Jump to content

Is the world polluting the minds of young people with a false narrative of the origin and meaning of life?


blackbird

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Maybe not to within the degree of accuracy expected by quantum scientists but evolution as a theory provides the strongest explanation that counters the alternative facts Creationists subscribe to. They can't seem to prove even the most rudimentary aspects of their theory.

It is not necessary to prove creation.  It is just a fact.  God says he created everything.  The theory of evolution is just a theory and since it contradicts what the Holy Scriptures say that God created the universe, the theory of evolution must be rejected as a fraud.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/18/2022 at 10:07 PM, blackbird said:

One interesting fact is that Darwin predicted that transitional evidence (fossils for example) would be found showing the gradual transition between species.  The truth is no such transitional evidence has been found.

Quote

That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils

Embarrassed evolutionists try to ‘muddy the waters’

by Gary Bates

Published: 18 February 2008 (GMT+10)

Anyone reading creationist literature for a few years soon becomes aware that we often use quotes by evolutionists which discredit their own belief system. This raises the ire of many in the evolutionary establishment, and often they will accuse creationists of ‘taking their remarks out of context’. This is rarely the case. However, one can imagine that the spectre of condemnation from fellow evolutionists would these days tend to limit any careless remarks from the pro-evolutionary camp.

One of the most famous and widely circulated quotes was made a couple of decades ago by the late Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.

So damning was the quote—about the scarcity of transitional forms (the ‘in-between kinds’ anticipated by evolution) in the fossil record—that one anticreationist took it upon himself to ‘right the creationists’ wrongs’. He wrote what was intended to be a major essay showing how we had ‘misquoted’ Dr Patterson.1 This accusation still appears occasionally in anticreationist circles, so it is worth revisiting in some detail.

Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution.2 Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’3   Unquote

That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils - creation.com

There are countless articles on this subject refuting the theory of evolution.

https://www.scielo.br/j/gmb/a/PVhHPkJBW8FWvLyKHdRyGsh/?lang=en

Here's some information from people more qualified than both of us at vulgarizeing complicated scientific principles, please take the time to read this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

https://www.scielo.br/j/gmb/a/PVhHPkJBW8FWvLyKHdRyGsh/?lang=en

Here's some information from people more qualified than both of us at vulgarizeing complicated scientific principles, please take the time to read this. 

If you want to refer me to a long article which will require me to spend hours reading and examining it, you should also be equally prepared to study some articles on the creation side of the issue.  Go to creation.com and start studying articles and watching videos on that website.

If you want to discuss this issue from your own knowledge instead of just pointing me somewhere else, then you should make your points on here as I have done and perhaps we can discuss some points.  But having to spend hours reading somebody else's long speech is a difficult way to have a discussion.  You will have to admit that it is not the best way to answer what I said.  Yes, it can be complicated.  But if you want to be involved in the discussion, you need to study both sides yourself and contribute some constructive comments.  Just dropping a link and running away will not cut it.

Having said that, I am trying to read some of the article on the link you gave and may have a comment about it in a while.  But it sounds like you have made up your mind and are not open to genuine facts.  Do you believe others who spoke are "more qualified" and therefore you accept what they say as it fits into your pre-existing world view?  Or are you open-minded and willing to accept a different view if a good case is put forward?

You also have not answered the point that the so-called transitional fossil record does not exist.  If evolution were an actual fact, one would think the evidence would exist, but it doesn't.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, blackbird said:

If you want to refer me to a long article which will require me to spend hours reading and examining it, you should also be equally prepared to study some articles on the creation side of the issue.  Go to creation.com and start studying articles and watching videos on that website.

If you want to discuss this issue from your own knowledge instead of just pointing me somewhere else, then you should make your points on here as I have done and perhaps we can discuss some points.  But having to spend hours reading somebody else's long speech is a difficult way to have a discussion.  You will have to admit that it is not the best way to answer what I said.  Yes, it can be complicated.  But if you want to be involved in the discussion, you need to study both sides yourself and contribute some constructive comments.  Just dropping a link and running away will not cut it.

