Furthermore, it is commonly known that money is the root of all evil, so
Money = sqrt(Evil)
Sorry but your proof falls over at this stage. Money is not the root of all evil, but "the love of money" is the root of all evil. ref: 1 Timothy 6:10 (KJV). Better translations render it "the root of all kinds of evil as opposed to "all evil" (i.e. not meaning that its the root of blanket universal evil). Thus, your formula fails it in two places at this stage of the proof.
I'm a Buddhist. I do not believe in a god that is separate from us. I don't see any real problems with evolution as a theory either. God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
So do you believe in reincarnation then? And karma?
Interesting that you should mention that. We see transitionals within the cambrian period. Google lobopods (between worms and arthropods). I'm not sure how you think that the "cambrian explosion" somehow works against evolutionary theory. All we see is a proliferation of new phyla over the course of 5-40 million years. There are a lot of good ideas as to why this was a major branching point (appearance of mobile predators, the development of "hox genes", etc.) and no reason to think that it's odd.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio n=view&ID=242. The Cambrian Explosions is called an explosion exactly because there was very little life below it, then boom mega population explosion of various life forms. An explosion of life! The exact oposite of what darwinists expected. They expected many more prior slow transitions through the sediment layers below to more simple lifeforms, leading right back to the common ancestors.
A person trained in the field can look at a fossil and tell you how old it will turn out to be when it is dated.
Not exactly a scientific journal, but interestingreadingall the same. Many other dating methods shown to be flakey also. How do we really know how old the earth is?
Sorry dude, what are your beliefs then? Perhaps I just have mistakenly presumed from what you've been saying that you were an atheist/agnostic who believes in macro-evolution?
Yeah, because they're all related theories. And they're all reasonable. Even the big bang theory doesn't say anything about what space the singularity was in prior to going bang. But science doesn't produce these theories without some observation and experimentation. That is something your book lacks, and why "faith" is so highly regarded. Because it's hard work believing in fairy tales. If you want to prove evolution is false, you need to find some problem with it.
Like I said, it's still just a theory, not proven fact. The burden of proof is on the person who makes that claim that macro-evolution and common descent is true, and not that other way around. A "reasonable" theory is still not proof. You still haven't proved that all life has evolved from a common ancestor, yet you redicule me for not believing your fairy tale! Commonly used words when relating to evolution theory such as "believe" and "best describes" is not proof either, but merely conjecture in the arena of science. Yet, you insult christians for their beliefs, when historical evidence is very strong (yes, people were around 2000+ years ago and recorded what they saw). A bit of the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me. You stick to your religious belief system (i.e. belief in evolution and common descent with no proof) and I'll stick to mine. Thanking you.
There is nothing in evolution that says it did. I don't understand why Christians make themselves look foolish disputing evolution.
Not true. Most highschool textbooks that teach evolution, combine it with the big bang, the primordial soup where life first began, and then the idea of common descent. That everything evolved from an organism that somehow sprung up primordial soup. To me that's fairy tale taught as fact. "Disputing evolution" is one of the basic principals of science, and that is questioning and examining. If something is false, then it needs to be questioned. If something is true, then it can stand being questioned. But to object to people questioning it is similar to the Inquisitions (a brush which many people tar all christians with).
Look at the diversity we have been able to create in dogs and cats over a relatively short period of time.
Diversity within a species is indeed observable. Christians do not question micro-evolution. Only we question the concept of macro-evolution, one genus evolving to a completely new genus. A horse mating with a donkey, makes a mule right? They are still in the same animal family/type. Whether they could breed a fish or something comletely different outside of their own animal family/type eventually is just speculation.
The evolution of one genus to another has never been observed!
You don't think animals have a conscience?
I see evidence of a conscience of sorts in my own dog. How and when did this evolve?
Neither do you.
My point exactly. People should not teach as proven fact in science textbooks what is speculation. Christians cannot teach that there is conclusively no life on other planets.
Science has some very good theories about it, but all you have is a fantasy world with no hope of any proof.
Ditto.
That is if you crazy religious types don't kill us all first.
This illustrates the problem with the "transitional fossil challenge." If we have two species and a fossil is found that fills the gap between them, rather than seeing it as evidence, creationists see *two* gaps now!
When two species are sufficiently similar then there may be reason to believe they are transitional. But currently the so-called single transition is still a massive leap. One would expect fossils showing minor variations of the inbetween developmental stages.
We're still searching for the precambrian rabbit.
