Just Accidental?

[metis]

So tell me metis, how many of the "peers" who are reviewing these "scholarly works" do not believe in evolution?

Anyone can review the material, and when I have handled it myself, the curators never asked me or implied that I had to be a "believer" in evolution. Why do you keep making up these stories, Deeje?

This is a conclusion I come to when so many evolutionists proudly proclaim their atheism.

So, you do believe that it's morally right to stereotype us. I don't believe in stereotyping people, Deeje, and I doubt Jesus would either.

I am judging no one....simply telling you what the scriptures say about the way it is at this point in history.

You have judged people here on many occasions, and I on many occasions have responded to your judgementalism, so now you are again not telling the truth here.

More and more I'm becoming convinced that you may believe about Jesus but not so much in him because you keep stating things that I cannot in any way imagine that he would accept. He said not to judge others, but you do it all the time. John 3:16 has the words Jesus said for "salvation", and yet you and your JW's have added other stipulations. You are disingenuous when you stereotype "evolutionists" by equating us with atheism. Etc.

So, let me suggest you go look for a church that actually teaches the gospel and the necessity of having the belief in Jesus, Deeje.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Hi It Aint Necessarily So

You're farting against the wind here. Luckily for humanity the major Christian churches in the world do accept the findings of science.

Thanks for your interest. I post for the benefit of other skeptics as well as myself. I understand the futility of trying to reach the creationists.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

OK, Mr Google tells me....."Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal or as a book."

So tell me metis, how many of the "peers" who are reviewing these "scholarly works" do not believe in evolution?
"Experts in the same field" are hardly going to disagree with the first premise, are they? You are talking about details, not the theory itself, which has no verifiable foundation.



This is a conclusion I come to when so many evolutionists proudly proclaim their atheism. Atheists seem to be in the majority, whilst those who throw their hands up stating "I dunno" are not in a much better position as far as God is concerned.
The indecisive person is a bit like the "luke-warm" Christians that Jesus addresses in Revelation. (Revelation 3:14-22; James 1:5-8)
This is the time for decision...we all have to make one because there are only two roads, and we are all on either one or the other. There is no fence to sit on. (Matthew 7:13-14)



I am judging no one....simply telling you what the scriptures say about the way it is at this point in history. Those in Noah's day didn't listen to him either, but I assume that the people ended up regretting the fact that they treated him as a bit of an crazy man. Once they realized that he was telling the truth, it was too late to change course.....Jesus said it would happen again. (Matthew 24:37-39) Do I remain silent or do I tell an unpopular truth?

Was Jesus judging when he taught his disciples and the crowds what God required of them? Or was he giving them food for thought? We all have the same information, but we all obviously have different responses to it. Why do you think that is?

You don't have to believe me metis, but God is right now warning the world to take notice of the message that is being sounded in all the world before the end of this entire system comes crashing in upon an unsuspecting population. (Luke 21:34-36)

As Jesus said..."This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come."

Can anyone afford to

The stakes are very high. I wish people would just listen.....

You need to give skeptics a reason to believe you. I have no reason to believe any of the things you report here, and neither do you.

 

[viole]

Hi It Aint Necessarily So

You're farting against the wind here. Luckily for humanity the major Christian churches in the world do accept the findings of science.

Do they? True, some of them, on paper, seem to be intellectually hip, but I am skeptical. I never met a true Christian who is not a creationist, deep inside.

I wonder whether this is nothing more than a PR stunt to survive and maintain some sort of respectability in a world where it is clear who dictates the cultural Zeitgeist.

Why we should feel compelled to grant this respectability is another question, if we consider that when they had the power, they were very prone to burn people alive for saying that the earth is not at the center of the Universe.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jose Fly]

So tell me metis, how many of the "peers" who are reviewing these "scholarly works" do not believe in evolution?

Yeah, I hear the "peers" who review geography papers are all round-earthers.....not a flat-earther in the bunch. The same is true of physics reviewers all being "gravitationists", and geology reviewers all being "erosionists".