Having said that, I am trying to read some of the article on the link you gave and may have a comment about it in a while.  But it sounds like you have made up your mind and are not open to genuine facts.  Do you believe others who spoke are "more qualified" and therefore you accept what they say as it fits into your pre-existing world view?  Or are you open-minded and willing to accept a different view if a good case is put forward?

You also have not answered the point that the so-called transitional fossil record does not exist.  If evolution were an actual fact, one would think the evidence would exist, but it doesn't.

The only science that has any actual value are those that have been peer reviewed, if you have any creationist literature that corresponds to that most basic criteria I would of course consider it fully,  on the other hand pointing to a group of laymen ( on this or any topic) providing post hoc rationalizations to their presuppositional approach to everything is of little interest to me nor should it be to anyone, as all of science accepts evolution by means of natural selection the balls in your court my friend,

I'm excited to see your Nobel prize worthy research, seriously!!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

The only science that has any actual value are those that have been peer reviewed, if you have any creationist literature that corresponds to that most basic criteria I would of course consider it fully,  on the other hand pointing to a group of laymen ( on this or any topic) providing post hoc rationalizations to their presuppositional approach to everything is of little interest to me nor should it be to anyone, as all of science accepts evolution by means of natural selection the balls in your court my friend,

I'm excited to see your Nobel prize worthy research, seriously!!!!

 

Professor Philip Stott is a very knowledgeable scientist on the subject of creation, sometimes called intelligent design versus evolution.  You can watch his short videos and hear what he has to say.  He has spoken at conferences in different countries.  I was honoured to have heard a series of four evening slide-show presentations by Philip Stott.  I think you may find what he has to say interesting.  He make reference also to what different scientists have had to say.  This is very enlightening.  You want to know what some important scientists have to say then this is a good place to start.  Let me know how it goes.  He has a a number of short videos that automatically follow each other at this link.

Creation Science with Philip Stott | Trailer - Bing video

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2022 at 6:21 AM, SkyHigh said:

https://www.scielo.br/j/gmb/a/PVhHPkJBW8FWvLyKHdRyGsh/?lang=en

Here's some information from people more qualified than both of us at vulgarizeing complicated scientific principles, please take the time to read this. 

Regarding the link and article you gave,  I read part of it and realized it is a bit of smoke and mirrors type of article.

For example, in the first or second paragraph, it mocks creationists by linking them with so-called flat-earthers.   But I have never heard of anyone who believes the earth is flat.  So right there that should tell you they are out to do a smear job and mock those who don't buy into the theory of evolution.   Secondly they also refer to creationists or anti-evolutionists as anti-vaxxers.  Again, trying to falsely link  creationists with the cult of anti-vaxxers.  Vaccine has proven it is valuable and based on sound medical science.  It has saved millions of lives in the past 70 years or so.  Again it is false to claim that everyone who questions the theory of evolution is some kind of wacko or anti-vaxxer type.  This proves right there they are trying to portray their dogma as superior science and anyone who disagrees as kooks.   They refer to their opponents as anti-science movement.  This is false.  In the video which I gave the link for,  Professor Philip Stott, who is a very knowledgeable scientist, quotes what other well know scientists have said about evolution theory.  Some of the greatest scientists that ever lived believed in God.  Evolution is not based on real science as they try to claim.  Real science can prove things that are true with the scientific method.  That method was developed 500 years ago by a famous scientist by the name of Francis Bacon.  So it is possible to believe in real, genuine science while believing in God and creationism.  God created man and gave him knowledge and part of that is the study of science which is the study of God's created universe and how it functions.

Secondly, the article refers to the scientific method and tries to paint the picture that the theory of evolution is based on the scientific method, which it clearly is not.  The lack of evidence to support evolution is serious.  Early on when Darwin put forward the theory, it was said that the fossil record would prove the theory to be true.  However, this is not the case.  The transitional fossils were not found.  The theory falls flat on this one point alone.

Genesis says God created each species of life "after their kind".

