Science vs. Religion

[kman]

Originally Posted by Seranin

I think your lady in your avatar lends credit to both sides of the discussion... a stellar example of evolution and/or "god's" craftsmanship at its finest

i've always thought evolution and creationism are one and the same, but how do you prove that.... it was right before my eyes... mathews avatar!! that is brilliant! Amen!

[TitanIam]

Originally Posted by albonismo

yeah E85 is the worst development in alternative fuel ever...anyways, science vs religion. religion always wins. period.

...the Ethanol Religion will be the death of us. Talk about evolution!

[master_1011]

Originally Posted by GMVisitor

If evolution is basically proven then how do you explain the following:


"NOT ONE CHANGE OF SPECIES INTO ANOTHER IS ON RECORD. We cannot
prove that a single species has ever changed."
- Charles Darwin

The human body (or the body of any other creature) cannot live
without most internal organs, such as the heart, the lungs, the liver,
et cetera. Remove any of these organs, and the specimen dies. This
implies that the entire body was created at one point in time.

Natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among
preexisting characteristics.

According to ALL theories on the evolution of the solar system:

a. The planets should all rotate on their axes in the
same direction; Venus and Uranus rotate `backwards`.

b. All 42 moons of the various planets should revolve in
the same direction; at least 11 revolve `backwards`.

c. The orbits of these 42 moons should all lie in the equatorial
plane of the planet they orbit; many, including the earth's moon,
are highly inclined.

Human footprints are found alongside dinosaur footprints in the rock
formations of the Paluxy riverbed in Texas. This obviously shows that
man and dinosaurs lived at the same time and the same place. But
evolutionists claim that dinosaurs became extinct about 30 million years
before `man` supposedly began to `evolve`.

MANY DATING TECHNIQUES SHOW THE EARTH AND SOLAR
SYSTEM TO BE YOUNG

1. Direct measurements of the earth's magnetic field over the past 140
years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This decay
pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an
electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic field.
If this view is correct, then 25,000 years ago the electrical current
would have been so vast that the earth's structure could not have
survived the heat produced. This would imply that the earth could not be
older than 25,000 years.

2. The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based on
just the production of helium from the decay of uranium and thorium.
There is no known means by which large amounts of helium can escape from
the atmosphere. The atmosphere appears to be young.

3. The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, lead, silicon,
mercury, uranium and nickel are entering the oceans is very rapid when
compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the
oceans. Therefore, the oceans must be very much younger than a million
years.

4. Evolutionists believe that the continents have existed for at least
1 billion years. However, the continents are being eroded at a rate
that would have leveled them in a relatively short 14 million years.

Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the Royal
Greenwich Observatory and U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct visual
measurements which show that the diameter of the sun is shrinking at a
rate of about .1% each century or about 5 feet per hour! Furthermore,
records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid shrinkage has been
going on for at least the past 400 years. Several indirect techniques
also confirm this gravitational collapse, although these inferred
collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much. Using the most
conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed one
million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated
the earth so much that life could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists
say that a million years ago all the present forms of life were
essentially as they are now, having completed their `evolution` that
began 200 million years ago.

If man and languages `evolved`, the earliest languages should be the
simplest. On the contrary, as one studies languages that are
increasingly ancient, such as Latin (200 B.C.), Greek (800 B.C.), and
Vedic Sanskrit (1500 B.C.), they become INCREASINGLY COMPLEX with
respect to syntax, cases, genders, moods, voices, tenses, and verb
forms. The evidence indicates that languages do not Evolve, they
DEvolve.

Just a few things to think about

very interesting points to ponder......but I must ask to cite a reference.

I'm not doubting you, but every single one of these "theories" is new to me and I'm curious about them.

[chunko]

Originally Posted by GMVisitor

If evolution is basically proven then how do you explain the following:


"NOT ONE CHANGE OF SPECIES INTO ANOTHER IS ON RECORD. We cannot
prove that a single species has ever changed."
- Charles Darwin

The human body (or the body of any other creature) cannot live
without most internal organs, such as the heart, the lungs, the liver,
et cetera. Remove any of these organs, and the specimen dies. This
implies that the entire body was created at one point in time.

Natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among
preexisting characteristics.

According to ALL theories on the evolution of the solar system:

a. The planets should all rotate on their axes in the
same direction; Venus and Uranus rotate `backwards`.

b. All 42 moons of the various planets should revolve in
the same direction; at least 11 revolve `backwards`.

c. The orbits of these 42 moons should all lie in the equatorial
plane of the planet they orbit; many, including the earth's moon,
are highly inclined.

