If you check out the fossil record, you will discover that your argument is incorrect. Even evolutionary scientist will admit that they find dogs and chordata (our phylum) on the lowest levels. Steven Gould has a great articles on this in several of his papers.
Firstly, I follow a different model for planetary change. If indeed a flood occurred on this planet, which there is plenty of evidence for (example is the cretacious layer or chalk layer or the rock layers in canyons all over the world being easily explained by turbidity currents underwater), then all the assumptions that are used in any form of radiometric dating are instantly nullified. Walter Veith has a great lecture series on this that can be seen on google video. There is also the age of most of the oldest plants such as the California Redwoods being around 5000 years old which fits perfectly into the Biblical chronology of a flood. Also, the age of most of the rivers on this planet are around 5000 years old. The saharah desert is also around 5000 years old. There are many more of these, but they do tend to take up a lot of space.
As for the stories, a gentleman by the name of Ron Wyatt who is something of a rogue in archeology has found a number of locations that correspond to the exodus account as well as a structure that fits the size, shape, and location of Noah's ark. One video is called Discovering the Exodus and is quite interesting (check out the chariot wheels on the ocean floor and the solid gold covering for one). Not to mention the plethora of other archeologists who have found sites based on Biblical teachings and clues. I'm not saying that you have to believe it, but for me the evidence gets more heavily stacked for the Biblical model year after year. And don't worry, they have legislation coming down the pipe that will probably put me in a mental institution before long (just for witnessing or "manslaughter" as they are redefining it).
Children and their games. I didn't order their genocide. If He is God as i believe that He is, then He does have not only the right, but the imperative to judge His creation. If He knows (being all knowing as He is) what is in their hearts, then it's His call and their blood isn't on my hands. Secondly, you call me a monster. That is from a french word that means to show. To show something in yourself that you don't like? Secondly, I have not proven to be a liar and if so, then on what point. I have said nothing that I didn't readily point out wasn't religious. Go and eat of the knowledge of good and evil, I choose the tree of life. As I had wished to do before, I am leaving. Not in a defeat, because you can't loose to someone who cannot fight back. Dogs are chained to trees in much the same way that you are trapped by your own flesh and cannot see past your own point of view. There are truths in this world and yours are not those. As I said before, best wishes.
Think about what you just said, seriously. So they don't understand the process entirely but they know (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that it was natural? That smacks of intellectual dishonesty. As I have said before, their argument sounds perfectly logical, but it's not necessarily right. Secondly, he did get published, it's recorded very well in his book.
I'm not even sure what to say! I'm not the one who is angry, but your "god" is supposed to be one of love and understanding? Great representation on he/she/it's behalf. You don't even know who your god is let alone what it stands for. Secondly, go read the Genesis account and Judges, and find out why he would order the genocide of those people (which He did do and had good reason to do). As I said before, I'm done. Best wishes and good luck with that he/she/it thing that you worship!
There is another small misconception you have. I don't buy it. It's a free gift. I am this adamant not because it's required or I have to be, but because I choose to be. If I'm wrong then I will gladly bear that burden, but I'm certain that this has not been in vain. Best Wishes to you as well!
I will say this exactly as has been stated by Dr. Gentry on his site.
"Despite what you find on various evolutionist websites, polonium halos â" actually creation halos â" are well and alive as unequivocal evidence of God's fiat creation of planet Earth. The reason evolutionists and others post objections on the internet is because they cannot get any reputable scientific journal to publish their claims."
This remains true to this day. So the refutation that you claim is so scientific can't get published in a scientific journal? Further,
"First, because geologists claim that granites formed naturally, this means it should be possible to reproduce a small piece of granite in the lab under the same conditions under which geologists presume that giant granite monoliths formed. For that reason over 25 years ago, in the pages of EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, I issued a challenge to the entire geological community to reproduce just a single hand-sized piece of granite in the lab to confirm their unverified assumption that granites formed naturally. Their abject failure to do this is discussed in Chapter 15 and other places in my book, which you can access at www.halos.com. All the experiments attempting to do this always have ended with a formation of a rock that is significantly different from the texture of granite. For decades there has been nothing but failure and more failure. Moreover, and just as significantly, never have any of the synthetic rocks from such experiments contained the creation halos, as does granite itself."
