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.
So I take it nobody is still clinging to Darwinism ToE because of molecular biology?
Almost like taking half a step toward creation theory. Like how many evolutionists have now chosen to remain agnostic on the actual origin of life, and will try to dodge the issue by claiming that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
Because life seems to be a miracle.
I would appreciate it if you responded to my post, in which I argued to the contrary.I guess most of what I posted stands anyway.
Please! True science is good. Only evil is the pretence that science is always checking itself within itself, when no one likes to be wrong, even scientists. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment,
and the origin of life remains a mystery?
Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
Anthony Flew:What age were you when you decided to be a creationist?
and what convinced you that creationism was right for you?
what convinced you that creationism was right for you?
Ex-Athiest / Evolutionist testimonyand what convinced you that creationism was right for you?
and what convinced you that creationism was right for you?
They don't discuss it because this isn't true. There are no mammals, fish, reptiles, ect found during the 5+ million yr "explosion".Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
The real fact that emerges from examination of the fossil record is that living things emerged in the periods most suitable for them. God has designed all creatures superbly, and has made them well-suited to meet their needs at the times when they emerged on the Earth.They don't discuss it because this isn't true. There are no mammals, fish, reptiles, ect found during the 5+ million yr "explosion".
The real fact that emerges from examination of the fossil record is that living things emerged in the periods most suitable for them. God has designed all creatures superbly, and has made them well-suited to meet their needs at the times when they emerged on the Earth.
This to me has more eveidence for my belief in the gap theory. IMO
You forgot that evolution can add parts but also change parts or remove parts. If something is irreducibly complex, perhaps that's because all the unnecessary bits already got weeded out?In recent years, biologists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells - complex circuits, sliding clamps, energy-generating turbines and miniature machines. For example, bacterial cells are propelled by rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at 100,000rpm. These engines look like they were designed by engineers, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins), including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints and drive shafts.
The biochemist Michael Behe points out that the flagellar motor depends on the co-ordinated function of 30 protein parts. Remove one of these proteins and the rotary motor doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's words, "irreducibly complex".
This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages as they arise by random mutation. Yet the flagellar motor does not function unless all its 30 parts are present. Thus, natural selection can "select" the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it cannot produce the motor in a step-by-step Darwinian fashion.
Natural selection purportedly builds complex systems from simpler structures by preserving a series of intermediates, each of which must perform some function. With the flagellar motor, most of the critical intermediate structures perform no function for selection to preserve. This leaves the origin of the flagellar motor unexplained by the mechanism - natural selection - that Darwin specifically proposed to replace the design hypothesis.
Is there a better explanation? Based on our uniform experience, we know of only one type of cause that produces irreducibly complex systems: intelligence. Whenever we encounter complex systems - whether integrated circuits or internal combustion engines - and we know how they arose, invariably a designing intelligence played a role.
For Dal M. http://www.podomatic.com/people/index/intelligentdesign
IMO it's both.
I was using tautology to describe a statement that was true merely by virtue of saying the same thing twice.
Can you prove evolution true?
Blind mechanisms like Darwinian evolution cannot explain life.
Are there many textbook frauds still in our current study materials today?
Do science professors/teachers get fired or denied tenure for discussing or teaching alternatives to the strictly enforced dogma known as evolution?
Are the enforcers of the evolution dogma scared to have truthful discussions of the weakness in the theory itself?
Do we still have a truthful discussion about evolution today or is it brainwashing?
Is there Irreducible Complexity or Specified Complexity?
Are we allowed by the higher authorities to question the icons or theories weakness of said religious dogma.of natural selection or chance mutation as all there is?
Chance and necessity cannot generate Specified Complexity, or information.
What's wrong with truthful science?
"ID may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. "
How else can we get true science back in public school?
The Future Teachers Conditional Scholarship and Loan Repayment program is designed to encourage outstanding students and paraprofessionals to become teachers, and to encourage current teachers to obtain additional endorsements in teacher shortage subjects.
To be eligible for this program, you must meet the following criteria:
Be a resident student of Washington state;
Plan to complete an approved program leading to a residency teacher certificate or an additional shortage subject endorsement;
Plan to be employed as a certificated classroom teacher in Washington K-12 public schools;
Plan to attend an eligible college at least half-time;
You must not be pursuing or planning to pursue a degree in theology;
Submit a complete application to us by the October 12, 2007 deadline.
RichardT, does this mean that you believe in evolution?When I got saved when I was 15 years old, I knew that evolution was not compatible with the bible. I was automatically an Old Earth Creationist.
The bible tells me that the sun goes around the earth, and that the earth doesn't move.
Scripture doesn't tell us that we are the center of the universe, but it does tell us that the earth doesn't move and that the sun goes around the earth. He would do this because the bible says so, and the bible is meant to be truthful. I take it as a priori.
Having to admit defeat and state that earth centered system is simply some useless non-inertial reference frame, where the earth would still orbit the sun would make me feel like a biblical skeptic, that is off limits to me. I believe the bible.
So how can evolution be correct? OT has an approx. timeline from creation which has been interpreted to mean that the earth is around 6,000 years old. This is tottaly incompatable with modern science, so how an the bible be correct?Wasn't that what my thread was about in the first place? I've told you why I believed in Geocentricity before. Bible says sun goes around earth.
This pretty much sums it up: automatically. I think everyone I've known who has thought themselves to be a creationist (very few and even then only temporarily) has done so automatically. That is, without knowledge on the subject and just assuming it's what they had to say in order to be a real Christan.When I got saved when I was 15 years old, I knew that evolution was not compatible with the bible. I was automatically an Old Earth Creationist
The no theology students is because governmental aid is not available for religion studies in general, this is due to the establishment clause interpretations, it has nothing to do with keeping religious people out of teaching.I completely agree with you, taking a degree in theology should not be a reason to stop someone
applying for a job in teaching.
I think all children should be taught about the religions of the world,
Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism, every religion should be taught, I know it won't leave much time for
other subjects, but at least their souls will be well catered for, and no religion should be left out,
in this multi race world it's only fair that we should give our kids every chance to pick a religion they like and want,
and it will also give them an insight into other cultures, it will open their horizons,
well it will open their religious horizons, they we be as dumb as can be, but their God will love them.
Could you please hold off doing it for another 5 or 10 years,
it won't bother me so much then, and my grand children will be grown up.
Intelligent design is an illusion. Things look too complicate to have arisen by chance because if chance alone was responsible, we wouldn't be here to discuss it.In recent years, biologists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells - complex circuits, sliding clamps, energy-generating turbines and miniature machines. For example, bacterial cells are propelled by rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at 100,000rpm. These engines look like they were designed by engineers, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins), including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints and drive shafts.
The biochemist Michael Behe points out that the flagellar motor depends on the co-ordinated function of 30 protein parts. Remove one of these proteins and the rotary motor doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's words, "irreducibly complex".
This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages as they arise by random mutation. Yet the flagellar motor does not function unless all its 30 parts are present. Thus, natural selection can "select" the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it cannot produce the motor in a step-by-step Darwinian fashion.
Natural selection purportedly builds complex systems from simpler structures by preserving a series of intermediates, each of which must perform some function. With the flagellar motor, most of the critical intermediate structures perform no function for selection to preserve. This leaves the origin of the flagellar motor unexplained by the mechanism - natural selection - that Darwin specifically proposed to replace the design hypothesis.
Is there a better explanation? Based on our uniform experience, we know of only one type of cause that produces irreducibly complex systems: intelligence. Whenever we encounter complex systems - whether integrated circuits or internal combustion engines - and we know how they arose, invariably a designing intelligence played a role.
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?