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 was scientific in approach the reason he called his THEORY a theory. He also stated that if evidence proves him wrong the theory was wrong. That is objective. He would be appaled if around by how his theory has been presented as fact and with evidence like vertical stratification and fossilizing of trees through thousands even millions of years according to current theorization of layers of the earth itself would prove him wrong. A tree 30foot tall standing vertical would rot out totally within a hundred years if dead. Fossilization means absorption of minerals to replace dying matter or seal it in from outer air and water.
On stratification of trees, I have seen pictures of the inside of steel bunkers from WWI with long stalactite and stalagmite. Supposedly took millions of years to develop? Really?? Heck, if the mineral flow is rich stone cracked open revealed that stone developed around a pick axe head encasing it - wood rotted away quickly and rock formed. Less that 150 years old.
Remember the tales of millions of years to form diamonds but with coal, heat, and pressure man made diamonds form in minutes. How about oil taking millions of years to make? Heat, pressure, and decaying matter can make oil quickly. How about dinosaurs with soft tissue in them?
Darwin if not so pumped up an ego by others, would by observation and objectivity look at DNA which is the footprints of designed, harmonious, and created with programming in it to create it ---with awe and blatently declare that man and animals and even plants and trees prove him wrong, recognizing that all that exists was by design of the Creator he knew existed.
Darwin was scientific in approach the reason he called his THEORY a theory. He also stated that if evidence proves him wrong the theory was wrong. That is objective. He would be appaled if around by how his theory has been presented as fact ...
For some reason you clipped a "conversation" between myself and another poster that was (again for some reason) about "atheism". It was not relevant to the subject of the thread. If you care to stick around, just know that I feel no obligations to defend the claims of others who don't believe in god, nor to read their stuff, nor to justify not believing to others.So much for creative out of the box objectivity. The I am right and you are wrong attitude shows a closed mind.
Hmm. That might explain my chest...As a Christian and an engineering tech with scientific understanding evolution which means change is a fact. If people move from the equator to the north pole their bodies probably would adapt by growing a lot of hair that they do not need at the equator. Certain changes are reasonable to consider.
We could all read this when you posted the exact same text in the previous message 15 minutes earlier.Darwin was scientific in approach the reason he called his THEORY a theory. He also stated that if evidence proves him wrong the theory was wrong. That is objective. He would be appaled if around by how his theory has been presented as fact and with evidence like vertical stratification and fossilizing of trees through thousands even millions of years according to current theorization of layers of the earth itself would prove him wrong. A tree 30foot tall standing vertical would rot out totally within a hundred years if dead. Fossilization means absorption of minerals to replace dying matter or seal it in from outer air and water.
On stratification of trees, I have seen pictures of the inside of steel bunkers from WWI with long stalactite and stalagmite. Supposedly took millions of years to develop? Really?? Heck, if the mineral flow is rich stone cracked open revealed that stone developed around a pick axe head encasing it - wood rotted away quickly and rock formed. Less that 150 years old.
Remember the tales of millions of years to form diamonds but with coal, heat, and pressure man made diamonds form in minutes. How about oil taking millions of years to make? Heat, pressure, and decaying matter can make oil quickly. How about dinosaurs with soft tissue in them?
Darwin if not so pumped up an ego by others, would by observation and objectivity look at DNA which is the footprints of designed, harmonious, and created with programming in it to create it ---with awe and blatently declare that man and animals and even plants and trees prove him wrong, recognizing that all that exists was by design of the Creator he knew existed.
With modern understanding of life, DNA, and the complexity of the universe the concept of it creating itself and like coming from nothing is totally crazy to me. Believing what we want to believe rather than being objective and seeking understanding may temporarily fell like we are so superior and right pumping our egos. But reality will hit and we will eventually on earth or before God the Creator wake up.
They thought he was right because they could verify the observations he made that he based his theory on. That's still the way science works, BTW.I wonder too, if Darwin was around today and standing appalled, how he would feel about:
I think the point is, back in Darwin's time, there was no way to verify the accuracy of his work; and so it made even the scientists of his time think he was a genius of some kind.
- Being buried in a national cemetery.
- Having a capital named after him.
- Having his face on monetary currency.
- Being referred to as The Father of Evolution.