So they can't reproduce what they say is a naturally occurring event in a lab? That's interesting! Further,
"Evolutionists also claim creation halos in granites formed naturally rather than being the result of God's supernatural creation. So again, by their own admission, it must be possible to reproduce them in the lab in the here and now. Their deafening silence about their continuing failure to do this is also discussed in my book, both in Chapter 15, and in earlier chapters. In other words, the entire basis of all evolutionary geology and age dating has long ago been falsified by experiments performed in the lab along with the indelible imprints of His Fingerprints in Earth's Genesis rocks. But evolutionists and others opposed to the distribution of these results are not only doing their best to hide from it themselves, but are surreptitiously doing all in their power to cast these results in doubt and thus dissuade Christians, especially Christian religious leaders, from taking a strong stand supporting Genesis' literal six days of creation and God's seventh day of rest. In essence, they have formed a conspiracy of silence to evade what they cannot overthrow, in spite of the fact that the Genesis record of creation is unambiguously restated in the Fourth of the Ten Commandments. "
So if they know how they are created, why not go prove it in a lab? Dr. Gentry proposed not only what he claims in his thesis but a built in way to disprove it which no one has yet to meet the challenge of. I am well aware of the religious tone in this web site and there is nothing wrong with that. Otherwise, all the evolutionary web sites posting data would need to silenced as well.
So here is my question to you. If it is as thoroughly disproven as you say, then why has no evolutionist ever challenged Dr. Gentry in a peer-reviewed journal like they are supposedly required to? I find it difficult to believe that they wouldn't if they could.
Just a thought.
If you're right (which I would find impossible), then there will be no consequences to me believing what I believe. If I'm right, you are in trouble.
I'm not trying to condemn you nor speak with some sense of superiority. The comment I made above is accurate. Either you are right or I am, only time will tell. Blessings go with you.
Quite the contrary. I would agree that the distinctions between "macro" and "micro" are very arbitrary. And trying to debate over something to which you cannot decide on terms is fruitless. One point you made is erroneous "There is no proof of anything in science." Really, so the human forearm doesn't have two bones? I thought that was scientific and fairly well established. However, my point was that evolution and science are two different things. People attempt to make them synonymous but they are not. You say that you are willing to modify your theory based on proof. Here is a website to a bit of proof for creation. It was submitted to a peer-review journal and has yet to receive an answer. For details, go to halos.com. This research was done by Robert Gentry in Knoxville, TN. As per the religion part, you have a dumb theory. I have no problem with dumb theories. As I stated before, you can believe whatever you want. The issue is that evolution is not provable but is taught in schools like it is. Both it and creationism should be removed as neither has anything to do with science. You may look at the forelimb structure of different animals (example: a bat and a human) and say that they probably had a common ancestor. I would look at it and say that they probably had a common designer. Neither one is provable and neither one should be taught in school.
My God is very loving to those who are sorry for how they have broken His law and have a repentant heart. That is why Jesus came so that we didn't have to fear that vengeance. Unfortunately for you, He does have some rules because He did make this planet, and He expects us to act in a certain way. It is His after all. Let's end this here, the conversation won't go anywhere from here anyway.
Hate to break it to you guys, but scripture says clearly that through Adam, death entered the world. Evolution teaches that through death, man entered the world. One of these two is wrong. I'm with Bendodge on this one!
You are welcome to believe that Steve, but it isn't science. You can't observe it or test it. Steven J. Gould a leading expert in the field of evolution believes in a concept called spontaneous generation. This is a concept that the evolution that you claim happened over millions of years happened quite rapidly instead. To me, that sounds like creation, but I digress. The point is that you as an evolutionist don't know how it happens, nor can you definitively prove that it did. You simply believe that it did. That is not science, but religion.
