Posted on 01/15/2014 8:57:46 AM PST by xzins
For some reason, this is a huge blindspot for the hardcore evos - that the information necessary for all the variation we see was ORIGINALLY THERE - not “added” by mutation or any other means.
Looking at the scientific theory (and evidence) for the creation of the Hawaiian Island chain (and the entire chain of what appear to be ex islands underwater to the West and North) is fascinating. What shocked us is how creative and marvelous the creation process is. Looking at the volcanic creation of an island with zero life, then how it was slowly taken over by life forms that eventually thrived was incredible. Seeing the manifestation of that process on the different islands is truly eye opening.
So, a dog has changed into....... A Dog.
Exactly....dog wasn’t changed. What changed was the expression of dog DNA for the significantly different environments.
Are you upset that I’m not buying into mutations???
As for mutations being the source of new, useful information...
Take this sentence and insert, delete, or swap any letter and then tell me that the amount of information contained therein has increased.
I agree. As a rule, when I break something, it isn’t better off afterwards. The same with mutations.
True. But those events are nothing compared to the incredible complexity of a single live cell. Also, those events follow the general trend of the physical universe - order tends to disorder.
To suggest the opposite, that a living cell could somehow form by accident and come to life is, as before, proof that people believe what they want to believe.
Even the unbelievable.
If you think selective breeding is proof of evolution, then you need to go back to the drawing board.
Dogs are still dogs, different ? yes, but most early attempts left them either dead or the inability to reproduce.
And BTW, these experiments were conducted, not in nature but by human intervention.
Seems to me scientists has changed their opinion much more in the last 2000 years than has the Christians, not sure about the religionists.
And the last i heard they were still trying to find a missing link that is not there, no doubt they will invent one.
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.
—Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, (1981), p. 19.
If you think great variability built into the DNA is proof of an evolutionist, then I’ll share my drawing board with you. Yes. Dogs are still dogs.
But, Marmeduke is not Scooby-doo.
They created an entire pre-human societal structure from a pig’s tooth, so why not?
And Haeckel also falsified drawings of “embryonic recapitulation.” His claim was that human embryos evolve through the various animal groups on their way to being human. He drew animal embryos and claimed they were a state in fetal development. This was refuted about a century ago, but evolutionists keep putting that lie in “science” text books. This is also one of the lying arguments abortionists used, at least at one time, that women could murder their baby in the womb because it wasn’t a baby at that point, but some animal other than human.
But, of course, that baby was ALWAYS human.
Death certainly could have existed prior to adam.
As you say, there is very little details, the Bible indicates that God may have made Adam after the seventh day which would make him a separate creation than the man or rather men God made on the sixth day.
Which would explain the missing link, there is none.
I think we may be on the same page.
I personally believe evolutionary theory doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory, by their own definition.
I am a creationist.
Young earth, creationist.
I’ve done the math and nothing else makes any sense.
These verses are interesting in this regard:
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
Psa 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity predicts black holes, as many are aware, but he also predicted something called a white hole. This can only appear at the beginning of the universe, and if one were near where the white hole originated, relativistic effects, meaning that speeds far greater than the speed of light would be possible.
So if the earth was near the point where the white hole originated, we would’ve seen the heavens stretch out like a curtain, at mindboggling speeds. Billions of years could elapse in space while only a day would’ve elapsed here. Maybe this sort of helps explain why these prophets said what they said.
In the Darwin view of humans as animals, what would cause us to stop practicing animal husbandry within our own species? Reduce the meaning of "human" to "just another animal", and eugenics is fair game. Scientific data is well supported in animal husbandry. Eugenics is only abhorrent to those who recognize that there is something transcendently special about humans.
Isaiah 40
22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
What is a circle? O
Roger that. And Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Babykilling, was big into eugenics. She really wanted to get rid of all the “undesirables,” as she called them. There’s even a record of her speaking at a KKK rally. I wonder why there’s so many PP “clinics” in black neighborhoods?
Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.
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.