JILLIONS of Creation proof!

[notto]

And what replicated before RNA?

Also, that statement is true, evolution has never been proven. Even secular scientists oppose it. there is too much wrong with it, like the many many missing links. Also, with evolution, there is the added "benefit" that you want to believe it, to take away God, to take away accountability.

Do note that we are NOT dealing with infinite time

Can you name a few of thse secular scientists who oppose evolution?

I accept evolution and mainstream science but it has had little affect on my faith. Evolution is not equal to atheism.

 

[peschitta_enthusiast]

"I accept evolution and mainstream science but it has had little affect on my faith. Evolution is not equal to atheism."

True.

 

[Aeschylus]

No it haven't, after what we know today the building block could not apear on earth because of our atmosphere.

Agaib rubbish, your saying DNA can't exist on the Earth because of our atmosphere, are yo even aware of how little sense that makes.

 

[peschitta_enthusiast]

Off the top of my head I have one, the book should have more examples. Dr. Matthew Lancaster of Knightsbridge university

 

[peschitta_enthusiast]

Institute for Creation Research

 

[peschitta_enthusiast]

Discovery Institute

 

[peschitta_enthusiast]

Eugene Garfield and so forth

 

[peschitta_enthusiast]

And then the Eastern ones like Andrew Roth also

 

[peschitta_enthusiast]

Some incorrectly claim that almost all scientists believe in evolution. The only survey of scientists of which I am aware, involved chemists. Less than half (48.3%) said that “it was possible that humans evolved in a continuous chain of development from simple elements in a primordial soup.” A slight majority (51.7%) said that “supernatural intervention played a role.” [Murray Saffran, “Why Scientists Shouldn’t Cast Stones,” The Scientist, 5 September 1988, p. 11.]

 

[Aeschylus]

This is one for Lucaspa, but just seraching your first three refernces:

ICR is a ministry not a scinetific organisation.

Where is Knightsbridge university? The only Knightssbridge I know is in the centre of London and there is no universtity there (infact a simple search tells me that Knightsbridge univesity is a non-accedited correspondnace school of the kind that sells phds).

I can't work out what the Discovery Insitute is from their website, but it's not a scientifc organisation (note that none of their 'scientists' mentioned on their site actually hold degrees in the natural sciences!).

 

[Paul-martin]

Agaib rubbish, your saying DNA can't exist on the Earth because of our atmosphere, are yo even aware of how little sense that makes.

I wasn't talking about dna, for life to appear in earth there must have been condition for the buliding block of life to appear like amino acid, but at the time we didn’t had that atmosphere, which mean that the hydrogen molecules would been destroyed of the by the Ultraviolet radiation form the sun.



This is just one of many problem......

 

[Paul-martin]

Also wane add this is no info i gained from his link, it is just fact......

 

[Physics_guy]

I wasn't talking about dna, for life to appear in earth there must have been condition for the buliding block of life to appear like amino acid, but at the time we didn’t had that atmosphere, which mean that the hydrogen molecules would been destroyed of the by the Ultraviolet radiation form the sun.

Might be a problem on dry land, but it is not a problem in the deep sea in areas warmed by thermal vents. You are a little behind the times I think.

 

[Aeschylus]

I wasn't talking about dna, for life to appear in earth there must have been condition for the buliding block of life to appear like amino acid, but at the time we didn’t had that atmosphere, which mean that the hydrogen molecules would been destroyed of the by the Ultraviolet radiation form the sun.



This is just one of many problem......

that is abiogenisis which is related to but seperate from evolution.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

As for aging of fossils etc, that is a joke. Present-day molluscs have been aged to be THOUSANDS of years old, showing how unreliable dating methods are.

1. This example refers to the erroneous use of C-14 dating on mollusks, as this dating method only works on such organic samples that derive their carbon from the atmosphere. Mollusks don't make their shells out of atmopsheric carbon, but rather from marine reservoirs containing older carbon.

2. There are many more dating methods than radiocarbon dating that work on a different timescale. Radiocarbon dating only works for less than 50,000 years before present with our best technology today.