"24  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25  And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. "  Genesis 1:24, 25 KJV

Creationists do not deny that modifications developed by some biological process within each species.  As for example different kinds of dogs developed over time and different kinds of cats developed over time.   But this is not considered as evolution.  It is some other biological method.  So there was no evolution as the theory claims from some kind of blob of cells in a pond to humans.  God created each species as the Bible says.  If you haven't watched them yet, I would urge you to watch the link of the presentations by the scientist Professor Philip Stott that I gave above.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 3/20/2022 at 1:06 PM, SkyHigh said:

The only science that has any actual value are those that have been peer reviewed, if you have any creationist literature that corresponds to that most basic criteria I would of course consider it fully,  on the other hand pointing to a group of laymen ( on this or any topic) providing post hoc rationalizations to their presuppositional approach to everything is of little interest to me nor should it be to anyone, as all of science accepts evolution by means of natural selection the balls in your court my friend,

I'm excited to see your Nobel prize worthy research, seriously!!!!

 

Actually the folks that claim peer review as the gold standard should also tell you creation articles that don't agree with their world view are rejected out of hand.  That means the so-called peer reviewed system is biased and useless in the creation debate.  Peer review is asking people who do not believe in God or the Bible to judge articles which are based on a biblical view.  Complete waste of time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/23/2022 at 11:34 AM, blackbird said:

Actually the folks that claim peer review as the gold standard should also tell you creation articles that don't agree with their world view are rejected out of hand. 

Do all Christians believe the same creation articles, or is there disagreement among them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2022 at 11:38 PM, TreeBeard said:

Do all Christians believe the same creation articles, or is there disagreement among them?

 

On 5/7/2022 at 5:49 PM, blackbird said:

How would anyone know?  They don't debate those subjects as far as I know.

@TreeBeardYes, we all believe the book of Genesis. It is, after all, the first book in the Bible. BUT, how those scriptures are interpreted is another story.

Literalists who take it all perfectly literally (Young Earthers) are a small minority these days. I (a Catholic BTW) personally believe that a literal reading of the Bible begins with Abraham. Prior to that, I believe that Bible is TRUTH, but that the truths God meant to reveal are told using " the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current."

As I said in another thread:

QUOTE:

 

In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words. In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression . . . . 

. . . . . Genesis One reveals the Truth that God wanted revealed, which is that he created all things and created man in is image. This truth was revealed in such a way, as was stated, using the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current.

Furthermore, God wanted it revealed that man fell from grace through sin, and that God has set about from the very beginning to restore man to friendship with God. This great "History of Salvation" culminated in the sacrifice of the Son of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Great American said:

 

 

7 hours ago, Great American said:

Literalists who take it all perfectly literally (Young Earthers) are a small minority these days. I (a Catholic BTW) personally believe that a literal reading of the Bible begins with Abraham. Prior to that, I believe that Bible is TRUTH, but that the truths God meant to reveal are told using " the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current."

 

Quote   

2. Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’9.    unquote

Genesis, including creation in six days, is meant to be taken literally.  There is nothing to indicate it is an allegory or metaphorical.  It is the same as the virgin birth or the resurrection.  Those were miraculous or supernatural events as well and are meant to be taken literally.  You can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will take literally unless there is some clear evidence it is meant to be taken in another way.  We have to remember the Bible is a supernatural book and the events recorded in it are supernatural acts of God.  This link goes into a fair amount of detail about the subject about taking Genesis literally.  The same principle applies to the Flood.

Should Genesis be taken literally - creation.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, blackbird said:

Genesis, including creation in six days, is meant to be taken literally.  There is nothing to indicate it is an allegory or metaphorical

 

I am sorry, but I strongly disagree with that. To think that the world is only 10,000 years old defies credulity. We are people of Faith AND Reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Great American said:

 

I am sorry, but I strongly disagree with that. To think that the world is only 10,000 years old defies credulity. We are people of Faith AND Reason. 

