I must admit I agree with his assessment that pro creation biologists and pro abiogenesis biologists agree a lot more than they disagree; it is the abiogenesis (new word for me) that they disagree on most.
As far as the Bible being falsifiable there is plenty of opportunity for falsification; for example, most of the Bible is prophecy which means at any point if the prophecy does not come true the Bibles is proved false.
Let me give you a couple of examples of accurate prophecy:
There are over 300 accurate prophecies about Jesus Christ; all of them 100 percent came true.
In the times of Jesus the Bible teachers of the day were going nuts because the scepter was finally removed from Israel, the authority to sentence someone to death and carry out the death penalty had come 1500 years after the prophecy in Genesis 49:10.
The prophecy that tells of Jesus being crucified instead of stoned to death didn't even make sense when it was foretold because stoning was the prescribed method to carry out a death sentence during the time period 1000 BC.
The entire book of Daniel was considered to be written around 150 AD until they found the Septuagint dating back 300 years before Christ proving the prophetic accuracy of the book written by Daniel 700 years before Christ, disprove a single prophecy and you will make the Bible null and void.
It turns out the Bible has more prophecy that speaks of the times we are in today and our future than any other time in the history of the world, so from that stand point there is going to be plenty of opportunity for falsification.
As I understand it, the reason they are using bacteria is because it is a living fossil; in other words, it is the same bacteria we find in the fossil record which means it would be the same bacteria that would have evolved.
Are you implying the biologists working on the Genome project are not main stream?
Are you familiar with Einstein's Gulf? Here is a link using Einstein's Gulf to support their position that macro evolution is not possible: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-327.htm.
If you have not figured it out yet my problem is with macro evolution not being provable and even worse not being supported by standard scientific methods. My bigger issue is with out of date text books that teach macro evolution concepts that have been falsified, the list is huge.
As far as having 3 billion years to evolve, that is even in question with recent discoveries of the quantization of the redshifts; this is not what would be predicted to happen in an expanding universe. Hubble's Law stands on its own, Hubble's assertion that the universe is expanding does not, another possibility is that an expansion took place and we live in a static universe that is finite, has an edge and a center. This is consistent with our observations of quantized redshifts and the theory of general relativity.
For the past few years I have been studying the various sciences on a daily basis trying to understand evolution and the age of the universe, the answer is not as clear cut as main stream science would have you believe. I began the study as a sort of a joke because someone told me the age of the earth and macro evolution was in question; I thought, what a joke everyone knows that is absolutely ridiculous. Well, in three years spending countless hours researching the subjects I have not found any evidence that proves the young earth scientists are wrong or macro evolution is even possible.
I am not the smartest guy in the world so I just read everything I can get a hold of on the subject and try my best to understand the various arguments. I am smart enough to realize there are arguments on both sides and not proofs because people agree on proofs; for example, there is no disagreement about Hubble's Law, micro evolution, giraffe's necks didn't grow long because of stretching, embryos don't have gills and proteins that are created using high voltage in an unnatural environment do not survive let alone evolve.
Concerning your ancestry back to Adam; it is not widely published, the best prehistory record of man's generations is found in Genesis 10, generally labeled the table of nations, secular scholars use it as a reference all the time.
As far as the lineage from Noah back to Adam, this not agreed upon because it cannot be proved or disproved so the following statement is subjective based on the lineage of Adam to Noah. If you can trace your lineage to a specific region you can also trace your lineage back to Adam, I personally go back thru Japheth.
It might be interesting to note that pterodactyls or flying lizard would need an atmospheric pressure that is at least twice the density of our current atmosphere in order to support flight. The Biblical record of the ages of the people before the flood is consistent with this dense of an atmosphere that would block UV; thus, prolonging the aging process. It is even more interesting, if you calculate the number of people that would be on the earth at the time of the flood based on a standard birth rate there would have been about one billion people, you can do the same calculation for after the flood and you get approximately 6 billion people.
Does this prove anything? Not really; though, it does show the Bible is consistent with what we know and understand about the physical requirements of pterodactyl flight, prehistory migrations of man, the current population of the earth and aging in a greatly reduced UV environment.
We agree more than we disagree, you are applying your skepticism to the Bible which you obviously have no interest in so any default state you have is based on personal choice not research.
I also am skeptical and have researched the Bible and macro evolution and still cannot find any scientific evidence that proves macro evolution; please help me understand macro evolution because I really want to know the truth.
I don't disbelieve macro evolution because it disagrees with the Bible, I don't believe it because I have never seen actual proof of macro evolution, the Bible only gives me a data point that is consistent with all known scientific information about macro evolution.
Yet you support teaching children giraffes evolved to have long necks from reaching for high food, embryos have gills, amino acids can be produced in unnatural environments and magically be placed in a natural environment and live, the list is actually much bigger.
Wow, I really don't understand the standard used to preach macro evolution in schools when all the evidence being found in DNA research and the Genome project are refuting the possibility of macro evolution.
