In each one of your religious minds there must be a certain amount of doubt that we populated the planet from adam and eve.
If this were true Jesus would be condoning incest.
I will assume that some of you have a high inbreeding coefficient which explains why you're incapable of understanding rational information. The other 80 percent appear to have been brainwashed.
For those of you that do doubt your religions rediculous explanation of species please read this.
Up until this point konstantine, you have been at least moderately polite. If possible, try not to lose sight of the good manners that your mother taught you and let us all be civil together!
Actually the evidence points strongly to a young human race and i'll show you what i mean. If we started with 6 people about 4400 years ago (as in the 6 who emerged from the ark with noah and his wife) and doubled this population every 150 years (which is exceedingly conservative and easily accounts for plagues, famines, wars and such), we end up with about 7 billion people which is what we have today.
If we start with 2 people 100,000 years ago and do the same thing, doubling every 150 years, we end up with the impossible: 300 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion people. This astronomical number is a 3 with 200 zeroes after it.
And you think the world is overpopulated today?
Add to this that the written history of man goes back no further than about 4500-6000 years.
Farming is supposedly dated at about 10,000 years (though i believe 6000 is more accurate).
100,000 year old humans as smart as we are today and it took them 90,000 years to learn to plant seeds into the ground and 95,000 years to write down their thoughts?
Since Adam and Eve were the first 2 people, there was no way around close family relations initially, so yes this was permissible by God and it happened for a time and with a much more pure and undeteriorated genome, there was almost no chance of the kind of birth defects occurring that this would produce today.
While I don't particularly agree with the post you are responding to, I
simply cannot believe that in this day and age of information technology that
there is anyone who still believes your antiquated style of thinking.
First of all, we have humanoid fossils that go back for at least two million
years. We have many, many fossils of Neanderthals who's brains were larger
than ours and through DNA analysis it has been found that there are modern
humans who have Neanderthal DNA in their bodies. The Neanderthals died out
somewhere from about 20 to 40,000 years ago. Then, here's a huge religious
temple site that is more than 11,000 years old and it will take them several
decades to uncover the entire worship site.
God is not incompatible with the theory of evolution.
We used to think agriculture gave rise to cities and later to
writing, art, and religion. Now the world’s oldest temple suggests the urge to
worship sparked civilization.
Every now and then the dawn of civilization is reenacted on a remote
hilltop in southern Turkey.
The reenactors are busloads of tourists—usually Turkish, sometimes
European. The buses (white, air-conditioned, equipped with televisions) blunder
over the winding, indifferently paved road to the ridge and dock like
dreadnoughts before a stone portal. Visitors flood out, fumbling with water
bottles and MP3 players. Guides call out instructions and explanations. Paying
no attention, the visitors straggle up the hill. When they reach the top, their
mouths flop open with amazement, making a line of perfect cartoon O's.
Before them are dozens of massive stone pillars arranged into a set of rings,
one mashed up against the next. Known as Göbekli Tepe (pronounced Guh-behk-LEE
TEH-peh), the site is vaguely reminiscent of Stonehenge, except that Göbekli
Tepe was built much earlier and is made not from roughly hewn blocks but from
cleanly carved limestone pillars splashed with bas-reliefs of animals—a
cavalcade of gazelles, snakes, foxes, scorpions, and ferocious wild boars. The
assemblage was built some 11,600 years ago, seven millennia before the
Great Pyramid of Giza. It contains the oldest known temple. Indeed, Göbekli
Tepe is the oldest known example of monumental architecture—the first
structure human beings put together that was bigger and more complicated than a
hut. When these pillars were erected, so far as we know, nothing of comparable
scale existed in the world.
At the time of Göbekli Tepe's construction much of the human race lived in
small nomadic bands that survived by foraging for plants and hunting wild
animals. Construction of the site would have required more people coming
together in one place than had likely occurred before. Amazingly, the temple's
builders were able to cut, shape, and transport 16-ton stones hundreds of feet
despite having no wheels or beasts of burden. The pilgrims who came to Göbekli
Tepe lived in a world without writing, metal, or pottery; to those approaching
the temple from below, its pillars must have loomed overhead like rigid giants,
the animals on the stones shivering in the firelight—emissaries from a
spiritual world that the human mind may have only begun to envision.
