Science Proves the Bible Again

[bripat9643]

My post doesn't include the term "believe". Further, I'm not claiming a global flood ever occured, therefore, I'm not tasked with presenting evidence for a positive claim.

You claim there was never a Global Flood, therefore you should prove your belief. You of course don't have to; however, you're not doing yourself a favor by playing naive or indifferent.

No, it's your job to prove there was a global flood. Expressing skepticism at your fantasies does not obligate anyone to do anything. She also doesn't have to prove that unicorns don't exist.

No, it is your job to seek after GOD and not sit on you duff giving the finger and expecting everything to be done for you.

Wrong. I'm not required to "seek after" fairy tales. Rational mature adults don't do such things.

I disagree. The greatest thinkers in history knew that materialism does not hold all the answers.

That doesn't require me to believe it. The greatest thinkers in history were all wrong or ignorant about a lot of things.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You simply don't wish to believe there is a GOD.

That has nothing to do with anything. One can still believe in God and not be so stupid as to reject all the evidence we have ever collected. And plenty of people do. So what would you say to them? Looks like you've run out of talking points.

 

[zaangalewa]

"The fountains of the deep."

The Great Flood occurred, not only because of the rain, ite also says the earth "opened up" and released the "fountains of the deep."

Another huge OCEAN deep within gave up its water for a time.

Did Geologists Discover ‘Fountains of the Deep’ From Genesis Flood?

"Might be, may be, could be"... this is quack speculation.

Even as a Christian, I don't believe there's a HIDDEN OCEAN under the earth's mantel, and I don't believe the earth was created in 6 days and is only 6,000 years old either. You have to completely suspend reality to be a YEC cultist and believe a lot of these quack science theories.

No Christian believes the Earth is 6000 years old - except he is an idiot,

An let me now correct you: The world was created from god in 6 days. That's different. Then followed the 7th day, where god rested and saw everything what he made was always good. What's not so clear today is whether we are now still in the 7th day of creation or whether the 8th day of creation yet had begun. We will see what Jesus will tell us, when he will come back from the place, where he will prepare (¿where he did prepare?) a home for us and all our friends.

I assure you, many, MANY Christians believe the earth, AND HEAVENS, are only six thousand years old.

Not everyone is able to live on planet Earth - some live also on the planet USA.

In fact, most all information you'll find from Christian websites will have their experts and videos purporting exactly that,

Experts in what? In building an arch?

and how they come to their conclusion. They're called YEC, "young earth creationists," and yes, I agree you have to be an idiot to believe the earth and heavens is only 6,000 years old.

To believe in Darwinism is much more stupid - and not only stupid but damned dangerous too. Most people who argue in the name of "evolution" do not really know what they are speaking about. Every second sentence is nonsense. Sometimes I think Saint Francis had more fundamental ideas about evolution than all modern evolutionists together have today.

But I think it's equally stupid to believe that God created the earth, AND HEAVENS, in ONLY six days, and rested on the 7th.

Get the rhythm to make a break every 7th day - we call this system of time "week" - then you will see it is not stupid to believe this. Specially it is not stupid if others follow the same rhythm of celebrating love, lífe and god.

You have to suspend all logically thought and disbelieve all modern science to believe either, and that's just moronic. I do believe in creation of LIFE, on THIS PLANET, by GOD,

I believe god creates everything out of nothing. I believe it's not over yet.

but I have my doubts as to whether or not God CREATED the UNIVERSE.

Once I thought about what will happen when god closes his eyes and will not "watch" anything in this universe any longer. I had the thought it will disappear - but not only out of space - also out of time so it was never, is not and will never be. God is not our "big brother" in this imagination - he's our life, our existence. He's essential.

I think much of Genesis is a fairy tale,

fairy ... comes from the germanic word "Fee". Very similiar to the word "angel".

and if God wants to smite me and send me to hell for not believing some things, well, then I guess I'm screwed.

It's not easy to be an enemy of god - indeed it's impossible. So why not just simple to trust in god? You are not forced to kidnapp an old lady to help her to cross a street without danger. Ask the old lady. Perhaps she likes not to cross the road but loves coffee and a piece of cake.