Maybe what is happening is the people that are intimately involved with the latest research are saying enough is enough, let's get it strait and quit using our school system to attack people's personal belief systems with false science.
God bless you and keep you.
BTW - I would say proving protocells cannot produce complex cells is pretty significant and the fact that the scientific model for bacteria reproduction has been proven to work 100 percent of the time is significant. If I understand what is happening in the Genome project, which I might not, they need to finish mapping all the various complex cell reproductions of bacteria and then they will actually have and answer as to the possibility or impossibility of macro evolution.
You will not find any disagreement here on micro evolution; it is macro evolution I have a problem with because I cannot find any credible scientific proof. I have not found one example of a species becoming another species.
Furthermore, there has never been anything in nature proven to be completely random and as a software engineer I know it is impossible to generate a truly random number, based on this I agree with Einstein "God does not play dice with the universe.
If we truly never examine randomness in nature then someone should be able to produce a repeatable experiment to prove macro evolution and conversely one should be able to prove macro evolution is impossible. This is exactly what is happening in the field of DNA research and the Genome project, researchers are slowly coming to the conclusion macro evolution is impossible.
If I understand it correctly, which I might not, so far they cannot find a mechanism for protocells to generate complex cells and they also cannot find complex bacteria cells that cross pollinate proteins to produce new types of cells; this is a major inhibitor for the evolution of new complex cells. This might even be a good thing, nature's way of preventing undesirable mutations or what some would call macro evolution in a negative direction.
Please feel free to correct me because I really don't understand how to make macro evolution work and can only find unproven theories on how it might work.
I will admidt this is not my field of study so maybe you can explain it?
Quote: "The existence of an irreducibly complex cell division process would present two problems for protocell theory. First, it would require the theory to explain the origin of a protocell that must possess, at a minimum, an irreducibly complex cell division process for survival. Second, if a protocell is capable of surviving with a simple cell division process, how does natural selection lead to a more complex, indeed an irreducibly complex, cell division mechanism?"
Here is some info on the the spiritism remark:
It is of interest that, after engaging in spiritism, certain men in history have been seized with a deep hatred of God and have then been guided to devise evil teachings, that have destroyed large numbers of people, while others have engaged in warfare which have annihilated millions. In connection with this, we think of such known spiritists as *Sigmund Freud and *Adolf Hitler. It is not commonly known that *Charles Darwin, while a naturalist aboard the Beagle, was initiated into witchcraft in South America by nationals. During horseback travels into the interior, he took part in their ceremonies and, as a result, something happened to him. Upon his return to England, although his health was strangely weakened, he spent the rest of his life working on theories to destroy faith in the Creator.
After taking part in the witchcraft ceremonies, not only was his mind affected but his body also. He developed a chronic and incapacitating illness, and went to his death under a depression he could not shake (Random House Encyclopedia, 1977, p. 768).
Education:
*Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was born into wealth and able to have a life of ease. He took two years of medical school at Edinburgh University, and then dropped out. It was the only scientific training he ever received. Because he spent the time in bars with his friends, he barely passed his courses. Darwin had no particular purpose in life, and his father planned to get him into a nicely paid job as an Anglican minister. Darwin did not object.
Darwin as a person:
He frequently commented in private letters that he recognized that there was no evidence for his theory, and that it could destroy the morality of the human race. "Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without in some degree becoming staggered" (*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 1860, p. 178; quoted from Harvard Classics, 1909 ed., Vol. 11). "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy" (*Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).
Hey I see your point, very clever, you got me good.
I am not sure that actually changes the meaning in the Bible of "four corners of earth", maybe it does because I was too stupid to defend what it says, maybe that makes it incorrect?
Maybe you can come up with a better translation for: " tessares gônia gç"
Here is what I have for the translation:
Tessares: "four" Gônia: "the four extreme limits of the earth" gç : "the earth as a whole, the world"
This is the literal translation of the original text in the Bible, feel free to make it out to be what ever you like, it seams to be the custom of the day.
There is an interesting prophesy in the Bible, of course there is some controversy on the meaning. I personally believe it is a message to the church of today, the Christens that try to ride the fence and say I accept the non-science of evolution and secular philosophy and I also accept the Bible in an allegorical form of stories on how to be a good person.
Notice I said non-science because I love science and agree with Einstein when he said "God does not play dice with the universe". I am in the same science camp as Einstein not someone who flunked out of school and got his ideas from people speaking with spirits.
Here is the prophecy:
Message to Laodicea
14 "To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, Beginning of the creation of God, says this: 15 'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. 16 'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. 17 'Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, 18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. 19 'Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent. 20 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. 21 'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. 22 'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.' "
Feel free to save your karma by not resending just to show how stupid I am and how smart you are:
Here are some of the problems I am having believing evolution and an expanding universe:
First evolution:
1. Bacterial cell division appears to be irreducibly complex. There is evidence to suggest that it involves multiple factors that are coordinated to interact precisely with one another. For instance, it appears that the complex processes of DNA replication, transcription, translation, cytokinesis, and chromosome partitioning are interdependent and precisely coordinated during cell division.