Human footprints are found alongside dinosaur footprints in the rock
formations of the Paluxy riverbed in Texas. This obviously shows that
man and dinosaurs lived at the same time and the same place. But
evolutionists claim that dinosaurs became extinct about 30 million years
before `man` supposedly began to `evolve`.

MANY DATING TECHNIQUES SHOW THE EARTH AND SOLAR
SYSTEM TO BE YOUNG

1. Direct measurements of the earth's magnetic field over the past 140
years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This decay
pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an
electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic field.
If this view is correct, then 25,000 years ago the electrical current
would have been so vast that the earth's structure could not have
survived the heat produced. This would imply that the earth could not be
older than 25,000 years.

2. The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based on
just the production of helium from the decay of uranium and thorium.
There is no known means by which large amounts of helium can escape from
the atmosphere. The atmosphere appears to be young.

3. The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, lead, silicon,
mercury, uranium and nickel are entering the oceans is very rapid when
compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the
oceans. Therefore, the oceans must be very much younger than a million
years.

4. Evolutionists believe that the continents have existed for at least
1 billion years. However, the continents are being eroded at a rate
that would have leveled them in a relatively short 14 million years.

Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the Royal
Greenwich Observatory and U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct visual
measurements which show that the diameter of the sun is shrinking at a
rate of about .1% each century or about 5 feet per hour! Furthermore,
records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid shrinkage has been
going on for at least the past 400 years. Several indirect techniques
also confirm this gravitational collapse, although these inferred
collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much. Using the most
conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed one
million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated
the earth so much that life could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists
say that a million years ago all the present forms of life were
essentially as they are now, having completed their `evolution` that
began 200 million years ago.

If man and languages `evolved`, the earliest languages should be the
simplest. On the contrary, as one studies languages that are
increasingly ancient, such as Latin (200 B.C.), Greek (800 B.C.), and
Vedic Sanskrit (1500 B.C.), they become INCREASINGLY COMPLEX with
respect to syntax, cases, genders, moods, voices, tenses, and verb
forms. The evidence indicates that languages do not Evolve, they
DEvolve.

Just a few things to think about

Not much to think about. Most of your examples assume that all things are linear projections, and don't account for natural fluctuations.

With your examples, I could say "for the past 6 hours the ocean has been retreating at 1 foot per hour, therefor the ocean must be only a few days old" oh, but wait, now the ocean is coming back...what...tides come and go?...ahh fluctuations. This is the answer to number 1 and number 4. There are forces that build and erode continents and magnetic fields and current rates can't be projected.

For number 3, I'd like to see a source for this... and an account for elements MAN has dumped into the ocean. For example, if one were to assume that mercury were introduced into the ocean at rates equal to the last hundred years for the life of the planet...there would be no life in the ocean...or at least not life as we know it to day. But that is not proof of the life of the planet...just evidence of man's ability to affect the planet we live on.

For number 2, uhhh... do you know anything about helium???...it constantly escapes the earth's atmosphere. Helium makes up about 0.0005% of the earth's atmosphere. This trace amount of helium is not gravitationally bound to the earth and is constantly lost to space. The earth's atmospheric helium is replaced by the decay of radioactive elements in the earth's crust.


Also languages do not evolve in any sort of a predictable way. Language has many political and social contexts... For long periods of time written language was known only to limited few, and keeping it complex kept the masses in line and served as a tool for unchallenged authority. The more advanced societies tended to have written languages that were simplified to a certain degree...although this is hardly universal. I would argue the complexity of language has no bearing in an argument for or against evolution.

As for your point about natural selection not producing new genes....you're right (another duh moment for me) natural selection SELECTS the mutations that are favorable and passed down. It is mutations that create the new genes...

I won't respond to the men walking with dinosaurs comment...

For the astronomy issues...I'm not astronomy expert...I slept through most of those classes, but if they are anything like the other examples...probably just as easily explainable...

Unless...I'm just full of $hit...wouldn't be the first time

[bigfinderman]

Hmmm. That was pretty interesting..

[HemiETR]

Truth is the authority. Authority is not the truth. Look onto www.zeitgeist.com and watch that movie.

[gvilleBAMA]

[chunko]

Originally Posted by HemiETR

Truth is the authority. Authority is not the truth. Look onto www.zeitgeist.com and watch that movie.

Worthless link...

Here's the correct link...(I haven't watched the movie myself...so I'm not vouching for it)

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

[gr8titan]

Evolution is described by Darwinians as the "transformation" of one specie to a completely different specie. Evolutionists say: we (all life: plants, animals, humans) originated from a single living cell called an amoeba.

Simplified example of evolution: Frog turns into a Prince.