 

[zaangalewa]

abu afak

Still nothing to say what has a half-life period of more than the part of a moment without words? Your are using by the way the typical way of the propaganda strategy of Nazis or Commies in your way not to discuss but to color everything with negative emotions, shadow of the darkness.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sometimes I think Saint Francis had more fundamental ideas about evolution than all modern evolutionists together have today.

Well, that makes you insane, then. And, given the stuff you say about evolution, I have to seriously doubt that you know much about it at all, much less enough to make determinations on the work of modern scientists.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Still nothing to say what has a half-life period of more than the part of a moment without words?

Ah yes,the classic charlatan tactic: attempt to beguile and confuse people with utter nonsense.

 

[zaangalewa]

Still nothing to say what has a half-life period of more than the part of a moment without words?

Ah yes,the classic charlatan tactic: attempt to beguile and confuse people with utter nonsense.

What I say is not nonsense. You do not [like to] to understand what I say, because my world is not a part of the world of your thoughts. Your problem is very old, when I take a look at the murderer of Archimḗdēs ho Syrakoúsios. Because you do not [like to] understand my circles (or the circles of anyone else) you try to eliminate the person with verbal swords. But nor darkness nor fear will bring me to any acceptance of dark methods of mind manipulations. No one has to agree with anything what I say - everyone is free - but if you like to argue in a public forum then try to argue. Just to play with dirt and never to look a little higher creates not any plausibility for nothing. You should not think that everyone is an idiot and so idiots have to rule the world. Idiots rule the world because they make everyone tired to try to speak with them any longer, that's all.

 

[zaangalewa]

Sometimes I think Saint Francis had more fundamental ideas about evolution than all modern evolutionists together have today.

Well, that makes you insane, then. And, given the stuff you say about evolution, I have to seriously doubt that you know much about it at all, much less enough to make determinations on the work of modern scientists.

I guess I know more about the theory of evolution including evolutionary epistemology - and also about biology and medicine - than you ever had heard about in your whole life. One of the most stupid discussions I've ever heard is for examPle the discussion "creation vs evolution" in the English speaking world. The whole discussion is full of nonsense about evolution and religion. Evolution for example is not able to evolve creation, but creation is able to create evolution. This expressions are asymetric. They speak not about the same things. And besides of the nonsense, which so called "creationists" often create, also lots of "evolutionist" speak about evolution in cases where never anything evolved or an "evolution" followed only human imaginations, plans and deeds. I would say when I read today the word "evolution" in any publication then the use of this word is wrong in about 19 of 20 cases.

By the way: Every Christian believes god created the world - but a Christian normally is not a creationists, because it is not an ideology to believe this. And a Christian, who studies something what has to do with evolution, is also not an "evolutionist", because this is only an ideology too. "Evolution" on its own is just simple a natural law.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I guess I know more about the theory of evolution including evolutionary epistemology - and also about biology and medicine - than you ever had heard about in your whole life.

You clearly do not. And your implication that you know more than people who dedicate their lives to it is absurd, and you deserve to be mocked for it.

 

[zaangalewa]

I guess I know more about the theory of evolution including evolutionary epistemology - and also about biology and medicine - than you ever had heard about in your whole life.

You clearly do not.

You do not know from me what I never spoke about in English.

and your implication that you know more than people who dedicate their lives to it is absurd, and you deserve to be mocked for it.

You ¿dedicated? your life to what exactly? To some ideas about a darwinistic ideology and materialistic philosophy? What about other ideological and/or philosophical concepts? "Evolution" is by the way something what hunter-gatherers and farmers and shepherds are using since long thousands of years.

 

[james bond]

Puhleeze, God did not create evolution. God created his creation in six days and rested on the seventh. This was the predominant theory before the 1850s until the atheist James Hutton and his pupil Charles Darwin started applying anti-creation uniformitarianism and ToE. Later, creation and God were systematically eliminated from science to what we have today as fake science. It's no wonder today's scientists are usually wrong. We can debunk uniformitarianism with how Pangaea the supercontinent became seven continents and the formation of the Himalayas.

My hypothesis is Satan created evolution at the Tower of Babel and handed it down to King Nimrod.