Terrible, isn't it?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the theory remains unproven and always will.

You got something right.

No scientific theory can be proven. You've been told that already.

But they can be shown to be correct beyond a reasonable doubt. The theory of evolution is correct in its core tenets. We know this a variety of ways.

For starters, we know that DNA mutates and is shuffled as germ cells are formed, that DNA determines the structure and function of an organism, that offspring will have differences in their DNA relative to their parents and siblings, that they will vary from their parents and siblings because of these facts, and that these variations can determine their fates. Every one of those items is a fact that I doubt that even you would dispute. The theory of evolution is simply those facts considered collectively, plus the idea that all life descended from a common ancestor.

Second, the theory makes predictions of what can, will, and cannot happen. All discoveries to date conform to those predictions. For example, once DNA was discovered, the theory could be used to predict that we would find a single genetic code across the tree of life if we all descended from a single creature.

Finally, the theory has been put to work: CA215: Practical uses of evolution. . You mentioned how atomic theory was put to work (bombs), and found that sufficient reason to accept that theory: "I guess being able to harness the power of the atom is proof enough of its existence. Do Hiroshima and Nagasaki ring a bell?" The same reasoning applies here.

The theory is correct.

 

[gnostic]

Not unless all the other laws governing the universe are miracles.... Cause and effect dictates that whatever has an effect was "caused" by something or someone....so I believe that God "caused" it...

One, to say that God is the cause of this "something", just show that you are merely making surreptitious claim on the basis of your belief in your personal superstition.

Such belief is just merely that: unsubstantiated personal opinion.

Your opinion is not "scientific", but it is a personal opinion, because there are no evidences for your God (and you have not presented any), and there are no evidences to support that this god of yours ever created anything, except in mythological text, known as the Genesis.

And what you believe in, is ancient collection of books, which the every authors of each of those books, had no understanding of science, no understanding of nature, and no understanding of life.

so I believe that God "caused" it...he doesn't tell us how.He left that for us to figure out. We aren't at that level of intelligence yet.

Two. The reason why your nonexistent god and your bible can't tell or explain any science about nature, is because

If god was indeed real, and what happened in the book of Job was real event, then God is uneducated superstitious being who would know what nature or science if he stubbed his toe on its.

job 38 to 41 would have demonstrated that if god was real, then he is a bloody idiot. Your God of the bible have not reached the level of intelligence of scientists.

Are all the scientists geniuses and don't make mistakes? I would say "no", they are not

And three, man have figured out many things through trial-and-error, through testings, through discoveries of evidences that allow to them refute some flawed hypotheses, while verifying other theories.

Just because you have not reach the level of intelligence of some biologists, doesn't mean others have not found a way to understand how life work biologically. Perhaps, if you had spend more times studying biology, and less time praying and reading some creation myths from non-scientific book called the bible, you would have passed your biology exams, and reached the level of intelligence, which everyone here already know what you are seriously lacking.

And you have neither the intelligence, nor the qualification and experience to be authoritative on the subject of evolutionary biology. Posting a bunch of videos and books or articles by people who are just as biased and ignorant as you, also don't make you an expert.

 

[Thumper]

.... Cause and effect dictates that whatever has an effect was "caused" by something or someone....so I believe that God "caused" it.....

Okay, then what caused God?

 

[gnostic]

As I have said many times...you are free to believe whatever takes your fancy. But please don't pretend that macro-evolution has one shred of solid evidence that it ever happened. That is based on the scientists' belief...the theory remains unproven and always will.

Again, Deeje, you have shown that you have no understanding of what science is.

Evolutionary biology is not set out to "prove" anything because it isn't theoretical biology or mathematics.

Evolution isn't "theoretical science", it is "empirical science" or "experimental science".

