Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: HiTech RedNeck

No, evolution and the geologic record support each other. Radiometric dating further supports the fossil record. As I’m sure you know, there is a theory of evolution which has made great strides in filling in the why of the nineteenth century discussion of biology. Darwinism is a pejorative applied the evolutionary theory which attempts to color modern science with the ambiguity and falsehoods of the past. The questions have been answered and scientists are looking at new questions.


22 posted on 03/02/2015 9:12:44 AM PST by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: JimSEA

The questions have been “answered” without any regard to “teleological impulse.” That bespeaks falsehood in any other endeavor, but somehow it has been enshrined in the folly which has come to be falsely called science.


23 posted on 03/02/2015 9:14:39 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: JimSEA

And Darwinism is a quite accurate term for what is actually being called upon to drive this thing. If it is pejorative it is because it is actually inferior.


24 posted on 03/02/2015 9:16:06 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: JimSEA

No, evolution and the geologic record support each other. Radiometric dating further supports the fossil record.


Interesting.

Do they “support” each other or do they “Depend” on each other?

It may seem like a distinction without a difference, but as Darwinian theory was gaining traction they NEEDED the conclusions of other aspects of science to maintain the theory.

To think that politics or ideology being used to corrupt science is something new would be very shortsighted.

As I look into the TOE, I can’t overcome the mathematics required, the pure numbers.

Most mutations literally kill the species or leave it unable to reproduce. The number of “Random Mutations” required to change, say, a cow like animal into a whale must number into the tens and tens of thousands.

Along the way you would expect to see hundreds if not thousands of intermediaries, yet they claim to have discovered four.

There is something really wrong here.

Then we have “Irreducible Complexity”. What are the odds that a random mutation would be conserved long enough to first not kill the thing, second to allow for reproduction, long enough for another random mutation to come long and provide some survival benefit based on a changing environment?

The math is insane.

The evolutionists have known that this is a huge problem and in order to solve the problem, they add time out of necessity.


27 posted on 03/02/2015 9:57:23 AM PST by Zeneta (Thoughts in time and out of season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


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