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.
It was history and science itself who called those things a hoax.
I'm just relaying the story.
Correct you are.
Carbon 14 dating was another facet of many of science's hoaxes over the years. It is absolutely ineffective beyond a couple thousand years.
Darwin's theory of Evolution has never been proven and Lucy was an embarrassing hoax.
I know why I, and many others, hold fast to the Biblically-founded concept of Creationism. Why do you hold so fast to Evolution Theory?
Kinda like suppressing the carrier wave because it's no longer needed?(Also, why mention Darwin at all? Darwin's words could disappear from history tomorrow and the modern formulation of the Theory of Evolution would be entirely unchanged.)
If you were truly born-again, what made you give up all this ...Even when I was a religious person (Catholic), I saw no reason to believe the Christian creation account was anything other than allegorical. And neither did any of the teachers at the various Catholic schools I attended, including the priests.
Not even your very best Physics lesson could prove evolution fairy tale.
Here's one for ya: Why would a single celled, asexual, organism, that was neat and tidy, and had everything it needed to survive and reproduce, all within a perfect enclosed system, suddenly decide it now needed something hugely vital from another of its kind (that didn't yet exist) and begin the transformation into a much more complex process of sexual interaction for the purpose of its reproduction and survival of its species, and for how many millions of years did it get this wrong and not have the ability to reproduce - stuck somewhere in between - and how could it have possibly survived during the 100's of thousands of limbo years as an organism that needed something from another organism to reproduce, while that other organism hadn't even begun to form yet?
I'm aware the fairy tale parameters demand that it would be one of many that were making this change over an extended period of time, but none of them would have survived that got it wrong, and the ones that came after could not have made further progress from the point of needing that something from another similar organism (which still didn't yet exist), and even if they did, the chances that another organism would be making a similar - but opposite - change at that same time and would get it right, and THEN they would just so happen to come together for a sexual exchange of vital materials - are a googol to one.
A lot of the fairy tales that answer questions like these actually assume an inherent intelligence. But you can't borrow from Creationism to flesh out your evolutionary theoretical construction. Evolution is all about randomness. It's only Creationism that is allowed to have intelligence already inside the cells of organisms. That's how a plant/tree can use very specific and finely tuned scents to call out to specific insects that feed on the insects that are attacking them in order to save themselves. How can a plant possibly know that it needs exactly that while simultaneously having the very complex inherent intelligence to be capable of speaking the scent language of the specific insect that feeds on the insects that are attacking it? There is only ONE answer. And it is absolutely NOT random evolution. It is God and it is absolutely brilliant intelligent design.
Most Evolutionists don't even consider the impossibilities. They just take it on faith and embrace anything their heroes like Hawking, Dawkins, Einstein, etc. seem to embrace. Yes, faith. Science is a religion as well; don't forget.
Nice dodge.I said *physics* not *evolution*. They are not the same thing. My question was specifically about C-14.
Do you want to to understand the physics behind C-14 dating, or not?
Not even your very best Physics lesson could prove evolution fairy tale.
Here's one for ya: Why would a single celled, asexual, organism, that was neat and tidy, and had everything it needed to survive and reproduce, all within a perfect enclosed system, suddenly decide it now needed something hugely vital from another of its kind (that didn't yet exist) and begin the transformation into a much more complex process of sexual interaction for the purpose of its reproduction and survival of its species, and for how many millions of years did it get this wrong and not have the ability to reproduce - stuck somewhere in between - and how could it have possibly survived during the 100's of thousands of limbo years as an organism that needed something from another organism to reproduce, while that other organism hadn't even begun to form yet?
I'm aware the fairy tale parameters demand that it would be one of many that were making this change over an extended period of time, but none of them would have survived that got it wrong, and the ones that came after could not have made further progress from the point of needing that something from another similar organism (which still didn't yet exist), and even if they did, the chances that another organism would be making a similar - but opposite - change at that same time and would get it right, and THEN they would just so happen to come together for a sexual exchange of vital materials - are a googol to one. The mathematical equivalent of ... absolutely impossible.