 

[Hollie]

Puhleeze, God did not create evolution. God created his creation in six days and rested on the seventh. This was the predominant theory before the 1850s until the atheist James Hutton and his pupil Charles Darwin started applying anti-creation uniformitarianism and ToE. Later, creation and God were systematically eliminated from science to what we have today as fake science. It's no wonder today's scientists are usually wrong. We can debunk uniformitarianism with how Pangaea the supercontinent became seven continents and the formation of the Himalayas.

My hypothesis is Satan created evolution at the Tower of Babel and handed it down to King Nimrod.

Do you realize that you utterly destroy your own argument for ID'iot / creationist magic when you're reduced to cartoons as a counter to peer reviewed science?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You ¿dedicated? your life to what exactly?

Irrelevant. I am talking of the biologists from many sub fields of biology who research evolution..

 

[james bond]

It appears the creation scientists are right again. Much of science supports the existence and work of God. "“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” Psalm 19:1

Gregor Mendel's discovery of natural selection spoke against Charles Darwin's theory of evolution
"Gregor Mendel crossed various races of edible peas. When a red-flowered plant was crossed with a white-flowered one, the offspring were found to be red-flowered. Mendel then crossed these red offspring with each other and found that they produced offspring of their own in the ratio of 3 reds : 1 white.

We can best understand this by considering the genes involved in these crosses. A gene can be considered as a unit which determines a particular characteristic, in this case flower colour. It can exist in one of two forms, one giving rise to red flowers and the other to white. The offspring of the original cross of red-flowered plants with white were all red-flowered, although they did in fact possess both a gene for red flowers and a gene for white.

Mendel concluded that the red gene must be dominant to the white, so that any plant that possessed them both would be red. When these red plants were bred with each other, it was possible for two white genes to come together and so give offspring that were white. The chance that the offspring would receive at least one red gene is 3:1.

Mendel found that when he interbred the red-flowered plants obtained as the offspring of his original cross, he got white flowers produced as well as red. Darwin's theory rested on the assumption that in such a case as this the white characteristic was a new character acquired by the young plants which their parents had not possessed. After all, a race has got to acquire new characteristics if it is ever going to evolve.

Mendel showed that the characteristic had not been acquired. It had been present all the time in the parents' generation, though masked by a more dominant gene. If one applies statistics to Mendel's ideas one can show quite easily that the genes in the new generation exist in exactly the same frequency as they did in the parents' generation. It might be possible to lose some genes by killing off those individuals that possessed them but it would never be possible to acquire new ones.

Darwin's theory began to flounder when these facts came to light. It was saved from total eclipse by the emergence of a theory which said that genes could sometimes change to completely new forms. This radical change in the gene is known as a mutation.

"This is the form in which Darwin's theory is believed today. It is assumed that mutations can change the gene to a new form. The process of natural selection is said to operate by selecting out those new genes which are favourable to the organism and discarding others. ...

Darwin's ToE "The modern theory of evolution thus stands or falls on this question of mutation. If mutations do not occur, it is impossible for evolution to progress. We must therefore examine the question of mutations and see if they actually occur as evolutionists claim.

"Firstly, it is certain that mutations can and do occur. Secondly, it is just as certain that any major change in a gene is always a change for the worse. This is what we would expect. Genes are complicated and wonderfully designed and any major change in them will lead to their functioning less efficiently.

"This is admitted by geneticists after seventy years of intensive experimentation. During that time they have induced thousands of mutations in various organisms, but have not been able to come up with one convincing case of a mutation that was clearly beneficial to the organism. In fact, it is now generally admitted that mutations under natural conditions are so rare, and so often harmful, that when they do occur they are not of any significance to the genetics of a population of creatures. Any individuals who do receive the mutations will tend to die out and so the genetic structure of the population as a whole will remain unaffected.


Mutations are far from being able to produce new, vigorous genes which would enable a race of organisms to evolve. They are extremely rare and detrimental events which do not alter the genetic structure of the race as a whole - except in some cases to weaken it. This even applies to so-called favourable mutations such as the sickle cell anaemia trait and the drug-resistance of bacteria, but space will not allow discussion of these. But even if mutations were to occur in the way that evolutionists claim, evolution would still be impossible."

Bottom line: Mutations do not add new information, so evolution does not happen. This means no humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.