The differences between theoretical science and experimental science are:

1. Theoretical science seek proof, and proof is a mathematical (or purely logical) solution (such as very complex mathematical equations), WHEN it is possible to find real-world solution or their hypotheses or theories are untestable. Theoretical scientists are the ones that seek to prove or unproven solution.
2. Experimental science, on the other hand, seek "to refute" or "to verify" any statement that explain and predict a phenomena, through observation. Observation means (A) in the laboratory, through a process of testing their statements, e.g. tests or experiments, or (B) in the field, through discovering verifiable evidences. It is these tests or evidences - real-world solutions - that determine if the statement is "true" or "false".

Note that experimental or empirical science also use mathematical equations (proof) too, in their fields of studies, however, they seek to test their studies or find evidences.

That's the differences between proof and evidence.

Proof is a logical and mathematical solution, in the forms of complex equations.

Scientists who rely on proofs only, is because they cannot test their statement in the real-world environment. Examples of studies in theoretical science are superstring theory and M-theory.

Evidence is about scientists refuting and verifying their explanation/prediction by finding real-world solutions, not a made-up ones.

Experimental science is dependent on performing a large number of rigorous and repeated tests, or by finding as many evidences as possible that will either refute or verify statements.

1. If the number of tests are successful in verifying the statement/prediction, then it is probable true.
2. If the majority of tests have failed, then it is probable false, therefore the statement/prediction is a failure, refuted or debunked.

Empirical or experimental science rely heavily on statistics and probabilities.

In the off-chance that statements are "success", then more testings are done by peer review. If that's successful too, the hypothesis can become a "scientific theory".

I have used the word "can". It "can" become a scientific theory, if there are no better alternative theory to be found.

As to evolution, there are many evidences. And the evidences are not just in fossils. Real-world evidences have been found to evolution, through botany, through observing new breed of species of animals, and in the research of viral and bacterial diseases and the vaccines.

Not every biologists are involved in specialised field of palaeontology and the studies of fossils. Internationally, there are tens of millions of biologists out there, only fraction of them get involved in palaeontology.

 

[gnostic]

I love the way you dismiss the Creator as someone who is apparently less intelligent than your learned self.

Sorry, but I have never claimed to be expert in biology or in evolution. But I am saying that any high school kid taking a biology subject in Australian classroom, is learning more than what God said in Genesis 1 to 3, or Job 38 to 41.

If God was real...and I am saying if he is real...and if God did say the things he did in Job 38 to 41, then he showed no more intelligence than the author who wrote down God's ranting about how powerful and special he is.

Seriously, of all the writings in the Old Testament, his appearance in the Book of Job, showed the least impressive power in intelligence. Worse of all, God in Job 38 to 41, he is just ranting, that he can do this, this...this, but not once did he ever explain how they all work.

The lightnings, the thunders, snow, hail, rain, the wind, the tides, he say that he make them all happen, but science can explain all of these events without saying God did it. So who do you think is more intelligent? God or scientists in their respective fields?

I would say the scientists. God in Job 38 to 41, he is no more impressive than a child throwing temper tantrum, and who like to brag about what big d### he has.

Bragging is not a form of intelligence. It is a form of ignorance and bullying. And guess what God did in Job? He made Job cower in abject fear, not impress Job with his intellect.

What does the book say about Job? That he was "perfect" as being "upright", "faithful" and "loyal" to God, but each time his "upright" being mentioned, it always mentioned his "fear" of God. God browbeat Job into submission when he appeared before Job, but the "browbeating" has nothing to do with God's intellect or intelligence, but because he is simply a bully.

You might be impressed by him inspiring fear, and I would probably be too, but from what he said in Job, I am not at all impressed by his education.

 

[Deeje]

More and more I'm becoming convinced that you may believe about Jesus but not so much in him because you keep stating things that I cannot in any way imagine that he would accept.

Now, hang on...weren't you just telling me that I was judgmental?

I know exactly what I have said concerning the topic here.
I have not said anything that was deliberately misleading or untruthful. I call 'em as I see 'em.