Firstly, HE and yes he is a He, does exist. And it wasn't until I listened to what He had to say that everything started to make sense. You live in a world where there is moral grey. I live in a world where there is a genuine black and white. Sometimes it isn't fun to choose, but the choice is still just as clear. As for the intelligence He gave me, my nature by definition of that book is corrupt and untrustworthy. Thankfully, He sent me that book as a rule to measure my actions, thoughts, desires, and reasoning by. Without it, I am leaf in the wind that could be blown about by any change that anyone sent my way. I don't expect you to understand, just know that one day I will be standing on one side and unless you change you will be standing on the other. I know that like the black and white decisions that I spoke of before, that is not a pleasant thought, but it doesn't make it any less true. Besides, if I'm right you are screwed. If I'm wrong, your god won't care! Have a good one.
Firstly, species is not a well defined term as you seem to think that it is. Experts vary on any blog or scientific journal as to what exactly a species should be labeled as. I on the other hand freely admit that what I believe is a religion. I have no qualms with that statement and need no proof to back it up, even though I am fully convinced that all evidence that you consider to point solely to evolution to be just as viable for creation. You on the other hand consider evolution to be science. If that is true, then what is your definition of a species. The very argument that you are throwing at me, I can just as easily throw back at you. When you define "speciation", what do you mean. I assume you mean that various mutations gradually adding up over time will create a new creature that is biologically dissimilar from what we see today. I on the on the other hand would say that there are limits to change. And unlike your argument, I can prove that there have always been dogs and that they still bring forth after their kind today.
My reading comprehension is quite fine. As for your point above, let me break this down for you so that you can keep up. I said that "micro-evolution" happens. It is stated very clearly in the Bible that animals will bring forth after their kinds. You can have a Great Dane or a Pug and they are both still dogs. To quote from you, "It's not exactly a stretch to imagine that they can continue changing further until they have even less in common and be considered 2 different species." There in lies the problem with your argument. You have to imagine and that isn't science. It's a religion. Secondly, the only difference between a fairy-tale and what you believe is that in a fairy-tale you need a kiss to turn a frog into a prince, in evolution, you replace the kiss with long periods of time. You can believe that if you want, but don't call it science.
Also, fossils don't count as evidence. When you find bones in the ground, the only thing you know is that this creature died. You don't know that it had any offspring. Example, you breed a horse with a donkey and you get a mule. Mules are infertile, but if you found their bones in the ground, some evolutionist is going to consider that the precursor of somebody even though it isn't. As I have stated before, evolution sounds logical but logical isn't necessarily right!
As with me, the Bible is worth more than the sum of it's parts. I freely admit that I have faith and that my view is religious. It's people who claim that Evolution is proven that drive me nuts. Evolution is also a religion, but is (for some reason) touted as science. You have to imagine macro-evolution because we don't see it. That isn't science!
I watched you go from a very logical scientific position to a fairy-tale in less than one sentence. You are right that we see micro-evolution everywhere, but it has never been seen that macro-evolution has once occurred on this planet. You may believe that it could happen, but that is not observable, testable, or provable and therefore is not scientific, but instead part of your religion.
We have never seen a dog produce a non-dog. If they can, as you say. Why don't they do it today? Something we can measure or at the very least record. You "claim" evolution is science. I say it a religion that is only surviving off tax payer money! Don't like it. Prove me wrong. As if you could!
Hate to break it to you, but neither I nor any other creationist limited Him. He told us how He did it in the book. And (I'm sure this will get a nice verbal lashing) contrary to popular "opinion", Creationism isn't as crazy or pseudo-science as many of the people here have made it out to be. I am Christian and unfortunately, the Bible states that death came into the world by Adam's actions. According to evolutionary logic, death brought man into the world. Those two positions are diametric opposites and there is no middle ground.
Second is your comment about literalists. There is nothing in the creation account that would indicate that He wasn't speaking of a literal event instead of an allegorical one.
Thanks,
The Literalist
Slashdot Mirror
If you check out the fossil record, you will discover that your argument is incorrect. Even evolutionary scientist will admit that they find dogs and chordata (our phylum) on the lowest levels. Steven Gould has a great articles on this in several of his papers.