As I understand it, aren't we looking for a lot of precambrian things, as in most things? The cambrian explosion was the complete opposite of what Darwin himself expected the fossil record to yield. As far as your other comments, while one may say they may point towards a view of evolution, they certainly do not conclusively prove it. It's more of a Who Dunnit mystery where people examine a crime scene and try to guess what happened. However, the crime occurs long long ago and has since been ransacked by time and nature.
A very interesting question that is worth exploring is why Australia has no native placental mammals. Evolutionary theory explains this observation.
Interesting point. We may never know the answer to that. Just like the Theory of Common Decent, any such theories will still be mere conjectures / speculation.
There is still absolutely zero proof that life evolved from non-life. None whatsoever. You believe that by faith. The fact that we exist doesn't prove that we evolved from non-life. Show some evidence, or try to replicate it.
Well that's a problem because it certainly seems to be about 4.5 billion years old.
"Seems". Well, the earth "seems" created to me. The complexity of life is amazing. So many thanks have hints of design. So many things in nature defy the Survival Of The Fittest theory. Such as certain plants and insect supposedly evolving so that they are utterly dependant on each other for survival of their species, rather than evolving to be independant. Endless other examples defy the SOTF theory.
Tell me, what would an eye do in the early stages of its evolution? You can't really believe that we evolved by a complex and prolonged series of mutations (aka mishaps) in the genetic code? People mostly inherit features from their ancestors.
Of all the mutations we see in everyday life, how many are positive? Pretty much all are defects. So how many defects does it take to make an eye, a brain, a central nervous system, consciousness, self-awareness, thought, or a conscience?
Won't it be interesting if/when we find signs of life on Mars or somwhere else? We have no idea how much life there is in the universe yet.
"no idea". Exactly. Science doesn't even know anything about the origin of life on this planet, let alone other planets.
Even at a stretch that someone might claim it's transitional, but it's still a massive jump. Where are the in-between transitions? It could just be another species that is kinda like a bird and kind is like a dinosaur. But could be neither. Whale vs fish, is a closer example. We've got plenty of examples such as a platypus which is kinda like a duck and kinda like an otter. Left over parts perhaps.;-)
What other animal today has a tail like a cedar tree? Job is the oldest book in the bible (1000's of years old), and it is clear that man co-existed with at least one kind of dinosaur. The author of Job did not have a video camera to prove it, and even he did some would claim that it was computer edited.:-)
And the bible does not claim that the earth is actually millions or billions of years old. The bible doesn't need the excessive time to cater for evolution, because God created all things in 6 days. Even if the earth was given more time than evolutionist claim, there is no way we could've evolved from non-life! Given infinite time even. Since when has life ever evolved from non-life? No-one can prove that or replicate that, but only pontificate that!
Job 40:15-24 " Now behold behemoth, which I made along with you; he eats grass like an ox;
see, now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the muscles of his belly.
He hangs his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
His bones are like tubes of bronze; his bones are like bars of iron.
He is the first of the ways of God; his Maker brings near his sword.
For the mountains yield food for him, and all the beasts of the field play there.
He lies under the lotus, in the hiding place of the reed and the marsh.
The lotus trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook surround him.
Behold, though a flood presses, he does not run away; he feels safe even if Jordan swells up to his mouth.
Shall any take him before his eyes, or pierce through his nose with cords?
I also would like to point out that drdino.com is probably not such a great place to be getting your data. At least point to answersingenesis.com if you want "analysis" that ignores refutations from the scientific mainstream. "Dr." Kent Hovind is sort of a laughingstock--so much so that even most other creationist organizations distance themselves from him.
For sure. I understand that. However, alot of his articles are written by and credited to others. He summarises the points nicely and people can look up many of the references themselves. But I see where you are coming from. Thanks.
Sure, birds and dinosaurs "could" have coexisted. But there's no real evidence that they did. The majority of the physical evidence points strongly toward them not existing in remotely the same time period. And of course, for the people who bemoan the lack of "transitionals" there's the archaeopteryx.
Here is a reference then from a source that you recognize.
You're the first person to ever call me a "heretic", and you didn't even mention Jesus!
Well then you've got yourself a major theological dilema then.
Yes there's a theological dilemma. So how do you approach it? Do you
A)Reject the science that raised the dilemma and embrace the theological text.
B)Reject the text that raised the dilemma and embrace modern science.
C)Embrace both modern science and the text as much as you can, and watch the dilemma crumble under the weight of truth.
For me, the answer is C.
I never called you a heretic. Just the belief system that contradicts scripture is heresy. I sincerely apologise if I have made you feel condemned in any way. May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you and give you peace.