If you want to see judgment then read the posts of the evolutionists on this thread. Jesus was not backward in coming forward when it came to telling the truth. His disciples were to preach with that same boldness. Please don't mistake the boldness of my expressions with judging anyone. If you don't like what I say, or how I say it, then the solution is simple. Don't read what I write.

John 3:16 has the words Jesus said for "salvation", and yet you and your JW's have added other stipulations. You are disingenuous when you stereotype "evolutionists" by equating us with atheism. Etc.

Speaking generally allows for exceptions metis...even you know that. The most hostile evolutionists are atheists.....as we can all clearly see.
They cannot tolerate anyone who suggests that their 'sacred cow' might just be a myth in their own imagination.

We, on the other hand, are used to the insults and accusations regarding our intellect.

As for John 3:16....have you ever really examined that scripture? Not just the first part.....but all of it?
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."
What does this verse really say metis? God loved the world so much that he sacrificed his son for us.....yet those who do not "believe in him" (which means more than a mere acknowledgement of his existence) will "perish" (which means complete destruction) and that outcome is the opposite of eternal life. So those are the only choices we have....eternal life or eternal death. Am I wrong for reminding people that this is the case. We don't get second chances, so we have to be sure that what we believe is true, even if we consider ourselves to be "Christians". (Matthew 7:21-23)

Informed choice is the only one worth making. And seeing as how this is a forum for presenting different views, mine is simply that...my view, formed by many years of study.

So, let me suggest you go look for a church that actually teaches the gospel and the necessity of having the belief in Jesus, Deeje.

I came out of that hypocritical "church" system over 40 years ago and found the truth outside of it. Just saying that you have a belief in Jesus, doesn't make you a Christian. (James 2:19) You have to back up what you say by how you live. (James 2:17) Do you think people should be told the truth....or is it better to let them believe whatever they like? What would Jesus do?

 

[Shad]

Now, hang on...weren't you just telling me that I was judgmental?

I know exactly what I have said concerning the topic here.
I have not said anything that was deliberately misleading or untruthful. I call 'em as I see 'em.

Which means you are stating an opinion which can be misleading by intention on your part or your sources and can be distorted by cognitive biases which you openly admit to by your religion. Nevermind that after you state your opinion you tend to slander evolutionists who have far more qualifications than you have. So yes you are judgemental. Own it.

 

[Deeje]

I am saying that any high school kid taking a biology subject in Australian classroom, is learning more than what God said in Genesis 1 to 3, or Job 38 to 41.

If God was real...and I am saying if he is real...and if God did say the things he did in Job 38 to 41, then he showed no more intelligence than the author who wrote down God's ranting about how powerful and special he is.

Wow! You are totally fixated on Job 38, aren't you?
This appears to be personal with you, since you mention it so often.

The lightnings, the thunders, snow, hail, rain, the wind, the tides, he say that he make them all happen, but science can explain all of these events without saying God did it. So who do you think is more intelligent? God or scientists in their respective fields?

This is "cause and effect" is it not? The weather is a product of 'causes'....natural causes in the atmosphere apparently. But what if the water canopy that once surrounded the earth actually shielded the earth's atmosphere from extreme weather events? You simply don't know. And when Jesus calmed a severe storm with a word, was he not demonstrating God's power over the weather? Humans no longer have that protection.

It had never rained before the flood according to Genesis, and scientists know that in past ages, earth's climate was more evenly temperate. So with the water canopy removed, I believe that more radiation would have been delivered to the earth's surface and things would have aged more rapidly than before.
If radio-carbon dating requires a constant rate of the decay of organic matter, presumed to be in equilibrium with the atmosphere, taking in carbon dioxide from the air for photosynthesis....what if the rate was not constant? Wouldn't that change all the proposed dates? What if science is dead wrong about that?

