Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Doubting Darwin: panic in the suites of evolution
WORLD ^ | 5/5/12 | MARVIN OLASKY

Posted on 04/25/2012 6:54:15 PM PDT by Caleb1411

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-155 next last
To: Notary Sojac; schaef21

Or for the short answer to your bolded remark in post #97

See coelacanths or wolemi pine tree - living fossils purported by evolution to be hundreds of millions of years old yet found alive in the present day without any supporting fossils in much younger strata.

Related try googling polystrate fossils - the logic is sorely lacking for these fossils to be represented by millions of years - it’s circular reasoning.


101 posted on 05/01/2012 7:42:22 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Do you believe that before Adam sinned, T. rex was a plant eater??
102 posted on 05/01/2012 9:33:26 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

I believe that before sin, God’s creation was perfect.

I freely admit it is mainly conjecture what a perfect world would look like, but didn’t God say he gave them the plants and fruit of the trees for food?

I’m an old school COBOL programmer so by my reckoning it is easy to see that it would require a far superior intelligence to write [and then after the fall re-write] the DNA that varies from approx one half-billion lines of quad-code [a, c, t, & g] for bacteria upto approx 50 billion for some of the more exotic and often times extinct DNA code found [i.e. the Marbled Lungfish, and the Paris Japonica with the largest known genome]. Incidentally, the larger the genome the more they are prone to extinction so it is good that mankind only has approx 3 billion LOC. But it is also very interesting the man made in God’s image is still considered to be the highest, and most complex life form which must be attributed mainly to intrinsic qualities not found in the physical genome.

Did you know man’s brain has an estimated 6 peta byte capacity [mega, giga, tera, then peta] and our brain [mainframe] and nervous system/spinal column [network] is over a million times as powerful as modern day personal computers?

In my own imaginations none of the present plants nor animals are the same as they were in Paradise. None of them needed a digestive tract that expelled waste b/c all food was 100% nutritious. So no carnivores [no sharp teeth nor claws] b/c none were meat-eaters. No plants were poisonous nor bacteria, or virii deadly. The whole creation was cursed by sin with death and destruction.

In the millennial reign of Christ, Revelation indicates the original order will be restored, the lamb will lie down with the lion, and even a child will place his hand in a nest of adders and not be harmed.

Furthermore, I believe the Noahic Flood brought forth the first rain, along with the bursting of the fountains of the great deep, and the tearing open of the upper atmosphere - Gen 7:11 and subsequently all manner of natural disasters, many local floods and the ice-ages. I also believe Dr. Brown has found much astrological, geological and fossil evidence in support of this in addition to what the Bible only hints.

Lastly, I would not doubt that mankind got too smart for his own good and is primarily responsible for all manner of natural disasters ~ in Noah’s day he most likely drilled approx 10 miles deep into Earth’s crust [probably mining for precious metals] and caused the fountains of the great deep to explode open [1 pint of supercritical water = 1 stick of dynamite], resulting in 40 days of torrential rain, tearing a rift in the crust and up through the upper atmosphere mostly north/south and circumventing the globe, caused the breaking up of the continents and tech-tonic plates, vulcanism, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, typhoons, major uplifts of mountain ranges and even deeper crevasses in the oceans [crevasses that just happen to parallel all the major mountain ranges. This is a brief description of the hydroplate theory ~ for more see section II of:
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

Is it really any wonder that the Bible records life spans for man of almost 1000 years pre-flood and only 120 years post-flood?


103 posted on 05/01/2012 10:41:30 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

You are welcome to your view and I respect it, but it appears that we have very little common ground upon which to continue a discussion.


104 posted on 05/01/2012 1:49:44 PM PDT by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
99.9% of the fossil record was laid down by the global flood approx 4,500 years ago if one were to begin researching the claims of creation science. Fossilization is rare and requires rapid death and burial ~ why one finds so few fossils represented by such large populations and even fewer of the sea creature varieties.

Oh Wendy, Wendy Wendy, (sorry I mean Brant, I forgot which persona you are posting under today). That statement is so full of crap; I don’t even know where to begin.

Below is per creationscience.com written and researched exhaustively and extensively by Dr. Walt Brown, Ph.D.

“Brown has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering.” And he should really stick to something he probably knows something about like perhaps designing HVAC systems because he sure doesn’t know anything about geology or fossilization.

105 posted on 05/01/2012 4:08:21 PM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA

Who is this Wendy you refer to? I only post under 1 name.

The rest of your blabbering is just willful ignorance.


106 posted on 05/02/2012 10:57:06 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: DManA

“What scientist wouldn’t agree with that?” Climate scientists, for one. ;)


107 posted on 05/02/2012 11:06:33 AM PDT by mikemoose (Pray for the Unborn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac; BrandtMichaels

Sorry I’m just getting back to you Notary.