Firstly, I follow a different model for planetary change. If indeed a flood occurred on this planet, which there is plenty of evidence for (example is the cretacious layer or chalk layer or the rock layers in canyons all over the world being easily explained by turbidity currents underwater), then all the assumptions that are used in any form of radiometric dating are instantly nullified. Walter Veith has a great lecture series on this that can be seen on google video. There is also the age of most of the oldest plants such as the California Redwoods being around 5000 years old which fits perfectly into the Biblical chronology of a flood. Also, the age of most of the rivers on this planet are around 5000 years old. The saharah desert is also around 5000 years old. There are many more of these, but they do tend to take up a lot of space. As for the stories, a gentleman by the name of Ron Wyatt who is something of a rogue in archeology has found a number of locations that correspond to the exodus account as well as a structure that fits the size, shape, and location of Noah's ark. One video is called Discovering the Exodus and is quite interesting (check out the chariot wheels on the ocean floor and the solid gold covering for one). Not to mention the plethora of other archeologists who have found sites based on Biblical teachings and clues. I'm not saying that you have to believe it, but for me the evidence gets more heavily stacked for the Biblical model year after year. And don't worry, they have legislation coming down the pipe that will probably put me in a mental institution before long (just for witnessing or "manslaughter" as they are redefining it).
Children and their games. I didn't order their genocide. If He is God as i believe that He is, then He does have not only the right, but the imperative to judge His creation. If He knows (being all knowing as He is) what is in their hearts, then it's His call and their blood isn't on my hands. Secondly, you call me a monster. That is from a french word that means to show. To show something in yourself that you don't like? Secondly, I have not proven to be a liar and if so, then on what point. I have said nothing that I didn't readily point out wasn't religious. Go and eat of the knowledge of good and evil, I choose the tree of life. As I had wished to do before, I am leaving. Not in a defeat, because you can't loose to someone who cannot fight back. Dogs are chained to trees in much the same way that you are trapped by your own flesh and cannot see past your own point of view. There are truths in this world and yours are not those. As I said before, best wishes.
Just a note, he was published 20 times on this particular topic. Go here for details. http://www.halos.com/reports/index.htm
Think about what you just said, seriously. So they don't understand the process entirely but they know (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that it was natural? That smacks of intellectual dishonesty. As I have said before, their argument sounds perfectly logical, but it's not necessarily right. Secondly, he did get published, it's recorded very well in his book.
I'm not even sure what to say! I'm not the one who is angry, but your "god" is supposed to be one of love and understanding? Great representation on he/she/it's behalf. You don't even know who your god is let alone what it stands for. Secondly, go read the Genesis account and Judges, and find out why he would order the genocide of those people (which He did do and had good reason to do). As I said before, I'm done. Best wishes and good luck with that he/she/it thing that you worship!
There is another small misconception you have. I don't buy it. It's a free gift. I am this adamant not because it's required or I have to be, but because I choose to be. If I'm wrong then I will gladly bear that burden, but I'm certain that this has not been in vain. Best Wishes to you as well!
