juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes, I know as much science as "they" do.
And I do think I know much more science than you do.
Upvote
0
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.
I don't understand how you can say, Juvenissun, that biological evolution is far, far, far from being a scientific theory, when that is precisely how it is defined in the community of scientists? Do you know more about science than they do? In point of fact, you are nowhere near qualified to decide what is science and what not or dictate to scientists what they are doing or should assume they are doing. So get off your high horse. Next, I don't follow you about the rock and the zoo. Are you trying to say we can't observe a dog turning into another species? If so, I suggest you read about the fox project. Since about 1950, Russian scientists have been working to turn foxes into dogs. So far, the results are impressive, though there is still a long ways to go. So, yes, long-term laboratory studies are being done on evolution, but they are long-term. Bacteria are a different story. Bacteria can go through thousands of generations is just a few months. more than one lab study has demonstrated evolution in bacteria. In science, the laws of nature do not stop at your stove, so you can well bet if this holds for bacteria, it also holds for all other organisms.
For those who enjoyed the first two DVD's of Spike Psarris's series on astronomy, there's great news - Volume 3, "Our Created Universe" has just been released and is available online (I've just ordered my copy, but demand is likely to be very high). Here's a summary of the conclusions from Volume 1, "Our Created Solar System" concerning problems with explaining the origin of the solar system without a Creator and before anyone says anything about his use of the term "evolution" in astronomy, as Spike explains, he's just using the term in the same way that many secular media have done:-
WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT MERCURY
Evolution says it can’t be dense, but it is.
Evolution says it can’t have a magnetic field, but it does.
Volatile elements discredit the solar nebula model.
Magnetism and geological activity make it look young.
WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT VENUS
It should have lots of similarities to earth, but it doesn’t.
Even evolutionists admit that its surface is young.
It’s consistent with a young solar system.
WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT EARTH
It shouldn’t have any water, but it has huge amounts, enough to cover the entire surface to a depth of over a mile if the earth’s surface were flat.
Its magnetic field is young.
WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT THE MOON
Evolution can’t explain its origin.
Evolution can’t explain its geology or ghost craters.
Evolution can’t explain its recession.
WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT MARS
Liquid water is not possible on Mars.
Global flood on Mars but none on earth?
WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT JUPITER
According to evolution, it can’t be made up of what it’s made up of.
No planetesimals were available to build Jupiter.
WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT JUPITER’S MOONS
Ganymede should have a magnetic field, but it doesn’t.
Callisto shouldn’t be geologically active, but it is.
Europa disproves long-age crater counting.
IO looks young.
WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT SATURN AND ITS MOONS
The migration problem.
Saturn’s magnetic field doesn’t match evolutionary theories.
Enceladus is young.
Titan is young.
WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT URANUS AND ITS MOONS
Evolution says it shouldn’t be rotating sideways, but it is.
Evolution says it shouldn’t have a magnetic field, but it does.
Evolution implies it should be radiating energy, but it isn’t.
Miranda is a mystery for evolutionary models.
WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT NEPTUNE
It looks young – not billions of years old.
Its magnetism defies evolution.
According to evolution, it can’t be there at all!
PROBLEMS FOR THE OORT CLOUD THEORY
It’s never been seen.
Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud: its properties; its origin; its evolution. Yet there is not a shred of direct, observational evidence for its existence.
WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT COMETS AND TNO’S
TNO’s look young, not old.
Comets contradict the evolutionary model.
Short-period comets shouldn’t be here if the solar system were really billions of years old.
Some disagreement of whether Homo neanderthalensis, or directly from Homo heidelbergensis. But either version is close enough for our purpose. Neither is remotely close to a monkey.I do not want to push this. But I want you to learn: If not monkey, what is it? Spell out the species name and explicitly say that it evolved into human.
If true, why so adamant that evolution claims monkeys evolved into human? That doesn't sound like you know science at all.Yes, I know as much science as "they" do.
And I do think I know much more science than you do.
"Evolution" is a common term in astronomy:What in the world, does evolution have to do with planets?
The theory of evolution, says NOTHING about astronomy.
Seems you have a need to try and deny evolution and this is a big fail.
He didnt say "biological" evolution .Evolution is a common term in many things.
Biological evolution is specific.
He didnt say "biological" evolution .
Hmmm. OK. I guess youre right.What did the OP mean by "evolutionists", in quoting him below?
"WHAT YOU AREN’T BEING TOLD ABOUT VENUS
It should have lots of similarities to earth, but it doesn’t.
Even evolutionists admit that its surface is young.
It’s consistent with a young solar system."
Yes, I know as much science as "they" do.
And I do think I know much more science than you do.
Nope - that's not what he said at all.
Monkeys did not evolve into humans. Humans and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor.
Planetary EvolutionWhat in the world, does evolution have to do with planets?
You are quite right. I have rejected God as a possible explanation for physical phenomena, and have never regretted it; in many years of studying astronomy, I have yet to find a phenomenon that has failed to yield, at least in part, to natural explanation. In my experience, bringing in the supernatural merely leads to confusion.
Some disagreement of whether Homo neanderthalensis, or directly from Homo heidelbergensis. But either version is close enough for our purpose. Neither is remotely close to a monkey.
We have not yet discovered the common ancestor, Juvinessun. However, it is a sound logical inference from what we do know.
Out of those, while a lot of people use the word "evolution" in this way, it's usually a colloquial shorthand for something else. For example, "organic evolution" isn't actually a thing. The proper term is "abiogenesis". Likewise, "stellar evolution" is a colloquialism often used when someone discusses Stellar Formation. Stars are individual objects - they do not evolve in a scientific Theory of Evolution sort of way. And I've never even heard of someone talking about "chemical evolution". That makes pretty much no sense to me. Chemicals and elements don't evolve, they combine or break down. And "cosmic evolution" is just Cosmology.
Which kind of just leaves the last two. Both of which are contained in the Scientific Theory of Evolution.
-J
OK, let's just take one of those. So-called 'chemical evolution'
I assume you mean the process where lighter elements such as hydrogen can be fused to form heavier elements? Yes?
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?