Archaeologists are still excavating Göbekli Tepe and debating its meaning.
What they do know is that the site is the most significant in a volley of
unexpected findings that have overturned earlier ideas about our species' deep
past. Just 20 years ago most researchers believed they knew the time, place, and
rough sequence of the Neolithic Revolution—the critical transition that
resulted in the birth of agriculture, taking Homo sapiens from scattered
groups of hunter-gatherers to farming villages and from there to technologically
sophisticated societies with great temples and towers and kings and priests who
directed the labor of their subjects and recorded their feats in written form.
But in recent years multiple new discoveries, Göbekli Tepe preeminent among
them, have begun forcing archaeologists to reconsider.
At first the Neolithic Revolution was viewed as a single event—a sudden
flash of genius—that occurred in a single location, Mesopotamia, between the
Tigris and Euphrates Rivers in what is now southern Iraq, then spread to India,
Europe, and beyond. Most archaeologists believed this sudden blossoming of
civilization was driven largely by environmental changes: a gradual warming as
the Ice Age ended that allowed some people to begin cultivating plants and
herding animals in abundance. The new research suggests that the
"revolution" was actually carried out by many hands across a huge area
and over thousands of years. And it may have been driven not by the environment
but by something else entirely.
After a moment of stunned quiet, tourists at the site busily snap pictures
with cameras and cell phones. Eleven millennia ago nobody had digital imaging
equipment, of course. Yet things have changed less than one might think. Most of
the world's great religious centers, past and present, have been destinations
for pilgrimages—think of the Vatican, Mecca, Jerusalem, Bodh Gaya (where
Buddha was enlightened), or Cahokia (the enormous Native American complex near
St. Louis). They are monuments for spiritual travelers, who often came great
distances, to gawk at and be stirred by. Göbekli Tepe may be the first of all
of them, the beginning of a pattern. What it suggests, at least to the
archaeologists working there, is that the human sense of the sacred—and the
human love of a good spectacle—may have given rise to civilization itself.
Klaus Schmidt knew almost instantly that he was going to be spending a
lot of time at Göbekli Tepe. Now a researcher at the German Archaeological
Institute (DAI), Schmidt had spent the autumn of 1994 trundling across
southeastern Turkey. He had been working at a site there for a few years and was
looking for another place to excavate. The biggest city in the area is Şanlıurfa
(pronounced shan-LYOOR-fa). By the
standards of a brash newcomer like London, Şanlıurfa is incredibly
old—the place where the Prophet Abraham supposedly was born. Schmidt was in
the city to find a place that would help him understand the Neolithic, a place
that would make Şanlıurfa look young. North of Şanlıurfa the
ground ripples into the first foothills of the mountains that run across
southern Turkey, source of the famous Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Nine miles
outside of town is a long ridge with a rounded crest that locals call Potbelly
Hill—Göbekli Tepe.
In the 1960s archaeologists from the University of Chicago had surveyed the
region and concluded that Göbekli Tepe was of little interest. Disturbance was
evident at the top of the hill, but they attributed it to the activities of a
Byzantine-era military outpost. Here and there were broken pieces of limestone
they thought were gravestones. Schmidt had come across the Chicago researchers'
brief description of the hilltop and decided to check it out. On the ground he
saw flint chips—huge numbers of them. "Within minutes of getting
there," Schmidt says, he realized that he was looking at a place where
scores or even hundreds of people had worked in millennia past. The limestone
slabs were not Byzantine graves but something much older. In collaboration with
the DAI and the Şanlıurfa Museum, he set to work the next year.
Inches below the surface the team struck an elaborately fashioned stone. Then
another, and another—a ring of standing pillars. As the months and years went
by, Schmidt's team, a shifting crew of German and Turkish graduate students and
50 or more local villagers, found a second circle of stones, then a third, and
then more. Geomagnetic surveys in 2003 revealed at least 20 rings piled
together, higgledy-piggledy, under the earth.
The pillars were big—the tallest are 18 feet in height and weigh 16 tons.
