Time Runs Out on Darwin

[Old Rocks]

Wrong. Facts change. Truth does not change. Science is based on research and gathering evidence to base facts upon. It "evolves"... not so with Truth. Truth is based on Gods Word which will stand even after heaven and earth pass away. Truth does not change. Truth is sovereign. Truth eventually is revealed. Because that is the nature of truth! In this case the truth reveals Darwin was wrong. Are we surprised? Of course not. He was a fallible man, an atheist and no match for the wisdom of God and His Creation. - Jeri

And the truth is that we cannot prove God exists.

Until we do, we know of no truth about God. Only unsubstantiated belief.

science > religion

Ouch.

 

[Toro]

Science HAS to update itself regularly because it is consistently wrong---wrong sometimes to the point of causing illness and death.

Which is why we should reject modern medicine and instead pray to God to rid us of the evil spirits rather than go to the hospital when we have a life-threatening illness.

Outstanding.

 

[dilloduck]

Science HAS to update itself regularly because it is consistently wrong---wrong sometimes to the point of causing illness and death.

Which is why we should reject modern medicine and instead pray to God to rid us of the evil spirits rather than go to the hospital when we have a life-threatening illness.

Outstanding.

naa I think we should take both with a grain of salt.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong. Facts change. Truth does not change. Science is based on research and gathering evidence to base facts upon. It "evolves"... not so with Truth. Truth is based on Gods Word which will stand even after heaven and earth pass away. Truth does not change. Truth is sovereign. Truth eventually is revealed. Because that is the nature of truth! In this case the truth reveals Darwin was wrong. Are we surprised? Of course not. He was a fallible man, an atheist and no match for the wisdom of God and His Creation. - Jeri

And the truth is that we cannot prove God exists.

Until we do, we know of no truth about God. Only unsubstantiated belief.

science > religion

Do you believe in man made global warming? If you do you do so on faith as there is no actual evidence man caused the small amount of warming in the 80's.

 

[dilloduck]

Wrong. Facts change. Truth does not change. Science is based on research and gathering evidence to base facts upon. It "evolves"... not so with Truth. Truth is based on Gods Word which will stand even after heaven and earth pass away. Truth does not change. Truth is sovereign. Truth eventually is revealed. Because that is the nature of truth! In this case the truth reveals Darwin was wrong. Are we surprised? Of course not. He was a fallible man, an atheist and no match for the wisdom of God and His Creation. - Jeri

And the truth is that we cannot prove God exists.

Until we do, we know of no truth about God. Only unsubstantiated belief.

science > religion

Do you believe in man made global warming? If you do you do so on faith as there is no actual evidence man caused the small amount of warming in the 80's.

ouch Does that mean people might actually have faith in science ?

 

[Toro]

Once again:

The criticisms of Darwin come primarily from the religious. Why? Because it threatens their belief system. The religious critics aren't interested in truth. They are interested in destroying scientific explanations that contradict their belief in a Christian God. They offer no scientific alternatives. They offer no other explanations outside of their religion. Their motives are to destroy. Because if they destroy, then by default, they hope their religious explanations of the origins of the universe are accepted by others. They offer little to nothing in explaining an alternative scientific explanation to Darwin because they aren't interested in an alternative scientific explanation to Darwin.

That science changes over time doesn't mean that science is wrong. Science is a process that attempts to explain absolutes. It's a process of "if-then" based on empirical evidence or, at least, logical theories.

That's far different than religion. Religion requires an unquestioning acceptance regardless if there is any evidence or not. All religious precepts work from this unsubstantiated, unquestioning acceptance, then works backwards to rationalize the central premise.

That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. But what it does mean is that for religion, unlike science, there is little rigor in basing a conclusion on empirical analysis. You just have to believe. And just believing something exists doesn't mean it exists.

 

[dilloduck]

Once again:

The criticisms of Darwin come primarily from the religious. Why? Because it threatens their belief system. The religious critics aren't interested in truth. They are interested in destroying scientific explanations that contradict their belief in a Christian God. They offer no scientific alternatives. They offer no other explanations outside of their religion. Their motives are to destroy. Because if they destroy, then by default, they hope their religious explanations of the origins of the universe are accepted by others. They offer little to nothing in explaining an alternative scientific explanation to Darwin because they aren't interested in an alternative scientific explanation to Darwin.

That science changes over time doesn't mean that science is wrong. Science is a process that attempts to explain absolutes. It's a process of "if-then" based on empirical evidence or, at least, logical theories.

That's far different than religion. Religion requires an unquestioning acceptance regardless if there is any evidence or not. All religious precepts work from this unsubstantiated, unquestioning acceptance, then works backwards to rationalize the central premise.

