Originally Posted by Rafael
If we are so smart about life, someone make a so called simple single cell of life live.....
The newest mathematical theory tells us that the universe is composed of at least 10 dimensions......so which one are we going to say that God cannot inhabit when we only see three of them and experience the dimension of time which is variable? All things we see are made of the unseen, and time is different for any two by relativity, so what could we be missing in info. except for 99.999%?? There is so much we do not understand even about matter. HOw can we spout and brag about our big knowledge when in fact we know so little about even the basic elemetal powers - such as gravity. It is all fascinating and wonderful to explore, but it all just shows us how wonderful and beautiful our Creator is. He tells us that we will someday "know as we are know", and that a new heavens and earth will be created by Him and us....
Sounds like fun to me!!
I say: so what
this is in response to people making "claims against science" wic is an idea that is fundamentally impossible since science is a process.
Isotope dating is a mathematically constant process that can be proven by cross references. Carbon dating has been proven by dating carbon containing artefacts within historical times that have been documented historically. The long half-life isotopes have been proven by the very factual process of tectonic plate science. We know with 99.99% certainty that the Permian extinction 250 million years ago is dated by isotope decay (also in the Siberian Lava traps) verified by tectonic plate chronology of the movement of the continents to merge into Pangaea.
Also isotope dating is verified by pillow lava in Maritime Canada to Scandinavia, and Brazil to Cameroon. The Tectonic chronology (plate velocity divided into distance travelled) is remarkably consistent with the isotope dates.
Isotope dating is quite factual. If the fossil is still embedded in its substrate rock it's date is a fact. Rare exceptions occur if fossilized bones are eroded by water and roll downhill to lower levels. In such cases isotope dating of the seeming substrate is older than the fossil. But the fossil itself if tested is accurately dated by isotope decay rates.
The sites you quoted are Fundamentalist Propaganda sites set up to fight science. Their attacks are faulty, and they never offer an alternative explanation other then superstition.
_______________
finally here is an article for the heck of it...
Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: December 10, 2006
A surprisingly recent instance of human evolution has been detected among the peoples of East Africa. It is the ability to digest milk in adulthood, conferred by genetic changes that occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago, a team of geneticists has found.
...
People in different regions of the world have evolved independently since dispersing from the ancestral human population in northeast Africa 50,000 years ago, a process that has led to the emergence of different races. But much of this differentiation at the level of DNA may have led to the same physical result.
As Dr. Tishkoff has found in the case of lactose tolerance, evolution may use the different mutations available to it in each population to reach the same goal when each is subjected to the same selective pressure. “I think it’s reasonable to assume this will be a more general paradigm,” Dr. Pritchard said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/sc...rtner=homepage
Of course, it 'could' be 'recent' because it was so created by God in man!smile
As other scientists say:
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]
“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories,
and revolutionary theories,
and special creationist theories,
and even ahistorical theories.”
[David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis.
Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth.
They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance.
In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
[S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
If we are so smart about life, someone make a so called simple single cell of life live.....
The newest mathematical theory tells us that the universe is composed of at least 10 dimensions......so which one are we going to say that God cannot inhabit when we only see three of them and experience the dimension of time which is variable? All things we see are made of the unseen, and time is different for any two by relativity, so what could we be missing in info. except for 99.999%?? There is so much we do not understand even about matter. HOw can we spout and brag about our big knowledge when in fact we know so little about even the basic elemetal powers - such as gravity. It is all fascinating and wonderful to explore, but it all just shows us how wonderful and beautiful our Creator is. He tells us that we will someday "know as we are know", and that a new heavens and earth will be created by Him and us....
Sounds like fun to me!!
I say: so what
this is in response to people making "claims against science" wic is an idea that is fundamentally impossible since science is a process.
Isotope dating is a mathematically constant process that can be proven by cross references. Carbon dating has been proven by dating carbon containing artefacts within historical times that have been documented historically. The long half-life isotopes have been proven by the very factual process of tectonic plate science. We know with 99.99% certainty that the Permian extinction 250 million years ago is dated by isotope decay (also in the Siberian Lava traps) verified by tectonic plate chronology of the movement of the continents to merge into Pangaea.
Also isotope dating is verified by pillow lava in Maritime Canada to Scandinavia, and Brazil to Cameroon. The Tectonic chronology (plate velocity divided into distance travelled) is remarkably consistent with the isotope dates.
Isotope dating is quite factual. If the fossil is still embedded in its substrate rock it's date is a fact. Rare exceptions occur if fossilized bones are eroded by water and roll downhill to lower levels. In such cases isotope dating of the seeming substrate is older than the fossil. But the fossil itself if tested is accurately dated by isotope decay rates.
The sites you quoted are Fundamentalist Propaganda sites set up to fight science. Their attacks are faulty, and they never offer an alternative explanation other then superstition.
_______________
finally here is an article for the heck of it...
Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: December 10, 2006
A surprisingly recent instance of human evolution has been detected among the peoples of East Africa. It is the ability to digest milk in adulthood, conferred by genetic changes that occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago, a team of geneticists has found.
...
People in different regions of the world have evolved independently since dispersing from the ancestral human population in northeast Africa 50,000 years ago, a process that has led to the emergence of different races. But much of this differentiation at the level of DNA may have led to the same physical result.
As Dr. Tishkoff has found in the case of lactose tolerance, evolution may use the different mutations available to it in each population to reach the same goal when each is subjected to the same selective pressure. “I think it’s reasonable to assume this will be a more general paradigm,” Dr. Pritchard said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/sc...rtner=homepage
Of course, it 'could' be 'recent' because it was so created by God in man!smile
As other scientists say:
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]
“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories,
and revolutionary theories,
and special creationist theories,
and even ahistorical theories.”
[David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis.
Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth.
They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance.
In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
[S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