Swarming over their surfaces was a menagerie of animal bas-reliefs, each in a
different style, some roughly rendered, a few as refined and symbolic as
Byzantine art. Other parts of the hill were littered with the greatest store of
ancient flint tools Schmidt had ever seen—a Neolithic warehouse of knives,
choppers, and projectile points. Even though the stone had to be lugged from
neighboring valleys, Schmidt says, "there were more flints in one little
area here, a square meter or two, than many archaeologists find in entire
sites."
The circles follow a common design. All are made from limestone pillars
shaped like giant spikes or capital T's. Bladelike, the pillars are easily five
times as wide as they are deep. They stand an arm span or more apart,
interconnected by low stone walls. In the middle of each ring are two taller
pillars, their thin ends mounted in shallow grooves cut into the floor. I asked
German architect and civil engineer Eduard Knoll, who works with Schmidt to
preserve the site, how well designed the mounting system was for the central
pillars. "Not," he said, shaking his head. "They hadn't yet
mastered engineering." Knoll speculated that the pillars may have been
propped up, perhaps by wooden posts.
To Schmidt, the T-shaped pillars are stylized human beings, an idea bolstered
by the carved arms that angle from the "shoulders" of some pillars,
hands reaching toward their loincloth-draped bellies. The stones face the center
of the circle—as at "a meeting or dance," Schmidt says—a
representation, perhaps, of a religious ritual. As for the prancing, leaping
animals on the figures, he noted that they are mostly deadly creatures: stinging
scorpions, charging boars, ferocious lions. The figures represented by the
pillars may be guarded by them, or appeasing them, or incorporating them as
totems.
Puzzle piled upon puzzle as the excavation continued. For reasons yet
unknown, the rings at Göbekli Tepe seem to have regularly lost their power, or
at least their charm. Every few decades people buried the pillars and put up new
stones—a second, smaller ring, inside the first. Sometimes, later, they
installed a third. Then the whole assemblage would be filled in with debris, and
an entirely new circle created nearby. The site may have been built, filled in,
and built again for centuries.
Bewilderingly, the people at Göbekli Tepe got steadily worse at temple
building. The earliest rings are the biggest and most sophisticated, technically
and artistically. As time went by, the pillars became smaller, simpler, and were
mounted with less and less care. Finally the effort seems to have petered out
altogether by 8200 B.C. Göbekli Tepe was
all fall and no rise........(more at site)
sun tzu gave one of the most concise answers ive ever heard. as for fossils they fail as scientific evidence. if one wants to believe by faith that x million years ago (time didnt exist then in the creationists model) something was related to something ok. it can never be shown empirically be reproduced etc etc. "x died out 10k years ago or 40k years ago" never observed-faith based belief-religion
the religion of evolution -gets taken by faith a process that is actually impossible*1 started and stopped happening in the unobserved past.
religion of creation-gets taken by faith "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth". strictly speaking this religion has eye witness testimony if one believes it (god was there we wernt lol) it should be noted too adam and eve disobeying god is why we have suffering death disease etc today.
peer reviewed genetic literature even uses the "x million years ago" construct for things like alleged "neofunctionalisation" (this is delusional*2) and other retarded thought experiments lol.
1* and 2* one must assign dna polymerase with supernatural abilities if they wish to believe this process once happened . depending on the level of intelligence/supernatural abilities you wish to assign dna polyermases depends on the possibility of it happening. i can elaborate on this more if needed lol
and yes the god of the bible IS incompatible with the neo darwinian delusion i mean hypothesis
if you cite me a couple of peer reviewed genetic literatures i will show you where they fail
thanks for your time if you want to know the origin of species/mankind genesis1.1 is where the creation model starts off-" in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth" best opener to a book ever imo (+eyewitness testimony)
You never once addressed the temple site Göbekli Tepe which is over 11,000
years old.
What you are trying to do is to make your world fit the Christian Old
Testament and even Jesus didn't do that. He said
Matthew 7:12 (NIV)
"So in everything, do
to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the
Prophets."
So, you can take the OT and throw it away because it means nothing except the
Golden Rule - just as Jesus said. Simply follow the Golden Rule and those
who do (even atheists) are practicing Christians.
