One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Over 1,000 Ph.D. Scientists Doubt Darwin
Page <<first <prev 3 of 8 next> last>>
Feb 16, 2019 19:30:55   #
Rose42
 
padremike wrote:
I came to peace with this issue a long time ago. Wh**ever the answer, God did it His way.


lol I like that answer.

Reply
Feb 16, 2019 19:38:43   #
Rose42
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Theory means idea... After it is proven it is still a theory... Take for example the Theory of Relatively... Proven.... Still called a theory...

Mutations = Evolution...

How can a creature 'defy' evolution?


Explain the giraffe for one.

The theory of relativity is called a theory for a reason. They think it is correct but it is not proven correct. There is a difference.

Reply
Feb 16, 2019 19:42:45   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Rose42 wrote:
Explain the giraffe for one.

The theory of relativity is called a theory for a reason. They think it is correct but it is not proven correct. There is a difference.


Relatively was also proven...

How does a giraffe defy evolution?

Reply
Feb 16, 2019 19:59:57   #
padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Well said


Then don't mess with it or you'll turn into frog! Eat a bug!

Reply
Feb 16, 2019 20:02:12   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
padremike wrote:
Then don't mess with it or you'll turn into frog! Eat a bug!


I live in China...
We eat bugs...
And frogs

Reply
Feb 16, 2019 21:18:50   #
padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I live in China...
We eat bugs...
And frogs


I live in Florida. We eat bugs and tree frogs too but not intentionally.

Reply
Feb 16, 2019 23:45:20   #
Wonttakeitanymore
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
False story... Never verified...


Same as evolution, never verified!

Reply
 
 
Feb 16, 2019 23:50:02   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Wonttakeitanymore wrote:
Same as evolution, never verified!


Evolution has been verified repeatedly...

It in no way contradicts scripture...

All things work for God...

Reply
Feb 17, 2019 00:09:27   #
truthiness
 
bahmer wrote:
Over 1,000 Ph.D. Scientists Doubt Darwin
By Bryan Fischer - February 15, 2019

Most people have no idea where the theory of evolution came from. They think scientists made discoveries that led them to doubt the Bible’s view of origins. But it was the other way round. Men first began to doubt and then dismiss the Bible in the early part of the 19th century. So they needed to find some other explanation for, well, everything. And presto-change-o, Darwin popped out his theory of natural se******n in 1859.

But the best in science has always been a problem for the theory of evolution. The First Law of Thermodynamics says that neither energy nor matter can either be created or destroyed. In other words, science says there is no known process inside the cosmos that can explain the presence of matter and energy. The logical, scientific conclusion, then, is that some force outside the cosmos put them there. We know Who that outside force is.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, the law of entropy, says that in every chemical reaction, there is a certain amount of energy that is lost and can never again be used in a heat reaction. This is why science tells us the universe is heading ultimately toward a heat death.

So science tells us that the universe is heading toward increasing randomness and decay and is winding down. But evolution tells us the exact opposite, that the universe is heading toward increasing complexity and order. So what does the Bible have to say (emphasis mine)? “Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment” (Psalm 102:25-26a). Sounds like the biblical record is perfectly consistent with the law of entropy, but the theory of evolution is not.

Genetic science tells us that “like begets like,” just as the Bible says in Genesis One where 11 times we read that animals reproduce “after their kind.” But evolution is built on the theory that one “kind” can change into another.

In order for that to happen, there must be a genetic change in the DNA of an organism. But mutations are very rare in nature, and almost invariably harmful to the organism. That’s why we call them “birth defects.” They don’t enhance the survivability of the organism, they threaten it. So evolution has to depend upon a process that is rare and almost invariably destructive. The score is now Bible 3, Evolution 0.

And finally the fossil record is powerful evidence for creationism. As Stephen Jay Gould said, “The extreme rarity of t***sitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” By “trade secret,” he meant that all paleontologists know there are no missing links but they are hoping that you never find that out.

Darwin knew that the absence of t***sitional forms was a major problem for his theory, but he believed that was just because we hadn’t found enough fossils. Well, now – 150 years and 250,000 fossils after Darwin – we not only do not have more t***sitional forms, we have fewer. Some of the ones scientists thought were t***sitional forms turned out to be nothing of the sort.

The Bible tells us that creatures appeared on the earth fully formed, and that’s exactly what the fossil record confirms. There is today not one single fossil that all paleontologists recognize as a t***sitional form. The score now is Bible 4, Evolution 0.

(It’s easy to remember this outline of the argument against evolution: First Law – Second Law – Fossils and Genes. Just kind of rolls off the tongue.)

With the fact that Darwinism has been a defective theory from jump street, it should not surprise that even scientists are finally beginning to realize it. The Discovery Center has a list of 1,043 Ph.D. scientists who have signed a statement that they have serious reservations about Darwinian evolution. They all have doctorate degrees in biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, medicine, or the natural sciences. They got their degrees from places like Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton, Stanford, UCLA and Duke. These scientists specifically challenge the theory that random mutations and natural se******n can account for the complexity of life.