That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. But what it does mean is that for religion, unlike science, there is little rigor in basing a conclusion on empirical analysis. You just have to believe. And just believing something exists doesn't mean it exists.

Science will never answer everything either----we will all just have to believe. Neither science nor religion can nail down man's age old questions

 

[DriftingSand]

One of my favorite sites is the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). They provide a lot of interesting scientific facts that contradict the Cult of Evolution.

The Universe Was Created Recently


Many clock-like processes operating in the solar system and beyond indicate that the universe is young. For example, spiral galaxies should not exist if they are billions of years old. The stars near their centers rotate around the galactic cores faster than stars at the perimeters. If a cosmology based on long ages is correct, they should have blended into disk-shaped galaxies by now.
Comets pose a similar problem. They lose material each time they pass around the sun. Why would they still exist after vast eons? Saturn’s rings still look new and shiny. And many planets and moons are very geologically active. Surely the energy they continually expend should have been spent long ago if they are as old as they are usually claimed to be.
Instead, the more astronomers learn about the heavens, the more evidence there is that the universe is young.

The Universe Was Created Recently

Fossils Show Rapid and Catastrophic Burial


Beveled surfaces below, within, and above thick strata sequences provide evidence of rapid flood and post-flood erosion. Fossils provide universal evidence of rapid burial, and even agonizing death.
Rapid burial is necessary to entomb organisms as the first step in fossilization. The abundant marine invertebrate fossils throughout the entire fossil strata demonstrate extraordinary burial conditions.
Polystrate fossil logs (tree trunks in vertical position running through several sedimentary layers) are common in the fossil layers and are clear evidence of rapid burial.
Common vertebrate fossils show rigor mortis and postures indicative of asphyxiation—sudden smothering of the animal (e.g., Archaeopteryx and dinosaur fossils in the quarry at Dinosaur National Monument).

Fossils Show Rapid and Catastrophic Burial

What I find interesting is the fact that any person on earth (Christian or not) can look at a Corvette and know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Corvette was designed. There are several necessary components to the Corvette that are vital to its operation (cooling system, transmission, engine, suspension, electrical/electronic system, etc.). There's ZERO doubt that the Corvette was designed and then created by an intelligent source.

Yet these same folks can look at a human being which is vastly more complex than a Corvette and they're blind to the wonderful design intrinsic in the human body, mind, and soul. They fail to see the design so they fail to see the Designer.

 

[Toro]

Do you believe in man made global warming? If you do you do so on faith as there is no actual evidence man caused the small amount of warming in the 80's.

Do I believe in man made global warming? I don't know.

But let's assume science is wrong. Given that almost all climatologists believe otherwise, let's assume they totally missed it.

Now, despite this one instance of science perhaps being wrong, you literally owe you existence to science. From your birth, to your medicine, to your transportation, to your discussions over the Internet on whether on science is valid, your life and everything around it depends on science.

Science is often wrong. But science is a process. Religion is not. Religion is a belief system that is not subject to any of the rigor required of science.

If God doesn't exist, everything about religion is wrong. And if God does exist, your religion can still be totally wrong.

 

[Toro]

Science will never answer everything either----we will all just have to believe. Neither science nor religion can nail down man's age old questions

Science may not have an answer to everything, but, unlike religion, it has an answer based on a process that requires either empirical rigor or logic. If you want to believe that swallowing a gallon of gasoline will do you no harm, feel free. Science tells us otherwise.

 

[dilloduck]

Science will never answer everything either----we will all just have to believe. Neither science nor religion can nail down man's age old questions

Science may not have an answer to everything, but, unlike religion, it has an answer based on a process that requires either empirical rigor or logic. If you want to believe that swallowing a gallon of gasoline will do you no harm, feel free. Science tells us otherwise.

Always the ridiculous examples. Even Jesus didn't fall for that crap when the devil tried to tempt him----or so the story goes.

So you have faith in a process. No need to be ashamed.

 

[Toro]

The book by Richard Wurmbrand called, Marx & Satan - is superb reading. Wurmbrand did such a magnificent job exposing Karl Marx that many years after his death the Communists were still bitterly complaining about his book!

Darwin was a capitalist and evolution is based upon free market capitalist theory.

The origins of communism can be found in the Bible.

Marx published his books on the Communist Manifesto a full 8 years before Darwin published the Origin of the Species.

So there is no connection between Darwin and Marx. There was no influence or collaboration. So while Marx is the father of Communism it has no connection to Darwin and evolution.