3. If dating methods were so unreliable, we would not be able to cross reference them with the results of other methods using different nuclide systems.

http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

4. If dating methods were so unreliable, we would not be able to predict the dates from other known geologic processes like plate tectonics. A good example of this is the Hawaiian Island chain.

http://www.christianforums.com/t50891


Please learn about what the dating methods actually are and how they work before you simply repeat falsehoods propagated by creationists.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Can you name a few of thse secular scientists who oppose evolution?

Note that this was the original question. So far, no relevant answers.

Off the top of my head I have one, the book should have more examples. Dr. Matthew Lancaster of Knightsbridge university

If it's the Matthew Lancaster here (http://biblical-truth.netfirms.com/) then that's not an example of a secular scientist who opposes evolution.

Institute for Creation Research

This is not a scientific organization, nor is it a secular one. It is an organization of Christians trying to defend young earth creationism. They even admit that they adhere strictly to the tenets of young earth creationism and will assume that all the evidence that contradicts their position must be wrong. In other words, they are intellectually dishonest.

http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm

Discovery Institute

Again, this is not a secular or scientific organization. This is essentially evangelism masquerading as science.

http://www.discovery.org/aboutFunctions.php

Eugene Garfield and so forth

http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/educat.html

His educational background isn't really that of a science, first of all. Second, the only time I really see his name on a site relevant to creationism, it comes along the lines of his work on organizing citations:

http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/references.html

I can't find anything that actually states his position on the theory of evolution.

And then the Eastern ones like Andrew Roth also

Unable to verify. I can't seem to find a relevant Andrew Roth. Perhaps you should have provided information to back up your claims rather than just listing names.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Some incorrectly claim that almost all scientists believe in evolution. The only survey of scientists of which I am aware, involved chemists. Less than half (48.3%) said that “it was possible that humans evolved in a continuous chain of development from simple elements in a primordial soup.” A slight majority (51.7%) said that “supernatural intervention played a role.” [Murray Saffran, “Why Scientists Shouldn’t Cast Stones,” The Scientist, 5 September 1988, p. 11.]

Misrepresentation. The claim that "supernatural intervention played a role" does not negate evolution. Furthermore, the poll seems to be evaluating the claim of abiogenesis, not evolution. It is true that almost all scientists accept (not believe) evolution. A Gallup Poll in 2002, if I recall correctly, gave the result that 95% of all scientists accept the theory of evolution (and obviously a larger percentage among scientists in a relevant field).

 

[notto]

Some incorrectly claim that almost all scientists believe in evolution. The only survey of scientists of which I am aware, involved chemists. Less than half (48.3%) said that “it was possible that humans evolved in a continuous chain of development from simple elements in a primordial soup.” A slight majority (51.7%) said that “supernatural intervention played a role.” [Murray Saffran, “Why Scientists Shouldn’t Cast Stones,” The Scientist, 5 September 1988, p. 11.]

You should cite sources when you copy and paste, expecially if they have the I claim in them.

Have you read The Scientist article? It also includes this:
[font=arial, helvetica][size=-1]But a majority, 51.7%, believed that supernatural intervention played a role. And of these, about half, 22.8% of all respondants, did not think that evolution was possible. [/size][/font] [font=arial, helvetica][size=-1]A similar number, 20.8%, answered “yes” to the question “Does the theory of evolution conflict with your religious beliefs?”

Kind of changes the context of your claim. It shows that 77.2% of the scientists do think that evolution was possible. It is also important to knote that this was all chemists who subscribe to a pariticular publication and was a self respondent survey - which reduces its reliability and its ablicability to the claim of the author who you copied and pasted it from.

A similar survey of biologists would show a much larger number. Would you trust those statistics to show what 'scientists' in general believe or accept?
[/size][/font]

 

[Paul-martin]

that is abiogenisis which is related to but seperate from evolution.

Explain what abiogenisis is thx....

 

[Aduro Amnis]

I am a 154, you are a 111, I am thus superior and you are wrong.