May 29, 200719 yr I find it funny that the argument for evolution still remains for some when no notable scientist agrees with Darwin's theories to date. There is not a swarm of scientists who disagree with evolution. goodness gracious it is right in front of your face - technology is evolution - we adapt and change. example one - there are more women now with smaller hips b/c they can pass on that gene to their offspring b/c we now have C-sections. Men are taller than they were 60 years ago My son looks just like me, with some of his mothers characteristics, he has taken the stronger of both set of genes and EVOLVED the species a bit. There are those who disagree with how it takes place, and those who disagree with the "origin of man", but not with evolution in general. There are not many scientist who believe the world is only 6000 years old and that dinosaurs existed at the same time as man. I can believe the science (why would God give us a brain and then try to trick us) without denying my faith, but you can't believe the story of the museum with denying decades of science.
May 29, 200719 yr There is not a swarm of scientists who disagree with evolution. goodness gracious it is right in front of your face - technology is evolution - we adapt and change. example one - there are more women now with smaller hips b/c they can pass on that gene to their offspring b/c we now have C-sections. Men are taller than they were 60 years ago My son looks just like me, with some of his mothers characteristics, he has taken the stronger of both set of genes and EVOLVED the species a bit. There are those who disagree with how it takes place, and those who disagree with the "origin of man", but not with evolution in general. There are not many scientist who believe the world is only 6000 years old and that dinosaurs existed at the same time as man. I can believe the science (why would God give us a brain and then try to trick us) without denying my faith, but you can't believe the story of the museum with denying decades of science. And yet, with all the observed "adaptation" within a species to better adjust to existing environmental circumstances, and after hundreds of years of significant effort to discover one clearly "transitional" fossil from one life form to another, we have yet to locate even one fossil among the millions of known species to exist on this planet that clearly validates Darwin's suppositions. It simply has not happened. The genuine irony here is that science cannot prove the very thing it demands religion to prove, and that is to provide empirical evidence of creation... when science cannot prove evolution in the fullest molecules-to-man Darwinian sense. If God is who He says He is, He could have created everything as it is just ten minutes ago. Science cannot prove, measure or otherwise validate love, and yet we all know it is real. If we cannot "trust" science with something as clearly obvious and universal as love, why should we trust science to define God for us?
May 29, 200719 yr I'm not shocked that there are protesters, but I think they're being stupid. I for one could care less that there's a creationism museum... I'd almost be intrigued to go just to see how they go about it, but I seriously doubt my point of view would be changed.
May 29, 200719 yr And yet, with all the observed "adaptation" within a species to better adjust to existing environmental circumstances, and after hundreds of years of significant effort to discover one clearly "transitional" fossil from one life form to another, we have yet to locate even one fossil among the millions of known species to exist on this planet that clearly validates Darwin's suppositions. It simply has not happened. The genuine irony here is that science cannot prove the very thing it demands religion to prove, and that is to provide empirical evidence of creation. Science cannot prove evolution in the fullest molecules-to-man Darwinian sense. If God is who he says he is, He could have created everything as it is just ten minutes ago. Science cannot prove, measure or otherwise validate love, and yet we all know it is real. If we cannot "trust" science with something as clearly obvious and universal as love, why should we trust science to define God for us? I would never ask nor expect science to define God. I look at it this way, simplified version. Science seeks to discover and define the rules that govern the universe. Religion seeks to discover and understand the author of the rules.
May 29, 200719 yr And yet, with all the observed "adaptation" within a species to better adjust to existing environmental circumstances, and after hundreds of years of significant effort to discover one clearly "transitional" fossil from one life form to another, we have yet to locate even one fossil among the millions of known species to exist on this planet that clearly validates Darwin's suppositions. It simply has not happened. The genuine irony here is that science cannot prove the very thing it demands religion to prove, and that is to provide empirical evidence of creation... when science cannot prove evolution in the fullest molecules-to-man Darwinian sense. If God is who He says He is, He could have created everything as it is just ten minutes ago. Science cannot prove, measure or otherwise validate love, and yet we all know it is real. If we cannot "trust" science with something as clearly obvious and universal as love, why should we trust science to define God for us? no one has asked science to define God - that is why we have faith, and I said - the origin of species is not as widely held - what did you say that in anyway challenged my statements. Evolution does occur Most scientist believe the earth is much older than 6000 years.