Science That Backs Up The Bible and Casts Doubt on Evolution?

Darwin VS Mendel: Scientist showdown

 

[zaangalewa]

You ¿dedicated? your life to what exactly?

Irrelevant.

Everything is irrelevant for you, what you do not understand. The problem: Within the universe the most little cause can have a most powerful effect. So indeed nothing is irrelevant.

I am talking of the biologists from many sub fields of biology who research evolution..

I remember in this context a very well known biologist who explained to me what's the difference between plants and animals. "Plants carry their soul outside" he said and I understood immediatelly. And I remember on the other side in this context a new "modern" veterinarian, who had looked at me with eyes which had said very clear "What an unbelievable stupid idiot", when I explained a guinea pig, why I have to let euthanize it and when I expressed my hope we will meet us again in the other world. Indeed I believe I will be able to speak there in a better way with my animalic sisters and brothers. And they will answer much more clear. Heaven is paradise, isn't it?

Konrad Lorenz - famous biologist - wrote by the way once a book about evolution with the title "Die Rückseite des Spiegels" (The backside of the mirror). Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker - famous physicist - answered him with the critics (no: "critics" is not the speech of hate and mutual disparagement): "Die Rückseite des Spiegels - gespiegelt" (The backside of the mirror - mirrored).

 

[zaangalewa]

Puhleeze, God did not create evolution. ...

Whoelse did?

... My hypothesis is Satan created evolution at the Tower of Babel and handed it down to King Nimrod.

I had to laugh a lot now. Creative power is not a domain of the devil. Anyway. Because god created Satan and even if Satan had created evolution - what sounds more impossible than only absurde in my ears - then god had indirectly created evolution too. So what? Evolution is evolution. It's a wonderful, fantastic world in which we live. And a crocodile, which eats your baby, is not doing so, because it is evil. It is doing so, because it is hungry. Only human beings are able to be evil.

 

[zaangalewa]

It appears the creation scientists are right again. Much of science supports the existence and work of God. "“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” Psalm 19:1

Gregor Mendel's discovery of natural selection spoke against Charles Darwin's theory of evolution
"Gregor Mendel crossed various races of edible peas. When a red-flowered plant was crossed with a white-flowered one, the offspring were found to be red-flowered. Mendel then crossed these red offspring with each other and found that they produced offspring of their own in the ratio of 3 reds : 1 white.

We can best understand this by considering the genes involved in these crosses. A gene can be considered as a unit which determines a particular characteristic, in this case flower colour. It can exist in one of two forms, one giving rise to red flowers and the other to white. The offspring of the original cross of red-flowered plants with white were all red-flowered, although they did in fact possess both a gene for red flowers and a gene for white.

Mendel concluded that the red gene must be dominant to the white, so that any plant that possessed them both would be red. When these red plants were bred with each other, it was possible for two white genes to come together and so give offspring that were white. The chance that the offspring would receive at least one red gene is 3:1.

Mendel found that when he interbred the red-flowered plants obtained as the offspring of his original cross, he got white flowers produced as well as red. Darwin's theory rested on the assumption that in such a case as this the white characteristic was a new character acquired by the young plants which their parents had not possessed. After all, a race has got to acquire new characteristics if it is ever going to evolve.

Mendel showed that the characteristic had not been acquired. It had been present all the time in the parents' generation, though masked by a more dominant gene. If one applies statistics to Mendel's ideas one can show quite easily that the genes in the new generation exist in exactly the same frequency as they did in the parents' generation. It might be possible to lose some genes by killing off those individuals that possessed them but it would never be possible to acquire new ones.

Darwin's theory began to flounder when these facts came to light. It was saved from total eclipse by the emergence of a theory which said that genes could sometimes change to completely new forms. This radical change in the gene is known as a mutation.

"This is the form in which Darwin's theory is believed today. It is assumed that mutations can change the gene to a new form. The process of natural selection is said to operate by selecting out those new genes which are favourable to the organism and discarding others. ...

Darwin's ToE "The modern theory of evolution thus stands or falls on this question of mutation. If mutations do not occur, it is impossible for evolution to progress. We must therefore examine the question of mutations and see if they actually occur as evolutionists claim.