1-how did they date those things? if it is radiometric/isotope dating start another thread on the fallacy of radiometric/isotope dating. if it is some other method please say how? "x is y million years old" this is called fact by assertion lol. if you know how they determined that please say so (or better yet link to the peer reviewed literature with it-media stories/blogs etc=valueless)
I know that you DO believe in science, otherwise you wouldn't be using a
computer and posting to the Internet. Do you own an automobile?
Filled with science inside and out. Got electric light bulbs in your
home? A product of science.
Your post is but a very empty rant with nothing to back it up.
You have much more faith in the totalitarian evolutionist community's ability (or willingness) to emerge with truth than me. The dating methods all are based on massive assumptions which are specifically geared to support the presupposition of darwinist theory which requires 3000 million years to work. As well they employ circular reasoning. The fossils date the rock layers and the rock layers date the fossils. Both of which "support" the ages needed by the theory. Well they would, wouldn't they? Radiometric old world dating is laden with assumptions which it desperately relies upon including uniformitarianism and a very old earth assumption to "calibrate the scale". If we assume a 4.5 billion year old earth, radiometric dating gives us the 4.5 billion years we want to see give or take a billion years or so just like magic. If we assume a thousands of years old earth, old earth radiometric dating is a completely invalid dating method.
The majority of dating methods which most of us never even hear about along the path of our indoctrination into evolutionism support a young earth. Any time i hear a date from the evolutionist community and there is no date written on the back of the item (rock, fossil, artifact, diamond...), i am immediately and immensely skeptical.
For example, are you familiar with the recent find of t-rex soft tissue which has managed to retain its elasticity for supposedly 70 million years? This flies in the face of everything scientists know about deterioration rates of soft tissue and yet they appear to be willing to throw all of this out to protect the 70 million years (and of course evolutionism).
To this point any time scientists have found elastic tissue, they have known it to be thousands of years old at the most. Is this really the one exception throughout all history or is this specimen thousands of years old too in accordance with everything we know about deterioration rates of tissue?
Could it be that the various evidences for dinosaurs living with man (nonexistent of course in the mainstream to the point where it sounds ridiculous when they are brought up) are actually true? Dragon stories in writings throughout the entire world (the word dinosaur was only established in the past couple hundred years or so), dinosaur paintings and carvings among ancient peoples, dino and human footprints in the same sites? As well there are dinosaur descriptions in the bible including behemoth (with a tail like a cedar) and leviathon.
Why are the oldest trees (something actually reliably datable by the rings) about 4500 years and still healthy and strong? If 4500 years is as old as trees can grow, shouldn't they all be dying about now?
And i refer you back to my previous post about the population explosion that would only take 4500 years to reach 7 billion which you seemed to have maybe just ignored? 3 with 200 zeroes after is is the population we should expect starting with 2 humans 100,000 years ago if it merely doubled every 150 years.
"God is not incompatible with the theory of evolution."
If you mean to say the bible is not incompatible with the theory of evolution, my reply is "how can anybody possibly believe this?". There is no way whatsoever in which the two ARE compatible. One speaks of a specific 6 day creation account including Adam and Eve being created on the 6th day and the other forces materialistic causes for everything that has happened in spite of what the evidence points to (which is intelligent design).
A. I am always flabbergasted by the utter confusion surrounding the question of proving the Bible to be true. Many prominent theologians, creation scientists, evolutionists, famous scientists, agnostics, and atheists have fallen flat on their faces trying to either prove or disprove the Bible to be true.
The real answer to the question is that the Bible cannot be proved to be true. But then, that same answer must be given to the question, Is Science true? Both the Bible and science are based on unprovable axioms. Both must be believed on faith (trust or belief) alone.
There are, however, a very few theologians and unbelieving scientists who understand the answer. It is interesting to see how these people, although they are on opposite sides of the universe as far as their beliefs, do agree on this point.
Notice the agreement in the two quoted paragraphs below. The first is from W. Gary Crampton, a Christian ThD:
First, it is important to understand that all philosophies (or worldviews) necessarily begin with an indemonstrable first principle or starting point, i.e., an axiom from which all else is deduced.... If one could prove the proposition that the Bible is the Word of God, then the proposition would not be the starting point.... All of the traditional 'proofs' for God's existence are invalid; they are logical fallacies.... One cannot prove the God of Scripture by means of natural theology. Neither can one prove Scripture to be the Word of God. For the Scripturalist, the Word of God is the axiomatic starting point. It is indemonstrable; it is self-authenticating and self-evident. Augustine's dictum, 'I believe in order to understand,' must also be our own."
