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.
evolutionists have assumed that coal was formed over long periods of time but laboratory tests have proven that coalification of wood can start to happen within a month of pressure and heat being applied to the wood.
Petrified trees have been found projecting upright through multiple layers of strata, supposedly representing millions of years of sediment deposits. Impossible for these trees to have survived that long to be slowly covered over.
Consider this little scenario....
An organism early in the evolutionary model mutates successfully (even though this goes against natures observable pattern of eliminating mutations) after thousands or even millions of reproduction cycles over a long stretch of time. This mutated "new" organism then has to reproduce itself with this new mutated coding in it's DNA. Considering the millions of times it supposedly took for the initial mutation to occur in the first place, do you think all of a sudden this newly mutated organism miraculously began reproducing successfully? And how did this model fare when it required two organisms to procreate to reproduce? How long a time or is it statistically possible for tow identical mutations to occur so they can now produce this newly formed organism? Then consider that this seemingly impossible feat had to be repeated again and again for each mutation to evolve into something completely different to the point that you have millions of different genomes and families of animals, plants and minerals today.
Seems like a fairy tale to me, but I'm more practically minded than some....
How about the commonly held belief that the arctic cap ice is millions of years old based on the layering of the ice and being able to counts the "rings" to determine age.
Sounded good until a WWII squadron of 8 planes was left on a glacier in Greenland and when discovered 70 years later, was buried under 270 feet of ice.
Are you going to provide specious adaptation as your examples? Not exactly mutatations necessary for the transformation from one genome to another.
I would ask you if the mutated organism mating with one that is not, would reproduce that mutation in the subsequent generations? If not then you fall back to square one and have to wait for that same mutation to appear.
Lets be clear here, I'm not referring to specious adaptation but the kind of mutations that would cause a water living organism to change into one that can breath terrestrially, as an example.
Let's use examples to flesh this out. An aquatic organism mutates to enable terrestrial breathing... if this organism mated with another aquatic organism, would the offspring receive that mutation, thereby encoding it into the DNA?
The only evidence I could find of observable mutation recurring is in genetic defects that cause regression of the species... genetic defects. Affirming the 2nd law of thermal dynamics.
What mechanism, in your understanding, all of a sudden caused the inability of all the different kinds of the earth to not be able to procreate successfully. If they are but one mutation from another kind, then procreation would, at least in some instances, be possible... but this is not so.
There is zero evidence in nature or in the fossil record of one genus, family, order, class, phylum or kingdom ever mutating into another. Without this evidence, all you are left with is adaptation within a species... hardly evolution of a creative account.
How can Creationism be falsified?
What testable models, claims do Creationists make?
Maybe this one?
Petrified trees have been found projecting upright through multiple layers of strata, supposedly representing millions of years of sediment deposits. Impossible for these trees to have survived that long to be slowly covered over.
Not without being forgiven ... right?I think we can safely conclude - and I know this will come as a major surprise to some - that nobody here is prepared to defend creationism against science.
Denying evidence instead of refuting it does not qualify as "all have been found false"
I recommend Robert Gentry's polonium halos in granite as one example where he has specifically asked for it to be scientifically falsified and no one has been able to since 1973.
Science and the Bible go hand in hand. You need science to verify the Bible and you need the Bible to verify science. The Bible is a written history book that began when recorded history began. Usually in school you have a science class, a ancient history class and a Bible Study Class. These three classes do not conflict in anyway with each other. They agree and compliment each other.How can Creationism be falsified?
What testable models, claims do Creationists make?
Yes. Well known fact that Hindus can't science because they don't use the Bible.Science and the Bible go hand in hand. You need science to verify the Bible and you need the Bible to verify science. The Bible is a written history book that began when recorded history began. Usually in school you have a science class, a ancient history class and a Bible Study Class. These three classes do not conflict in anyway with each other. They agree and compliment each other.
Maybe not to you but geologists would disagree...
Usually in school you have a science class, a ancient history class and a Bible Study Class
These three classes do not conflict in anyway with each other
Maybe not to you but geologists would disagree...
Show me the conflict between science and the Bible. You are right in that if you find a conflict it is only in your mind, not in the real world.Only in the minds of those who already believe it.
Show me the conflict between science and the Bible. You are right in that if you find a conflict it is only in your mind, not in the real world.
Show me the conflict between science and the Bible. You are right in that if you find a conflict it is only in your mind, not in the real world.
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?