***At no point does Werner ever state that he found fossils of currently living species in the same strata as fossils of species which are considered long extinct.***

I suggest you view his DVD. The title (as posted in #81) is “Evolution: The Grand Experiment - Living Fossils”.

The entire one hour video is devoted to doing just that.

If you don’t want to shell out the dough for it, send me your address in a private reply and I’ll send you mine.


108 posted on 05/16/2012 7:13:38 PM PDT by schaef21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: schaef21; Notary Sojac

A ridiculous statement NS please revise ***At no point does Werner ever state that he found fossils of currently living species in the same strata as fossils of species which are considered long extinct.*** Strata is sedimentary rock. Only micro-organisms have been found to live in rock!

Living ‘fossils’ of life forms that were once thought extinct by tens and hundreds of millions of years are in fact found to be alive in today’s world with virtually no changes in structural anatomy! STASIS in the fossil record is the rule not the exception.


109 posted on 05/17/2012 6:53:24 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: scripter

“there is zero evidence of phyletic evolution” - S

Are you familiar with the relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny?

Do you think it is evidence of anything?


110 posted on 05/17/2012 7:12:37 AM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Triple
Are you familiar with the relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny? Do you think it is evidence of anything?

I've read (and own) Gould's book Ontogeny and Phylogeny, am quite familiar with the idea but don't see any evidence of recapitulation or much of anything else. If there were evidence of recapitulation, I'd have to wonder why Haeckel engaged in fraud.

111 posted on 05/17/2012 8:52:34 AM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: schaef21; BrandtMichaels
Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing here.

Time only flows in one direction, therefore it's quite possible according to evolutionary theory for a species thought long extinct to have survived into the present day..... but it's not possible to find a fossilized specimen of a relatively recent species in exactly the same location with long-extinct species.

When paleontologists excavate a site where many animals have died and been fossilized at close to the same time, they have not found Triassic amphibians, dinosaurs, Eocene mammals, and contemporary mammals together. A young-earth chronology would indicate that they should.

As I said up-thread, show me a fossilized velociraptor with a fossilized modern rabbit found in its stomach area in situ, and I'll give the young-earthers a serious hearing.

112 posted on 05/17/2012 9:13:36 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

****but it’s not possible to find a fossilized specimen of a relatively recent species in exactly the same location with long-extinct species.****

It is not only possible, This video will point to them, show you pictures and have museum curators tell you they were found.....according to one curator, over 100 chordates of which they display none.


113 posted on 05/17/2012 10:22:16 AM PDT by schaef21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

What is your explanation for human and dinosaur footprints in the same strata?


114 posted on 05/17/2012 10:49:47 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

If you are talking about the Paluxy River “tracks” that’s been shown to be a hoax. If you have other sites, post a link.


115 posted on 05/17/2012 11:52:27 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: schaef21
according to one curator, over 100 chordates of which they display none.

"Chordates" go all the way back to the upper Cambrian, 485+MY ago.

Haikouichthys

Myllokunmingia

Arandaspis

and possibly earlier

Pikaia

So talk to me not about "chordates". Will I see clearly recognizable fossils of animals which evolutionists claim have only appeared in the last million years??

116 posted on 05/17/2012 3:08:36 PM PDT by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac; BrandtMichaels

Look Notary...

I’m beating a dead horse here. This video has “Living Fossils” in the title because they are alive today and found in the same strata as dinosaurs. Werner sought them and found them.

Either you’re willing to invest some time in viewing it or, like many others before you, you are unwilling to take the chance on having your worldview shaken.

A PhD scientist named Philip Skell once said: “A theory that is so flexible that it explains everything, in reality, explains nothing at all.”

The theory of evolution fits that description.

Come to think of it, how does evolution explain this:

Since genes reproduce asexually and animals/humans reproduce sexually.... that means that at some point in time at the exact same place on the planet, two creatures evolved with two separate sets of plumbing that just happened to be perfect for each other.... one having the sperm necessary for life and the other having an egg necessary for life. They also had the ability to inject the sperm into a cavity where the egg existed in order to fertilize it and begin the process of birthing another of the same species... but the process of fertilization was only the beginning.... the plumbing where the egg evolved is HUGELY complex and necessarily so in order to get that fertilized egg to the point of birth.

Here are a couple of questions:

1. Since Natural Selection is an observable phenomenon and therefore not conjecture... and we know that Natural Selection will select based on advantage for survival... how did sexual reproduction survive given that observation tells us that asexual reproduction has up to twice as much reproductive success as sexual reproduction? Wouldn’t Natural Selection have selected sexual reproduction out of the process?