"Firstly, it is certain that mutations can and do occur. Secondly, it is just as certain that any major change in a gene is always a change for the worse. This is what we would expect. Genes are complicated and wonderfully designed and any major change in them will lead to their functioning less efficiently.

"This is admitted by geneticists after seventy years of intensive experimentation. During that time they have induced thousands of mutations in various organisms, but have not been able to come up with one convincing case of a mutation that was clearly beneficial to the organism. In fact, it is now generally admitted that mutations under natural conditions are so rare, and so often harmful, that when they do occur they are not of any significance to the genetics of a population of creatures. Any individuals who do receive the mutations will tend to die out and so the genetic structure of the population as a whole will remain unaffected.


Mutations are far from being able to produce new, vigorous genes which would enable a race of organisms to evolve. They are extremely rare and detrimental events which do not alter the genetic structure of the race as a whole - except in some cases to weaken it. This even applies to so-called favourable mutations such as the sickle cell anaemia trait and the drug-resistance of bacteria, but space will not allow discussion of these. But even if mutations were to occur in the way that evolutionists claim, evolution would still be impossible."

Bottom line: Mutations do not add new information, so evolution does not happen. This means no humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.

Science That Backs Up The Bible and Casts Doubt on Evolution?

Darwin VS Mendel: Scientist showdown

In general you are right here: A change in genetical information is normally always only bad. Such changes follow the law "shit happens". But from time to time - very very seldom - for example in 1:1 000 000 changes - happens a wonder and a change in the genetical information in the microcosmos causes something, which shows in the mesocosmos (=the world where we live with our intuitive perception) a viewable advantage - or it is not only bad. Additionally biological functions are often very complex and a gene has often (perhaps always) more than only one result. It needs for example sometimes genes, which have no special context, except that they are not bad for an organism, and suddenly another genetical change becomes an advantage with them together. So for example a change 1 million years ago together with a change some thousand years ago and a change which happens today are able to build a new biological structure, basing on proteins which are produced from the DNA.

So two problems: We do not have any way to say genetical information is superflous (could be important in any future) - and we have normally no way to change only one special biological function by changing genes. And although most people think "evolution" is a new idea it is indeed a very old thing. We call it normally "cultivation" since thousands of years. The important step was only to see that the nature on its own is doing the same - but without any plan. Natural laws do not follow plans. That's not astonishing. But we should not do the same. We need knowledge, we need plans, we need orientation. And that's the real desaster in the moment: No one has really a good idea what he is doing in genetics. I think the best is to imitate what the nature is doing: changes in only very simple micro steps. And what no one should do is to carry genes from one species to another species. I'm sure there are very good reasons - although I'm not able to say which reasons - for the genetic separations of species. Bugs don't have sex with elephants in our world - and I fear to change this will be in our reality not funny at all.

 

[Hollie]

It appears the creation scientists are right again. Much of science supports the existence and work of God. "“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” Psalm 19:1

Gregor Mendel's discovery of natural selection spoke against Charles Darwin's theory of evolution
"Gregor Mendel crossed various races of edible peas. When a red-flowered plant was crossed with a white-flowered one, the offspring were found to be red-flowered. Mendel then crossed these red offspring with each other and found that they produced offspring of their own in the ratio of 3 reds : 1 white.

We can best understand this by considering the genes involved in these crosses. A gene can be considered as a unit which determines a particular characteristic, in this case flower colour. It can exist in one of two forms, one giving rise to red flowers and the other to white. The offspring of the original cross of red-flowered plants with white were all red-flowered, although they did in fact possess both a gene for red flowers and a gene for white.

Mendel concluded that the red gene must be dominant to the white, so that any plant that possessed them both would be red. When these red plants were bred with each other, it was possible for two white genes to come together and so give offspring that were white. The chance that the offspring would receive at least one red gene is 3:1.

Mendel found that when he interbred the red-flowered plants obtained as the offspring of his original cross, he got white flowers produced as well as red. Darwin's theory rested on the assumption that in such a case as this the white characteristic was a new character acquired by the young plants which their parents had not possessed. After all, a race has got to acquire new characteristics if it is ever going to evolve.