Darwinism was used to justify the era of the Robber Barons. The Robber Barons, and capitalism, represented the survival of the fittest. Society, the theory went, should encourage this because in the long run, it would make America stronger.

 

[Toro]

Science will never answer everything either----we will all just have to believe. Neither science nor religion can nail down man's age old questions

Science may not have an answer to everything, but, unlike religion, it has an answer based on a process that requires either empirical rigor or logic. If you want to believe that swallowing a gallon of gasoline will do you no harm, feel free. Science tells us otherwise.

Always the ridiculous examples. Even Jesus didn't fall for that crap when the devil tried to tempt him----or so the story goes.

So you have faith in a process. No need to be ashamed.

The ridiculous example is trying to equate science with religion because it requires belief. Religion requires absolute belief because the fundamental premise of religion, i.e. God, cannot be proven. Science requires belief when the fundamental building blocks of the scientific theory cannot be completely substantiated.

I was in Trinidad several years ago, and we drove by a tar pit that once oozed oil out of the ground. A hundred years ago, people used to bathe themselves in it because they "believed" it was cleansing until science told them otherwise.

 

[DriftingSand]

James Perloff is an author of two very good books: "Tornado In A Junkyard" and "A Case Against Darwin." In the following clip he gives a short explanation about how the Cultists distort the facts as a way to further their lie. I strongly suggest reading his books:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdDbl5ukZAs#t=270[/ame]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Science will never answer everything either----we will all just have to believe. Neither science nor religion can nail down man's age old questions

Science may not have an answer to everything, but, unlike religion, it has an answer based on a process that requires either empirical rigor or logic. If you want to believe that swallowing a gallon of gasoline will do you no harm, feel free. Science tells us otherwise.

Not currently. Global warming "science" is a cult. They fabricate evidence, they lie about what they find, the obfuscate facts, their primary theory of how man supposedly caused a 15 year warming trend does not stand up to the evidence or the facts so they change the temperature readings in an effort to cover the problems. When caught they lie some more.

And I really love the one about how there is a Consensus on global warming..... A Consensus in science? Really? I thought the scientific method required testing , being able to replicate tests and having an open mind.

This thread is another example, a new fact comes out that the explosion could only have happened if at all in a much smaller window of time, a window unable to support the very theory of evolution and you attack the messenger.

I have no problem with evolution WITHIN a species. What I have no proof of is that a single species has EVER evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species. In the mammal kingdom. Hell if we use DNA we must have come from mice at one time as mice have 90 percent of our DNA.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Wrong. Facts change. Truth does not change.

????....what is the difference between facts and truth.....

 

[Toro]

This thread is another example, a new fact comes out that the explosion could only have happened if at all in a much smaller window of time, a window unable to support the very theory of evolution and you attack the messenger.

We only have theories about how the universe began. We don't know. But it is based on the building blocks of what we know already in science.

And none of what we know in science today that forms the building blocks of the origins of the universe is in Genesis. Genesis is based on nothing other than a narrative.

 

[DriftingSand]

Science will never answer everything either----we will all just have to believe. Neither science nor religion can nail down man's age old questions

Science may not have an answer to everything, but, unlike religion, it has an answer based on a process that requires either empirical rigor or logic. If you want to believe that swallowing a gallon of gasoline will do you no harm, feel free. Science tells us otherwise.

You actually think that it's "logical" that inorganic matter "created" organic matter? It's logical to believe that a Universe full of design was "created" by a series of mistakes or chaotic happenstance? Really? That's logic?

You believe that nothing created something. I believe that it's far more logical to believe that Something created something.

 

[dilloduck]

This thread is another example, a new fact comes out that the explosion could only have happened if at all in a much smaller window of time, a window unable to support the very theory of evolution and you attack the messenger.

We only have theories about how the universe began. We don't know. But it is based on the building blocks of what we know already in science.

And none of what we know in science today that forms the building blocks of the origins of the universe is in Genesis. Genesis is based on nothing other than a narrative.

Yes---it's a humble book and fully aware that the detailed answer humans want so badly will never be known

 

[Toro]

You actually think that it's "logical" that inorganic matter "created" organic matter? It's logical to believe that a Universe full of design was "created" by a series of mistakes or chaotic happenstance? Really? That's logic?

You believe that nothing created something. I believe that it's far more logical to believe that Something created something.

Perhaps something did create something. I don't know.

But if that's true, there are infinite possible explanations for what that original something might be. There is nothing for us to believe that that something also gave us His only begotten son who was crucified 33 years later.

And, unlike religion, which will never abandon it's central tenet, science will abandon it's belief system if a better one is constructed.