2. What are the odds that evolution, a random process, could invent the two complimentary sets of plumbing at the exact same time and the exact same place.... especially given the facts presented above?

3. After the baby is born, the body cuts the placenta off. It has been described by some as “like hitting the arteries with a meat cleaver..... yet the mother doesn’t die because each one of those arteries has a sphincter at the end that immediately closes, keeping the mother from bleeding to death.

How long do you think it took for evolution to get that right?


117 posted on 05/17/2012 4:11:03 PM PDT by schaef21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: schaef21
I always wanted evolution to explain the sphincter muscle in the anus...........................
118 posted on 05/17/2012 4:15:56 PM PDT by PeterPrinciple (Lord, save me from some conservatives, they don't understand history any better than liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: schaef21
I always wanted evolution to explain the sphincter muscle in the anus...........................
119 posted on 05/17/2012 4:16:34 PM PDT by PeterPrinciple (Lord, save me from some conservatives, they don't understand history any better than liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: schaef21
I'm quoting your post #51 word for word:

Dr. Carl Werner was challenged about the theory of evolution by a friend. He decided that if he could find modern organisms in the same strata as dinosaurs that would falsify evolution.

He spent 30 years of his life visiting dino digs and museums. He found fossils of every modern species and genera in the same strata as dinosaurs..... including the rabbit that you mention.

In which video does Dr. Werner specifically say he found a fossil rabbit in the same strata as a dinosaur?

I'll contribute $50 to the charity of your choice if I can see that on video. Will you do the same for me if it's not really on the DVD?

120 posted on 05/17/2012 6:50:35 PM PDT by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac; schaef21

The Paluxy River evidence [and many others worldwide] are only controversial b/c the evo defenders spew tons of garbage [like the msm] in trying to discredit anything in the way of their agenda. In their heart of hearts they love their ‘science’ and their fantasy land more than right living as God describes in the Bible. In Job 41 God describe to Job various ‘where were you when I created’ scenarios. Mere mortal men would always be rendered speechless in review of these 1 literal week accomplishments.

In light of how much science has uncovered [both micro and macro] the astounding complexities and details of life, the Earth and the Universe could only have been created by an intelligence far surpassing anything mere mortal men could ever dream of attaining. Yet they all too often love their free-willing sinful pride too much to ever fall to their knees in awe of his marvelous and wondrous attributes.

Storytelling 101: How to continue the hoax of evolution in the modern world, where even Darwin himself, would have to conclude in reviewing the weight of scientific and mathematical evidence against evolution how totally unsupportable it is. It’s been said by mathematicians there is simply not enough time, even in trillions of years, for the odds required for evolution to ever happen by chance.

Schaef21 wrote ‘A PhD scientist named Philip Skell once said: “A theory that is so flexible that it explains everything, in reality, explains nothing at all.”

The theory of evolution fits that description.

Come to think of it, how does evolution explain...’

Simple ~ IT DOESN’T!!!

Its Defenders and pretenders always choose any of the following:

a.) Tell made-up stories that sound scientific,
b.) Discredit and smear their opponents with ridicule and name-calling, &
c.) Ignore the most compelling evidence as if it does not even exist.

So in conclusion NotarySojac if you were to be completely honest it appears if the evidence you are describing were ever found then you’d again be compelled to choose one of the 3 above. Most likely you’d ignore it, as this category contains the highest percentage of items that completely stand evolution on it’s head ~ In other words DEVOLUTION in accordance with the irrefutable thermodynamic laws at work throughout the Earth and Universe.


121 posted on 05/18/2012 6:57:09 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac; BrandtMichaels

Here is some of what Dr. Werner found..... this is word for word from an email he sent me this morning:

Actually it was not a rabbit (Sorry about that, Notary... it’s been a while since I watched the DVD) but a parrot, a duck, a loon, a boa constrictor, a possum, a flamingo, a squirrel like tooth, a hedgehog like animal, an iguana like lizard, a monitor lizard, a primate tooth.

He then gives these links:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=winged-victory
http://creationrevolution.com/2011/04/new-evidence-shows-duck-like-birds-lived-at-same-time-as-dinosaurs/
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/sites/dinosaurpark.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5eTNoTHewY&feature=plcp

He then says this:

“Have him download the second edition of my ebook Living Fossils and it gives the specific references to each of these animals from Nature, interviews, the textbook evolution.”

I’ve encouraged you to get the DVD.... Here’s where you can download the ebook:

http://www.amazon.com/Living-Fossils-Edition-Evolution-ebook/dp/B007WFZQ82#_

This is from an article called “The So-Called Age of Dinosaurs” by Calvin Smith in Creation Magazine Vol. 33 No. 3:

Interviewed in Creation Magazine, Dr. Carl Werner pointed out that already over 432 Mammal Species have been identified in “dinosaur rock” including nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons. Yet in his extensive travels to 60 museums across the world researching his documentary series, only a few dozen of these species were featured in displays, with not one complete skeleton.