("Scripturalism: A Christian Worldview").
Now I will quote Robert G. Brown, a non-Christian professor at Duke University who specializes in theoretical condensed matter physics:
The damnedest thing is, of course, that I can no more prove my axioms than they [Bible-believers] can prove theirs, and hence both our conclusions are in some deep sense equally irrational.... We thus run up against the good old Pit, once again. Any question or proposition, pushed up against its axioms, becomes unanswerable, unprovable, doubtable. The inevitable conclusion of this (or any other) reasoning chain about the Universe is that no question can be answered save conditionally. Conditional conclusions can only be based on belief in the truth of the premises, where that belief cannot be validated, ever. We thus see that far from mocking religion as being 'less rational' than science, that both science and religion are based on faith – the faith that your prime axioms, however unprovable, are reasonably consistent (where consistency at least can be explored by pure reason) and correct, where correctness is beyond proof. Belief is belief, whether it is belief in the Laws of Physics or the Book of Genesis.... This leads us to ask the following, very important question. We now can see that we cannot use reason to decide between competing axiomatic descriptions. All arguments devolve to 'Is so!' 'Is not' 'Is so' 'Is not', where there [sic] opinion tie is fundamentally unable to be broken as things stand.
"Religion versus Science: Axiom Wars"
He is right. So many debates between Christian apologists and scientists really boil down to "Is so!" "Is not!" This is because believing the Bible and believing science are equally valid since they are equally founded on faith in unprovable axioms.
What this means is that even if all of the archaeological evidence in the world supported the events in the Bible, it would still not prove the Bible to be true. It means that no quantity or quality of creation science evidence will prove the Bible to be true. It means that all of those myriads of books, DVDs, CDs, and seminars by Christian apologists that say they prove the Bible to be true are wrong. They may move a believer to awe and they may even cause a non-believer to examine a Bible, but they do not attain to their goal of proving the Bible. That the Bible is the Word of God and therefore true is an unprovable axiom of Christianity.
Then again, no amount of evidence from any discipline will ever prove science to be true, either. Certainly, science has had a practical value in our world. So has Christianity. So have other religions. But practical value is no proof of truth.
You might wonder what the unprovable axioms of science are. I don't know that there is a consensus of agreement, but a poster on this page has taken a good stab at them:
1-The universe is intelligible
2-The ultimate constituents of reality are material (composed of mass-energy)
3-There exist rational explanations for all observable events
4-There are objective phenomena
5-What is true in specific is true in general (no point in dropping weights off the tower of Piza [sic] if you didn't believe that something true about those weights was true of all massy objects in general)
6-Experience is an ultimately trustworthy way to gain knowledge about the material world
Only Christianity is founded on an axiom believed by a faith that is outside of the natural mind and is, therefore, not relativistic and is objective and absolute. Of course, non-believers call this foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18-25). This is because "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14). Jesus said essentially the same thing when He said, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). It is this world's wisdom that is foolish: "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness" (I Corinthians 3:19).
Naturally, the scientist can accuse us of judging him by a standard that he cannot scientifically test. This is the very reason he scoffs. He expects us to use his system for testing truth. But, because, as I have said, all belief systems, including science, are ultimately based on unprovable axioms, there is no system of testing for truth that, objectively speaking, stands above all others as the superior system.
So, although some people may be saddened by this answer, we cannot prove the Bible to be true. Why, then, do Christians believe the Bible? Because God has given us the gift of faith.
Peter Ditzel
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent
Falling' Theory
August 17, 2005
KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public
schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in
this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For
Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of
gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of
Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational
force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them
down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied
Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is
founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force
between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton
himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which
philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to
a higher power."
Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical
physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.
According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International
Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!,
there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone,
including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and
how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.
The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian
conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give
equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking
that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be
offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed
decision."
"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids,"
Burdett said.
Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by
secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even
critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are
mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent
Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.
"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow
Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the
blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity
making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But
mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is
pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This
clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."
Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based
on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however,
insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy
Scripture.
"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general
relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen
Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan
Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a
century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled
data, they still don't know how."
"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation
is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists
need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words
for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"
Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an
elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.
"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the
'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,'
and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their
findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible
have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is
Jesus."
"God is not incompatible
with the theory of evolution."
"There is no way whatsoever in which the two ARE compatible."
Why not?
Dating methods have improved tremendously in the past 50 years. There
is no way that you can deny the thousands upon thousands of fossils that are 6
million and more years old. An example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1157536.stm
a hominoid - 6 million years old. How do you explain that?
Because your mind is made up there is no way that I can change it. All
I gotta say is you're going to absolutely love the next decade.
to 13690 and konstantine. are you open to neo darwinain delusion i mean hypothesis being falsified? if yes-i can do it. if no i will not respond anymore. (i didnt fully understand this was strictly a "debate" forum when i responded to the first message of konstantines) from the falsification of neo darwinian theory i can then-using science-show genesis 1.1. to be the only tenable faith based belief system when it comes to origins (if one is 'open to it') if you are not open to genesis 1.1. being a tenable possibility (which i dont know if you are?) but open to neodarwinian delusion/hypothesis being falsified ok if not i wont even bother...thanks for reading this and your time
Why not?
I already answered this in the previous post. 6 days with God as the creator vs. 4540 million years with unintelligent atoms defying laws of nature (doing supernatural things) without a supernatural designer. How is it that you believe these two massively different and diametrically opposed ideas can be reconciled? What must be compromised to fit them together?
Dating methods have improved tremendously in the past 50 years. There is no way that you can deny the thousands upon thousands of fossils that are 6 million and more years old. An example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1157536.stm
a hominoid - 6 million years old. How do you explain that?
Of course i can deny them, just as various phd scientists have done. The dating methods, i repeat, are replete with assumptions and presuppositions which exist specifically to support the theory of evolution. You can't get accurate dates with bad assumptions and in some cases as amazing as this sounds, billions of years become thousands. RATE project is one study which has unveiled some very interesting revolutionary findings. These breakthroughs are quite recent as is much that is going on in intelligent design science which has now published about 50 peer reviewed papers and growing. I don't believe there was even one before 2005. Maybe the next decade will be a big surprise for you for reasons you did not anticipate.
Couple of playful videos but with accurate information about the flaws in the dating methods:
Because your mind is made up there is no way that I can change it. All I gotta say is you're going to absolutely love the next decade.
If the next decade is going to be exciting, why are you linking an 11 year old article? You really should do some research on "flaws in dating methods" and "assumptions in dating methods". I expect it will blow your mind as it did mine.
If it makes you feel any better i believed in the theory of evolution from age 5 all through college and beyond and several years into my Christian walk which began in my late 20s. God has really opened my eyes to the truth and i wasn't even expecting to have my mind changed about this because i had been so inappropriately confident with mainstream science's evolutionistic interpretation for everything no matter how much the evidence actually points to intelligent design.
What are your beliefs 136970 as far as God is concerned?
"Of course i can deny them,
just as various phd scientists have done. The dating methods, i repeat, are
replete with assumptions and presuppositions which exist specifically to support
the theory of evolution. You can't get accurate dates with bad assumptions and
in some cases as amazing as this sounds, billions of years become thousands.
RATE project is one study which has unveiled some very interesting revolutionary
findings."
You're a typical close minded person who hasn't backed up a single statement
regarding dating methods. There are also empty headed PhD scientists so
pick a few mainstream scientists who are in the majority. I do not accept
YouTube (BoobTube) as an authority on anything.
You still haven't in any manor explained the Neanderthals who are known to
have lived side by side with Homo Sapiens. In fact, some Homo Sapiens today,
have Neanderthal DNA.
You would have loved living in the 14th or 15th Centuries when if you didn't
believe the Church when they taught that the sun rotated around the earth you
were burned at the stake.
You never did answer the question about what your beliefs in God entail? Was that intentional? :).
You're a typical close minded person who hasn't backed up a single statement regarding dating methods. There are also empty headed PhD scientists so pick a few mainstream scientists who are in the majority. I do not accept YouTube (BoobTube) as an authority on anything.