A lot of the fairy tales that answer questions like these actually assume an inherent intelligence. But you can't borrow from Creationism to flesh out your evolutionary theoretical construction. Evolution is all about randomness. It's only Creationism that is allowed to have intelligence already inside the cells of organisms. That's how a plant/tree can use very specific and finely tuned scents to call out to specific insects that feed on the insects that are attacking them in order to save themselves. How can a plant possibly know that it needs exactly that while simultaneously having the very complex inherent intelligence to be capable of speaking the scent language of the specific insect that feeds on the insects that are attacking it? There is only ONE answer. And it is absolutely NOT random evolution. It is God and it is absolutely brilliant intelligent design.
Most Evolutionists don't even consider the impossibilities. They just take it on faith and embrace anything their heroes like Hawking, Dawkins, Einstein, etc. seem to embrace. Yes, faith. Science is a religion as well; don't forget.
Also, can you explain what you actually believe about Australopithecus afarensis?Nice dodge.
That was a close one.
You almost had to think for yourself and formulate a very intelligent, organized response to explain an impossible scenario.
Evolution claims that complex life ... created itself ... from non-life ... in a swamp ... of gases and lifeless chemicals, etc.
Yeah, I'd dodge that explanation as well.
None of that has any bearing on the fact that evolution claims that the most complex sexual organisms, like humans, began from a state similar to what I described.Are you aware that organisms who reproduce both asexually and sexually exist?
Are you aware that organisms can function both as independent single cells and as cooperative colony organisms?
Are you aware that ecological synergy can vary greatly with how specific, precise and effective interactions function?
Even without the bizarre physical structures that are explained by step wise evolution and would indicate wasteful and foolish design, nature is not an example of perfect clockwork, it's actually kind of a complicated mess. That's why so many species have gone extinct over the eons.
Nice dodge.
That was a close one.
You almost had to think for yourself and formulate a very intelligent, organized response to explain an impossible scenario.
Evolution claims that complex life ... created itself ... from non-life ... in a swamp ... of gases and lifeless chemicals, etc.
Yeah, I'd dodge that explanation as well.
I'm a True Christian.Also, can you explain what you actually believe about Australopithecus afarensis?
Do you believe that all the different fossils are completely fake or just Lucy?
Do you believe that they were real animals, just less upright?
What do you believe about all the other transitional hominids?
None of that has any bearing on the fact that evolution claims that the most complex sexual organisms, like humans, began from a state similar to what I described.
So the process I described would've had to take place for the theory of evolution to be true. It can not; and it is not.
I don't play word games. This thread is about Creationism vs Evolution. Abiogenesis is fully in the evolutionism camp. It certainly isn't Creationism.Evolution doesn't claim any such thing. It only deals with life once it exists. The origins of life - in scientific terms - are dealt with by the field of abiogenesis.
There's no firm answer as to how the first life formed. We know that it happened at least 3.6 billion years ago (because we have evidence of microbes that old) and that the earliest life was much less complex than the life that exists at present.
We do know a number of things though:
Simple chemicals naturally form together to create complex chemicals
Complex chemicals naturally form together to create basic molecules
Basic molecules in the presence of energy gradients naturally form simple self-replicating molecules
Simple self-replicating molecules are not alive, but they show strong similarities to the processes seen in living things
Simple self-replicating molecules don't always replicate perfectly. Sometimes that imperfection results in something that is better at making copies of itself
CK12-FoundationThe diversity of life on Earth today is the result of evolution. Life began on Earth at least 3.5 to 4 billion years ago, and it has been evolving ever since. At first, all living things on Earth were simple, single-celled organisms.
Nice dodge.
That was a close one.
You almost had to think for yourself and formulate a very intelligent, organized response to explain an impossible scenario.
Evolution claims that complex life ... created itself ... from non-life ... in a swamp ... of gases and lifeless chemicals, etc.
Yeah, I'd dodge that explanation as well.
Oh it was quite clearly a dodge - and an embarrassing one at that. I asked you a direct question about the concept you are here supporting, that being evolution.Not a dodge in the least. You made a claim about C14 dating, and I asked you a question about *that*. I made no statements about evolution of any kind in response to any post of yours.
So do you want to understand the physics of C14 dating, or do you just insist on making claims based on what I assume is your ignorance.
Not actually true.None of that has any bearing on the fact that evolution claims that the most complex sexual organisms, like humans, began from a state similar to what I described.
So the process I described would've had to take place for the theory of evolution to be true. It can not; and it is not.
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?