This is also in there:

“We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed years ago … . We have about
20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher. It’s
not that they are not important, it’s just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs.”

Here’s the reference for that quote:

Interview with Dr Donald Burge, curator of vertebrate paleontology, College of Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum by Dr Carl Werner,13 February 2001, in Living Fossils—
Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 2, New Leaf Press, 2009, p. 173.

This information is readily available but unpopular with secular scientists who would rather ignore it than deal with it.

The list given by BrandtMichaels in post#121 is accurate in regard to how they react to evidence like this:

a.) Tell made-up stories that sound scientific,
b.) Discredit and smear their opponents with ridicule and name-calling, &
c.) Ignore the most compelling evidence as if it does not even exist.

You have to be willing set aside your ego and your worldview and be honest with yourself. That’s what I did about 8 years ago.... it wasn’t easy because I had a really big ego.

Having said all that.... I’d love to have you answer my questions in post #117.

Blessings to you Notary.... I hope you’ll pursue this further.


122 posted on 05/18/2012 2:41:26 PM PDT by schaef21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: schaef21
I may need some time to research the specific questions you raise here. I don't know if evolutionary biologists have developed a reasonable explanation for them, or whether they have not.

One thing I do believe is that proofs for intelligent design (if such are found, I'm not at all disputing the possibility) do not by any means imply that the designer is himself outside the laws of nature, nor that the designer has any emotional investment in humanity.

Here's a question for you to think about. Could God create a circle whose circumference is exactly 3.0000 times its diameter? What would that circle look like? And if he could not, why not??

123 posted on 05/19/2012 1:30:30 PM PDT by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

Quote out of context if that is a reference to holy scriptures ~ see ANSWERS.com

“Nowhere in any Book or Verse does the Bible refer to Pi.
You are probably thinking of 1 Kings 7:23 which some people believe references Pi. But, it does not mention Pi.

What it says Solomon’s circular sea was 10 cubits wide and “it took a line of 30 cubits to go around it.” People now use that to claim that, “The Bible says that Pi=3.” But even most skeptics find that rather silly, as the claim assumes that Biblical writers measured a *perfect* circle with modern accuracy, and no rounding. This claim also assumes that Biblical writers were familiar with the concept of Pi, but they were not familiar with this. Pi as a mathematical concept comes hundreds of years after the Bible was written.

1 Kings 7:23 NIV

He [Solomon] made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim [diameter = 10] and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. [circumference = 30]

Circumference = PI x diameter. But some argue that the Bible “seemingly” tells us that PI = 3.

Debunkers of the Bible then say, “this is obviously false or a mistake and therefore the Bible cannot be from God.” This reasoning is faulty because Pi was not a known concept that that time.

However, Bible scholars maintain that the Bible was inspired by God, written by men. God’s intent was not to provide a scientific or mathematical text, but to reveal spiritual truths. There are numerous other scientific, mathematical, medical, astronomical, and other important areas of knowledge that were never addressed in the Bible.”

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_in_the_Bible_is_pi_mentioned#ixzz1vMWwC3Ov

better yet

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml


124 posted on 05/19/2012 4:48:42 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
I wasn't thinking of that verse at all.

What I was wondering is if there are elements of the universe which it is beyond God's power to change.

Whether God could change the value of pi from 3.14159.... to exactly 3 would be a good example.

125 posted on 05/19/2012 6:12:49 PM PDT by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac; BrandtMichaels

****Here’s a question for you to think about. Could God create a circle whose circumference is exactly 3.0000 times its diameter? What would that circle look like? And if he could not, why not??****

The answer to this will be rather lengthy, Notary. I’m sorry for that but you’re the one who opened this can of worms.

I appreciate this opportunity to defend the Bible. What you are really doing with this question is playing “Bible Gotcha”, hoping that I’m not aware of what is said in 1Kings 7:23 and its parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 4:2. That way I’ll come up with an answer and you can hang it around my neck with a hearty “haha”. I’m sorry to disappoint you, Notary. What I’m going to do is explain this passage to you.

This is one of the most commonly used by non-believers along with this one: “The Creation accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are not the same, which one is correct.” (Incidentally, I’ll gladly help you with that one as well.... just let me know)

It really helps if you actually study the Bible and go back to the original Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament).

The 1Kings passage says: “Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference.”