I will say this exactly as has been stated by Dr. Gentry on his site. "Despite what you find on various evolutionist websites, polonium halos â" actually creation halos â" are well and alive as unequivocal evidence of God's fiat creation of planet Earth. The reason evolutionists and others post objections on the internet is because they cannot get any reputable scientific journal to publish their claims." This remains true to this day. So the refutation that you claim is so scientific can't get published in a scientific journal? Further, "First, because geologists claim that granites formed naturally, this means it should be possible to reproduce a small piece of granite in the lab under the same conditions under which geologists presume that giant granite monoliths formed. For that reason over 25 years ago, in the pages of EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, I issued a challenge to the entire geological community to reproduce just a single hand-sized piece of granite in the lab to confirm their unverified assumption that granites formed naturally. Their abject failure to do this is discussed in Chapter 15 and other places in my book, which you can access at www.halos.com. All the experiments attempting to do this always have ended with a formation of a rock that is significantly different from the texture of granite. For decades there has been nothing but failure and more failure. Moreover, and just as significantly, never have any of the synthetic rocks from such experiments contained the creation halos, as does granite itself." So they can't reproduce what they say is a naturally occurring event in a lab? That's interesting! Further, "Evolutionists also claim creation halos in granites formed naturally rather than being the result of God's supernatural creation. So again, by their own admission, it must be possible to reproduce them in the lab in the here and now. Their deafening silence about their continuing failure to do this is also discussed in my book, both in Chapter 15, and in earlier chapters. In other words, the entire basis of all evolutionary geology and age dating has long ago been falsified by experiments performed in the lab along with the indelible imprints of His Fingerprints in Earth's Genesis rocks. But evolutionists and others opposed to the distribution of these results are not only doing their best to hide from it themselves, but are surreptitiously doing all in their power to cast these results in doubt and thus dissuade Christians, especially Christian religious leaders, from taking a strong stand supporting Genesis' literal six days of creation and God's seventh day of rest. In essence, they have formed a conspiracy of silence to evade what they cannot overthrow, in spite of the fact that the Genesis record of creation is unambiguously restated in the Fourth of the Ten Commandments. " So if they know how they are created, why not go prove it in a lab? Dr. Gentry proposed not only what he claims in his thesis but a built in way to disprove it which no one has yet to meet the challenge of. I am well aware of the religious tone in this web site and there is nothing wrong with that. Otherwise, all the evolutionary web sites posting data would need to silenced as well. So here is my question to you. If it is as thoroughly disproven as you say, then why has no evolutionist ever challenged Dr. Gentry in a peer-reviewed journal like they are supposedly required to? I find it difficult to believe that they wouldn't if they could. Just a thought.
P.S. I don't go to church on Sunday either, it's actually Saturday!
If you're right (which I would find impossible), then there will be no consequences to me believing what I believe. If I'm right, you are in trouble. I'm not trying to condemn you nor speak with some sense of superiority. The comment I made above is accurate. Either you are right or I am, only time will tell. Blessings go with you.
Quite the contrary. I would agree that the distinctions between "macro" and "micro" are very arbitrary. And trying to debate over something to which you cannot decide on terms is fruitless. One point you made is erroneous "There is no proof of anything in science." Really, so the human forearm doesn't have two bones? I thought that was scientific and fairly well established. However, my point was that evolution and science are two different things. People attempt to make them synonymous but they are not. You say that you are willing to modify your theory based on proof. Here is a website to a bit of proof for creation. It was submitted to a peer-review journal and has yet to receive an answer. For details, go to halos.com. This research was done by Robert Gentry in Knoxville, TN. As per the religion part, you have a dumb theory. I have no problem with dumb theories. As I stated before, you can believe whatever you want. The issue is that evolution is not provable but is taught in schools like it is. Both it and creationism should be removed as neither has anything to do with science. You may look at the forelimb structure of different animals (example: a bat and a human) and say that they probably had a common ancestor. I would look at it and say that they probably had a common designer. Neither one is provable and neither one should be taught in school.
My God is very loving to those who are sorry for how they have broken His law and have a repentant heart. That is why Jesus came so that we didn't have to fear that vengeance. Unfortunately for you, He does have some rules because He did make this planet, and He expects us to act in a certain way. It is His after all. Let's end this here, the conversation won't go anywhere from here anyway.
Don't worry, it's not unscientific. It just challenges the status quo, and a lot of people hate that.
Hate to break it to you guys, but scripture says clearly that through Adam, death entered the world. Evolution teaches that through death, man entered the world. One of these two is wrong. I'm with Bendodge on this one!
You are welcome to believe that Steve, but it isn't science. You can't observe it or test it. Steven J. Gould a leading expert in the field of evolution believes in a concept called spontaneous generation. This is a concept that the evolution that you claim happened over millions of years happened quite rapidly instead. To me, that sounds like creation, but I digress. The point is that you as an evolutionist don't know how it happens, nor can you definitively prove that it did. You simply believe that it did. That is not science, but religion.