2. The FtsZ-dependent cytokinesis apparatus in E.coli fits the definition of an irreducibly complex system because it involves several co-dependent parts that work together like a machine. If any single part is eliminated, or its concentration altered, cell division ceases or is aberrant. Therefore, we can say that the gradual derivation of this system by natural selection acting on a simple protocell is unlikely.
3. Scientific evidence gathered from the study of several free-living bacteria suggest the existence of a common core cytokinesis system. The core system consists of a division ring protein, a protein that directs the division ring to the mid-cell septum, and a protein that helps bind the division ring to the mid-cell septum. In addition, we can speculate that a protein that partitions DNA strands may also be a part of this mechanism.
4. Genome analysis has revealed that some bacteria do not possess all the same proteins that are present in the FtsZ-dependent cytokinesis apparatus of E.coli. Therefore, a simpler, non-irreducibly complex apparatus may exist in these bacteria. Alternately, a complex apparatus may exist, because all the factors for cell division have yet to be discovered by functional analysis.
Second Hubble's theory of an expanding universe:
In Arizona, a respected astronomer named William Tifft found something strange going on with the redshift measurements of light from distant galaxies. It had been presumed that the shift toward the red end of the spectrum of light from these distant galaxies was due to a currently expanding universe, and the measurements should be seen as gradually but smoothly increasing as one went through space. That wasn't what Tifft was finding. The measurements weren't smooth. They jumped from one plateau to another. They were quantized, or came in quantities with distinct breaks in between them. When Tifft published his findings, astronomers were incredulous and dismissive. In the early 1990s in Scotland, two other astronomers decided to prove him wrong once and for all. Guthrie and Napier collected their own data and studied it. They ended up deciding Tifft was right.
Third who do I believe?
The first article, entitled "Darwin Vindicated," was written by Dr. Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. The professor asserts that "the genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right - mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors. Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true. The response to all those who thump their Bible and say there is no proof, no test and no evidence in support of evolution is, 'The proof is right here, in our genes.'"
Or
On the same day, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article entitled, "Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine." It featured an interview with Gene Myers, who was the computer scientist at the Maryland headquarters of Celera Genomics, who actually worked out the genome mapping. Myers said, "We're deliciously complex at the molecular level...We don't understand ourselves yet, which is cool. There's still a metaphysical, magical element." He went on to say, "What really astounds me is the architecture of life...the system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed." As to whether this implicated a designer Myers said, "There's a huge intelligence there. I don't see tha
What is the real debate? Is it really "if you believe in God your and idiot" or is there a deeper debate under the surface? What are the "holes in evolution", what are the alternatives being discuss by today's scientists? As much fun as it is to go back and forth saying is/is not, I personally enjoy jumping into the fray and wallowing in the facts and theories.
The one thing I would ask is that you to do is keep and open mind, don't be like the current secular scientific community that rejects information before reviewing it just because someone has a different personal belief system than you do. If you do this you have literally taken yourself out of the game because you are not reviewing all possible outcomes of the information before you make a decision.
Let me give you and example:
Quote (from this article: http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/423/ ): "Barry wrote another paper and submitted it to a standard physics journal in 1999. They did not send it to peer review but returned it immediately, saying it was not a timely subject, was of no current interest, and was not substantial enough. (It was over fifty pages long with about a hundred and fifty references to standard physics papers and texts.) So Barry resubmitted it to an astronomy journal. They sent it out to peer review and the report came back that the paper was really interesting but that it really belonged in a physics journal."
This is very common, once a technical journal learns you are pro-creation they reject papers without technical peer review, what are they afraid of? What is happening is more open minded scientist are exploring new areas and finding there is more than one way to explain the data, while the scientist that only accept material that is consistent with their own personal belief system are putting themselves in a box.
It is interesting that science is not standing still even though the time honored main stream scientific journals and universities are while the more open minded scientist are creating their own venue for the free exchange of new ideas. They are free to explore the possibility that evolution might never have happened and we might very well be living on a young earth.
Because the scientific community is truly split on the issues of the age of the earth and evolution verses creation the real issue is one of personal choice. Many atheists have stated it very clearly, if they can prove evolution then they can disprove ID and there is no reason for morality because there is no God or creator. Atheists have clearly stated that they are free to perform what Christians believe are immoral acts; for example, man has no law against lying, sexual promiscuity or homosexuality, to an atheist this is a type of freedom.
Atheists have clearly stated that they enjoy the freedoms they are given, not being accountable to a creator or the all mighty God. What is the impact of this freedom on scientific discovery? Let me give you some examples, an atheist scientist can lie to prove their point, look at the history of the theory of evolution because it is fraught with deception and lies. We still see the chart hung up on walls and in text books of the evolution of the chimpanzee evolving into a man, when every fossil that was used to create that chart was found to be either a fraud or human, one of them was even crated from a pig tooth!!!
