- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 17,078
Last edited:
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
SignUp Now!Hello GeoFestiva.You are telling me not to assume things about history, yet you are assuming that written history is true. You were not there to witness the records written, thus we cannot assume they are correct.
@Chad AiG is hard to credit due to their lack of proper scientific argument. Many professors are quoted out of context by their website, and their obvious angst against the scientific community is what discredits many of their articles.
The bible has ample proof on the other hand:
Fulfilled prophecies
Miracles
Presence of God in a believers life
Archaeological discoveries
Consistency of all 66 books authored by the Holy Spirit
The above is a small portion of proof. For more, check out the evidence and prophecy forum.
It's 2014. What happened 2014 years ago that globally the time is based off of?
I am not picking sides but imputting Biblical truth: I don't think he really has anything substantive to offer, because of 1 Corinthians 2:14Really? What "journal" do you need? What "journal" do you have to back up your claims? I noticed you deliberately ignored my last post as well.
- Nothing to say about this?
Hello GeoFestiva
Not sure whether I would agree with your claim that 'evolution is a fact'.
Have a read of the following and get back to me.
Exploring the Limitations of the Scientific Method by John Baumgardner, Ph.D.
Perhaps the most prominent example in this category is the hypothesis that mutation and natural selection produce continuous genetic improvement in a population of higher plants or animals. For the past 90 years, scientists in the field of population genetics have developed sophisticated mathematical models to describe and investigate these processes and how they affect the genetic makeup of populations of various categories of organisms. The work of R. A. Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright between 1918 and 1932 laid the foundation for the field of population genetics. This work in turn, over a period of about a decade (1936-1947), led to the formulation of what is referred to as the neo-Darwinian synthesis or the modern evolutionary synthesis. This so-called modern synthesis integrated the concept of natural selection with Mendelian genetics to produce the unified theory of evolution that has been accepted by most professional biologists.
But does this theory of evolution, formulated essentially in its present form more than 60 years ago, truly deliver on its claims, especially in light of what we now know of how living systems work at the molecular level? The answer is an unequivocal no! In brief, the proteins that make up living systems require such a precise level of specification to be functional that a search based on random mutation can never succeed.2 It is complete scientific foolishness to claim otherwise. That is why there are no papers in the professional genetics literature that explicitly demonstrate this to be a reasonable possibility.
Perhaps even more surprising, natural selection does not deliver the sort of upward genetic improvement that is generally believed and claimed. The reason is that natural selection is "blind" to the vast majority of mutations--it cannot act upon a favorable mutation to accentuate it or a deleterious mutation to eliminate it unless the mutation has a sufficiently large effect on the fitness of the organism in its environment. Because the vast majority of mutations are below the threshold for natural selection to detect, most bad mutations accumulate unhindered by the selection process, resulting in a downward decline in fitness from one generation to the next.4,5 Because bad mutations outnumber favorable ones by such a large factor, their cumulative effect utterly overwhelms that of the few favorable mutations that may arise along the way.
For more than 30 years, professional population geneticists have been aware of the profound difficulties these realities present to the theory of evolution. These problems were treated as "trade secrets" to be researched within their own ranks but not to be publicized outside in the broader biology community. Thus, the crucial
step of hypothesis testing has been "postponed."
Most professional biologists have therefore been misled into believing that the theoretical foundation of the neo-Darwinian synthesis is secure when, in reality, the foundation is a sham. The neo-Darwinian mechanism can readily be shown to produce exactly the opposite consequences to those that are believed and claimed. The reason for this state of affairs is that the scientists involved have allowed their personal biases to interfere with and to short circuit the usual hypothesis-testing step of the scientific method.
@RJ
If there was a testable way to prove the existence of god, I would happily change my views. But beyond incredible stories and hearsay, there is no testable evidence.
Hello GeoFestiva.I tried picking up the NT that I received from someone passing them out, and gave reading it another shot. After reading some of the Bible, as well as listening to a bit of Christian radio, I have fully migrated to militant atheism for the time being. Thank you for providing some debate, but the recent month or two on here has gotten me to look more into Christianity (and religion in general) and has solidified my position. I will likely take my leave, but I'll get back to the original post.
There really is no Dissent from Darwinism among those who will take evidence into account. The theory of Observational vs. Historical science cannot hold due to changes we see in the earth. The gaps in the fossil record are also not proof that there is a god but rather a lapse in current evidence which science has yet to find. I know this will not change opinions on here but please see through the fallacy of religion and what it can do to the mind. Don't be content in a simple "God did it" answer, and always seek the truth.
There really is no Dissent from Darwinism among those who will take evidence into account.
The theory of Observational vs. Historical science cannot hold due to changes we see in the earth.
The gaps in the fossil record are also not proof that there is a god but rather a lapse in current
evidence which science has yet to find. I know this will not change opinions on here but please see
through the fallacy of religion...
An interesting thing about Darwin is that he was a believer. You would never know it from all the evolutionist theories that have sprung up differently
from what he originally proposed.
His daughter was a Christian also. However she did not believe in evolution. To this Darwin once said...
"We both believe that God did it, we just disagree on how long it took".
I'm sorry DHC but we have evidence of transitional fossils. I actually use these to be sure I'm analyzing the correct geology for metals. Crinoids to be exact. They aren't particularly rare either. Sure we may not have found the transition for the Dragonfly yet, but if the fossils haven't been destroyed yet by diagenesis, then it'll only be a matter of time. Please research more on transitional fossils.
I followed your advice and did some research on transitional fossils to broaden my ideological horizons.I'm sorry DHC but we have evidence of transitional fossils. I actually use these to be sure I'm analyzing the correct geology for metals.
Crinoids to be exact. They aren't particularly rare either. Sure we may not have found the transition for the Dragonfly yet, but if the fossils
haven't been destroyed yet by diagenesis, then it'll only be a matter of time. Please research more on transitional fossils.
With your advice in mind I spent some time researching a famous transitional fossil. This transitional fossil has been identified by the(Wikipedia)
A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived
descendant group. This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode
of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been
imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know
exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors
of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.