Before I dig into this one let me just ask you this, Notary. If you put a kiddie pool in your back yard and your neighbor asked you how big it was, would you say “it is 10 ft. across and 30 ft. around” or would you say “it is 10 ft. across and 31 ft. 4.159265358979 inches around”?

I’ll play your game anyway. If you read a little further, 1 Kings 7:26 says “it was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths.”

A cubit is a very imprecise measurement.... the length of the forearm between the elbow and the end of the middle finger. A handbreadth is also imprecise, the distance between the thumb and the pinky. For engineering purposes, the cubit and the handbreadth description would be inappropriate but for giving someone a general idea, they would do the job.

However, if you would like to pretend that they are intended to be exact, perhaps you’ll agree that the discrepancy could be found in the “handbreadth” thickness.

The Bible is filled with idioms, similes, metaphors, hyperbole and all the rhetorical devices that we use today. Those of us who believe in the inerrancy of scripture and study the Bible will go back to the original language to find out the writer’s intent. Just as we have many words in English that can be used to describe something (just visit your nearest thesaurus) they did too. One of the keys when looking at a difficult passage is to look at the word that was used and also the words that were not.

A lot of Bible scoffers like to say that it is a “flat earth” book. They repeat this because others have said it and they never bother to investigate what it really says. The Bible does use the phrases “the ends of the earth” and “the four corners of the earth”. As you know, these are metaphors and they are commonly used even today. Those scoffers choose to ignore Isaiah 40:22 which says: “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers” This passage is clearly describing the shape of the earth and is not metaphorical. Incidentally, Isaiah was written about 700 BC. Anaximander was the first (after Isaiah) to posit a round earth. He did it in the 3rd century BC.... some 400 years later.

I want to make a couple of points to you about math (since you brought it up), science and scripture.

Amos 9:6 -
The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens
And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth,
He who calls for the waters of the sea
And pours them out on the face of the earth,
The Lord is His name.

This passage (along with others that can be found in Psalms, Job & Jeremiah) describes the Hydrologic Cycle. The book of Amos was written about 700 BC. The Hydrologic Cycle was discovered by science in the 17th Century... if you’re counting, that’s about 2400 years later.

Psalm 102:25-26 -
25 In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
26 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
Like clothing you will change them
and they will be discarded.

This passage says that the heavens and the earth will wear out like a garment, a perfect description of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Psalms was written about 1000 BC, the 2nd Law was discovered in the 19th Century by Rudolf Clausius. That’s about 2900 years later.

Believe me when I tell you that I can give you many more examples just like these.

Leonardo Da Vinci said: “No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests”.... so I’ve got one for you.

Hemoglobin is a protein that carries oxygen through our blood cells to our tissue. Suffice it to say that without hemoglobin we would assume room temperature.

There are 20 Amino Acids used in the building of life. For hemoglobin (or any other protein) to function properly they must be sequenced properly.

High School math has taught us that the probability of getting the first one right by random (and thus evolutionary) processes is 1 in 20. The probability of the second one is also 1 in 20, making the probability of getting the first two 1 chance in 400. There are 287 Amino Acids used in building hemoglobin. When you multiply that out the odds of getting hemoglobin are 1 in 2.5 X 10^373. While I’m not a mathematician, I understand that number has 373 zeros in it.

Hemoglobin in but one protein. There is some disagreement about the number of proteins in the human body but on the low end it is 10,000.... what you saw there with hemoglobin has to happen at least 10,000 more times. I don’t care if the Universe is a trillion years old, it is not enough time.

One last thing I want you to think about as you chase the sexual reproduction stuff I asked in an earlier post. Please be honest with yourself.

An unfertilized egg is rejected by the mother and will not implant. A fertilized egg will. The difference in the two obviously comes from outside the mother’s reproductive system. It is the baby that signals the mother “It’s ok to implant this one”. Please contemplate that from an evolutionary perspective and the sheer enormity of the odds against that.

There is a Creator, Notary. If you’d like to know Him, I can help you with that.

Blessings, Notary.


126 posted on 05/20/2012 5:24:22 PM PDT by schaef21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy

In Hinduism creation is god. This is a logical fallacy. The greatest conceivable being (the universe) cannot be equal to creation (Brahman). There can only be one greatest conceivable Being. Hinduism is inherently incoherent.


127 posted on 05/20/2012 5:40:31 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple
I always wantd evolutionlto explain the sphincter muscle in the anus.......

This could explain obama.

128 posted on 05/20/2012 5:57:24 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: DManA

>> “What scientist wouldn’t agree with that?” <<

.
One that was clinging dogmatically to a failed ‘theory.’ (Obviously the term ‘scientist’ is grossly inapplicable to such an individual)
.


129 posted on 05/20/2012 6:54:47 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003; the OlLine Rebel

>> “But I appreciate your making my point for me.” <<

.
You had no point. You understand nothing but babble on everything.