If this is the foundation of the science of evolution then how do we know that today's atheist scientists are not following in the same foot steps as their fathers? You could argue that the scientists, that also happen to be Christens, claiming that there are not only holes in the theory of evolution, the evidence is becoming overwhelming from imperial data and probabilistic models against evolution are not sincere? The fact is there is disagreement between the two communities of equally educated scientists and some are being less than honest.
If you where in a situation where your life depended on a single stranger telling the truth and that stranger was offered one billion dollars to lie would you chose an atheist or a Christine?
First I would like to point out that ID is falsifiable just as Evolution is falsifiable; as a matter of fact they are opposites of each other, in other words, if you prove one you disprove the other, this has been stated by many atheists.
Quote: Evolutionist Quote of the Week
"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."
- G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, p. 30, Sept. 20, 1979.
For all of you who have not taken the time to actually delve in to the finer points of irreducibly complex systems here is an article that might help:
Notice the credentials of the author: Joseph W. Francis Associate Professor of Biology Cedarville College, Ohio
I believe this man is no different than you or I in that he is in all security doing the best job he can and following the facts as he sees them.
Scientists speak about evolution:
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"--*Charles Darwin
I understand you will dismiss the authority of these scientists because the day they admit they are a Christian they all of a sudden become blabbering idiots. It reminds me of a friend of mine who teaches hand-to-hand combat to the special forces, he upset his teacher and his teacher demoted him from 7th degree black belt to white belt, like all of a sudden his knowledge was sucked out of him by magic, he is still one of the toughest guys I know, LOL.
BTW - Having a formal education in physics, and three engineering disciplines I was very skeptical when I came across this information. The problem was, as a scientist, I was curious and the more I studied the more I realized these other scientists weren't a bunch of crackpots. These scientists felt so strongly about what they had learned they sacrificed their careers in order to pursue alternate scientific postulations of the given data.
Given limited resources, they have driven discoveries in the field of science that the current university system has totally ignored because of the atheistic agenda. This is the very system that puts boundaries on scientific study based on personal beliefs and the ACLUs control by amending our constitution with Thomas Jefferson's unofficial letters to justify their atheistic position.
I think it is a sad state of affairs when an atheistic or
You have only read up on the pro-evelution information, try doing a little research into the pro-creation side.
Looking at one side of the arguent gives you very biased opinion, fortunatly the "fundies" have been doing the research the universities refuse to do and there is a lot of good material availabe now.
I find it interesting someone who supposedly cares about rights is advocating taking them away if they don't agree with you.
BTW - If you are afraid of your precious so called facts being challenged and disproved they must not contain much fact.
The very people you are coming against just want their day in the scientific spot light to be either proven or disproved!!!
Of course with your tyrannical views you obviously only support freedom for the people that are like minded to your belief system, thanks for being so supportive of your fellow Americans and their personal freedoms.
Actually, the "fundies" as you call them, not sure who this is, sounds like name calling, are trying to change the scientific process back to what it was before it was corrupted.
I long for the good old days when something had to be scientifically proven before it was considered fact, when all the data was used and you didn't throw out the data points that didn't fit your outcome.
This is all the world class scientists are trying to do, they want science to be good science and conduct itself in a respectable manner exploring all the data to come up with the most plausible out come, not providing the answer and then torturing the data to get the desired outcome.
What the so-called enlightened people are doing is legislating education and inhibiting the growth of science by putting a moratorium on education by only allowing subject matter that fits their personal belief system and trying to force it on their students.
I find this unacceptable, the "fundies" as you put it are not trying to say the science they have is any better, they are just asking that it be taught and scrutinized scientifically along with other theories.
It looks like there is a segment of the population that wants to legislate the scientific process in order to further their own personal belief system, I find this an insult to the pursuit of scientific discovery.
I say let each stand on its own merit falling or standing on scientific principles not legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
I just read a paper by someone who obviously does not have a favorable opinion toward scientists that believe in creation: http://www.philosoraptor.com/little_essay02.html
i ogenesis&btnG=Google+Search
l #top l #top l #10
I must admit I agree with his assessment that pro creation biologists and pro abiogenesis biologists agree a lot more than they disagree; it is the abiogenesis (new word for me) that they disagree on most.
Abiogenesis: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+Ab
As far as the Bible being falsifiable there is plenty of opportunity for falsification; for example, most of the Bible is prophecy which means at any point if the prophecy does not come true the Bibles is proved false.
Let me give you a couple of examples of accurate prophecy:
Psalms 22: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/Psa022.htm
Isaiah: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa053.htm
Genesis 49:10: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen049.htm
There are over 300 accurate prophecies about Jesus Christ; all of them 100 percent came true.
In the times of Jesus the Bible teachers of the day were going nuts because the scepter was finally removed from Israel, the authority to sentence someone to death and carry out the death penalty had come 1500 years after the prophecy in Genesis 49:10.
The prophecy that tells of Jesus being crucified instead of stoned to death didn't even make sense when it was foretold because stoning was the prescribed method to carry out a death sentence during the time period 1000 BC.