Thank you for those kind words, i will be sure to cherish them. The mainstream scientists are a part of the system and thus a part of the problem (think "the matrix"). They have evolution (and job security) on the brain and can't (or won't) think outside the evolutionist box of billions of years. If you are the least bit open minded, you will do as i have done and balance your evolution indoctrination with evidence for the opposing side. Or perhaps you are afraid what you might find?
In backing up my statements regarding dating methods, look up RATE project and Geologist (Stone Cold) Steve Austin... if you are open minded enough that is. If you really want to learn what the creationist side has to say, you have to be open to creationist sources (such as creation.com, icr,and AnswersinGenesis). As you may already know, the scientific community is polarized on the issue and you are not likely to find any creationist perspectives in the evolutionist sites and certainly not an honest presentation of them. It is similar to getting information about alternative cancer treatments. You are obviously not going to get them in the mainstream, so you naturally need to get this information from alternative sites. If you are not open minded enough to do this, i may be completely unable to help you further, but i do wish you the best in any case.
A little closed minded to deny the entire youtube medium don't you think? Who in science or in any other area do you admire? Chances are you can find that person in youtube videos. It is an awesome resource.
You still haven't in any manor explained the Neanderthals who are known to have lived side by side with Homo Sapiens. In fact, some Homo Sapiens today, have Neanderthal DNA.
Simply, neanderthals are just humans, seemingly an isolated group found in cold regions. You are thus quite right to say that Neanderthals have lived side by side with Homo Sapiens since that's exactly what they were. Like everything else on the planet, they lived within the past 6000 years or so.
You would have loved living in the 14th or 15th Centuries when if you didn't believe the Church when they taught that the sun rotated around the earth you were burned at the stake.
More kind words, i will cherish these also, thank you so much! The bible does not say the sun revolves around the earth unless we make the most ludicrous interpretation as with me saying, "i saw the sunrise this morning" and you interpreting that to mean that i am a believer in a geoentric solar system... but nevertheless this is something the catholic church grabbed on to as a part of their unbiblical dogma along with indulgences and the like. The Catholic church held power then even more so than the evolutionist community does today, but the parallel is nevertheless compelling. I believe i would have opposed the catholic church then as did many other true followers of the Lord Jesus all throughout history, the way i oppose evolutionism now, though naturally i would likely have needed to be more underground with it. Evolution is totalitarian to be sure, but the community is still not burning people at the stake who speak out against it, merely ruining their careers and such.
Your comment suggests that you believe i oppose science when nothing could be further from the truth just as other christians throughout history who have contributed greatly to scientific advancement, many of whom were responsible for amazing discoveries including as one example John Sanford who invented the gene gun around 1985. I merely oppose bedtime stories which conjure up ideas about things that supposedly happened millions and millions of years ago which the actual evidence absolutely does not support.
Based on the assumption that one species evolves into another species. This has never been proven, therefore in desperation the evolutionist of today spends much of their time discrediting Christianity. I don't base my opinion of evolution from the bible but from many years studying the sciences in biology, zoology ,anthropology, comparative vertebrate anatomy and have yet to find proof that one species has ever evolved into another.
It simply can't be proved.One must take a leap of faith to believe in evolution.
The book of Genesis talks about "kinds", not species. A kind is most commonly a genus, not a species. Sometimes as with humans, a kind is a species, but other times it can be as broad as a family. Lots of variation occurs within kinds very quickly (but within limits) and speciation does thus occur but all this proves is that variation can cross the boundaries of a classification which man has created. The bible did not describe kinds based on what man would one day label as "species", so speciation therefore is arbitrary and means nothing. Nevertheless, evolutionists will often point to it as evidence for their (whole) theory of single celled organisms becoming all life we see today as if a finch population varying and adapting (within its kind) to become another species of finch is the same thing.
Researchers have bred a million generations of butterflies and still all we see are butterflies. A butterfly is a butterfly. That is its kind. It never evolved from anything else and will never evolve into anything else in spite of what the drawings in the textbooks portray without the evidence to back it up.
99% of the worlds scientific population would disagree with you. In the speciation post there were clear examples of speciation taking place in recent times. Are you arguing that those examples aren't speciation?