I gave the article explaining it and quoted part of it.  It doesn't defy credibility.  I accept it on faith exactly the same way I accept the rest of the miraculous events in the Bible including the virgin birth and the resurrection.  The Bible is a book about God's miraculous work and power.  God is omnipotent.

quote

6  Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7  But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8  Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9  But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10  But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11  For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13  Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15  But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. {judgeth: or, discerneth} {judged: or, discerned} 16  For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.  unquote

1 Corinthians 2:6-16 KJV

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2022 at 7:43 AM, blackbird said:

I gave the article explaining it and quoted part of it.  It doesn't defy credibility. . . . 

Well, I respect your opinion and I hope you respect mine. Believe me, you won't meet a stronger defender of Jesus than me. I may not always live up to my own standards, but I defend the faith always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Great American said:

Well, I respect your opinion and I hope you respect mine. Believe me, you won't meet a stronger defender of Jesus than me. I may not always live up to my own standards, but I defend the faith always.

Yes, I respect your opinion, even though we may not always agree on everything.  I believe in freedom of beliefs and freedom of religion for everyone.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2022 at 4:55 PM, blackbird said:

Yes, I respect your opinion, even though we may not always agree on everything.  I believe in freedom of beliefs and freedom of religion for everyone.

Are you of a particular denomination? I am Catholic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 3/19/2022 at 6:49 PM, blackbird said:

It is not necessary to prove creation.  It is just a fact.  God says he created everything.  The theory of evolution is just a theory and since it contradicts what the Holy Scriptures say that God created the universe, the theory of evolution must be rejected as a fraud.

Indeed...creation is a fact. The burning question is, 'Did some being create it? Or did natural events bring creation to pass?' OK that's 2 questions...

1. Gawd: I believe there is a "God". In fact, It's entirely possible there are several "Gods". But what is a "God"? Does a "God" have a sex...a gender...a physical body...what is it? I use the term "Gawd" because...I feel the influence of something other than me, but I can't pin the source down. It's either veiled from my consciousness, or its far outside my capacity to fathom. But for a number of reasons/event in my life, I do "feel" this Gawd...thing. I read...I experimented...I observed...and finally I came to a conclusion.

Gawd...is the awareness that was blasted into being by, what we call The Big Bang. "And then there was light." This Gawd then saw its surroundings and thought...'I am. Yet I am alone.' And so...Gawd brought the right ingredients together in places like Earth, and "created" life. Then Gawd realized...'its alive but...its shallow. Not marvellous company.' So Gawd bestowed the spark of consciousness...individuality...needs that went past eating and multiplying...desires. And as we all know...desires can easily lead to...bad shit goin' down. "Evil".

Now...a devout religious person would say that what I've described somewhat sounds like the Adam and Eve story. And to me...that's because it IS the Adam and Eve story. Ya see...if there is a single entity responsible for ALL creation...that entity is "Gawd"...and "Satin". That'll shock many and make some laugh uncomfortably...but they know its true. Even by the strictest religious doctrine...the God of all creation...MUST be both.

Gawd is to man, as our bodies are to a single blood cell in our bodies. Does Gawd hear our prayers...our desires? Maybe. But Gawd's form is way beyond our comprehension.

However...

Quote
    •  

https://www.scielo.br/j/gmb/a/PVhHPkJBW8FWvLyKHdRyGsh/?lang=en

Here's some information from people more qualified than both of us at vulgarizeing complicated scientific principles, please take the time to read this. 

2. Evolution: OK...why not? Sure...we see living things evolve. It happens. So why dispute that Man has evolved? Does that diminish Gawd somehow? Not really eh? I mean...lets face some absolute truths.

- The Universe was not created in 6 days. Not days as we understand them anyway. Time would be rather irrelevant...to Gawd. Not completely irrelevant...but seriously "rather".

- We strongly suspect there are other planets in this soup we call a universe, that can sustain life as we understand it.

There is no reason to deny the existence of a Gawd, nor to deny the science of evolution. One is the result of the other. As it has always been.