The entire book of Daniel was considered to be written around 150 AD until they found the Septuagint dating back 300 years before Christ proving the prophetic accuracy of the book written by Daniel 700 years before Christ, disprove a single prophecy and you will make the Bible null and void.
It turns out the Bible has more prophecy that speaks of the times we are in today and our future than any other time in the history of the world, so from that stand point there is going to be plenty of opportunity for falsification.
This is a great site if you are interested in Biblical prophecy: http://www.khouse.org/
I will leave you with the fundamental teaching of Jesus Christ, His commandment for His followers:
12 "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
John 15:12
God bless you and keep you.
Sickofthisshit,
As I understand it, the reason they are using bacteria is because it is a living fossil; in other words, it is the same bacteria we find in the fossil record which means it would be the same bacteria that would have evolved.
Are you implying the biologists working on the Genome project are not main stream?
Are you familiar with Einstein's Gulf? Here is a link using Einstein's Gulf to support their position that macro evolution is not possible: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-327.htm.
If you have not figured it out yet my problem is with macro evolution not being provable and even worse not being supported by standard scientific methods. My bigger issue is with out of date text books that teach macro evolution concepts that have been falsified, the list is huge.
As far as having 3 billion years to evolve, that is even in question with recent discoveries of the quantization of the redshifts; this is not what would be predicted to happen in an expanding universe. Hubble's Law stands on its own, Hubble's assertion that the universe is expanding does not, another possibility is that an expansion took place and we live in a static universe that is finite, has an edge and a center. This is consistent with our observations of quantized redshifts and the theory of general relativity.
For the past few years I have been studying the various sciences on a daily basis trying to understand evolution and the age of the universe, the answer is not as clear cut as main stream science would have you believe. I began the study as a sort of a joke because someone told me the age of the earth and macro evolution was in question; I thought, what a joke everyone knows that is absolutely ridiculous. Well, in three years spending countless hours researching the subjects I have not found any evidence that proves the young earth scientists are wrong or macro evolution is even possible.
I am not the smartest guy in the world so I just read everything I can get a hold of on the subject and try my best to understand the various arguments. I am smart enough to realize there are arguments on both sides and not proofs because people agree on proofs; for example, there is no disagreement about Hubble's Law, micro evolution, giraffe's necks didn't grow long because of stretching, embryos don't have gills and proteins that are created using high voltage in an unnatural environment do not survive let alone evolve.
Concerning your ancestry back to Adam; it is not widely published, the best prehistory record of man's generations is found in Genesis 10, generally labeled the table of nations, secular scholars use it as a reference all the time.
As far as the lineage from Noah back to Adam, this not agreed upon because it cannot be proved or disproved so the following statement is subjective based on the lineage of Adam to Noah. If you can trace your lineage to a specific region you can also trace your lineage back to Adam, I personally go back thru Japheth.
It might be interesting to note that pterodactyls or flying lizard would need an atmospheric pressure that is at least twice the density of our current atmosphere in order to support flight. The Biblical record of the ages of the people before the flood is consistent with this dense of an atmosphere that would block UV; thus, prolonging the aging process. It is even more interesting, if you calculate the number of people that would be on the earth at the time of the flood based on a standard birth rate there would have been about one billion people, you can do the same calculation for after the flood and you get approximately 6 billion people.
Does this prove anything? Not really; though, it does show the Bible is consistent with what we know and understand about the physical requirements of pterodactyl flight, prehistory migrations of man, the current population of the earth and aging in a greatly reduced UV environment.
As far as my standard
We agree more than we disagree, you are applying your skepticism to the Bible which you obviously have no interest in so any default state you have is based on personal choice not research.
I also am skeptical and have researched the Bible and macro evolution and still cannot find any scientific evidence that proves macro evolution; please help me understand macro evolution because I really want to know the truth.
I don't disbelieve macro evolution because it disagrees with the Bible, I don't believe it because I have never seen actual proof of macro evolution, the Bible only gives me a data point that is consistent with all known scientific information about macro evolution.
God bless you and keep you.
Sharper_pmp,
Yet you support teaching children giraffes evolved to have long necks from reaching for high food, embryos have gills, amino acids can be produced in unnatural environments and magically be placed in a natural environment and live, the list is actually much bigger.
Wow, I really don't understand the standard used to preach macro evolution in schools when all the evidence being found in DNA research and the Genome project are refuting the possibility of macro evolution.
Maybe what is happening is the people that are intimately involved with the latest research are saying enough is enough, let's get it strait and quit using our school system to attack people's personal belief systems with false science.
God bless you and keep you.
BTW - I would say proving protocells cannot produce complex cells is pretty significant and the fact that the scientific model for bacteria reproduction has been proven to work 100 percent of the time is significant. If I understand what is happening in the Genome project, which I might not, they need to finish mapping all the various complex cell reproductions of bacteria and then they will actually have and answer as to the possibility or impossibility of macro evolution.
Sickofthisshit,
You will not find any disagreement here on micro evolution; it is macro evolution I have a problem with because I cannot find any credible scientific proof. I have not found one example of a species becoming another species.