Macro-Evolution and the Scriptures are not compatible. Either you are truly a bible-believing christian or you are not. I'm not condeming you and suggesting that you are not a christian. Just questioning whether you actually believe what God has clearly told us in His word. It is clear in scripture that death was not in the world prior to the fall. God clearly outlines how and why He created Adam and Eve, from scratch, in detail. And then recorded in Exodus, some 2500 years later God states in plain language that the people of Israel can clearly understand, not parables or prophetic language, that He made all things in just 6 days. They had 2500 or so years to know what a 24 hours day was. He was not misleading them. But clearly you do not seem to believe what God Himself has said.
I hold a 4th option:
D). Believe the Authoritive Word of God over and above the "science" of man - Rejecting "science" that contradicts the Truth, and accepting the science that does line up with the Truth.
As Christians we must subjecting all ideas, arguments, sciences to the Word of God. Remember that science is just man's way of attempting to explain how things are. Science is ever changing, being revised constantly. The Word of God endures forever and is unchanging. I reject the parts of science that contradict the Word of God, while embracing the truth. "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds, pulling down imaginations (arguments) and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought into the obedience of Christ; " - 2 Corinthians 10:4-5
I don't throw out micro-evolution, as in observable variations within a species. But the the Theory of Common Decent is a fairy tale that is totally incompatible with the written Word of God. There is no mystery, one of these is a lie.
I don't try to place the six days that God created the heavens and the earth into any sort of historical or scientific context. I know that it's true, and I also know that we came about through evolution. I understand evolution enough that its settled in my mind. I consider the six days to be a great biblical mystery; I don't dare mash it into a historical context. God's word stands on its feet; it doesn't need any help from me.
Well then you've got yourself a major theological dilema then. Because if evolution is true, then you have death existing in the world prior the fall. The bible tells us that death entered the world because of the fall. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" - Romans 5:12. Prior to the fall there was no death.
Macro-Evolution and christianity are incompatible. God created Adam in His own image. From dust. And then He breathed life into him. "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" - Genesis 2:7.
He then later created Eve from part of Adam. They did not evolve, otherwise they too would've had parents. God created Eve after stating that it was not good for Adam to be alone.
"The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."..... But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."" - Genesis 2:18, 20-24.
If Adam were alone, then he cannot have had parents, grandparents, siblings, cousins, ancestors, etc. He would've just taken himself a wife otherwise. This is plain heresy.
As a Bible believing Christian, I strongly disagree that evolution is a religion. Its science, just like Relativity, Gravity, Electromagnetism, etc.
So then you'll be familiar with Exodus 20:11 where God states: "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." This is many years after the people have been used to 24 hour days and 7 day weeks. He tells the people in terms that they know that He made all things relating to the heavens and the Earth in 6 days.
Here is an article from one of us "maybe they're not ancestors" camp. Something else you might find interesting. There has been evidence of man co-existing with dinosaurs. So my explanation is that birds and dinosaurs can easily have co-existed. I cannot point to evidence right now, so will not state it to you as proven fact.
From what I know, not all scientists agree that birds descended from dinosaurs, but as you said, that's the best explanation out.
Here we have an assertion made without evidence, a belief even, yet you agree with the teaching of it as fact? Evolution is no less a belief system than any other religion. Whether all scientists believe birds evolved from dinosaurs is not the issue, the issue is that most evolutionists believe that they all share a common ancestor - even though there is NO EVIDENCE to support this crock. Not a shred of evidence.
To quote the Alpha Omega Institute: "There are no transitions between vastly different types of animals in either the living world or the fossil record. Lining up three objects by size or shape does not prove that one turned into the other."
Even the best explanation, whilest lacking tangible evidence, is still not a proven fact.
Firstly, how do we conclusively prove said fossil is actually 3million years old?
Radiometric dating. Sedimentation. Comparing results obtained through different methods. Nature leaves its clues. Science is used to figure them out.
This article might interest your then. Here is an excerpt:
Another fact, which proves quite embarrassing to "old-age" proponents in regard to radiometric dating, is the half-life of Carbon 14 itself. Not only is the actual half-life length itself in some contention, but the effect it would have on the upper limits of its capability in dating illustrates clearly the level of fraud that has been foisted on an unsuspecting society. Consider that Carbon 14's half-life is around 5,630 years 3 (though estimates range from 5,300 to 5,700 years); in only ten cycles of this, there would be nothing left to measure in the extant specimen! This means that the absolute maximum age radiocarbon could date a specimen to would be around 56,300 years; yet daily society is barraged with reports that some new find was dated in the hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years using Carbon 14. Actually, after the sixth cycle or so, there would not be enough Carbon 14 in the sample to be measured; the upper limit then would be around 30,000 years.