Edited by Nationalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

 

2. Evolution: OK...why not? Sure...we see living things evolve. It happens. So why dispute that Man has evolved? Does that diminish Gawd somehow? Not really eh? I mean...lets face some absolute truths.

- The Universe was not created in 6 days. Not days as we understand them anyway. Time would be rather irrelevant...to Gawd. Not completely irrelevant...but seriously "rather".

 

For the moment, I wish to respond to your point on evolution.  In actual fact, it is called the "Theory of Evolution" meaning it is not a proven fact;  only a theory.  It has been found wanting by many experts and scientists.

The book Refuting Evolution can be read online.  But the conclusion in the book gives these points.  This is somewhat lengthy; so I hope it is not deleted.  Otherwise you can go to the creation.com website and find the book online there.  There are also study guides to help study the subject.

There are a number of topics within the subject which refute evolution.

Quote

Conclusion

This book has addressed the main arguments for evolution presented by Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science and found them wanting. By contrast, the evidence for creation is cogent. In particular, Refuting Evolution has covered the following areas in its nine chapters:

Chapter 1: Facts do not speak for themselves, but must be interpreted according to a framework. The leading evolutionists are biased towards naturalism, to the extent that many are outspoken atheists. This is especially true of the National Academy of Science, the producers of Teaching about Evolution. Conversely, creationists admit that they are biased in favor of creation as revealed in the Bible. Although they have the same facts as evolutionists, interpreting them according to a biblical framework results in a more scientifically cogent theory.

Chapter 2: Adherents to both the biblical creation/corruption/flood framework and the particles-to-people evolution framework teach that organisms change through time, and that mutations and natural selection play a large part in this. But evolutionists assume that the changes eventually increase the information content, so that a single living cell (which they claim arose from non-living chemicals) was the ancestor of all other life. Creationists believe that separate kinds were created, and that changes generally either remove information or leave the total information content unchanged. The examples of ‘evolution in action’ presented by Teaching about Evolution do not demonstrate the information increase required by evolution. Rather, they are examples of variation within a kind, and are consistent with the creation framework.

Chapter 3: Evolutionists since Darwin have predicted that the fossil record would show many intermediate forms linking one kind of organism to a different kind. Instead, the fossil record shows that animals appear abruptly and fully formed, with only a handful of debatable examples of alleged transitional forms. It is also doubtful whether one can even imagine functional intermediates in many cases.

Chapter 4: Birds are unique creatures, with wings and feathers designed for flight, and special lungs completely different from those of any reptile. Some evolutionists propose that birds evolved from gliding tree reptiles, while others propose that birds evolved from running dinosaurs. Each group refutes the other so convincingly that a reasonable conclusion is that birds did not evolve from non-birds at all.

Chapter 5: Whales are mammals designed for life in water, with many unique features. Teaching about Evolution asserts that whales evolved from land animals, and presents an alleged series of whale intermediates. But on close analysis, none stands up. For example, we find that the fossil evidence for one alleged key intermediate, Ambulocetus, is fragmentary. Another alleged intermediate, Basilosaurus, is actually 10 times the size of Ambulocetus although the book draws them the same size. And an evolutionary vertebrate paleontologist points out its peculiar body and tooth shape mean that Basilosaurus ‘could not possibly have been the ancestor of modern whales.’

Chapter 6: Humans are very different from apes, especially in intelligence and language. Teaching about Evolution presents a series of alleged apeman skulls. But the evidence shows that humans and australopithecines are distinct kinds. This includes analysis of the semicircular canals in the ear and the canal that carried the nerve to the tongue. DNA similarities between humans and chimps are exaggerated; the dissimilarities correspond to encyclopedic differences in information. A common creator is a better explanation for both similarities and differences. Proper drawings of embryos show that different kinds have very different embryos, not similar ones, despite the claim of Teaching about Evolution.

