Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Sorry, but your book is seriously overpriced. It's almost $1/page. Eeek! No thanks. Maybe the decimal point was misplaced? And Lambert Publishing..
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If Theory of Darwin is fact, not theory, then Darwin Theory is wrong in its title already?
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
No, not even a little. For example, you could have a god-created universe, but also have modern, non-god infected evolution. The Clock-makers' Universe.
Scientists have thought about it-- they do not agree with you. That's why Evolution does not depend on cosmology. Evolution doesn't even "kick in" until the earth appears, about 4.5 billion years back, and the best models? Only about a billion years in, at around 3.5 billion years ago.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
"doctor"? No-- he has NO degrees. He IS a criminal-- convicted of lying, fraud and worse.
Nothing he says is accurate or factual. Nothing. We'd have to fact-check if he wrote out a monthly planner-- likely he'd get the days mixed up or something.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Darwin was not a cosmologist.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Not by any sane, educated, intelligent person.
Creationists like to lie about it, sure, but none of what you wrote makes any sense to any rational person.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
So can posters on discussion forums.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
So true. And on the same note, Einstein wasn't an "evolutionist" or "darwinist".
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
You could have stopped your observation with the word "confusing".
He is confusing and quite confused indeed.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
My gosh you are out of your league.
Have you even taken high school science?
Tell you what - you start a thread with your best scientific arguments (non-plagiarized, please) that 'genetic similarities' is flawed re: evolution, and we'll see how well you fare.
Citation please.
Last edited:
tas8831
Well-Known Member
So this Engineer/Designer/Creator made us more closely related to bananas than honey bees.
Go figure - just make sure you use HuffPo as your scientific source!
Weird thing - clicked on Honeybee link at Huffpo - there was no story in that volume of NatGeo that mentioned honeybees; clicked on the banana link - goes to some UK tabloid site, that just lists the number and provides no source.
Great creation science!
Last edited:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Actually, it is possible. The mind-trick here though is to not think linear.
I haven't looked into this specifically, but I assume it's explained with humans are closer to a shared ancestor with the honey bees than shared ancestor to banans, but it's just that the distance on the different branches make the path we'd have to travel back to the ancestor and then to the bee is longer than it would be to trace it to the shared ancestor with bananas and then the bananas themselves. That's what I assume it is.
Or put it this way: (distance as genetic change, number of mutations, chromosomal change, etc)
A. distance human to shared ancestor with humans and bees
B. distance bee to shared ancestor to humans and bees
C. distance banana to shared ancestor to humans, bees, and bananas
D. distance humans to shared ancestor to humans, bees, and bananas
A+B > C+D
Still, A < D, evolution still intact.
Don't quote me on this though. It's just what I suspect it is.
Everything Darwin said and thought about evolution and everything that came since has been nothing but a bunch of hocus pocus bs.
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
You just do not understand the science involved here. That's OK
. I mean, if you don't see the connection between, say the creation of the elements in the periodic table, and the fact that many of those elements are what you are made of then...well that is your problem. If you are interested in learning about cosmology though, let me know. God bless.
Logic is a form of algebra. Where's the self deception? Input error?
Symbolic Logic | Encyclopedia.com
You just do not understand the science involved here. That's OK
Yes, but how those elements are formed is pretty irrelevant to the biology. The properties of the elements themselves are certainly relevant, but NOT how they came to be.
So, if the Big Bang hadn't happened, but the elements still existed with their known properties (say, in a Steady State theory), evolutionary theory would not be affected in the least.
That is what is meant to say the evolutionary theory is independent of cosmology.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You just do not understand the science involved here. That's OK
The point remains that evolution doesn't have anything to do with cosmology - aside from the trivial sense in which all science is connected to the material universe, that is. Evolution stands regardless of how the elements came to exist and cosmology stands regardless of whether evolution happened on Earth or not. Different fields of study and different evidence.
It is you who seems to not understand the science.
No, dark matter is physical stuff, and it can be measured by instruments. That's how we detected it, by its gravitational effect on spacetime.
By "spiritual realm" you seem to mean "my feelings," since you have no concrete evidence for this bizarre concept.
Do you believe in this Jesus Christ? Which version? -- there have been so many.
How do you know your interpretation is right; gut feeling again? familiarity? childhood indoctrination?
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
Hello. Of course, as you likely know, the Steady-State theory (and v 2.0, QSST) are long dead. That our universe had a beginning and a history is firmly established. So there is a connection. No, the actual process of nucleosynthesis does not concern the evolutionary biologist. But that all of Creation is connected is (should be) obvious.