I still think this link by The Cadet was the most useful link posted to this thread as it relates to the reason that "scientists" aren't ever going to accept YEC.
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.
Not Alfven, I assure you. Care to demonstrate that your erroneous statement applies to Einstein and GR theory, or Alfven and MHD theory?.
I have studied history which is why I know that you're whistling Dixie with respect to GR theory and MHD theory.
Are you questioning my honesty again???
Furthermore the idea that anyone who holds to a literal genesis one interpretation has to hide in a closet on a christian forum is perhaps your stupidest insinuation ever
Hey Lorica before you go and in keeping with the thread title - there are a number of things perculating in science now that are possible and even likely to have a bearing on the thread title. Most of them Darwinist in the know go into a frenzy over when you mention them (or try to brush off like they are nothing to cover them up). I thought maybe if you didn't know about them then I'd bring them up for you to watch in the future. First is HGT is which causing quiet a stir every now and again
HOrizontal Gene transfer is destroying the idea that genes are always inherited from a close related species .literally genetic transfers can take place form unrelated species (occassionally you will get some Darwinian complaining that they are all related but thats based on their circular reasoning). How often this happens was questionable but it now appears its pretty wide spread. the potential wide spread impact of this is that if you find genes between humans and Chimpanzess they no longer have to be a result of inheritance but merely ab HGT event where genetic material tranferred from a human to a chimpanzee with no relationship. Serious issues arise to the Darwinists whole tree of life mumbo jumbo
Molecular convergence is another - we've already seen the games played with convergence. At last count due to the facts just not aligning for them they now have to claim that the eye evolved scores if not hundreds of times independently. Its getting worse because the claim then was that niches were finding the same solutions to issues or just happening upn them due to various factors. What wasn't suppose to happen was that the near same genetic composition of these solutions would be found in very distantly related species. Thats whats beginning to show up. SO we not only have the unlikeliness that "nature" would just over and over find themselves with the same "solutions" but now its more than the solutions its the near exact genetic composition. the more this keeps showing up the higher the odds go against them being accidental or merely a result of common evolution
finally to keep it short there is Epigenetics which as the name implies is whats happening outside of the genome. to make it simple we'll say this refers to how and species can actually change not in respect to mutations during inheritance but by environmental cues. Turns out life is designed to adapt and change in respect to the environment and surprisingly genetic changes can take place because of external cues; Some are even seeing this as a return to a discredited idea - lamarckianism
http://www.realclearscience.com/blo...e_over_epigenetics__lamarckian_evolution.html
this has sweeping repercussions even for the fossil record basically changes can take place rapidly as the species adopts to changing environments not because of mutation but because of changes in gene expression that are programmed in
anyway three things to keep an eye out for
Oh and the fourth - major scientists are abandoning the idea that natural selection is the main driving force in Evolution. Thats been underway for years but Darwinist in the know just pretend like the public has not been fed that it was a key and major driving force
And the strawman machine jsut keeps marching on. You really are a wonder of silliness to behold you quote me saying "most all" ignore the most and then claim I was stating simply all. care to get a dictionary? You need it badly.
Thanks! I am indeed new to the concepts of HGT and molecular convergence and will have to study up on them. I have already seen plenty of evidence, though, that natural selection and mutations no way lead to evolution. Of course nothing leads to evolution. It's a religion, not science.
No, that's really not what he showed - for two important reasons:Pasteur showed that life has to come from life.
That is (probably) true of the world today, but not necessarily true of the early Earth; it was very different then. If you try to make a recipe with different ingredients, you'll get different results. That's why scientists are experimenting to see what happens under those conditions - and what they've found is more encouraging than discouraging.The Law of Biogenesis tells us that life only comes from life. Flies don't spontaneous generate from dead meat. Life can't spontaneously generate from some mythical primal pond or whatever. Life comes from life. And btw 100% of the times we see that it comes from life of the same kind.
This is just the argument from incredulity writ large. Lots of things happened then that don't happen now, and vice-versa; it's not a reasonable argument.You think abiogenesis is possible? That takes a lot of....faith. Sorry, I don't have enough faith to believe that in the misty murky conveniently invisible "billions of years ago" somehow, some way - though we've never seen any such thing happen ever - some chemicals arranged themselves into living material. It doesn't happen now.