Chapter 7: Teaching about Evolution presents the usual big bang theory. However, there is no satisfactory evolutionary explanation to explain how the universe could come into existence without a cause, or for the formation of stars and solar systems after such an alleged ‘big bang.’ Teaching about Evolution also discusses the Galileo controversy, but misses the point. The church had adopted the Ptolemaic framework and interpreted the Bible accordingly. Secular defenders of the framework persuaded the church leaders that Galileo was really contradicting the Bible. Moreover, the verses (mis)used to teach Ptolemaic astronomy were often from the Psalms, Hebrew poetry (unlike Genesis) that was clearly not intended to teach a particular cosmological model. Also, other biblical passages (mis)used were using the earth as a reference frame, a scientifically accurate procedure.

Chapter 8: Teaching about Evolution teaches that the earth is billions of years old, and uses the fossils and radiometric dating as ‘proof.’ However, there is evidence that many rocks and fossils were formed by catastrophic processes, which is consistent with the biblical framework that includes a global flood. Radiometric dating theory relies on several untestable assumptions about the past, and the methods have often proven false and even self-contradictory in practice. Ninety percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth indicate an age far younger than that asserted by Teaching about Evolution.

Chapter 9: Living organisms have encyclopedic quantities of complex, specific information coded in the DNA. Interestingly, this is precisely the criterion that would prove that a signal from outer space has an intelligent source. DNA itself is the most efficient storage/retrieval system in the universe. The information it stores is the blueprint for all the enzymes required for life, and the recipe for building the complex organs needed. Some of these include sonars of dolphins and bats, and the miniature motors driving flagella or making the ATP molecule. These are far more complex than anything humans have built. Other structures have inspired human inventions; for example, the lobster eye inspired an x-ray telescope design. Finally, it is shown that the design explanation is legitimate, and that the only reason to reject it is an a priori faith in materialism.

Thus, there is good reason to take the biblical creationist framework seriously, and every reason that students should hear the evidence against evolution.   Unquote

Refuting Evolution chapter 10: Conclusion - creation.com

Some main points that should be examined are the Theory of Evolution and the later modifications to the theory do not support the essential processes evolutionists claimed.  For instance, there are no transitional fossils that credible show evolution for example from land creatures to birds.  There are no fossils or evidence to show life formed from non-life or chemical matter to biological living cells.  In fact the evidence leans more toward creation than evolution.   

The other point is creationists do believe that creatures may modify over time, but this is not evolution.  According to Genesis God created the various kinds of creatures.  Birds for example, were always birds, but may have adapted or changed to a different bird through modification over time.  But fish or animals did not become birds.  There is no evidence to support the claim that they did.  In fact, if you study the material in the book Refuting Evolution and perhaps delve into it further, you will find the science actually support creation more than evolution.   

There is a vast amount of information in a simple cell, let alone a living creature.  The amount of information in a cell could fill many sets of encylopedias.  The fact is for evolution to be a fact, new information in the DNA, RNA, etc. would have to have been added for new creatures to evolve.  But science has found new information is never added.  Living organisms have this vast store of information that determines how they are structured and function.  Only God could have designed them like that.  In other words everything required an intelligent designer to be created and exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

For the moment, I wish to respond to your point on evolution.  In actual fact, it is called the "Theory of Evolution" meaning it is not a proven fact;  only a theory.  It has been found wanting by many experts and scientists.

The book Refuting Evolution can be read online.  But the conclusion in the book gives these points.  This is somewhat lengthy; so I hope it is not deleted.  Otherwise you can go to the creation.com website and find the book online there.  There are also study guides to help study the subject.

There are a number of topics within the subject which refute evolution.

Quote

Conclusion

This book has addressed the main arguments for evolution presented by Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science and found them wanting. By contrast, the evidence for creation is cogent. In particular, Refuting Evolution has covered the following areas in its nine chapters:

Chapter 1: Facts do not speak for themselves, but must be interpreted according to a framework. The leading evolutionists are biased towards naturalism, to the extent that many are outspoken atheists. This is especially true of the National Academy of Science, the producers of Teaching about Evolution. Conversely, creationists admit that they are biased in favor of creation as revealed in the Bible. Although they have the same facts as evolutionists, interpreting them according to a biblical framework results in a more scientifically cogent theory.

