Thats correct. We discover mathematics, we don't just make it up. Like we discover God, when he reveals himself to us, we don't just make Him up.
Did Darwin discover evolution? Or did he just make it up. I say he made it up. Upon reading his Origins of species, it's clear he had a fairly good imagination. Some of the stuff he observed was greatly detailed but its like reading a travelogue. No science to be found there, just lots of observations and theorizing. This is what fiction writers do, when they are trying to tell a story.
Mendel however discovered genetics. He tested it and found it to be true. Then the neo-Darwinists hijacked Mendels discovery to suggest Darwin's theory Of Evolution through natural selection from simple forms to complex is true. But Mendels laws don't show this. They only show heredity and common ancestry ie. for that genotype. . The overall genetic information is called the Genome, and different species will have a genome that is shared with their own species that is carried down (lineage). That we are closely related to the chimp but the telomeres are fused doesn't mean we are related linearly or even have a common ancestor. It just means we have many genes in common (obviously we look the most similar). Our original ancestors were Adam and Eve..just like a chimps were the first two of each kind (male and female), and every other kind of animal. Obviously there has been divergence and variation since then due to migration and being fruitful and multiplying. Obviously some animals have become extinct since the days of creation.
Originally Posted by
Goodbook
walkingx, Nowhere do I say science and religion cannot co-exist. It does. Stop misquoting everything I say. I am saying Darwins evolutionary theory is incompatible with creationism, with the Bible, and with what we actually observe.
No, you said evolution was incompatable with Christianity. That's Falsehood #1.
er..what are you talking about? Same thing. It is incompatable, and I maintain evolutionary theory isn't science.
Originally Posted by
Goodbook
Darwin was not a christian, did not believe God, or in the Bible. He was a nominal christian, even went in for Holy orders. But you can't be a christian if you do not believe on Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ being God illuminates and fulfils all the scriptures. the gospel according to John says In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, without him ws not anything made that was made.
So, Darwin was not a Christian, but he was a nominal Christian. That's falsehood #2.
No it's correct. As the letter below proves!
Originally Posted by
Goodbook
Now I was talking about genetic variation, not adaptation. Again you are confusing the issue with evolutionary terms that you are trying to use when REAL scientists use genetic terms.
REAL scientists use both genetic and evolutionary terms. That's falsehood #3!
Hmm lets see if TOE is used by real scientists if we ask them to test the theory using the 'law' of natural selection (oh we can't, because species evolve into other species gradually over billions of years) or..perhaps by using Mendels methods of inheritance by breeding, and we see variation within species.
Originally Posted by
Goodbook
The mutations that you might see as adaptation are not actually evidence for adaptation. You might want to study a bit further about just how these mutations aren't actually all that adaptive and neither do they contain any NEW information which is what you would need to 'evolve' from one species to another if you subscribe to TOE.
Define "new information." Let's see if you can do better than your lack of response to my earlier question concerning what a "completelty different" species is.
This isn't to test my knowledge. Lets test yours. You define what "new information" is. After reading the Origin of Species, even Darwin doesn't actually know and can't define the difference between variation and species.
Originally Posted by
Goodbook
Ok Apes. Yes we come under the category of apes, if you think according to one system of nomenclature.
Thank you for agreeing for once.
Originally Posted by
Goodbook
Adam had all the DNA from the beginning and so did Eve.
Really? How did he fit all that DNA into two sets of chromosomes? I already asked that once and you have not answered my question.
Huh? This shows your evolutionist indoctrination. All the human DNA required for humans. Every other ancestor of every living thing had their DNA as well. And this gets passed down to their desecendants.
Originally Posted by
Goodbook
If it were, then how do you explain all the plagiarism and lies and hoaxes and frauds within evolutionary field? Haekel, Piltdown man, to name but a few.
Just to name a few? You just named all of them... two!
the archeorapter discoverers, the Pepper moth 'study', Lucy's bones made to suggest she walked upright..Java Man, Nebraska Man, the speculative science called the Vestiges of Natural History of Creation porported to be scientific but just another popularising polemic of evolution.
Originally Posted by
Goodbook
This is from the letter from darwin where I got this quote:
Ilkley Wells, Yorkshire,
November 23 [1859].
My dear Lyell,
[Page 25]
side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up,
is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a
parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so
many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a
cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may
not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally
impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be
wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criticisms,
which, if there be a second edition, I will attend to. I have been
thinking that if I am much execrated as an atheist, etc., whether the
admission of the doctrine of natural selection could injure your
works; but I hope and think not, for as far as I can remember, the
virulence of bigotry is expended on the first offender, and those who
adopt his views are only pitied as deluded, by the wise and cheerful
bigots.
It shows he had doubts about his theory, but since Lyell and Hooker go along with him, he feels it's ok, he's got friends in high places among scientists.
You claimed he has
come to believe his theory was a fantasy, not that he has some doubts, as we all do. That is falsehood #4!
Same difference. When someone doubts, they think 'what if this is just not true, a fantasy?'. Get over your semantics. You are so literal minded it's absurd. That is why atheists cannot understand the meaning of the Bible. They can't figure out what is literal and what is figurative and spiritual and just assume everything is completely literal.
Originally Posted by
Goodbook
But Lyell has already been debunked in another thread. I won't go into it here, suffice to say many geologists no longer subscribe to his theory of uniformatism, of which Darwin tried to use as support for his own theory.
Geologists still use uniformitarianism. That is falsehood #5.
I said Many, so of course some still use it. Yes just like biologists still use darwin's evolutionary theory even though it has shown to be inadequate.
Originally Posted by
Goodbook
Scientific racism? haven't heard of the Holocaust by any chance? How Hitler used Darwins' evolutionary theory to argue for its justification? No? Try Studying a bit of history.
Hitler was also a Christian doing the work of Jesus in exterminating the Jews.
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
Maybe you should try "studying a bit of history."
Oh really? Maybe you should also study the Bible. According to the Bible, Hitler clearly wasn't a Christian. Jesus claimed many shall come and do things in his name and there are many false prophets and teachers but are really wolves in sheeps clothing, he says we shall know them by their fruits. Meaning, we know who is a christian by their deeds and actions, for faith without works is dead. Jesus never exterminated the Jews, he never killed anyone. He wasn't a physical fighter at all. He fought a spiritual battle. He cared for others and spoke with authority. Jesus drove out the money changers from the temple, but wasn't against Jews for he came to save all those in the house of Israel who would believe in him. If he was against Jews he would have been against himself for guess what? Jesus was a Jew. And as Christians if anyone cheats us..we let him have the clothes of our back, we turn the other cheek. So its pretty clear Hitler wasn't a christian but just claimed to be one. Look up eugenics and how Hitler used Darwins theory based on reading the On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Have you read it? Darwin is racist in the extreme.
I suppose if one ignores all the fossil, molecular and genetic evidence it's a "just so story", but I'll bet my hiccoughs, epiglottus and ear bones that theropod evolution is correct.
