Posted on 08/31/2016 4:24:39 PM PDT by JimSEA
Maybe the Bombardment was the “historic accident”than gave us us essentially one genetic code.
Evolution = religion.
Living Stromatolites, western Australia:
Stromatolite Fossils - Trezona Formation, South Australia, about 1 billion years old:
What's certain is that some stromatolite fossils look very old indeed, over 3 billion years.
So the question is whether those very oldest fossils are also stromatolites, or just some non-organic rock formation.
No, unlike religious doctrines, scientific theories are always subject to falsification by new evidence and better ideas.
Further, as many have noted, in science: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Finally, religion is how we worship the Supernatural, while science is explicitly and exclusively devoted to study of the natural realm.
So science would only begin to approach comparison to a false religion if & when scientists believed their theories despite contradictory evidence, or better ideas.
And that is far from the case with evolution theories.
So the question is whether those very oldest fossils are also stromatolites, or just some non-organic rock formation.
...
Exactly. Stromatolites are structures associated with mats of bacteria, but not the bacteria themselves. The oldest “fossils” have no remnants of bacteria in them so it’s a difficult question to answer.
Well they are right about something. Life emerged quickly. Five days is really quick, at least to us (a day is as a thousand years to God).
Aha, just like global warming.
Wallflower: “Aha, just like global warming.”
I am 100% certain of global warming because I checked my thermometer this morning and it said 55 degrees Fahrenheit.
Now it says about 75 degrees.
So there is nothing you can say to convince me global warming is faked.
As to what caused that sudden warming, well, I’m pretty sure the sun had something to do with it, and no doubt the movements of air masses across seas & continents, etc.
Did anything I do contribute?
Well, I was feeling a bit bloated, and maybe some methane escaped me?
But surely those AGW police won’t arrest me for that... will they?
;-)
Seriously, science confirms beyond all reasonable doubt that the Earth has ALWAYS warmed & cooled, on its own, naturally.
Today it may be warming a bit, but in a geological eye blink, we will soon be back in the next 100,000 year long ice age.
So if a little warming delays that a few centuries... what’s the problem?
Yes, politicians have always perverted science to their own ends, when it suited their purposes.
So the thing is to see where science ends and politics begins.
With global warming that’s pretty obvious.
With basic evolution theory, not so much.
Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column
by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/ten-misconceptions-about-geologic-column/
The ten strata systems that geologists use (Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary) compose the “standard geologic column” and are claimed by many to contain the major proof of evolutionary theory. Several erroneous notions have been attached to the geologic column. The following are the ten most common misconceptions.
Misconception No. 1.
The geologic column was constructed by geologists who, because of the weight of the evidence that they had found, were convinced of the truth of uniformitarian theory and organic evolution.
snip
Nope, it's religion. You can't falsify evolution or global warming.
With basic evolution theory, not so much.
It never obvious to the person being deluded.
With basic evolution theory, not so much.
It never obvious to the person being deluded.
It=It’s
I don't know why, but you're mixing apples & oranges here.
The geological column was figured out by geologists for reasons which may, or may not, have anything to do with evolution.
In fact, regardless of evolution theory, the geological column is based on observations confirmed globally relating to ages and structures of various strata.
Indeed, whenever I say "there are literal mountains of evidence" it's those geological strata I'm referring to.
Of course you can, if you have confirmed observations or better ideas contradicting them.
Indeed "AGW" -- anthropogenic global warming -- doesn't really qualify as a scientific theory, since the confirmations are weak to nonexistent.
It is still more hypothesis which was, unfortunately, hijacked by insane politicians maniacally bent on controlling every aspect of their citizens lives.
So the science is interesting, worth pursuing, but the politics is a very different matter.
As for evolution theories, much has changed since Darwin's time 150+ years ago.
For one thing, there's been a steady stream of new information clarifying many ideas, debunking others and giving rise to whole new theories.
Just consider: prior to Mendel nobody knew anything about genetics, much less DNA.
Today those mysteries are better understood and that has profoundly effected our ideas related to evolution.
Point is, as new data arrives, many old ideas get falsified while others are confirmed as facts.
And so with evolution: Darwin's basic ideas of 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection are both now observed facts, no longer just hypotheses of theories.
However, origin of life speculations are still pretty much just that -- speculation & hypotheses, not confirmed theories, much less facts.
In that particular realm, scientific ideas can often rise & fall again in a matter of a few years.
Point is: none of this has any relationship to religious doctrines or practices.
Btw, I totally blame my tablet's word completion function for the unintended insult in post #28.
I didn't see it until just now, and apologize for it.
No offense intended.
As to who is being "deluded" and who is not, I will grant the philosophical possibility that all of life is but a dream (sh-boom), but realistically the more useful assumption is that natural reality is just what we see or can detect.
Learning the exact nature of such reality is what science is all about.
So science can only be "deluded" if reality itself is but a dream.
And I wouldn't go there, because that's not what the Bible teaches.
What the Bible teaches is that God created the natural realm, that He is above it, rules over it and, on occasion, over-rules it (miracles) -- not that the natural realm itself is illusion, or more negatively, delusion.
Life is but a Dream Sh-boom, Crew Cuts
Life is but a Dream, Harptones
lol
Not according to what God calls idolatry.
Jer 2:27 Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.
The theory is as old as the Old Testament and will never go away because it is the religion of idolatry.
To be clear, Jeremiah is here rebuking Israel's worship of wooden and stone idols, not some theory of natural science.
Indeed, the Bible arguably confirms evolution theory when it says: Genesis 2:7 "Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
Of course the Bible does not tell us to worship (!!) the "dust of the ground", but neither does it forbid us from studying natural processes which could make that happen.
Some translations use the word stock and others say tree. Stock can mean tree or animal. It is interesting that you limit this to only mean a physical item carved from wood or stone. The next verse is:
For they have turned their back to Me, and not their face. But in the time of their trouble They will say, ‘Arise and save us.’ 28 But where are your gods that you have made for yourselves? Let them arise, If they can save you in the time of your trouble; For according to the number of your cities Are your gods, O Judah.
Idolatry is not about the object it is about the worship. Ascribing anything to any object or false god or false doctrine that should be ascribed to God is idolatry. So carving a piece of nature and thinking we came from nature or just thinking that we came from matter and time and lower life forms are the same exact thing.
Indeed, the Bible arguably confirms evolution theory when it says: Genesis 2:7 "Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
It is very disappointing that you read the bible and think the word dust translates to a whole 15 billion year theory of evolution which is in a completely different order from the 6 days of creation.
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.