The Bible says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Ladies and gentlemen, do not doubt this book.

Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at “Focal Point”

Host of “Focal Point” on American Family Radio, 1:05 pm CT, M-F www.afr.net

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.
Over 1,000 Ph.D. Scientists Doubt Darwin br By Bry... (show quote)

.....

Here are some interesting statistics from Pew that would indicate that 1,043 PhDs are a minority of educated people who believe creationism and the six-day-creation hypothesis.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/11/darwin-day/

Here is Wikipedia's comments on the Discovery Institute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
""Teach the Controversy" is a campaign conducted by the Discovery Institute to promote the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design, a variant of traditional creationism, while attempting to discredit the teaching of evolution in United States public high school science courses.[27][28][29]

"The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics.[30][31][32] A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a "false perception" that evolution is "a theory in crisis" by falsely claiming it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[30][31][33][34] In the December 2005 ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge John E. Jones III concluded that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".[35]"

Several years ago while visiting Seattle, I went to the Discovery Institute and rang the doorbell. It took 10 minutes after constant ringing that we were buzzed in. No person met us or would even talk to us. We had access to a meager library. After 15 minutes with no one even pretending to be interested in our presence, we left. Very dark place indeed.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that on order to be "saved" that a person must believe in a six-day creation. I do read that there is a commandment to " Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it, and have d******n over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." KJV: Gen 1:28. I interpret "subdue it" to mean learn about it and help the earth to provide for my (God's') children.

Nowhere in the Bible do I find a mandate to read the creation story as a story of the creation of the universe. It can easily fit a description of the "creation" of a planetary system. And if '6 days' can be considered metaphorical to current cosmological considerations, then the "creation" of the solar system fits
pretty well.

One of the problems of the creationist group is that they feel that the creation of the religious text must fit into the science that is known today, which to me means they denigrate the power of their God to what they know as opposed to what He knows. They can't know from scripture that He has not made other world's and populated them with his children and in His own fashion. Perhaps He could choose to use a process like evolution to develop life.

We estimate from Hubble data that there are at least 10exp12 galaxies in the universe that we have seen.
The Milky Way has a population of 10exp11 stars. Assume that all galaxies have the same number of stars.
Total number of stars = 10exp12 x 10exp11 = 10exp23 stars.
Now assume that 1 out of 10exp9 stars is a sun like that of the solar system (a conservative number).
Then 10exp23/10exp9 = 10exp14 number of stars like our sun that could possibly produce a planetary system like ours--even if the calculation is off by orders of magnitude.
With conservative odds like that why do we think another earth could not exist?
And then considering the time scale of the universe as determined by the Hubble constant (14.4 billion years) why do we constrain a Creator for using time to develop creatures in his creations? Does that take anything away from the Creator or the creative process? I don't think so. But creationists say it must be done in 6-earth days by the snap of a celestial finger. Which is more believable?

There is no conflict between science and religion because they use different ground rules for understanding and belief. It is too bad that the creationists feel that they have to unite them when they do not have the tools to do so.

Reply
Feb 17, 2019 00:14:38   #
padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Evolution has been verified repeatedly...

It in no way contradicts scripture...

All things work for God...


Me thinks thou dost take some liberties with a "theory" being repeatedly verified. There is always room for mystery this side of heaven.

Reply
Feb 17, 2019 00:43:25   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
padremike wrote:
Me thinks thou dost take some liberties with a "theory" being repeatedly verified. There is always room for mystery this side of heaven.


I'll agree to that

Reply
Feb 17, 2019 00:48:04   #
Wonttakeitanymore
 
padremike wrote:
Me thinks thou dost take some liberties with a "theory" being repeatedly verified. There is always room for mystery this side of heaven.


I agree!!! Evolution is atheistic! It teaches we came from the goo to you!! Hopefully the man got himself right with God before he died!! His wife was a Christian!!! It takes more faith to believe the nonsense of evolution than to believe in a real God!! Fish and monkeys still fish and monkeys!!!

Reply
Feb 17, 2019 00:52:27   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Wonttakeitanymore wrote:
I agree!!! Evolution is atheistic! It teaches we came from the goo to you!! Hopefully the man got himself right with God before he died!! His wife was a Christian!!! It takes more faith to believe the nonsense of evolution than to believe in a real God!! Fish and monkeys still fish and monkeys!!!


How is evolution atheistic?

Reply
Feb 17, 2019 01:04:58   #
Wonttakeitanymore
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
How is evolution atheistic?


Creationism is based on God creating man. Evolution is based on man evolving on its own from beings billions of years ago!!! From goo to you!!

Reply
Feb 17, 2019 01:07:34   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Wonttakeitanymore wrote:
Creationism is based on God creating man. Evolution is based on man evolving on its own from beings billions of years ago!!! From goo to you!!


Could the almighty creator of the universe not employ evolution as a mechanism for creation?

We could call it Evolutionary Creationism...

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.