Your gravity example proves it. Gravity is merely the invisible shape of space-time. Nothing ‘causes’ it; it simply exists as a manifestation of bodies.

I already know that you cannot understand that, as you have proven so many times in the past. If anyone wants to see a page of inane, idiotic posts, all one need do is view your posting history.
.


130 posted on 05/20/2012 7:08:57 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: schaef21

>> “one of those” <<

.
He most assuredly is one!


131 posted on 05/20/2012 7:12:07 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Yashcheritsiy

>> “The author of this article doesn’t understand science. Nothing in science is ever proven.” <<

.
A bizzare statement for you to be making AMD.

You work in a technology that is used in court to condemn men to die based on “proven” science.
.


132 posted on 05/20/2012 7:28:48 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: bert

>> “If myths must be taught in school, all myths should be taught” <<

.
Presently, the only myth that is taught as fact in school is Evolution.
.


133 posted on 05/20/2012 7:33:57 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Based upon evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. DNA identification is still several trillion to one probability or more
in most cases.


134 posted on 05/20/2012 8:24:09 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

You should stop drinking and posting.


135 posted on 05/21/2012 7:26:53 AM PDT by freedumb2003 ('RETRO' Abortions = performed on 84th trimester individuals who think killing babies is a "right.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Great presentation of ignorance an failure to study beyond Biblical propagandists rants


136 posted on 05/21/2012 7:28:41 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Present failure and impending death yield irrational action))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: bert

So, knowledge is now ignorance?

Enjoy eternity with your father Lucifer!

.


137 posted on 05/21/2012 4:42:35 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: schaef21
What you are really doing with this question is playing “Bible Gotcha”

Not at all, sorry if you got that impression.

I was not aware of those verses at all.

Rather, I was using the value of pi as a surrogate for all the universal constants which govern physics (and which are sometimes used as evidence of intelligent design)

Could God have created the universe so that pi=exactly 3?

And if so, would a circle look the same in that universe as it does in ours?

Or is the concept of pi=3.14159.... over and above the power of any creator to modify? And in that case, are there other natural principles which are similarly immutable?

138 posted on 05/22/2012 11:21:59 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: schaef21; BrandtMichaels
There is a Creator, Notary. If you’d like to know Him, I can help you with that.

I think you both might be surprised to know how many atheists and agnostics find that the idea of a universe created in six days, less than ten thousand years ago, is one of the major walls between them and the Christian faith.

How many of them have seriously investigated the claims of Christ, but when told that to be Christians they must accept the Bible as literal and inerrant even when it touches upon biology, astronomy, and geology have said "Oh. All right then....." and quietly walked away.

As I said, you might be surprised by that. Or maybe not.

139 posted on 05/23/2012 4:22:16 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

It is a simple question,

“How many of them have seriously investigated the claims of Christ”

but one can go far deeper than mere words and concepts both in God’s Word and how it relates to His creation. It not just the atheists that put up walls, but Jesus did warn us plenty that we would be in the minority, hated b/c the world first hated Him, that there would also be many that claim to be christians who simply never knew Him, and that we are to study to show ourselves approved for every good work.

For those who sincerely seek Him, they will find him [Romans 10:9-13]. The only valid way to worship Him is in truth and faith. Only then will one’s desire grow to read the Word, learn the Word, then live the Word and ultimately to Love Him and His Words. The unique claims are all true and this truth will set one free ~ free indeed!


140 posted on 05/23/2012 6:22:57 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

It is a simple question,

“How many of them have seriously investigated the claims of Christ”

but one can go far deeper than mere words and concepts both in God’s Word and how it relates to His creation. It not just the atheists that put up walls, but Jesus did warn us plenty that we would be in the minority, hated b/c the world first hated Him, and that there would also be many that claim to be christians who simply never knew Him.

Our unified purpose after having been saved is to share both in words and deeds, and also devote our lives to study and show ourselves approved for every good work.

For those who sincerely seek Him, they will find Him [Romans 10:9-13]. Faith will be gifted to the believer, His Spirit will indwell each of us, and perfect righteousness will be imputed to us for though we are still fallible in our present flesh, He will no longer see us as sinners but instead welcomes us as Sons of God. All of His promises are now at work and active in our lives [Romans 8:28]. The Word comes to life literally!

The only valid way to worship Him is in truth and faith. Only then will one’s desire grow to read the Word, learn the Word, then live the Word and ultimately to Love Him and His Words. The unique claims are all true and this truth will set one free ~ free indeed! Only in His Free Gift [for none can earn it] of faith. For only with faith can we begin to understand all of His Truths.