May 29, 200719 yr no one has asked science to define God - that is why we have faith, and I said - the origin of species is not as widely held - what did you say that in anyway challenged my statements. Evolution does occur Most scientist believe the earth is much older than 6000 years. Is this the same group that believed about 500 years ago that the earth was flat? Is this the same group that what they have believed and held as FACT turned out to be WRONG! Since scientists say it is fact, are we to just accept that, even though they have been proven to be wrong before and will be proven to be wrong again. If you are determining that man came from ape which is different than the version that the Bible gives, than you are determing that the Christian God and His account of the beginning of man is not accurate as is told in the Bible. And if the Bible cannot be believed than none of it can be believed.
May 29, 200719 yr There is not a swarm of scientists who disagree with evolution. goodness gracious it is right in front of your face - I don't know the proper definition of a "swarm" but would 100 scientists, or 500 scientists or nearly 3,000 scientists satisfy your assertion? There have been many famous scientists who believed in special creation in the past. In particular, the following scientists were creationists: See link for lengthy and impressive list. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA114.html How about a petition of over 500 prominent scientists that have signed a statement expressing their doubts about the credibility of Darwinian evolution. http://www.christianinformant.com/index.php?topic=933.0 "Dissent from Darwinism" list was initiated in response to erroneous statements in PBS's "Evolution" series. Signers to date include 154 biologists, 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Among these dissenters are scientists holding doctoral degrees in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=163 Today there are thousands of scientists who are creationists and who repudiate any form of evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. Creationist scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science and their numbers are increasing rapidly. In the Creation Research Society (2717 Cranbrook Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48104) alone there are over 650 scientist members with either doctor's or master's degrees in some field of natural science. Among the additional 2,000 + sustaining members of the Society, many are also scientists with bachelor's degrees, in addition to numerous social scientists and other highly educated people with postgraduate degrees in their own fields. Here's a list of Creationists holding DOCTORATES IN SCIENCE http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html[/i]
May 29, 200719 yr example one - there are more women now with smaller hips b/c they can pass on that gene to their offspring b/c we now have C-sections. Men are taller than they were 60 years ago My son looks just like me, with some of his mothers characteristics, he has taken the stronger of both set of genes and EVOLVED the species a bit. Only in discussions of evolution do we find a special set of rules for the component parts that do not apply to everything else. The second law of thermodynamics describes the process of entropy, which basically explains the process of decay. Systems and matter devolve from a state of higher energy and order into a state of less energy and increased chaos. This scientific law applies to everything in our universe, but for some reason evolutionists insist that individual amino acids, cells, organisms are somehow exempt from this law of physics. It does not stand up to honest scientific scrutiny. Your example of men being taller today than they were 60 years ago has nothing to do with evolution. Nothing has been added to the genetic code that has brought this about. The raw materials have been there all along. The difference is improvements in diet, medicine and nutrition, which if provided to those men 60 or 100 or 1,000 years ago would have resulted in taller men then too. As far as your comment about women's hips becoming more narrow, if this is true, are you suggesting that this is a positive step toward the survival of the human race?
May 29, 200719 yr Is this the same group that believed about 500 years ago that the earth was flat? Is this the same group that what they have believed and held as FACT turned out to be WRONG! Since scientists say it is fact, are we to just accept that, even though they have been proven to be wrong before and will be proven to be wrong again. If you are determining that man came from ape which is different than the version that the Bible gives, than you are determing that the Christian God and His account of the beginning of man is not accurate as is told in the Bible. And if the Bible cannot be believed than none of it can be believed. Scientists 500 years ago were instructed not to diverge from the Church's geo-centric model. The penalty was excommunication and often death. And many chuches today still practice a milder form of anti-science that was prominent in the pre-renaissance era. Here's a thought: Why doesn't Mr. Ham shake up the scientific world by finding the missing link that proves man walked the Earth with dinosaurs? I know the answer ...
May 29, 200719 yr I don't know the proper definition of a "swarm" but would 100 scientists, or 500 scientists or nearly 3,000 scientists satisfy your assertion? There have been many famous scientists who believed in special creation in the past. In particular, the following scientists were creationists: See link for lengthy and impressive list. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA114.html How about a petition of over 500 prominent scientists that have signed a statement expressing their doubts about the credibility of Darwinian evolution. http://www.christianinformant.com/index.php?topic=933.0 "Dissent from Darwinism" list was initiated in response to erroneous statements in PBS's "Evolution" series. Signers to date include 154 biologists, 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Among these dissenters are scientists holding doctoral degrees in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=163 Today there are thousands of scientists who are creationists and who repudiate any form of evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. Creationist scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science and their numbers are increasing rapidly. In the Creation Research Society (2717 Cranbrook Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48104) alone there are over 650 scientist members with either doctor's or master's degrees in some field of natural science. Among the additional 2,000 + sustaining members of the Society, many are also scientists with bachelor's degrees, in addition to numerous social scientists and other highly educated people with postgraduate degrees in their own fields. Here's a list of Creationists holding DOCTORATES IN SCIENCE http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html[/i] I don't recall having mentioned Darwin at any time. I believe that God created the universe I also believe that species "change over time" and adapt to their surroundings, diet, medicine, technology. I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old.