"The New Siberian Islands (north of the Siberian Arctic mainland) have yielded an abundance of fossils (mammoth, woolly rhinos, musk ox, antelope, deer, bear, horse and more than 50 other species), requiring forests and meadows to sustain them. Embedded in Arctic muck are a large number of mammals that have been frozen before they could decay. A completely preserved frozen woolly mammoth was excavated. In Alaska, duck-billed dinosaurs, turtles, conifers, herbaceous vegetation, and broad-leaved trees bear testimony to a tropical environment that once existed. Dr. Jack Wolfe in a 1978 U.S. Geological Survey Report submitted evidence of tropical vegetation in Alaska: mangrove, palm trees, Burmese laquer trees and others. (Dillow, Joseph, The Waters Above, 1982 p. 348.)"

Temperate Climates at the Poles | Genesis Park

Bragging is not a form of intelligence. It is a form of ignorance and bullying. And guess what God did in Job? He made Job cower in abject fear, not impress Job with his intellect.

You think the Creator brags by reminding the clay that he is the potter? What a hide of the clay to assume that the potter doesn't exist because he doesn't like the way he creates his work. Good grief!

What does the book say about Job? That he was "perfect" as being "upright", "faithful" and "loyal" to God, but each time his "upright" being mentioned, it always mentioned his "fear" of God. God browbeat Job into submission when he appeared before Job, but the "browbeating" has nothing to do with God's intellect or intelligence, but because he is simply a bully.

You just don't like being told what to do by anyone...do you? The Creator has the right to set reasonable limits for his creation....unless you think you can do a better job without him? Do you want to look around you and see what humans, alienated from God, have produced? We as a species now have the capability of wiping out all life on this planet. How clever are we really? Its the only home we have....any wonder they are searching for other planets to make habitable!
How much has science contributed to this situation? 100%.

You might be impressed by him inspiring fear, and I would probably be too, but from what he said in Job, I am not at all impressed by his education.

There is no "fear" of God in a terrifying sense. That is not what godly fear is. When you love someone who has authority over you, like a parent, your "fear" is that of displeasing that one because you don't want to disappoint them, not because you are simply terrified of the punishment they may mete out. Being terrified of someone doesn't make you love them. God has the power to snuff us out of existence, but he gives all the opportunity to get to know him. But he has an adversary who deliberately misrepresents him.....this one has a propaganda machine that works overtime. Have you fallen for it?

If you have no time for God, he already knows it....he will never force himself on anyone, nor will he ever make them do a thing that is not of their own free will.

If you don't want the life he is offering, then you don't have to live it. The alternative of course, is not living at all. So as far as I can see, atheists will not be disappointed at all, because they will get what they expect....which is nothing.

 

[Deeje]

Which means you are stating an opinion which can be misleading by intention on your part or your sources and can be distorted by cognitive biases which you openly admit to by your religion. Nevermind that after you state your opinion you tend to slander evolutionists who have far more qualifications than you have. So yes you are judgemental. Own it.

Can you provide all this slander for me please....I don't seem to recall stating anything but an opinion and my views on creation verses evolution.

I have not forced anything upon anyone......if people need to "own" anything on this thread, it is their complete dishonesty when it comes to accepting something as fact when they cannot prove it.

Equally biased and misleading sources have been quoted to me. The qualifications of scientists only impress other scientists, and those who worship science as their 'religion'. It is as much a belief system as I have....it is based on faith, not on any real evidence.

Scientists are not judgemental at all though...are they?

 

[gnostic]

Let me just with this:

It had never rained before the flood according to Genesis, and scientists know that in past ages, earth's climate was more evenly temperate. So with the water canopy removed, I believe that more radiation would have been delivered to the earth's surface and things would have aged more rapidly than before.

Deeje.

You are misreading the Genesis...again.

The Genesis only stated that there was no rain before the creation of man, in this case, Adam. To make it abundantly clear to you, I will once state no rain BEFORE (the creation of) ADAM:

4 Such is the story of heaven and earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made earth and heaven -- 5 when no shrub of the field was yet on earth and no grasses of the field had yet sprouted, because the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil, 6 but a flow would well up from the ground and water the whole surface of the earth --

Verse 5, say that there were no rain, as well as no shrub, no grass, BEFORE Adam.

No where in Genesis, did it say that there were no rain after Adam's creation.

If there is no rain till Noah's Flood, does that also mean there were no grass, no crops, no shrubs before the Flood too?

This is question is following your absurd line of reasoning.

Your reading comprehension is truly woeful, because you are recklessly jumping to conclusion, or you have the tendency to make things up. Things that are not written in the bible.

These are simply your interpretations of the bible, and I am not at all impress with scholarship.


Second. Which scientists say that there were no rain for the ENTIRE earth for 1656 years? and what scientific evidences or data that you have, to support another of your absurdly fictitious claim?

1656 years is the years between Adam to the flood occurring during Noah's 600 years, taken from Genesis 5, 6 & 11.

(That's of course, is based on English translation of the Masoretic Text. In the Greek Septuagint bible, depending on which manuscript you are using (Codex Alexandrinus or Codex Vaticanus), it would give 2262 and 2242 years respectively.

But you are JW, not a Greek Orthodox Christian, so the Septuagint don't really apply to your Watchtower bible.)

Claiming that scientists agree with you, without providing any scientific source or any evidence.

Can your cite your source that your bible is true, about there bing no rain before the Flood?

Can you name real scientists who actually do ancient meteorology, and not one of non-scientist philosophers or theologians?

 

[Deeje]

You are misreading the Genesis...again.

The Genesis only stated that there was no rain before the creation of man, in this case, Adam. To make it abundantly clear to you, I will once state no rain BEFORE (the creation of) ADAM:

God had already instituted the method of watering the earth's surface on the second creative 'day', before man's creation.
Gen 1:6 :
"Then God said: “Let there be an expanse between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.” 7 Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse."

Gen 2:5-6:
"No bush of the field was yet on the earth and no vegetation of the field had begun sprouting, because Jehovah God had not made it rain on the earth and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist would go up from the earth, and it watered the entire surface of the ground."

The water above the atmosphere and the water below would have created something like a hothouse, with moist warm temperate conditions where life could thrive. No rain meant no floods or weather events to destroy crops or harm humans and animals. The entire surface of the ground was watered by a mist. We all know how moist a heavy dew can be in the morning. This was obviously sufficient for the needs of all creatures and plant life.

No where in Genesis, did it say that there were no rain after Adam's creation.

If there is no rain till Noah's Flood, does that also mean there were no grass, no crops, no shrubs before the Flood too?

In all that took place before Noah's time, there is not a single mention of rain in the Bible until the flood. So, yes, I believe that for for 1656 years there was no rain falling from the sky. There was no need. The watering was done another way.

It would also make what Noah was doing seem all the more ridiculous....there had never been a flood or rain falling from the sky, so Noah was talking about something that had never happened before. It made his warning seem ludicrous. Could that happen again? Jesus said it would. (Matthew 24:37-39) Are you really so sure that what you've been told is true?

This is question is following your absurd line of reasoning.

Its not absurd to me. It makes perfect sense. What damage occurs every year from floods and resulting landslides in many countries, especially in the equatorial regions?
Floods were never part of God's original purpose. The earth was watered by a completely different, self regulating irrigation system....one that would cause no damage.
Have you seen the floods on the news lately? I rest my case your Honor.

Your reading comprehension is truly woeful, because you are recklessly jumping to conclusion, or you have the tendency to make things up. Things that are not written in the bible.

And you don't think that science makes things up? Every diagram you see for evolution is made up.

These are simply your interpretations of the bible, and I am not at all impress with scholarship.

That is your take on things.....I find your scenarios equally absurd.....so to each his own.
I never question the scholarship of the one who created all things....his credentials are way more impressive than any human with a science degree.

Claiming that scientists agree with you, without providing any scientific source or any evidence.

Funny, I thought I already did....here you go....

Even evolutionists concede that tectonic plate movement has a hard time accounting for evidence like the metasequoias in-situ growth at Axel Hieberg. (picture to the right taken from “Our ‘Tropical’ Arctic,” Canadian Geographic, Vol. 106 no. 6 Dec./Jan. 1987, pp. 28-37.) In 1998 a champosaur, an extinct subtropical crocodilian, and turtles were discovered in the Queen Elizabeth Islands in Arctic Canada. Obviously such a reptilian was not mobile enough to migrate. This would require a temperature range of 25° to 35°C for an area that currently sees temperatures of -45°C. (Oard, Michael, “A Tropical Reptile in the ‘Cretaceous’ Arctic,”CEN Technical Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, 2000, p. 9.)

In 2009 Joel Barker of Ohio State University discovered another ancient forest found on Ellesmere Island, which lies north of the Arctic Circle in Canada. It contained dried-out birch, larch, spruce, and pine trees. “About a dozen such frozen forests exist in the Canadian Arctic, but the newest site is the farthest north.” (Chang, Alicia, “Mummified Forest Reveals Climate Change Clues,” Huffington Post, December 16, 2010.)

“Though the ground is frozen for 1,900 feet down from the surface at Prudhoe Bay, everywhere the oil companies drilled around this area they discovered an ancient tropical forest. It was in frozen state, not in petrified state. It is between 1,100 and 1,700 feet down. There are palm trees, pine trees, and tropical foliage in great profusion. In fact, they found them lapped all over each other, just as though they had fallen in that position.” (Williams, Lindsey, The Energy Non-Crisis, 1980, p. 54.)


A similar “lost world” is frozen in place at the South Pole. The geologist, Peter Barret, was one of the first to look for fossils in Antarctica. He discovered an amphibian jaw belonging to a creature that could only have survived in a warm, damp environment. Various paleontologists have followed his lead. Thirteen thousand feet up Mt. Kirkpatrick in Antarctica (400 miles from the Pole) pterosaurs, carnivorous theropods, and many other creatures have been found. Dr. Duane Gish asks a pertinent question How could animals like dinosaurs, flying reptiles, and turtles survive alongside ferns and conifers in areas with very low temperature and months of darkness? (Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Stills Say No!, 1995, p. 127.) Either this array of living materials floated into the polar region at the time of the Genesis Flood and froze thereafter or, if the material was buried in situ, the polar regions enjoyed a dramatically different climate which ended after the Flood.

It seems obvious that there was a dramatically different climate on the land masses that are now at the poles. “The discovery of thousands of well-preserved leaves in Antarctica has sparked a debate among geologists over whether the polar region, rather than being blanketed by a massive sheet of ice for millions of years enjoyed a near-temperate climate as recently as three million years ago.” (Raymond, Chris, “Discovery of Leaves in Antarctica Sparks Debate over Whether Region Had Near-Temperate Climate,” Chronicle of Higher Education, March,1991, p. A9, as cited in Morris, 1997, p. 273.) Not only is there the evidence from extensive warm-climate paleoflora, but frost rings are rare to nonexistent. We conclude then that the pre-flood earth was temperate worldwide."

Temperate Climates at the Poles | Genesis Park

Will that do?

Can you name real scientists who actually do ancient meteorology, and not one of non-scientist philosophers or theologians?

I don't know gnostic.....what does a "real scientist" look like?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You got something right.

No scientific theory can be proven. You've been told that already.

But they can be shown to be correct beyond a reasonable doubt. The theory of evolution is correct in its core tenets. We know this a variety of ways.

For starters, we know that DNA mutates and is shuffled as germ cells are formed, that DNA determines the structure and function of an organism, that offspring will have differences in their DNA relative to their parents and siblings, that they will vary from their parents and siblings because of these facts, and that these variations can determine their fates. Every one of those items is a fact that I doubt that even you would dispute. The theory of evolution is simply those facts considered collectively,

We can observe genetic apples falling not far from their genetic trees yes. There is little disagreement here, because we are looking at direct self evident observable processes, rather than speculation,

plus the idea that all life descended from a common ancestor.

This is where it begins to get speculative- this extrapolates a direct observation into a hypothetical historical reconstruction.
A very tempting extrapolation I understand, but we cannot reproduce a single cell morphing into a human, with every intermediate design improvement depending on lucky random mutations, there is no way around this

Second, the theory makes predictions of what can, will, and cannot happen. All discoveries to date conform to those predictions. For example, once DNA was discovered, the theory could be used to predict that we would find a single genetic code across the tree of life if we all descended from a single creature.

predictions like: being, by necessity, a slow gradual process with vast numbers of intermediates that would turn up in the fossil record

The Bible, creationism, intelligent design, in contrast all predicted distinct stages of development, distinct gaps, sudden appearances of highly evolved organisms in the fossil record with no apparent evolutionary history

ID also correctly predicted that Junk DNA was not junk, that species can only be adapted so far before reaching inherent limits governed by the genetic template

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do [the major Christian churches in the world do accept the findings of science]? True, some of them, on paper, seem to be intellectually hip, but I am skeptical. I never met a true Christian who is not a creationist, deep inside.

I wonder whether this is nothing more than a PR stunt to survive and maintain some sort of respectability in a world where it is clear who dictates the cultural Zeitgeist.

Why we should feel compelled to grant this respectability is another question, if we consider that when they had the power, they were very prone to burn people alive for saying that the earth is not at the center of the Universe.

Ciao

- viole

Christianity and Darwin's theory are fundamentally incompatible. Christianity teaches that God intended to make man, and made him in His own image. Darwin's theory describes a blind, unguided process. Man was an unintended consequence of a series of unplanned circumstances.

For whatever reason, many religious institutions have come out in support of evolution. I appreciate that. Here are several examples:

[1] Baylor University, the largest Baptist University in the world has stated: "Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously."

[2] The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html ; Pope John Paul Paul II said, "new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis."

[3] The United Methodist Church : "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the General Conference of the United Methodist Church go on record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools." United Methodist Church: Evolution and Intelligent Design

[4] The Church of England, 2009:"Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."

[5] In the main atrium in Notre Dame's new Jordan Hall of Science, there is a plaque that reads: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

[6] Here are more Christians rejecting ID as pseudoscience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Reaction_from_other_creationist_groups

 

[Ekleipsis]

And here's a platypus

Here's a spoonbill

and here's a paddlefish

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So with the water canopy removed, I believe that more radiation would have been delivered to the earth's surface and things would have aged more rapidly than before.

What you believe is of no interest to anybody but you. Only what you can demonstrate or argue convincingly is of value to others.

You can learn about the degree to which water filters radiation on the Internet if facts are of interest to you.

If radio-carbon dating requires a constant rate of the decay of organic matter, presumed to be in equilibrium with the atmosphere, taking in carbon dioxide from the air for photosynthesis....what if the rate was not constant? Wouldn't that change all the proposed dates? What if science is dead wrong about that?

Radiocarbon dating has nothing to do with the decay of organic matter. Organic matter decays because of an assortment of organisms like bacteria, fungi, and maggots. Matter is not in equilibrium with the atmosphere, whatever that means.

Do you really want to keep posting this kind of thing? Science is correct. Your Bible is wrong. You are wrong.

As I said earlier, the proof is in the pudding. Results matter. Science has the victories. Science has made life longer, healthier, safer, more comfortable, and more intereststing.

Your religion just makes vacant claims and contributes nothing useful to our understanding. If you disagree please offer a counterexample. If you agree, you need not address this issue at all.

If you have no time for God, he already knows it....he will never force himself on anyone, nor will he ever make them do a thing that is not of their own free will.

One just can't help but notice that every choice this god makes is the one a nonexistent god would make. A nonexistent god also never forces itself on us for obvious reasons. Shiva doesn't. Quetzalcoatl doesn't. Zeus doesn't. Nor does Jehovah.

Why do you suppose that is?