Mendel showed that the characteristic had not been acquired. It had been present all the time in the parents' generation, though masked by a more dominant gene. If one applies statistics to Mendel's ideas one can show quite easily that the genes in the new generation exist in exactly the same frequency as they did in the parents' generation. It might be possible to lose some genes by killing off those individuals that possessed them but it would never be possible to acquire new ones.

Darwin's theory began to flounder when these facts came to light. It was saved from total eclipse by the emergence of a theory which said that genes could sometimes change to completely new forms. This radical change in the gene is known as a mutation.

"This is the form in which Darwin's theory is believed today. It is assumed that mutations can change the gene to a new form. The process of natural selection is said to operate by selecting out those new genes which are favourable to the organism and discarding others. ...

Darwin's ToE "The modern theory of evolution thus stands or falls on this question of mutation. If mutations do not occur, it is impossible for evolution to progress. We must therefore examine the question of mutations and see if they actually occur as evolutionists claim.

"Firstly, it is certain that mutations can and do occur. Secondly, it is just as certain that any major change in a gene is always a change for the worse. This is what we would expect. Genes are complicated and wonderfully designed and any major change in them will lead to their functioning less efficiently.

"This is admitted by geneticists after seventy years of intensive experimentation. During that time they have induced thousands of mutations in various organisms, but have not been able to come up with one convincing case of a mutation that was clearly beneficial to the organism. In fact, it is now generally admitted that mutations under natural conditions are so rare, and so often harmful, that when they do occur they are not of any significance to the genetics of a population of creatures. Any individuals who do receive the mutations will tend to die out and so the genetic structure of the population as a whole will remain unaffected.


Mutations are far from being able to produce new, vigorous genes which would enable a race of organisms to evolve. They are extremely rare and detrimental events which do not alter the genetic structure of the race as a whole - except in some cases to weaken it. This even applies to so-called favourable mutations such as the sickle cell anaemia trait and the drug-resistance of bacteria, but space will not allow discussion of these. But even if mutations were to occur in the way that evolutionists claim, evolution would still be impossible."

Bottom line: Mutations do not add new information, so evolution does not happen. This means no humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.

Science That Backs Up The Bible and Casts Doubt on Evolution?

Darwin VS Mendel: Scientist showdown

Wow. That's a lot of pointless cut and paste nonsense.

 

[james bond]

The greatest thinkers in history were all wrong or ignorant about a lot of things.

The greatest thinkers may have been wrong or ignorant, but they weren't about a lot of things. They were more right than wrong because they were great thinkers. It's people who think they were wrong or ignorant about a lot of things that are probably the ones were wrong or ignorant about a lot of things.

For example, we have liberal outrage. Libs think if they are outraged, then they are thinking and being right about a lot of things such as Trump, climate change, tree hugging, abortions and so on. I think this is why they are outraged about Christians and their religion. They do not seem too outraged about Muslims tho. I've patiently explained real science and how it backs up what the Bible says and they still DEFLECT, DENY, DISMISS and likely end up is a state of DESPAIR. You know who these people are. You are explaining how the science works and they are angry and call you names. It seems like it is due to liberal outrage. If libs aren't outraged about something, then they are thinking and using their wrong logic. Maybe it's politics creeping in to science and technology and even religion.

 

[bripat9643]

The greatest thinkers in history were all wrong or ignorant about a lot of things.

The greatest thinkers may have been wrong or ignorant, but they weren't about a lot of things. They were more right than wrong because they were great thinkers. It's people who think they were wrong or ignorant about a lot of things that are probably the ones were wrong or ignorant about a lot of things.

For example, we have liberal outrage. Libs think if they are outraged, then they are thinking and being right about a lot of things such as Trump, climate change, tree hugging, abortions and so on. I think this is why they are outraged about Christians and their religion. They do not seem too outraged about Muslims tho. I've patiently explained real science and how it backs up what the Bible says and they still DEFLECT, DENY, DISMISS and likely end up is a state of DESPAIR. You know who these people are. You are explaining how the science works and they are angry and call you names. It seems like it is due to liberal outrage. If libs aren't outraged about something, then they are thinking and using their wrong logic. Maybe it's politics creeping in to science and technology and even religion.

Einstein was a socialist and he thought quantum mechanics was wrong. He also cheated on all his wives.