Two embarrassing words of evolutionists: Cambrian Explosion
Are you kidding me? People kill themselves and do other stupid stuff in the name of religion? That never happens. People do really stupid stuff because they "believe". People other than Christians. But what I want to know is, how can you point to the bible to validate your beliefs, and deny the Muslims and the Buddhists that same avenue to validate theirs? You can't all be right.
That is why all these books need to be tested and examined. Something that is true can stand being tested. Something that is false should be tested. The bible has stood the test of time. Just like the Book of Mormon, the Quran fails simple testing. History has proven that anyone can rant and write a book. Major historical facts have been bungled in both these books. The bible is verifiable and proven through fulfilled prophecy. Lots of them. Detailed prophecies accurately fulfilled! There is also the cultural laws that dictated how scribes were to record history that were painfully pedantic. I posted links previously that would answer your objections to this, but you clearly are not interested in truth.
Conclusively prove that dinosaur DNA code can and has changed into bird DNA. Some experts in phylogenetics will admit that there is little supporting evidence, but claim it's the best explanation that we currently have. However, it's still taught as fact.
Firstly, how do we conclusively prove said fossil is actually 3million years old? Secondly, you do realise that a monkey looks alot like a human but is massively genetically different?
Although man and monkey are 95 to 98 percent genetically similar, the difference at the chemical base level is still in the millions. (Note that the DNA of the zebra fish is 92 percent similar to humans. Why don't zebra fish and monkeys hang out together?) - Quote from "What Darwin Didn't Know" by Geoffrey Simmons, M.D.
Let me be very clear: I don't believe that any evolution can cause a dinosaur species to evolve into a bird species. Can you conclusively prove this to be the case?
Fossils can be observed. Whether or not they are fossils of early ancestors, or completely different but now extinct species is yet to be conclusively proven.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry but your proof falls over at this stage. Money is not the root of all evil, but "the love of money" is the root of all evil. ref: 1 Timothy 6:10 (KJV). Better translations render it "the root of all kinds of evil as opposed to "all evil" (i.e. not meaning that its the root of blanket universal evil). Thus, your formula fails it in two places at this stage of the proof.
You need a .NET Passport or a Hotmail account. You do NOT need MS Windows, just a browser and internet connection.
The evolution of one genus to another has never been observed! I see evidence of a conscience of sorts in my own dog. How and when did this evolve? My point exactly. People should not teach as proven fact in science textbooks what is speculation. Christians cannot teach that there is conclusively no life on other planets. Ditto. Cheap.
As I understand it, aren't we looking for a lot of precambrian things, as in most things? The cambrian explosion was the complete opposite of what Darwin himself expected the fossil record to yield. As far as your other comments, while one may say they may point towards a view of evolution, they certainly do not conclusively prove it. It's more of a Who Dunnit mystery where people examine a crime scene and try to guess what happened. However, the crime occurs long long ago and has since been ransacked by time and nature. Interesting point. We may never know the answer to that. Just like the Theory of Common Decent, any such theories will still be mere conjectures / speculation.
Tell me, what would an eye do in the early stages of its evolution? You can't really believe that we evolved by a complex and prolonged series of mutations (aka mishaps) in the genetic code? People mostly inherit features from their ancestors. Of all the mutations we see in everyday life, how many are positive? Pretty much all are defects. So how many defects does it take to make an eye, a brain, a central nervous system, consciousness, self-awareness, thought, or a conscience? "no idea". Exactly. Science doesn't even know anything about the origin of life on this planet, let alone other planets.
Even at a stretch that someone might claim it's transitional, but it's still a massive jump. Where are the in-between transitions? It could just be another species that is kinda like a bird and kind is like a dinosaur. But could be neither. Whale vs fish, is a closer example. We've got plenty of examples such as a platypus which is kinda like a duck and kinda like an otter. Left over parts perhaps. ;-)
What other animal today has a tail like a cedar tree? Job is the oldest book in the bible (1000's of years old), and it is clear that man co-existed with at least one kind of dinosaur. The author of Job did not have a video camera to prove it, and even he did some would claim that it was computer edited. :-)
And the bible does not claim that the earth is actually millions or billions of years old. The bible doesn't need the excessive time to cater for evolution, because God created all things in 6 days. Even if the earth was given more time than evolutionist claim, there is no way we could've evolved from non-life! Given infinite time even. Since when has life ever evolved from non-life? No-one can prove that or replicate that, but only pontificate that!