Unlike the famous fairy tale, evolution didn't happen in a nano-second because of a KISS. Not even in a million years. Evolution happened over billions or even trillion of years!!! If you believe this premise by Darwin, read on............ let's examine one scientific proof evolutionists love to use:

Skeletal and fossil diggings/findings abound backed-up by carbon dating.

If evolution happened, say from a frog to a prince, scientifically, there should be fossils imbedded unto the earth that resembles inter-specie transformations. Example: skeletons of half frog+half prince should be so abundant especially if an entire specie is changing into another specie.

As of 2008, with the advent of carbon dating, evolutional diggings and research, there is NO inter-specie fossils that is half man and half something ever found....non-unearthed.....ever.

Now, don't get me wrong........ I still believe in dinousaurs!!!!
................and in an intelligent designer.

[Kronos1965]

Originally Posted by gr8titan

Evolution as described by Darwin is the "transformation" of one specie to a completely different specie. Evolutionists say: we (all life: plants, animals, humans) originated from a single living cell called an amoeba.

Simplified example of evolution: Frog turns into a Prince.

Unlike the famous fairy tale, evolution didn't happen in a nano-second because of a KISS. Not even in a million years. Evolution happened over billions or even trillion of years!!! If you believe this premise by Darwin, read on............ let's examine one scientific proof evolutionists love to use:

Skeletal and fossil diggings/findings abound backed-up by carbon dating.

If evolution happened, say from a frog to a prince, scientifically, there should be fossils imbedded unto the earth that resembles inter-specie transformations. Example: skeletons of half frog+half prince should be so abundant especially if an entire specie is changing into another specie.

As of 2008, with the advent of carbon dating, evolutional diggings and research, there is NO inter-specie fossils that is half man and half something ever found....non-unearthed.....ever.

Now, don't get me wrong........ I still believe in dinousaurs!!!!
................and in an intelligent designer.

Interesting example.

The lack of evidence is because the fossil remains like the surrounding materials decay and the "silver bullet" that would link such a transformation would truly be the find of the millenia...

However species turning into other species as adaptation and adaptations along a greater time length in turn create evolution.

One has to go to the Galapagos Islands to see that species adapt to changing conditions and over time those changes can become more permanent.

[kman]

a rabbit will eat its own sh i t because its digestive track is not very efficient, how intelligent is that!

[bbomar]

Originally Posted by kman

a rabbit will eat its own sh i t because its digestive track is not very efficient, how intelligent is that!

I vote this post of the day!!

[Kronos1965]

Originally Posted by kman

a rabbit will eat its own sh i t because its digestive track is not very efficient, how intelligent is that!

If it still lives, then quite intelligent in design! Where food is scarce, that's a good thing to be able to do...

[gr8titan]

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

Interesting example.

The lack of evidence is because the fossil remains like the surrounding materials decay and the "silver bullet" that would link such a transformation would truly be the find of the millenia...

However species turning into other species as adaptation and adaptations along a greater time length in turn create evolution.

One has to go to the Galapagos Islands to see that species adapt to changing conditions and over time those changes can become more permanent.

The only thing Galapagos Island can prove is the magnificent adaptive capability within species of the animal kingdom. And of course these adaptive transformations will remain as long as the environmental changes persists.

Elementary example: certain specie of birds are able to dive underwater to catch a prey for food but not all birds are capable of doing this. The suitable questions I would ask a Darwinian would be:
Did this specie of birds evolve from fish???
If they did, how may stages did they have to undergo??
How long did it happen??
Are there any transformational stage fossils to prove this theory??

However, there are no evident transformation from one specie changing to another. Galapagos Island can neither produce any inter-specie fossil that may prove that humans had evolved from another specie nor can Galapagos Island present the scientific world a live - human - like - missing link to support "Human Evolution".

The Darwinians must be burning inside out, because of all the possible millions of stages of adaptative evolution of man from another specie, (which supposedly transpired for billions of years) all their skeletal remains had questionably decayed in STARK CONTRAST to the well preserved, fossilized historical proof of the smallest ameoba to the largest dinousaur. As you can see, the earths crust does not decriminate when it comes to preserving it's own history......
OR..... is anyone really so stupid to believe that the earth is a part of a HUGE conspiracy to "HIDE" the proof of the Darwinian evolution?

There are over several billion human beings on earth right this very minute but NOT A SINGLE fossil to prove our inter-specie transformation or evolution.

Until a fossil of this inter-specie evolution of the human specie is presented to the scientic world, I'd look at any Darwinian as a member of a "scientific cult" and I will continue my belief in the intelligent design and the designer!!

[kman]

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

If it still lives, then quite intelligent in design! Where food is scarce, that's a good thing to be able to do...

for me its easier to accept that it evolved that way, otherwise the designer has a twisted sense of humor, no?