Posted on 05/26/2007 9:24:34 AM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
Right. The bible gives us all we need to know ... "In the beginning God created ... Sorry, I and many others want to know more.
We have learned much about the origins of the universe and life in the last 100 years using these methods.
Evolution is not required to be an alternative to Creation. Evolution allows that God may have created the universe and the earth. Science has to acknowledge, though, that there is no way to falsify that hypothsis.
So, you do are a Theistic evolutionist?
For that to be true, you would have to deny what Christ Himself said.(Mk.10:6), but from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female
There is no way to falsify the Evolution hypothesis either!
A hundred years ago YEC'rs were insisting that the sun didn't have enough mass to burn for more than a few thousand years. Now we know that the sun has enough mass to 'burn' for billions of years. YEC'rs arguments fall to science all the time. Or do you still believe that the sun will only last a few thousand years?
Sure there is. Just find a human's remains in the belly of a dinosaur.
Maybe dinosaur's didn't eat humans.
You would have to first show that they did.
Thus, Evolution, since it cannot be disproven with science, is,(according to Popper's definition), not scientific.
What disproves Evolution is simple reason.
Something cannot come from nothing and non-life from life.
If can show an example that is indeed possible, then Evolution is viable, but until then it is just a fairy tale for adults who do not want to deal with the reality the Final Judgement by their Creator.
I believe that if you found a human's remains in the dinosaur's belly that would show that dinosaurs ate men.
You have already been informed that Popper accepts evolution as being valid science.
What if evolution is part of God's plan and he judges against those that preach falsely against his plan?
That would not convince you either.
Will they now be convinced?
Unfortunately, the long-age paradigm is so dominant that facts alone will not readily overturn it. As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out,5 what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm is that the paradigm is not discarded but modified, usually by making secondary assumptions, to accommodate the new evidence.
That’s just what appears to have happened in this case. When Schweitzer first found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. Rex specimen, she said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’”6 Notice that her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm. That is in a way quite understandable and human, and is how science works in reality (though when creationists do that, it’s caricatured as non-scientific).
So will this new evidence cause anyone to stand up and say there’s something funny about the emperor’s clothes? Not likely. Instead, it will almost certainly become an “accepted” phenomenon that even “stretchy” soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years. (Because, after all, we “know” that this specimen is “70 million years old”.) See how it works?
Schweitzer’s mentor, the famous “Dinosaur Jack” Horner (upon whom Sam Neill’s lead character in the Jurassic Park movies was modeled) is already urging museums to consider cracking open some of the bones in their existing dinosaur fossils in the hope of finding more such “Squishosaurus” remains. He is excited about the potential to learn more about dinosaurs, of course. But—nothing about questioning the millions of years—sigh!
I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious. This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most.7
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp
If Evolution is part of God's Plan, then Adam did not exist and there is no need for a Saviour, since sin doesn't exist.
So there will be no final judgement.
But if the Bible is right then you will be judged for rejecting for what it clearly taught.
Not according to his own definition it isn't.
Thomas Kuhn’s famous book on scientific revolutions showed that real scientists don’t work the way Popper said. In reality, scientists can tolerate many anomalies in the ruling paradigm, and it takes a lot for this to be overthrown and replaced with a new paradigm. And Imre Lakatos pointed out on a logical level that theories don’t stand on their own, but are protected by auxiliary hypotheses. The falsification can be applied to one or more of these, while leaving the core theory intact. See this logical discussion on verification and falsification.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/2003/0207.asp
No red blood cells were found. Her original doubt was confirmed by extensive testing. OTOH YEC’rs still misquote and distort the event:
Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”
AdvertisementThis drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
Do you have a link to that?
AiG again. I have already showed how they mislead. Go find a reputable source.
AiG again! AiG depicts a nude Adam without the common male appendage. When did Adam become a ‘man’? When he ate the apple?
And that is what started this discussion, the fact that bone was found in the fossils.
After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
That is Kantian double-talk.
Faith and reason are not separate, isolated, entities.
'Faith is the evidence of things not seen'(Heb.11)
For the invisible thing of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Rom.1:20)
Link please?
Do you think they would show his sex organs?
And what makes you think he ate an apple?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.