Having read all of His words has compelled me to continue re-reading and listening to many good teachers of His Word. The Holy Spirit also inspires me to read voraciously because He promises to lead me in all truth and understanding, so I read the latest findings and knowledge of man and His universal truths practically jump right off the pages or screens.


141 posted on 05/23/2012 7:12:28 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

A problem older than Thomas Aquinas who said...

“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”


142 posted on 05/23/2012 9:16:51 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac; BrandtMichaels

***Rather, I was using the value of pi as a surrogate for all the universal constants which govern physics (and which are sometimes used as evidence of intelligent design)****

Jeremiah 33:25 -

“But this is what the Lord says: I would no more reject my people than I would change my laws that govern night and day, earth and sky.”

They are God’s laws.

Where do you think the laws and constants in the universe come from? From an evolutionary worldview it is all a great cosmic accident. All of the order in the universe came out of the disorder of a big explosion... in complete violation of the 2nd law of Thermo.

In a Biblical (or for that matter ID) worldview it makes a whole lot more sense.

Despite all of the rantings and insults that Creationists and ID proponents get from the evolutionist crowd, science actually proves the existence of a Creator....

One of these statements is true:

1. Matter/Energy do not exist.
2. Matter/Energy are eternal.
3. Matter/Energy spontaneously generated out of nothing.
4. Matter/Energy were created.

Option #1 is falsified by the Scientific Method.
Matter & Energy are observed everyday.

Option #2 is falsified by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which states that energy is running down and we will eventually have no usable energy left. At that point we will suffer “heat death”....the sun can not burn forever, it will eventually run out of fuel. If the universe were eternal, this would have happened already.

One more thing on this.... secular science is all-in on the Big Bang theory, admitting that there was a beginning and therefore the universe is not eternal.

Option #3 - Spontaneous generation is falsified by the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (By natural processes, energy cannot be created or destroyed), The Law of the Conservation of Matter (By natural processes, matter cannot be created or destroyed although it can change form) and the Law of Cause and Effect (every effect must have a greater and preexistent cause).

That leaves us with Option #4... that matter and energy were created. This does not violate any natural law and is the only available option we have left.

Natural law itself has falsified all the other options..... Naturalists, who believe only in nature and in nothing Supernatural have to ignore natural law to believe what they believe..... If you believe in a Creator, you’re accountable to Him... and they’re not having any of that.

Thought you might like this quote from a Nobel Prize winning Harvard neurobiologist, George Wald:

“When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion — that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”

Romans 1:19-22 -

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools

Way deep down inside even the most ardent atheist knows there’s a Creator.


143 posted on 05/23/2012 10:27:27 AM PDT by schaef21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: schaef21
Is it possible for a Christian to believe that the Creator accomplished his work incrementally, over millions of years??

Because as I posted above, it's not the concept of a creator that is inherently unacceptable to me.

What's unacceptable is the literal Genesis timeline.

144 posted on 05/23/2012 11:03:59 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac; schaef21

Yeah it’s too bad there aren’t any natural clocks that defend the Bible against this notion of millions and billions of years...

Oh! What’s that you say?

101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth


145 posted on 05/23/2012 12:21:54 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac; BrandtMichaels

I’ll be responding to two of your posts here, Notary.

****I think you both might be surprised to know how many atheists and agnostics find that the idea of a universe created in six days, less than ten thousand years ago, is one of the major walls between them and the Christian faith.****

The reverse is also true….. from Junior High School the Theory of Evolution is taught as fact. Those who go on to college and major in some science discipline are indoctrinated in every class they take at the collegiate level and beyond. It is accepted as truth by them and why not? They paid a fortune for that education and that’s what they were taught.

So now here come some scientists wearing some pretty impressive sheepskin their ownself who say “Hey, we’ve really looked at this in depth and actually examined some of the claims of the other side and they’re making a pretty good case.” They are met with ad hominems and catcalls….. better that than to deal with the arguments.

You may recognize this exact same thing going on with the “climate change” debate today. “He disagrees with me and a whole bunch of other smart guys….. ergo, he’s a buffoon.”

Evolution is not even in the remotest sense science. It meets none of the standards of the scientific method….. you can’t observe it (I love the Richard Dawkins quote on this: “Evolution has been observed, its just hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”), test it or repeat it and there is absolutely no test even imaginable that could be used to falsify it. As such, it is not science but philosophy. Here’s the kicker, though…. Since evolution is true, then there’s no need to believe in a Creator God. That is why studies have shown that 70%+ of scientists are atheist or agnostic.