Firstly, HE and yes he is a He, does exist. And it wasn't until I listened to what He had to say that everything started to make sense. You live in a world where there is moral grey. I live in a world where there is a genuine black and white. Sometimes it isn't fun to choose, but the choice is still just as clear. As for the intelligence He gave me, my nature by definition of that book is corrupt and untrustworthy. Thankfully, He sent me that book as a rule to measure my actions, thoughts, desires, and reasoning by. Without it, I am leaf in the wind that could be blown about by any change that anyone sent my way. I don't expect you to understand, just know that one day I will be standing on one side and unless you change you will be standing on the other. I know that like the black and white decisions that I spoke of before, that is not a pleasant thought, but it doesn't make it any less true. Besides, if I'm right you are screwed. If I'm wrong, your god won't care! Have a good one.
Firstly, species is not a well defined term as you seem to think that it is. Experts vary on any blog or scientific journal as to what exactly a species should be labeled as. I on the other hand freely admit that what I believe is a religion. I have no qualms with that statement and need no proof to back it up, even though I am fully convinced that all evidence that you consider to point solely to evolution to be just as viable for creation. You on the other hand consider evolution to be science. If that is true, then what is your definition of a species. The very argument that you are throwing at me, I can just as easily throw back at you. When you define "speciation", what do you mean. I assume you mean that various mutations gradually adding up over time will create a new creature that is biologically dissimilar from what we see today. I on the on the other hand would say that there are limits to change. And unlike your argument, I can prove that there have always been dogs and that they still bring forth after their kind today.
My reading comprehension is quite fine. As for your point above, let me break this down for you so that you can keep up. I said that "micro-evolution" happens. It is stated very clearly in the Bible that animals will bring forth after their kinds. You can have a Great Dane or a Pug and they are both still dogs. To quote from you, "It's not exactly a stretch to imagine that they can continue changing further until they have even less in common and be considered 2 different species." There in lies the problem with your argument. You have to imagine and that isn't science. It's a religion. Secondly, the only difference between a fairy-tale and what you believe is that in a fairy-tale you need a kiss to turn a frog into a prince, in evolution, you replace the kiss with long periods of time. You can believe that if you want, but don't call it science. Also, fossils don't count as evidence. When you find bones in the ground, the only thing you know is that this creature died. You don't know that it had any offspring. Example, you breed a horse with a donkey and you get a mule. Mules are infertile, but if you found their bones in the ground, some evolutionist is going to consider that the precursor of somebody even though it isn't. As I have stated before, evolution sounds logical but logical isn't necessarily right!
As with me, the Bible is worth more than the sum of it's parts. I freely admit that I have faith and that my view is religious. It's people who claim that Evolution is proven that drive me nuts. Evolution is also a religion, but is (for some reason) touted as science. You have to imagine macro-evolution because we don't see it. That isn't science!
I watched you go from a very logical scientific position to a fairy-tale in less than one sentence. You are right that we see micro-evolution everywhere, but it has never been seen that macro-evolution has once occurred on this planet. You may believe that it could happen, but that is not observable, testable, or provable and therefore is not scientific, but instead part of your religion. We have never seen a dog produce a non-dog. If they can, as you say. Why don't they do it today? Something we can measure or at the very least record. You "claim" evolution is science. I say it a religion that is only surviving off tax payer money! Don't like it. Prove me wrong. As if you could!
Hate to break it to you, but neither I nor any other creationist limited Him. He told us how He did it in the book. And (I'm sure this will get a nice verbal lashing) contrary to popular "opinion", Creationism isn't as crazy or pseudo-science as many of the people here have made it out to be. I am Christian and unfortunately, the Bible states that death came into the world by Adam's actions. According to evolutionary logic, death brought man into the world. Those two positions are diametric opposites and there is no middle ground. Second is your comment about literalists. There is nothing in the creation account that would indicate that He wasn't speaking of a literal event instead of an allegorical one. Thanks, The Literalist