May 29, 200719 yr I don't recall having mentioned Darwin at any time. Isn't he the father of evolutionary thought? I believe that God created the universe I also believe that species "change over time" and adapt to their surroundings, diet, medicine, technology. Adaptation and evolution are two different scientific mindsets, are they not? Adaptation does not include the changing of species from monkey to man does it? I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old. What knowledge do you base this on?
May 29, 200719 yr Is this the same group that believed about 500 years ago that the earth was flat? Is this the same group that what they have believed and held as FACT turned out to be WRONG! Since scientists say it is fact, are we to just accept that, even though they have been proven to be wrong before and will be proven to be wrong again. If you are determining that man came from ape which is different than the version that the Bible gives, than you are determing that the Christian God and His account of the beginning of man is not accurate as is told in the Bible. And if the Bible cannot be believed than none of it can be believed. You mean like Galileo who while on trial for excommunication had to deny what he knew was true Pope (not really) - "Mr. Galileo is it not true that everything revolves around the earth, the center of God's creation and that the earth stands still? Remember that you answer will guide our decision about your future and the judgment of this court as to whether or not you are a heretic" Galileo - "The earth stands still" and member of the gallery heard him say under his breath as he left the hall . . . "and yet, it moves" JUST FOR THE RECORD - THE APOSTLE PAUL MAKES IF VERY CLEAR THAT WE CANNOT KNOW ALL ABOUT GOD NOW - B/C WE SEE AS THROUGH A MIRROR DIMLY It blows me away when people say they KNOW how GOD did it and when by taking the scripture literally and then refuse to take Paul literally when he says we can't know.l God has set the sun in its place and yet it stood still in the old Testament. They wrote what they saw and what they thought to be true, they were fallible humans - just as we are. To say that I can read scripture and know it as fact runs very close to self-idolatry. Henry VIII said as King - I am put here divinely so I know that all decisions I make are guided by God. God would not let a wrong thought enter my mind, therefore whatever I think IS God's will. I then he goes on on divorce a wife or two and kill a couple of others. It is dangerous when you say I can read the Bible and KNOW that it is true. Why do we need the Holy Spirit or Jesus or God - we should just read the Bible and know what it says.
May 29, 200719 yr When we use the word evolution, what does that mean? I believe people misunderstand the usage of the word . There are 2 types of evlution-micro and macro. Micro involves the basic make up of a species ie DNA. Although there are mutations, a species DNA cannot be changed. Science backs this up. Macro involves things such as a persons color of hair, skin tone, eye color etc. These things change according to bringing two sets of DNA together. With this in mind one can see how things may change in appearance, but the very substance of a species cannot change. I also went to the museum and found many questions answered. MOst people who do not believe in Creation really do not know what science is basing the claims on. No "proof" has ever been found, just speculation and ideas. Whereas if you follow the time periods in the Bible all questions can be answered.
May 29, 200719 yr Scientists 500 years ago were instructed not to diverge from the Church's geo-centric model. The penalty was excommunication and often death. And many chuches today still practice a milder form of anti-science that was prominent in the pre-renaissance era. Here's a thought: Why doesn't Mr. Ham shake up the scientific world by finding the missing link that proves man walked the Earth with dinosaurs? I know the answer ... Don't be so quick to judge Jim... There have been several fossilized trails of dinosaur footprints accompanied by human footprints discovered in the same layer of rock. They are inexplicable within the contemporary evolutionary framework. Here's a cheesy looking site, I know there are others out there I'll find and post later. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm
May 29, 200719 yr Isn't he the father of evolutionary thought? Adaptation and evolution are two different scientific mindsets, are they not? Adaptation does not include the changing of species from monkey to man does it? What knowledge do you base this on? Carbon 14 dating, Nuclear Decay, layers of the earth's crust
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.