I cited two specific scientific theories that are typically used to describe the universe and/or it's origin. Neither theory was started by someone who A) believed in Genesis, or B) supported a literal interpretation of Genesis. That fact you can find "some" that happened to agree with you isn't a demonstration of "most" in the first place.
LOL
A) he finds TWO scientists and claims to have debunked the concept of most
B) he can't read a lick since i said founders of science not founders of any theory in science
C) clearly he has no sense of the difference between all and most
The fact that practically every science was established by people who held creationist views rebuts your nonsense claim.
Thanks! I am indeed new to the concepts of HGT and molecular convergence and will have to study up on them.
GR theory was established by Einstein and it's the prevailing theory of the makeup of the universe. .
Yawn ....poor soul quotes me saying science then changes it to theory. A theory is not properly a science by itself (the simple things you have to explain to poor mike)
Biology is a science
MikeEnders - P.S. Do you think there is anything derogatory or insulting in calling someone an evo fan or evo devotee? I don't mind a bit if you say Yes.
No, that's really not what he showed - for two important reasons:
Firstly he was testing the commonly held (and erroneous) belief that microbial life was spontaneously generated in dead matter (a nutrient broth of his own devising). He showed that if he allowed contamination in, life appeared, but he didn't see it if he kept the broth sterile.
We know his conclusions were correct, but his experiments were not a rigorous scientific test of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, they were actually a far more rigorous test that there are living organisms in the air. That he failed to produce spontaneous generation was not, in itself, a proof that it couldn't happen - anymore than failing to get your meringue to rise is a proof that meringues can't rise (it's like the 'No black swans' idea, no matter how many white swans you see, it doesn't prove that there are no black swans). It's the problem of induction, as Karl Popper explained with his falsifiability criterion.
Secondly, he wasn't testing abiogenesis, the idea that life could have originated on the early Earth. He couldn't have done that if he'd wanted; he didn't know the conditions on the early Earth, nor did he have the means to detect the putative earliest life. The environmental conditions on the early Earth at the time the first life is thought to have appeared, are very different to those of our or Pasteur's time, and the candidate environments being considered today are unlike anything that Pasteur experimented with. The microorganisms that clouded his broth probably wouldn't survive in those environments, and the earliest life probably wouldn't have survived in his nutrient broth.
That is (probably) true of the world today, but not necessarily true of the early Earth; it was very different then. If you try to make a recipe with different ingredients, you'll get different results. That's why scientists are experimenting to see what happens under those conditions - and what they've found is more encouraging than discouraging.
This is just the argument from incredulity writ large. Lots of things happened then that don't happen now, and vice-versa; it's not a reasonable argument.
You have shown you are the FAR superior person in character by admitting without condition making a mistake even though they attempted to make it into a fallacy it never was. Don't even make it be a bubble in your well of serenity
Er, can you even demonstrate that "most" biologist are YEC Christians? Ditto for anything else on your list.
The fact that practically every science was established by people who held creationist views rebuts your nonsense claim.
Apparently you've got a supercharger running under the hood of your moving goalposts now.
FYI, I think you're up a creek without a paddle if you're trying to claim that QM was founded by a YEC proponent:
Thanks again!Of course not. Ignore Mike's noise. If someone is devoted to something the why should it be an insult to say theya re devoted to it.If someone says you are a creationist devotee why should I get my back up and cal it insulting? I could just as well say I am a fan of only Christ so the distinction between fan and devotee is just a personal preference not an insult.
If someone says they didn't like it then I guess you can skip it but I would not be feeling guilty about it or falsely convicted it was wrong. You have shown you are the FAR superior person in character by admitting without condition making a mistake even though they attempted to make it into a fallacy it never was. Don't even make it be a bubble in your well of serenity
WOW! lol........you reading comprehensions skill are REALLLLLLY bad. Want another try ? here read again. this is what I wrote and you have been trying to twist to no avail ever since
that doesn't say most people in any science are YEC christians that is speaking of those who historically established the science
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?