Furthermore, there has never been anything in nature proven to be completely random and as a software engineer I know it is impossible to generate a truly random number, based on this I agree with Einstein "God does not play dice with the universe.
If we truly never examine randomness in nature then someone should be able to produce a repeatable experiment to prove macro evolution and conversely one should be able to prove macro evolution is impossible. This is exactly what is happening in the field of DNA research and the Genome project, researchers are slowly coming to the conclusion macro evolution is impossible.
If I understand it correctly, which I might not, so far they cannot find a mechanism for protocells to generate complex cells and they also cannot find complex bacteria cells that cross pollinate proteins to produce new types of cells; this is a major inhibitor for the evolution of new complex cells. This might even be a good thing, nature's way of preventing undesirable mutations or what some would call macro evolution in a negative direction.
Please feel free to correct me because I really don't understand how to make macro evolution work and can only find unproven theories on how it might work.
God bless you and keep you.
I will admidt this is not my field of study so maybe you can explain it?
Quote:
"The existence of an irreducibly complex cell division process would present two problems for protocell theory. First, it would require the theory to explain the origin of a protocell that must possess, at a minimum, an irreducibly complex cell division process for survival. Second, if a protocell is capable of surviving with a simple cell division process, how does natural selection lead to a more complex, indeed an irreducibly complex, cell division mechanism?"
Here is some info on the the spiritism remark:
It is of interest that, after engaging in spiritism, certain men in history have been seized with a deep hatred of God and have then been guided to devise evil teachings, that have destroyed large numbers of people, while others have engaged in warfare which have annihilated millions. In connection with this, we think of such known spiritists as *Sigmund Freud and *Adolf Hitler. It is not commonly known that *Charles Darwin, while a naturalist aboard the Beagle, was initiated into witchcraft in South America by nationals. During horseback travels into the interior, he took part in their ceremonies and, as a result, something happened to him. Upon his return to England, although his health was strangely weakened, he spent the rest of his life working on theories to destroy faith in the Creator.
After taking part in the witchcraft ceremonies, not only was his mind affected but his body also. He developed a chronic and incapacitating illness, and went to his death under a depression he could not shake (Random House Encyclopedia, 1977, p. 768).
Education:
*Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was born into wealth and able to have a life of ease. He took two years of medical school at Edinburgh University, and then dropped out. It was the only scientific training he ever received. Because he spent the time in bars with his friends, he barely passed his courses. Darwin had no particular purpose in life, and his father planned to get him into a nicely paid job as an Anglican minister. Darwin did not object.
Darwin as a person:
He frequently commented in private letters that he recognized that there was no evidence for his theory, and that it could destroy the morality of the human race. "Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without in some degree becoming staggered" (*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 1860, p. 178; quoted from Harvard Classics, 1909 ed., Vol. 11). "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy" (*Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).
God bless you and keep you.
Einstein's Gulf: Can Evolution cross it?
h tm
_ volume_1/torrance.htm
http://www.christiscreator.com/evolutionclass101.
Einstein and God:
http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections
God bless you and keep you.
ickofthisshit,
0 1.htm
Hey I see your point, very clever, you got me good.
I am not sure that actually changes the meaning in the Bible of "four corners of earth", maybe it does because I was too stupid to defend what it says, maybe that makes it incorrect?
Maybe you can come up with a better translation for: " tessares gônia gç"
Here is what I have for the translation:
Tessares: "four"
Gônia: "the four extreme limits of the earth"
gç : "the earth as a whole, the world"
This is the literal translation of the original text in the Bible, feel free to make it out to be what ever you like, it seams to be the custom of the day.
There is an interesting prophesy in the Bible, of course there is some controversy on the meaning. I personally believe it is a message to the church of today, the Christens that try to ride the fence and say I accept the non-science of evolution and secular philosophy and I also accept the Bible in an allegorical form of stories on how to be a good person.
Notice I said non-science because I love science and agree with Einstein when he said "God does not play dice with the universe". I am in the same science camp as Einstein not someone who flunked out of school and got his ideas from people speaking with spirits.
Here is the prophecy:
Message to Laodicea
14 "To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, Beginning of the creation of God, says this:
15 'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot.
16 'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.
17 'Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,
18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.
19 'Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.
20 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.
21 'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
22 'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.' "
Feel free to save your karma by not resending just to show how stupid I am and how smart you are:
You seam to have all the answers, where would you teach this: http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od201/peeringdbb2
God bless you and keep you.
For thoes of you that don't understand the phrase "4 corners of the earth":
1. North
2. East
3. South
4 West
Travel in any of the given directions and see what the shape of the earth is.
Before you ask, no I don't think God has feathers.
God bless you and keep you.
Where do you teach this: http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od201/peeringdbb20 1.htm ?
Here are some of the problems I am having believing evolution and an expanding universe:
First evolution:
1. Bacterial cell division appears to be irreducibly complex. There is evidence to suggest that it involves multiple factors that are coordinated to interact precisely with one another. For instance, it appears that the complex processes of DNA replication, transcription, translation, cytokinesis, and chromosome partitioning are interdependent and precisely coordinated during cell division.