**** How many of them have seriously investigated the claims of Christ, but when told that to be Christians they must accept the Bible as literal and inerrant even when it touches upon biology, astronomy, and geology have said “Oh. All right then.....” and quietly walked away.****

While the Bible is not a science book, when it speaks of science it speaks truth. I showed you in a previous post some science that is in the Bible some 2000+ years before being discovered by secular science. I can give you many more if you’d like….there are a lot of them.

Be careful not to cite miracles as science (such as the long day in the book of Joshua). The Bible never claims this to be a natural phenomenon…. It quite clearly says that it was a supernatural act of God.

**** Is it possible for a Christian to believe that the Creator accomplished his work incrementally, over millions of years??****

There are many Christians who believe in long ages. Salvation in Christ is dependent upon repentance and belief in the ultimate sacrifice of Christ on the cross as their only means of salvation….. belief in long ages is not then a barrier to eternity with their Creator. It is, however, doctrinally wrong in so many ways.

In summary….. you say that the Genesis timeline is a stumbling block. If the Genesis timeline is a rock, the theory of evolution is a boulder….. a much bigger obstacle for most people.

The Global Warming Nazis are not the only ones who ignore and try to hide evidence against their theory and explain away things that don’t square with it….. in fact their game plan is the same one that’s been used by the evolutionists for years.

I can recommend all kinds of materials if you have the courage (and it does take courage) to examine the other side. I hope you will, Notary.


146 posted on 05/25/2012 4:08:56 PM PDT by schaef21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: schaef21
I'll be happy to take a look at any materials you can recommend that can be found free on the net or possibly at my library.

Please keep this in mind as we continue to discuss the subject:

I do not claim that evolution can explain how life came to be or why it came to be. Nor do I have an answer to those questions myself.

The only questions to which evolution attempts to provide an answer are

(1)Why are there so many different species on earth?
(2)Why do they look and behave the way they do?
(3)Why do we find remains of so many species that are no longer present as living plants and animals?

I don't ask the ultimate questions of "why?" I just look at the natural world as I see it, and the processes of nature as they can be observed, and ask "What is the most reasonable explanation for how these processes could produce this particular world??"

147 posted on 05/26/2012 10:34:09 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac; BrandtMichaels

I’ll take a few days and get some links posted for you.
In the meantime, this brochure asks some pretty good questions and gives links to where you can find the Creationist explanation:

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/flyers/15-questions-for-evolutionists-s.pdf


148 posted on 05/28/2012 6:24:35 PM PDT by schaef21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe

There are some interesting arguments here for why the earth may not be 4+ billion years old, nor the universe 14.

But remember, to make the Genesis chronology work literally, it's not enough to prove a younger earth than that. It's necessary to prove a really, really, really, really, really, really, really young earth. An earth in which (for example) the Great Pyramid was built when the entire universe was scarcely five thousand years old.

And this does create some problems, because if a single unimpeachable measurement can show that the universe is (say) more than 100,000 years old, biblical inerrantists have to posit that physical processes don't work now as they have in the past.

Take for example astronomical parallax and the observed speed of light. If the universe is only 10,000 years old, then either (1) the universe was created with galactic expansion already 99+% of the way from the big bang to what we see now, or (2) the speed of light was several orders of magnitude faster in previous millennia than it is presently.

Item #92 in your link above directly addresses this, but with the conclusion that the universe may "only" be 100 million years old. This is equally as fatal to the Genesis chronology as is 14 billion, a point that the authors chose for some reason not to address.

Both (1) and (2) above give the impression that God is playing a cosmic con game with our minds and senses, which to me is a far more frightening concept than that of no God at all.

149 posted on 06/03/2012 6:37:00 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: schaef21
Before addressing the "fifteen points" in this pamphlet, I'd like to make sure we are not constructing a straw man.

That straw man being the division of all opinion into (a) "The universe and all in it was created by God precisely according to the Book of Genesis sequence and literal timetable" versus (b) "The universe and all in it is the result of blind chance, beginning to end".

Now although there are a number of outspoken proponents of (b), it is by no means the only alternative to (a) as the pamphlet (particularly items 1, 6 and 11) appears to suggest.

Off the top of my head, I would suggest

(a) the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God, exactly as according to Genesis.
(b) the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God, but the Genesis account is in many ways allegorical.
(c) the universe was created by some other God or Gods, in a manner and for a purpose revealed to us other than in the Bible.
(d) the universe was created by a God whose purpose and method has not yet been made known to us (deism or pantheism)
(e) The universe was set in motion by a creative force but since then has operated strictly according to the natural laws established at that time.
(f) The universe is the result of blind chance, beginning to end.

My personal position is not that I am required to defend (f) as the only truth. Rather, my position is that (a) is contradicted by the evidence of the world we live in, but that (b) through (f) are all possible alternatives.

150 posted on 06/03/2012 6:54:21 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-155 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson