Blowing Up Darwin

[abu afak]

I think we should be honest.

We're simply not interested in wasting our time to satisfy their standards of proof.

Creationists are stuck in 16th century thinking. Their definition of life is incorrect, and their definition of time is incorrect too.

Creationists are full of illogic. Life is not separate from energy. They are the same thing. Life is just a little more complex, that's all. But it's still made of electrons and photons and quarks. Same exact thing. There's nothing different about it.

Scientists don't try to "prove" stuff. We perform experiments so we can make more detailed observations. Ultimately these observations become useful for engineering. Marconi leads to synthetic aperture radar, that kind of thing.

Accomplishments are the proof. The successes of genetic engineering are proof enough. I'm not going to argue about fossils, don't know and don't care. As you say, if I need to know I can look at Wiki.

What's not on Wiki is a viable theory of nonlinear time. The string theorists have one (several, in fact), but it's too early for experiments.

Evolution, however, is pretty cut and dried by now. We can watch it with our own eyes. I don't think any geneticists worry about "proof". Or let's put it this way, Einstein "proved" relativity mathematically, and 100 years later our telescopes are still trying to "prove" he was right.

It isn't about the proof, it's about the DISproof. It's about successively better observations, more detailed and more precise.

As usual you ramble and throw in needless terms.
Bordering on incoherent, but Always missing the point/Gist.

It has nothing to do with "trying" to find proof, etc x100 in your Off the mark ramble.

It's simply a matter of Definition/Venue.

The evidence we have for Evo WOULD be Proof in other venues/disciplines, it's just that in science and math proof means 100.000%.

Meanwhile, men get the Death Penalty and are "Proved" "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" On LESSER Evidence every day.
Evo has a much better/more extensive case/evidence than all those convictions.
While 90%, 95%, 99% is good enough to Execute a man in court but it's not/NEVER "proven 100%."

But using the math/science standard the only thing that can be "Proven" 100% is numerical abstracts: ie, 2 + 2 IS 4.

That's the reason.
You just ramble on endlessly throwing in Sci terms but you Never get the gist of a debate, just ramble/philosophize to nowhere.
`

 

[scruffy]

As usual you ramble and throw in needless terms.
Bordering on incoherent, but Always missing the point/Gist.

It has nothing to do with "trying" to find proof, etc x100 in your Off the mark ramble.

It's simply a matter of Definition.

The evidence we have for Evo WOULD be Proof in other venues/disciplines, it's just that in science and math proof means 100.000%.

Meanwhile, men get the Death Penalty and are "Proved" "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" On LESSER Evidence every day.
Evo has a much better/more extenssive case/evidence than all those convictions.

While 90%, 95%, 99% is good enough to Execute a man in court but not/NEVER 100%.

So using the math/science standard the only thing that can be "Proven" 100% is the numerical abstract: ie, 2 + 2 IS 4.

That's the reason.
[/b]You just ramble on endlessly throwing in Sci terms but you Never get the gist of a debate, just ramble/philosophize.
`

lol

I take it you're not a mathematician.

Here's the science du jour.

Efficient non-viral immune cell engineering using circular single-stranded DNA-mediated genomic integration - Nature Biotechnology

CAR-T and NK cells engineered using a non-viral circular single-stranded DNA system show effective anti-tumor function.

www.nature.com

This is the guy who brought us the modern science of countability.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You claim your thread is about evil politicians, yet you attempt to use science to make your point. There seems to be some hypocrisy in your effort here.

Look - biological evolution is not a simple thing. It's very, very complex. MORE complex than general relativity - and the number of people in this world who truly understand general relativity is probably in the low thousands.

Your point is made about evil politicians, and I agree with it. But you're exceeding scope when you're talking about science.

I'll bet you 100 bucks right now that the people you're quoting don't know what a Wiener process is or why it's important for evolution.

Whereas I can rattle that stuff off the top of my head, I could write the stochastic equations right now if I had a math font.

To understand evolution you need to know about dynamics and stochastic differential equations. I can try to explain the concepts in an understandable way, but I can't solve the equations on this forum.

And the equations completely blow away these idiots who claim things are impossible. These same idiots said the same thing about the quantum theory. And the computer people ignored them, and here we are in a world full of quantum computers.

Evolution is the same way. Us biologists will simply ignore the naysayers and tomorrow you'll waIs ke up in a wonderful world full of synthetic life forms that cure disease and remove pollution and solve a lot of mankind's problems.

(I don't know if they'll fix the politicians though, that part is challenging).

Is that what I 'claim'?

You should read more carefully.

• This thread is based on “why?”
• 
  
• Since a century and a half after Darwin produced his eloquent theory, with more professional scientists active today than every before, why has no proof of Darwin’s theory been produced, and, in fact with evidence has been found in Chengyiang, China, Syria, England, with fossils showing the very opposite pattern from Darwin’s predictions.
• 
  
• Why is this provably false theory taught as fact in schools?
• To whom is it so important that it be viewed as such?
• Answer: any who need God driven from the common discussion: the ideologies that have murdered untold million of human being and don’t care to have God watching their actions, or to individuals who understand God's view of murder.

• Meyer: “There are two issues: how do you get to the first life from simple non-living chemicals…we have no chemical evolutionary theory that accounts for the first life.”
• 
  
• Never have scientists been able to generate living organisms from any array of chemicals or any procedure.

• 
  
• “Darwin presumed some simple organisms, which we now know were not simple, and then proposed a mechanism by which they could generate all the new forms of life.”
• The mechanism proposed does a nice job of explaining small scale variations…adaptions such as bigger or smaller in response to weather but does a very poor job of explaining the major variations in the history of life such as the origin of birds, mammals….”

Here is the key fact that obviates Darwin's theory:
“In the fossil record we do see very abrupt appearance without the transitional intermediates you would expect on the basis of Darwin’s theory.”


Why is it so important to persuade every susceptible individual that it is

 

[scruffy]

Is that what I 'claim'?

You should read more carefully.

• This thread is based on “why?”
• 
  
• Since a century and a half after Darwin produced his eloquent theory, with more professional scientists active today than every before, why has no proof of Darwin’s theory been produced, and, in fact with evidence has been found in Chengyiang, China, Syria, England, with fossils showing the very opposite pattern from Darwin’s predictions.
• 
  
• Why is this provably false theory taught as fact in schools?
• To whom is it so important that it be viewed as such?
• Answer: any who need God driven from the common discussion: the ideologies that have murdered untold million of human being and don’t care to have God watching their actions, or to individuals who understand God's view of murder.

• Meyer: “There are two issues: how do you get to the first life from simple non-living chemicals…we have no chemical evolutionary theory that accounts for the first life.”
• 
  
• Never have scientists been able to generate living organisms from any array of chemicals or any procedure.

• 
  
• “Darwin presumed some simple organisms, which we now know were not simple, and then proposed a mechanism by which they could generate all the new forms of life.”
• The mechanism proposed does a nice job of explaining small scale variations…adaptions such as bigger or smaller in response to weather but does a very poor job of explaining the major variations in the history of life such as the origin of birds, mammals….”

Here is the key fact that obviates Darwin's theory:
“In the fossil record we do see very abrupt appearance without the transitional intermediates you would expect on the basis of Darwin’s theory.”


Why is it so important to persuade every susceptible individual that it is

Told you already.

Evolution has nothing to do with Darwin.

It has to do with MOLECULES.

Why are you stuck on Darwin?

 

[abu afak]

Is that what I 'claim'?

You should read more carefully.

• This thread is based on “why?”
• 
  
• Since a century and a half after Darwin produced his eloquent theory, with more professional scientists active today than every before, why has no proof of Darwin’s theory been produced, and, in fact with evidence has been found in Chengyiang, China, Syria, England, with fossils showing the very opposite pattern from Darwin’s predictions.
• 
  
• Why is this provably false theory taught as fact in schools?
• To whom is it so important that it be viewed as such?
• Answer: any who need God driven from the common discussion: the ideologies that have murdered untold million of human being and don’t care to have God watching their actions, or to individuals who understand God's view of murder.

• Meyer: “There are two issues: how do you get to the first life from simple non-living chemicals…we have no chemical evolutionary theory that accounts for the first life.”
• 
  
• Never have scientists been able to generate living organisms from any array of chemicals or any procedure.

• 
  
• “Darwin presumed some simple organisms, which we now know were not simple, and then proposed a mechanism by which they could generate all the new forms of life.”
• The mechanism proposed does a nice job of explaining small scale variations…adaptions such as bigger or smaller in response to weather but does a very poor job of explaining the major variations in the history of life such as the origin of birds, mammals….”

Here is the key fact that obviates Darwin's theory:
“In the fossil record we do see very abrupt appearance without the transitional intermediates you would expect on the basis of Darwin’s theory.”


Why is it so important to persuade every susceptible individual that it i

AGAIN (10, 11, 12?)
Scientific American.
15 answers to Creationist Nonsense

I'm going to Force you to SWALLOW even with your 12 IQ.

""1. Evolution is only a theory It is not a fact or a scientific law.


Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the Theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification,
one may also speak of the FACT of evolution.
[......]
`

 

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps you can a’splain how your gods instantly “proofed” the planet and all living things into existence 6,000 years ago.

"...the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection lacks the creative power to generate the novel anatomical traits and forms of life that have arisen during the history of life. Yet, as Müller noted, neo-Darwinian theory continues to be presented to the public via textbooks as the canonical understanding of how new living forms arose — reflecting precisely the tension between the perceived, and actual, status of the theory....

... the Royal Society is arguably the world’s most august scientific body.

That such a thoroughly mainstream scientific organization should now at last acknowledge problems with the received neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is also obviously notable.


“the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution, as represented by recent textbooks” it “has no theory of the generative.”1 In other words, the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection lacks the creative power to generate the novel anatomical traits and forms of life that have arisen during the history of life. Yet, as Müller noted, neo-Darwinian theory continues to be presented to the public via textbooks as the canonical understanding of how new living forms arose...."

Why the Royal Society Meeting Mattered, in a Nutshell | Evolution News

The proceedings confirmed something that advocates of intelligent design, including Stephen Meyer and others, have been saying for years.

evolutionnews.org

In your face, boooyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Told you already.

Evolution has nothing to do with Darwin.

It has to do with MOLECULES.

Why are you stuck on Darwin?

You can hide behind that lie as long as you like, but Google "Is Darwin's theory a proven fact?" and see what comes up, what the citizenry has been blinded with.

 

[Hollie]

"...the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection lacks the creative power to generate the novel anatomical traits and forms of life that have arisen during the history of life. Yet, as Müller noted, neo-Darwinian theory continues to be presented to the public via textbooks as the canonical understanding of how new living forms arose — reflecting precisely the tension between the perceived, and actual, status of the theory....

... the Royal Society is arguably the world’s most august scientific body.

That such a thoroughly mainstream scientific organization should now at last acknowledge problems with the received neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is also obviously notable.


“the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution, as represented by recent textbooks” it “has no theory of the generative.”1 In other words, the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection lacks the creative power to generate the novel anatomical traits and forms of life that have arisen during the history of life. Yet, as Müller noted, neo-Darwinian theory continues to be presented to the public via textbooks as the canonical understanding of how new living forms arose...."

Why the Royal Society Meeting Mattered, in a Nutshell | Evolution News

The proceedings confirmed something that advocates of intelligent design, including Stephen Meyer and others, have been saying for years.

evolutionnews.org

In your face, boooyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!

“... the Royal Society is arguably the world’s most august scientific body…. Because I say so”.

Fixed that for ya’ darlin’

I couldn’t help but notice your cutting and pasting is the same garbage you have cut and pasted for a dozen years now. It’s all the same ID’iot creationer nonsense that’s been debunked multiple times.

 

[Hollie]

You can hide behind that lie as long as you like, but Google "Is Darwin's theory a proven fact?" and see what comes up, what the citizenry has been blinded with.

Use google to search for the term, is the earth 6,000 years old”?

Let us know what you find.

 

[scruffy]

AGAIN (10, 11, 12?)
Scientific American.
15 answers to Creationist Nonsense

I'm going to Force you to SWALLOW even with your 12 IQ.

""1. Evolution is only a theory It is not a fact or a scientific law.


Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the Theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification,
one may also speak of the FACT of evolution.
[......]

You guys are all over the map.

Now you're talking about fossils again.

You don't seem to get it.

Life means CONTINUOUS descent. All the time. Every minute of every day.

The earliest life forms are being created again TODAY. If you understand genetic variability this must be true. There is no other explanation that fits the available data.

 

[abu afak]

lol
I take it you're not a mathematician.
Here's the science du jour.

Efficient non-viral immune cell engineering using circular single-stranded DNA-mediated genomic integration - Nature Biotechnology

CAR-T and NK cells engineered using a non-viral circular single-stranded DNA system show effective anti-tumor function.

www.nature.com

This is the guy who brought us the modern science of countability.
View attachment 1052926

You are incapable of simple linear debate/Dialogue... Gibberish AGAIN!

You are educated but of very Low IQ.

I am a lifetime Math person, Financial Analyst/Advisor, and Member of Mensa and the Group above it: Intertel.
(note my Sig is about Comparative Cost)

You NEVER get any debate, you just "like to hear yourself talk" and can't make a pointed post/response.
(and failed AGAIN above to understand what I explained or refute it... so idiotically and OFF Topic deflected to some personality).
`

 

[PoliticalChic]

“... the Royal Society is arguably the world’s most august scientific body…. Because I say so”.

Fixed that for ya’ darlin’

I couldn’t help but notice your cutting and pasting is the same garbage you have cut and pasted for a dozen years now. It’s all the same ID’iot creationer nonsense that’s been debunked multiple times.

You need another spanking?

You came to the right place.....

AI Overview
Learn more


The Royal Society is the United Kingdom's national academy of sciences and the world's oldest national scientific institution:

• Purpose
  The Royal Society's mission is to promote excellence in science and use it to benefit humanity.
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Let me know when you need another custard pie smashed in your ugly kisser.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. In the 18th century….Infused with the sudden drum-roll of successes in science, our civilization awarded itself with the appellation ‘the Enlightenment.’ Mankind, it was suggested, could know all about the universe, and even move on to control everything about the universe.

Essentially, man deemed himself God.



2. Certain problems have developed which should give pause to those who still believe same.
For one, some hundred and fifty years after Darwin’s work suggested that we could explain the diversity of life without recourse to God, yet not even one example, in nature or in the laboratory, has documented a single organism ‘evolving’ into an entirely new species. And that’s with more scientists at work today than in the totality of history!


3. In fact, science has come more in line with the Bible. Dennis Prager writes:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”

 

[Hollie]

"...the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection lacks the creative power to generate the novel anatomical traits and forms of life that have arisen during the history of life. Yet, as Müller noted, neo-Darwinian theory continues to be presented to the public via textbooks as the canonical understanding of how new living forms arose — reflecting precisely the tension between the perceived, and actual, status of the theory....

... the Royal Society is arguably the world’s most august scientific body.

That such a thoroughly mainstream scientific organization should now at last acknowledge problems with the received neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is also obviously notable.


“the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution, as represented by recent textbooks” it “has no theory of the generative.”1 In other words, the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection lacks the creative power to generate the novel anatomical traits and forms of life that have arisen during the history of life. Yet, as Müller noted, neo-Darwinian theory continues to be presented to the public via textbooks as the canonical understanding of how new living forms arose...."

Why the Royal Society Meeting Mattered, in a Nutshell | Evolution News

The proceedings confirmed something that advocates of intelligent design, including Stephen Meyer and others, have been saying for years.

evolutionnews.org

In your face, boooyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!

As expected you simply cut and paste. This time from “evolution News”, another ID’iot creationer blog.

You need another spanking?

You came to the right place.....

AI Overview
Learn more


The Royal Society is the United Kingdom's national academy of sciences and the world's oldest national scientific institution:

• Purpose
  The Royal Society's mission is to promote excellence in science and use it to benefit humanity.
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Let me know when you need another custard pie smashed in your ugly kisser.

which does nothing to support your fraudulent claim about an “august scientific body”.

Cut and paste some more trash from “evolution news”, the bastard step child of the Disco’tute.

 

[scruffy]

You are incapable of simple linear debate/Dialogue... AGAIN!

You are educated but of very Low IQW.

I am a lifetime Math person, Financial Analyst/Advisor, and Member of Mensa and the Group above it: Intertel.

I doubt it. You can't even finish a sentence.

You NEVER get any debate, you just "like to hear yourself talk" and can't make a pointed post.
(and failed AGAIN above to understand what I explained or refuted it... so deflected).
`

Your explanations are important?

Well golllleeee, and Shazam.

If you were smart you wouldn't be talking about 100.0% proof

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another scientist, Palmer, wrote a book about the astounding accuracy of the Bible, 3 thousand years ago, stating the order of the evolution of life on or planet….exactly the presentation that science now accepts as the fact.

Dr. Andrew Palmer, Oxford biologist, whose book, "The Genesis Enigma," states that the writer of the book of Genesis provides an uncannily similar synopsis of the events in the creation as compared to that accepted by modern science today.



Rather than ridicule the Bible, those very same secular, atheistic scientists have come around to accept the very order that the Old Testament claimed was the course of creation:
The idea of the miraculous confluence of the first chapter of Genesis and the sequence advanced by modern science is as follows:


a. The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


b. From a water covered planet, to terrestrial life. The images in that writer’s mind of how our planet and life came to be must have seemed curious for the knowledge and experience of the time! Yet….he presented it as though it had been dictated to him, as though he had been spoken to by God.


c. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, …then the seas appeared on earth, …and that life forms were photosynthetic.

d. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today.

e. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.

The above largely from chapter nine of zoologist Andrew Parker’s “The Genesis Enigma.”



Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!

Or…an alternative explanation: divine intervention.

 

[Hollie]

1. In the 18th century….Infused with the sudden drum-roll of successes in science, our civilization awarded itself with the appellation ‘the Enlightenment.’ Mankind, it was suggested, could know all about the universe, and even move on to control everything about the universe.

Essentially, man deemed himself God.



2. Certain problems have developed which should give pause to those who still believe same.
For one, some hundred and fifty years after Darwin’s work suggested that we could explain the diversity of life without recourse to God, yet not even one example, in nature or in the laboratory, has documented a single organism ‘evolving’ into an entirely new species. And that’s with more scientists at work today than in the totality of history!


3. In fact, science has come more in line with the Bible. Dennis Prager writes:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”

A lot of nonsense cutting and pasting from Minister Prager.

Another scientist, Palmer, wrote a book about the astounding accuracy of the Bible, 3 thousand years ago, stating the order of the evolution of life on or planet….exactly the presentation that science now accepts as the fact.

Dr. Andrew Palmer, Oxford biologist, whose book, "The Genesis Enigma," states that the writer of the book of Genesis provides an uncannily similar synopsis of the events in the creation as compared to that accepted by modern science today.



Rather than ridicule the Bible, those very same secular, atheistic scientists have come around to accept the very order that the Old Testament claimed was the course of creation:
The idea of the miraculous confluence of the first chapter of Genesis and the sequence advanced by modern science is as follows:


a. The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


b. From a water covered planet, to terrestrial life. The images in that writer’s mind of how our planet and life came to be must have seemed curious for the knowledge and experience of the time! Yet….he presented it as though it had been dictated to him, as though he had been spoken to by God.


c. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, …then the seas appeared on earth, …and that life forms were photosynthetic.

d. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today.

e. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.

The above largely from chapter nine of zoologist Andrew Parker’s “The Genesis Enigma.”



Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!

Or…an alternative explanation: divine intervention.

Wow! A hyper-religious loon believes the earth is 6,000 years old.

 

[scruffy]

1. In the 18th century….Infused with the sudden drum-roll of successes in science, our civilization awarded itself with the appellation ‘the Enlightenment.’ Mankind, it was suggested, could know all about the universe, and even move on to control everything about the universe.

Essentially, man deemed himself God.

The Bible itself says we are gods.

Both testaments.

2. Certain problems have developed which should give pause to those who still believe same.
For one, some hundred and fifty years after Darwin’s work suggested that we could explain the diversity of life without recourse to God, yet not even one example, in nature or in the laboratory, has documented a single organism ‘evolving’ into an entirely new species. And that’s with more scientists at work today than in the totality of history!

Horseshit. Darwin was not an atheist.

3. In fact, science has come more in line with the Bible. Dennis Prager writes:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”

The "last" creation?

lmao

 

[Hollie]

1. In the 18th century….Infused with the sudden drum-roll of successes in science, our civilization awarded itself with the appellation ‘the Enlightenment.’ Mankind, it was suggested, could know all about the universe, and even move on to control everything about the universe.

Essentially, man deemed himself God.



2. Certain problems have developed which should give pause to those who still believe same.
For one, some hundred and fifty years after Darwin’s work suggested that we could explain the diversity of life without recourse to God, yet not even one example, in nature or in the laboratory, has documented a single organism ‘evolving’ into an entirely new species. And that’s with more scientists at work today than in the totality of history!


3. In fact, science has come more in line with the Bible. Dennis Prager writes:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”

Why not post your hyper-religious inspired, their “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”, Shirley, you must have something more than “the gawds did it, because I say so”.

Present your evidence for a 6,000 year old planet.

 

[scruffy]

Another scientist, Palmer, wrote a book about the astounding accuracy of the Bible, 3 thousand years ago, stating the order of the evolution of life on or planet….exactly the presentation that science now accepts as the fact.

Dr. Andrew Palmer, Oxford biologist, whose book, "The Genesis Enigma," states that the writer of the book of Genesis provides an uncannily similar synopsis of the events in the creation as compared to that accepted by modern science today.



Rather than ridicule the Bible, those very same secular, atheistic scientists have come around to accept the very order that the Old Testament claimed was the course of creation:
The idea of the miraculous confluence of the first chapter of Genesis and the sequence advanced by modern science is as follows:


a. The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


b. From a water covered planet, to terrestrial life. The images in that writer’s mind of how our planet and life came to be must have seemed curious for the knowledge and experience of the time! Yet….he presented it as though it had been dictated to him, as though he had been spoken to by God.


c. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, …then the seas appeared on earth, …and that life forms were photosynthetic.

d. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today.

e. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.

The above largely from chapter nine of zoologist Andrew Parker’s “The Genesis Enigma.”



Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!

Or…an alternative explanation: divine intervention.

Or the space aliens told him.