Chapter 2: Adherents to both the biblical creation/corruption/flood framework and the particles-to-people evolution framework teach that organisms change through time, and that mutations and natural selection play a large part in this. But evolutionists assume that the changes eventually increase the information content, so that a single living cell (which they claim arose from non-living chemicals) was the ancestor of all other life. Creationists believe that separate kinds were created, and that changes generally either remove information or leave the total information content unchanged. The examples of ‘evolution in action’ presented by Teaching about Evolution do not demonstrate the information increase required by evolution. Rather, they are examples of variation within a kind, and are consistent with the creation framework.

Chapter 3: Evolutionists since Darwin have predicted that the fossil record would show many intermediate forms linking one kind of organism to a different kind. Instead, the fossil record shows that animals appear abruptly and fully formed, with only a handful of debatable examples of alleged transitional forms. It is also doubtful whether one can even imagine functional intermediates in many cases.

Chapter 4: Birds are unique creatures, with wings and feathers designed for flight, and special lungs completely different from those of any reptile. Some evolutionists propose that birds evolved from gliding tree reptiles, while others propose that birds evolved from running dinosaurs. Each group refutes the other so convincingly that a reasonable conclusion is that birds did not evolve from non-birds at all.

Chapter 5: Whales are mammals designed for life in water, with many unique features. Teaching about Evolution asserts that whales evolved from land animals, and presents an alleged series of whale intermediates. But on close analysis, none stands up. For example, we find that the fossil evidence for one alleged key intermediate, Ambulocetus, is fragmentary. Another alleged intermediate, Basilosaurus, is actually 10 times the size of Ambulocetus although the book draws them the same size. And an evolutionary vertebrate paleontologist points out its peculiar body and tooth shape mean that Basilosaurus ‘could not possibly have been the ancestor of modern whales.’

Chapter 6: Humans are very different from apes, especially in intelligence and language. Teaching about Evolution presents a series of alleged apeman skulls. But the evidence shows that humans and australopithecines are distinct kinds. This includes analysis of the semicircular canals in the ear and the canal that carried the nerve to the tongue. DNA similarities between humans and chimps are exaggerated; the dissimilarities correspond to encyclopedic differences in information. A common creator is a better explanation for both similarities and differences. Proper drawings of embryos show that different kinds have very different embryos, not similar ones, despite the claim of Teaching about Evolution.

Chapter 7: Teaching about Evolution presents the usual big bang theory. However, there is no satisfactory evolutionary explanation to explain how the universe could come into existence without a cause, or for the formation of stars and solar systems after such an alleged ‘big bang.’ Teaching about Evolution also discusses the Galileo controversy, but misses the point. The church had adopted the Ptolemaic framework and interpreted the Bible accordingly. Secular defenders of the framework persuaded the church leaders that Galileo was really contradicting the Bible. Moreover, the verses (mis)used to teach Ptolemaic astronomy were often from the Psalms, Hebrew poetry (unlike Genesis) that was clearly not intended to teach a particular cosmological model. Also, other biblical passages (mis)used were using the earth as a reference frame, a scientifically accurate procedure.

Chapter 8: Teaching about Evolution teaches that the earth is billions of years old, and uses the fossils and radiometric dating as ‘proof.’ However, there is evidence that many rocks and fossils were formed by catastrophic processes, which is consistent with the biblical framework that includes a global flood. Radiometric dating theory relies on several untestable assumptions about the past, and the methods have often proven false and even self-contradictory in practice. Ninety percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth indicate an age far younger than that asserted by Teaching about Evolution.

Chapter 9: Living organisms have encyclopedic quantities of complex, specific information coded in the DNA. Interestingly, this is precisely the criterion that would prove that a signal from outer space has an intelligent source. DNA itself is the most efficient storage/retrieval system in the universe. The information it stores is the blueprint for all the enzymes required for life, and the recipe for building the complex organs needed. Some of these include sonars of dolphins and bats, and the miniature motors driving flagella or making the ATP molecule. These are far more complex than anything humans have built. Other structures have inspired human inventions; for example, the lobster eye inspired an x-ray telescope design. Finally, it is shown that the design explanation is legitimate, and that the only reason to reject it is an a priori faith in materialism.