2. The FtsZ-dependent cytokinesis apparatus in E.coli fits the definition of an irreducibly complex system because it involves several co-dependent parts that work together like a machine. If any single part is eliminated, or its concentration altered, cell division ceases or is aberrant. Therefore, we can say that the gradual derivation of this system by natural selection acting on a simple protocell is unlikely.
3. Scientific evidence gathered from the study of several free-living bacteria suggest the existence of a common core cytokinesis system. The core system consists of a division ring protein, a protein that directs the division ring to the mid-cell septum, and a protein that helps bind the division ring to the mid-cell septum. In addition, we can speculate that a protein that partitions DNA strands may also be a part of this mechanism.
4. Genome analysis has revealed that some bacteria do not possess all the same proteins that are present in the FtsZ-dependent cytokinesis apparatus of E.coli. Therefore, a simpler, non-irreducibly complex apparatus may exist in these bacteria. Alternately, a complex apparatus may exist, because all the factors for cell division have yet to be discovered by functional analysis.
Second Hubble's theory of an expanding universe:
In Arizona, a respected astronomer named William Tifft found something strange going on with the redshift measurements of light from distant galaxies. It had been presumed that the shift toward the red end of the spectrum of light from these distant galaxies was due to a currently expanding universe, and the measurements should be seen as gradually but smoothly increasing as one went through space. That wasn't what Tifft was finding. The measurements weren't smooth. They jumped from one plateau to another. They were quantized, or came in quantities with distinct breaks in between them.
When Tifft published his findings, astronomers were incredulous and dismissive. In the early 1990s in Scotland, two other astronomers decided to prove him wrong once and for all. Guthrie and Napier collected their own data and studied it. They ended up deciding Tifft was right.
Third who do I believe?
The first article, entitled "Darwin Vindicated," was written by Dr. Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. The professor asserts that "the genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right - mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors. Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true. The response to all those who thump their Bible and say there is no proof, no test and no evidence in support of evolution is, 'The proof is right here, in our genes.'"
Or
On the same day, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article entitled, "Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine." It featured an interview with Gene Myers, who was the computer scientist at the Maryland headquarters of Celera Genomics, who actually worked out the genome mapping. Myers said, "We're deliciously complex at the molecular level...We don't understand ourselves yet, which is cool. There's still a metaphysical, magical element." He went on to say, "What really astounds me is the architecture of life...the system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed." As to whether this implicated a designer Myers said, "There's a huge intelligence there. I don't see tha
What is the real debate? Is it really "if you believe in God your and idiot" or is there a deeper debate under the surface? What are the "holes in evolution", what are the alternatives being discuss by today's scientists? As much fun as it is to go back and forth saying is/is not, I personally enjoy jumping into the fray and wallowing in the facts and theories.
:
The one thing I would ask is that you to do is keep and open mind, don't be like the current secular scientific community that rejects information before reviewing it just because someone has a different personal belief system than you do. If you do this you have literally taken yourself out of the game because you are not reviewing all possible outcomes of the information before you make a decision.
Let me give you and example:
Quote (from this article: http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/423/ )
"Barry wrote another paper and submitted it to a standard physics journal in 1999. They did not send it to peer review but returned it immediately, saying it was not a timely subject, was of no current interest, and was not substantial enough. (It was over fifty pages long with about a hundred and fifty references to standard physics papers and texts.) So Barry resubmitted it to an astronomy journal. They sent it out to peer review and the report came back that the paper was really interesting but that it really belonged in a physics journal."
This is very common, once a technical journal learns you are pro-creation they reject papers without technical peer review, what are they afraid of? What is happening is more open minded scientist are exploring new areas and finding there is more than one way to explain the data, while the scientist that only accept material that is consistent with their own personal belief system are putting themselves in a box.
It is interesting that science is not standing still even though the time honored main stream scientific journals and universities are while the more open minded scientist are creating their own venue for the free exchange of new ideas. They are free to explore the possibility that evolution might never have happened and we might very well be living on a young earth.
Because the scientific community is truly split on the issues of the age of the earth and evolution verses creation the real issue is one of personal choice. Many atheists have stated it very clearly, if they can prove evolution then they can disprove ID and there is no reason for morality because there is no God or creator. Atheists have clearly stated that they are free to perform what Christians believe are immoral acts; for example, man has no law against lying, sexual promiscuity or homosexuality, to an atheist this is a type of freedom.
Atheists have clearly stated that they enjoy the freedoms they are given, not being accountable to a creator or the all mighty God. What is the impact of this freedom on scientific discovery? Let me give you some examples, an atheist scientist can lie to prove their point, look at the history of the theory of evolution because it is fraught with deception and lies. We still see the chart hung up on walls and in text books of the evolution of the chimpanzee evolving into a man, when every fossil that was used to create that chart was found to be either a fraud or human, one of them was even crated from a pig tooth!!!