Sure. Dinosaurs are mentioned in scripture:
Job 40:15-24 " Now behold behemoth, which I made along with you; he eats grass like an ox; see, now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the muscles of his belly. He hangs his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are like tubes of bronze; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the first of the ways of God; his Maker brings near his sword. For the mountains yield food for him, and all the beasts of the field play there. He lies under the lotus, in the hiding place of the reed and the marsh. The lotus trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook surround him. Behold, though a flood presses, he does not run away; he feels safe even if Jordan swells up to his mouth. Shall any take him before his eyes, or pierce through his nose with cords?
Macro-Evolution and the Scriptures are not compatible. Either you are truly a bible-believing christian or you are not. I'm not condeming you and suggesting that you are not a christian. Just questioning whether you actually believe what God has clearly told us in His word. It is clear in scripture that death was not in the world prior to the fall. God clearly outlines how and why He created Adam and Eve, from scratch, in detail. And then recorded in Exodus, some 2500 years later God states in plain language that the people of Israel can clearly understand, not parables or prophetic language, that He made all things in just 6 days. They had 2500 or so years to know what a 24 hours day was. He was not misleading them. But clearly you do not seem to believe what God Himself has said.
I hold a 4th option:
D). Believe the Authoritive Word of God over and above the "science" of man - Rejecting "science" that contradicts the Truth, and accepting the science that does line up with the Truth.
As Christians we must subjecting all ideas, arguments, sciences to the Word of God. Remember that science is just man's way of attempting to explain how things are. Science is ever changing, being revised constantly. The Word of God endures forever and is unchanging. I reject the parts of science that contradict the Word of God, while embracing the truth. "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds, pulling down imaginations (arguments) and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought into the obedience of Christ; " - 2 Corinthians 10:4-5
I don't throw out micro-evolution, as in observable variations within a species. But the the Theory of Common Decent is a fairy tale that is totally incompatible with the written Word of God. There is no mystery, one of these is a lie.
Macro-Evolution and christianity are incompatible. God created Adam in His own image. From dust. And then He breathed life into him. "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" - Genesis 2:7.
He then later created Eve from part of Adam. They did not evolve, otherwise they too would've had parents. God created Eve after stating that it was not good for Adam to be alone.
"The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."..... But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."" - Genesis 2:18, 20-24.
If Adam were alone, then he cannot have had parents, grandparents, siblings, cousins, ancestors, etc. He would've just taken himself a wife otherwise. This is plain heresy.
Here is an article from one of us "maybe they're not ancestors" camp. Something else you might find interesting. There has been evidence of man co-existing with dinosaurs. So my explanation is that birds and dinosaurs can easily have co-existed. I cannot point to evidence right now, so will not state it to you as proven fact.
To quote the Alpha Omega Institute: "There are no transitions between vastly different types of animals in either the living world or the fossil record. Lining up three objects by size or shape does not prove that one turned into the other."
Even the best explanation, whilest lacking tangible evidence, is still not a proven fact.
Another fact, which proves quite embarrassing to "old-age" proponents in regard to radiometric dating, is the half-life of Carbon 14 itself. Not only is the actual half-life length itself in some contention, but the effect it would have on the upper limits of its capability in dating illustrates clearly the level of fraud that has been foisted on an unsuspecting society. Consider that Carbon 14's half-life is around 5,630 years 3 (though estimates range from 5,300 to 5,700 years); in only ten cycles of this, there would be nothing left to measure in the extant specimen! This means that the absolute maximum age radiocarbon could date a specimen to would be around 56,300 years; yet daily society is barraged with reports that some new find was dated in the hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years using Carbon 14. Actually, after the sixth cycle or so, there would not be enough Carbon 14 in the sample to be measured; the upper limit then would be around 30,000 years.
Two embarrassing words of evolutionists: Cambrian Explosion
Here is an example of marketing the Tree of Life to our kids.
Conclusively prove that dinosaur DNA code can and has changed into bird DNA. Some experts in phylogenetics will admit that there is little supporting evidence, but claim it's the best explanation that we currently have. However, it's still taught as fact.
Firstly, how do we conclusively prove said fossil is actually 3million years old? Secondly, you do realise that a monkey looks alot like a human but is massively genetically different?
Although man and monkey are 95 to 98 percent genetically similar, the difference at the chemical base level is still in the millions. (Note that the DNA of the zebra fish is 92 percent similar to humans. Why don't zebra fish and monkeys hang out together?) - Quote from "What Darwin Didn't Know" by Geoffrey Simmons, M.D.
Let me be very clear: I don't believe that any evolution can cause a dinosaur species to evolve into a bird species. Can you conclusively prove this to be the case?
Fossils can be observed. Whether or not they are fossils of early ancestors, or completely different but now extinct species is yet to be conclusively proven.