Thus, there is good reason to take the biblical creationist framework seriously, and every reason that students should hear the evidence against evolution.   Unquote

Refuting Evolution chapter 10: Conclusion - creation.com

Some main points that should be examined are the Theory of Evolution and the later modifications to the theory do not support the essential processes evolutionists claimed.  For instance, there are no transitional fossils that credible show evolution for example from land creatures to birds.  There are no fossils or evidence to show life formed from non-life or chemical matter to biological living cells.  In fact the evidence leans more toward creation than evolution.   

The other point is creationists do believe that creatures may modify over time, but this is not evolution.  According to Genesis God created the various kinds of creatures.  Birds for example, were always birds, but may have adapted or changed to a different bird through modification over time.  But fish or animals did not become birds.  There is no evidence to support the claim that they did.  In fact, if you study the material in the book Refuting Evolution and perhaps delve into it further, you will find the science actually support creation more than evolution.   

There is a vast amount of information in a simple cell, let alone a living creature.  The amount of information in a cell could fill many sets of encylopedias.  The fact is for evolution to be a fact, new information in the DNA, RNA, etc. would have to have been added for new creatures to evolve.  But science has found new information is never added.  Living organisms have this vast store of information that determines how they are structured and function.  Only God could have designed them like that.  In other words everything required an intelligent designer to be created and exist.

Sir...I can see evolution. I can only feel Gawd. In this plane of existence, I must trust my senses.

Its a principal thing.

Edited by Nationalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Sir...I can see evolution. I can only feel Gawd. In this plane of existence, I must trust my senses.

Its a principal thing.

I don't think you even read the information or looked into it. I have done my part.  You have to do yours.  Otherwise, I can't see much hope.  Eternal life depends on having the faith and faith depends on a degree of understanding of these issues.  So unless you intend to have a lost eternity and miss out on the chance for heaven, you need to start learning the truth.  The KJV Bible has the truth.   The lies from the world could be a hindrance and block a person from learning the truth and way of salvation, which is very much connected to this issue of creation versus evolution.   Not much more I can add.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, blackbird said:

I don't think you even read the information or looked into it. I have done my part.  You have to do yours.  Otherwise, I can't see much hope.  Eternal life depends on having the faith and faith depends on a degree of understanding of these issues.  So unless you intend to have a lost eternity and miss out on the chance for heaven, you need to start learning the truth.  The KJV Bible has the truth.   The lies from the world could be a hindrance and block a person from learning the truth and way of salvation, which is very much connected to this issue of creation versus evolution.   Not much more I can add.

No I think that about says it all.

I can't bring myself to believe any real Gawd would hide his/her/its existence, yet demand our faith in order to live eternally. If that's the case, this Gawd and I are going to have to sit down and have a nice long chat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

No I think that about says it all.

I can't bring myself to believe any real Gawd would hide his/her/its existence, yet demand our faith in order to live eternally. If that's the case, this Gawd and I are going to have to sit down and have a nice long chat.

God is not hiding his existence.  God makes his presence clear in two ways.  The first half of Psalm 19 makes that clear. 

quote

1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 2  Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 3  There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.  4  Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun. 5  Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. 6  His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. 
 

unquote   Psalm 19: 1-6 kJV    The clear evidence of God is the creation all around us.

In the second part of the Psalm God has spoken to us clearly through his inspired Word, the Bible.

quote

7  The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. {law: or, doctrine} {converting: or, restoring} 8  The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. 9  The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. {true: Heb. truth} 10  More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. {the honeycomb: Heb. the dropping of honeycombs} 11  Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. 12  Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. 13  Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression. {the great: or, much} 14  Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

Unquote   Psalm 19:7-14 KJV

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,753
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Matthew
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Venandi earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • DUI_Offender went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...