If this is the foundation of the science of evolution then how do we know that today's atheist scientists are not following in the same foot steps as their fathers? You could argue that the scientists, that also happen to be Christens, claiming that there are not only holes in the theory of evolution, the evidence is becoming overwhelming from imperial data and probabilistic models against evolution are not sincere? The fact is there is disagreement between the two communities of equally educated scientists and some are being less than honest.
If you where in a situation where your life depended on a single stranger telling the truth and that stranger was offered one billion dollars to lie would you chose an atheist or a Christine?
First I would like to point out that ID is falsifiable just as Evolution is falsifiable; as a matter of fact they are opposites of each other, in other words, if you prove one you disprove the other, this has been stated by many atheists.
.htm#top
Quote:
Evolutionist Quote of the Week
"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."
- G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, p. 30, Sept. 20, 1979.
For all of you who have not taken the time to actually delve in to the finer points of irreducibly complex systems here is an article that might help:
Notice the credentials of the author:
Joseph W. Francis
Associate Professor of Biology
Cedarville College, Ohio
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od201/peeringdbb20 1.htm
I believe this man is no different than you or I in that he is in all security doing the best job he can and following the facts as he sees them.
Scientists speak about evolution:
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"--*Charles Darwin
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-evol1
More information about evolution the atheists don't want you to know:
http://evolution-facts.org/
More links:
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp
http://www.setterfield.org/simplified.html
http://www.origins.org/
http://www.trueorigin.org/
One of my favorites: "The Origin of Language and Communication"
http://www.trueorigin.org/language01.asp
I understand you will dismiss the authority of these scientists because the day they admit they are a Christian they all of a sudden become blabbering idiots. It reminds me of a friend of mine who teaches hand-to-hand combat to the special forces, he upset his teacher and his teacher demoted him from 7th degree black belt to white belt, like all of a sudden his knowledge was sucked out of him by magic, he is still one of the toughest guys I know, LOL.
BTW - Having a formal education in physics, and three engineering disciplines I was very skeptical when I came across this information. The problem was, as a scientist, I was curious and the more I studied the more I realized these other scientists weren't a bunch of crackpots. These scientists felt so strongly about what they had learned they sacrificed their careers in order to pursue alternate scientific postulations of the given data.
Given limited resources, they have driven discoveries in the field of science that the current university system has totally ignored because of the atheistic agenda. This is the very system that puts boundaries on scientific study based on personal beliefs and the ACLUs control by amending our constitution with Thomas Jefferson's unofficial letters to justify their atheistic position.
I think it is a sad state of affairs when an atheistic or
You have only read up on the pro-evelution information, try doing a little research into the pro-creation side. Looking at one side of the arguent gives you very biased opinion, fortunatly the "fundies" have been doing the research the universities refuse to do and there is a lot of good material availabe now.
I have a challenge for you, prove yourself correct.
BTW - The second article refutes the first article.
Janitha,
I am glade you got a good laugh, I deserve it for posting the wrong article, I was in a hurry and posted the wrong one.
Here is the one I ment to post: http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp
Hey Paridise Pete you are going to have a field day with this, I posted the wrong article, here is the article: http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp/
Janatha, Thank for asking, here is an article that discuss this very subject: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability .html/
Yeah, the expanding universe thing, it is a theory that is riddled with physical problems!!!
Actually Jesus said the world was round 2000 years ago, funny he would know that!!!
I find it interesting someone who supposedly cares about rights is advocating taking them away if they don't agree with you.
BTW - If you are afraid of your precious so called facts being challenged and disproved they must not contain much fact.
The very people you are coming against just want their day in the scientific spot light to be either proven or disproved!!!
Of course with your tyrannical views you obviously only support freedom for the people that are like minded to your belief system, thanks for being so supportive of your fellow Americans and their personal freedoms.
God bless you and keep you
Actually, the "fundies" as you call them, not sure who this is, sounds like name calling, are trying to change the scientific process back to what it was before it was corrupted.
I long for the good old days when something had to be scientifically proven before it was considered fact, when all the data was used and you didn't throw out the data points that didn't fit your outcome.
This is all the world class scientists are trying to do, they want science to be good science and conduct itself in a respectable manner exploring all the data to come up with the most plausible out come, not providing the answer and then torturing the data to get the desired outcome.
What the so-called enlightened people are doing is legislating education and inhibiting the growth of science by putting a moratorium on education by only allowing subject matter that fits their personal belief system and trying to force it on their students.
I find this unacceptable, the "fundies" as you put it are not trying to say the science they have is any better, they are just asking that it be taught and scrutinized scientifically along with other theories.
It looks like there is a segment of the population that wants to legislate the scientific process in order to further their own personal belief system, I find this an insult to the pursuit of scientific discovery.
I say let each stand on its own merit falling or standing on scientific principles not legislation.
Are you arguing for Law makers not to not ban educators from teaching ID?
"Science isn't about people simply "believing" what they are told. That is the definition of faith."
Thus the faith (religion) of "Evolution" is born.