken. Scientists are very aware of the "creationists" and are very careful not to write in public documents anything that might support their positions.I'm afraid this is all fantasy. Ceationism isn't even a consideration. It's a nothing. Outside of a few communities in america no one even thinks about that creationism thing from one year to the next. Seriously. It's about as big a consideration in science and the outside world as morris dancing is for you.
Evidence please?You are quite mistaken. Scientists are very aware of the "creationists" and are very careful not to write in public documents anything that might support their positions.
Yes, you could say it is the Church of Evolution and its priesthood guards the Evolutionary Creation mythos.
Perhaps you might ask those creationists who actually have scientific credentials why none of the science they have had published in the mainstream scientific journals support creationism; rather, the only support for creationism is in the creationist literature. For example, Andrew Snelling, a geologist who has no problem with an old earth in the mainstream peer review literature, but does have a problem with it in the creationist literature.You are quite mistaken. Scientists are very aware of the "creationists" and are very careful not to write in public documents anything that might support their positions.
I'm afraid this is all fantasy. Ceationism isn't even a consideration. It's a nothing. Outside of a few communities in america no one even thinks about that creationism thing from one year to the next. Seriously. It's about as big a consideration in science and the outside world as morris dancing is for you.
Once again evidence?And the powers that be want it to stay that way. Soon as you talk about something that hints at creation having some validity, you will be centered out, tarred, feathered, drawn and quartered, intellectually of course.
Yes, a technique borrowed from Archeologists and Paleontologists; and what solutions are used makes a big difference. Many decalcifaciation solutions do in fact affect biological matter depending upon what they are as well as the concentration and pH of the solutions.
Furthermore, the preservation has absolutely nothing to do with the age of it. The T-rex and other similar fossils possessing those characteristics were contained in Cretaceous strata. Would you care to engage me in a formal debate concerning dating methods? Hmmmm?
I guess that would depend on what you mean by support of creationism. What do you define as creationism?Perhaps you might ask those creationists who actually have scientific credentials why none of the science they have had published in the mainstream scientific journals support creationism; rather, the only support for creationism is in the creationist literature. For example, Andrew Snelling, a geologist who has no problem with an old earth in the mainstream peer review literature, but does have a problem with it in the creationist literature.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?