It's really a blast from the past. I haven't heard a creationist bring up polystrate fossiles for decades.There's a lot of nonsense in this post, specifically the gross confusion of what a theory means in science versus what a theory means in laymen terms, along with the strange commentary on stalagmites and stalactites that anyone knows do not need millions or even thousands or even hundreds of years to form.
They thought he was right because they could verify the observations he made that he based his theory on.
That's still the way science works, BTW.
It's really a blast from the past. I haven't heard a creationist bring up polystrate fossiles for decades.
It's one of the old chestnuts. It is almost as if none of these people have ever seen a flooded forest with the trunks of trees that have been in water for a few decades. (Fake lakes are good for this.)It's really a blast from the past. I haven't heard a creationist bring up polystrate fossiles for decades.
I wonder too, if Darwin was around today and standing appalled, how he would feel about:
I think the point is, back in Darwin's time, there was no way to verify the accuracy of his work; and so it made even the scientists of his time think he was a genius of some kind.
- Being buried in a national cemetery.
- Having a capital named after him.
- Having his face on monetary currency.
- Being referred to as The Father of Evolution.
Yes, there was no way to majorly verify what Darwin said in his time, but there was enough evidence to show that he was right, not the least that there's more than enough evidence that exists today that shows that he was correct.
So both you and dale are really SOL on saying he'd be appalled.
Though you guys do like speaking for the dead...
Interesting how Darwin is right, when people talk about how wrong he was; and Darwin is wrong, when people talk about how right he was.
Well I don't think he'd be doing some kind of victory dance.
Darwin repented on his death bed, six months before he was buried in a prominent cemetery.
Darwin made testable predictions which were testable back then, so I don't know where you're getting that idea from.I think the point is, back in Darwin's time, there was no way to verify the accuracy of his work; and so it made even the scientists of his time think he was a genius of some kind.
Here's some advice for you, AV...Yup -- just like Thalidomide was verified by its observations.
He stoops to concur.I concur!
This is almost the only scientific statement in your post, and it is incorrect. The Earth is 4540 ±20 million years old.The earth is of old but not millions of years old.
You are confusing relative ages with chronological ages. Geologists during the late 18th and the 19th centuries worked out the temporal succession of fossils on the principle that the fossils that were in the lowest rocks of an outcrop were the oldest and those in the highest rocks were the youngest. The relative ages were not based on the belief that simpler fossils were older and more complex fossils were younger.This I know, fossil-layer round robin thinking is totally errant. Specific fossils at x layer with each layer taking y time??? and then stated the date of the layers are based on what fossils are in them is circular logic - totally speculative.
Here's some advice for you, AV...
I mean...people used to think life started spontaneously. Put a crumb in a corner and it would turn into a mouse...Yup -- just like Thalidomide was verified by its observations.
No argument there.
But science is myopic and relies heavily on trial-and-error.
Errors can slip through the cracks of even the staunchest scientific scrutiny.
And it may take years and years before it's caught.
Did you know that Aristotle's science stumped the growth of science for two thousand years?
I'm not a creationist, so a lot of this terminology is very new to me.It's really a blast from the past. I haven't heard a creationist bring up polystrate fossiles for decades.
I wonder too, if Darwin was around today and standing appalled, how he would feel about:
I think the point is, back in Darwin's time, there was no way to verify the accuracy of his work; and so it made even the scientists of his time think he was a genius of some kind.
- Being buried in a national cemetery.
- Having a capital named after him.
- Having his face on monetary currency.
- Being referred to as The Father of Evolution.
14, apparently.Archaeopteryx is interesting in relation to the evolution of birds primarily as the first sight of a possible early stage in avian evolution. It is one of those missing links you are so fond of declaring don't exist. I think we have thus far found around a dozen examples of it,
Ah yes ... the fossil record. For all we know, only a tiny fraction of the organisms that have ever existed are recorded in the fossil record, which means the true history of life on earth could be very very different to what fossils suggest.Just so you know, here is a list of Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution:
- Miller-Urey experiment
- Darwin's tree of life
- Homology in vertebrate limbs
- Haeckel's embryos
- Archaeopteryx
- Peppered moth
- Darwin's finches
- Four-winged fruit flies
- Fossil horses
- Hominid evolution
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?