Science and the Bible...

[ARGOSY]

10 hours ago, Goldenshark123 said:

As for evolution from one species to another, macroevolution is just an extension of microevolution. 

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natutal selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time. You might think that microevolution is too small to influence macroevolution, but it isn't. Remember that evolution has been at work for 3.8 billion years.

What you say here is empirically incorrect.  The terms macro evolution and micro evolution can cause side debates about semantics so I wont go into that.  But there is a vast difference between a species' population changing its allele frequencies and combinations, to the long-term evolution as suggested by evolutionists.  The two processes are completely different. They both involve natural selection for the best set of alleles, BUT the short term process involves rapid adaptability without mutation and is a proven process, the long-term process requires mutations and increased genetic complexity (of unique and functional genes) and is an unproven process.

Maybe you do not realise yet that the more long term process is unproven. So I'm telling you now, the theory of evolution as an explanation for life-forms more complex than the simple prokaryote is unproven. Never seen in laboratory or nature.

Quote

It is clear from carbon dating that other animals were around millions of years before humans, and it is clear that the differnce between their existence is millions of years from 'one day'. Please don't get any information from answers in genesis. It is a deluded, misguided site/ museum whose arguments have been disproven. 

What you say about Carbon dating is very wrong. Carbon dating is claimed to have relevance for dating the last 100 000 years or so. It CANNOT be used to date anything millions of years old.  I think you are getting confused with radiometric dating,  which has its own set of flaws.  Regarding answeringenesis, the points I make stand logically, no matter what their origin.  It makes no sense for fossils to form slowly, the original body would rot if this happened slowly. 

[Sister]

Golden shark

Quote

It is clear from carbon dating that other animals were around millions of years before humans, and it is clear that the differnce between their existence is millions of years from 'one day'. Please don't get any information from answers in genesis. It is a deluded, misguided site/ museum whose arguments have been disproven. 

Wasn't Carbon dating proven to be unreliable?

 

[Sister]

Quote

Please don't get any information from answers in genesis. It is a deluded, misguided site/ museum whose arguments have been disproven. 

Disproven by whom?

God did not share all his wisdom with us in the book of Genesis. 

He is just showing us that he made everything, and he said it in simple terms so that anyone can understand he is the creator of all.

If the wicked got their hands on how God created everything in detail then man would of used that information to destroy the world a long time ago.  There is a reason for everything, and our little minds would not be able to comprehend all of God's wisdom. 

We cannot even work out how to make the world run in peace and prevent wars that cause so much death.  That's how smart man is.

 

[FresnoJoe]

On 2/26/2016 at 1:36 AM, Goldenshark123 said:

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but there isn't really a debate any more. Evolution has been proven 100% true by many pieces of evidence such as the fossil record, DNA ect....

A more interesting question would be if it's possible that a supernatural creator oversaw evolution, perhaps helping it along a bit....

I myself do not believe in god, as there is no evidence to prove he is, but I am always open to new ideas and evidence....

This is what I find a little annoying in some (by no means all) religious people....

They will not change their minds even if all evidence points the other way....

That is the beauty of science that we base our conclusions on actual evidence....

I Don't Mean To Be Offensive But Those Slick Sick Priests Of Scientism

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(a-c)

Why do they claim the above discovery is "close to the missing link"? The answer is simple. Look at the picture: It is a monkey.

A monkey species that has become extinct. Lots of species have become extinct. Millions of species have become extinct.

It is obviously not similar to a human. Look at the feet with the big toe spread away from the smaller toes exactly like a modern chimpanzee, not like people.

A newly discovered extinct species does not prove a "missing link" has been found.

Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species.

Evolutionists try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be a fraud. Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong.

The presence of individual species actually proves they were not developed by an evolutionary process. If evolution were true, all plants, animals, and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical, because they would not be separate species.

All life forms would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing, and every animal, insect, and plant would be different. http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html

Are Casting Their Little Hooks Hoping To Catch

But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.

Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this? In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind. Job 12:7-10

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

The body and soul of Darwin's Theory of Evolution was the idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations.

Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates between the old species and the new.

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the "evolutionary tree" have many flaws.

One of the best examples of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly.

Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment.

Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is useless? The Theory of Evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species, not the weakest. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage. This is the opposite of natural selection.

According to natural selection, the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly.

We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing, so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed.

Evolutionists say birds grew hollow bones for less weight in order to fly. How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing? The evolutionary concept of growing a wing over millions of generations violates the very foundation of evolution: the natural selection.

Birds aren't the only species that proves the theory of natural selection to be wrong. The problem can be found in all species in one way or another. Take fish for example. http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html

The Little Children In Their Web

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Luke 18:16

The Indoctrination System Called "Education"

The educational system teaches children not to think. Any student who uses logic and solid scientific evidence to question the Theory of Evolution is ridiculed and insulted into submission. The students who submit become non-thinking robots who dare not question the dogma presented.

A forth-grade elementary school class was observed at the park playing a three-legged race game, where adjacent legs of the two kids were placed into a bag. The kids must cooperate with each step in order to run. The kids thought it was great fun. The teacher told them they were being trained to cooperate.

Actually, it was brainwashing kids into conforming to a system in which they are not allowed to have individual thoughts or opinions. They must become a "team player" and submit to peer pressure. Communist countries have used this same brainwashing technique for decades.

The brainwashing of school children continues by teaching them there is no absolute right or wrong, and the teacher is absolutely positive about it.

Whatever the children think is right for them is OK. That is of course until they question evolution. They are then told they are wrong. This brainwashing results in children who are unable to think logically, scientifically, and accurately. (...)

[Darwinian Evolution cannot be observed and replicated in order to be scientifically validated and also there is not one single known case of a change of kinds]: http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html

Of Lies

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:18-22

Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables.

New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.

If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.

If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color.

Many evolutionists argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark-skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle.

Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. Dark-skinned people have always lived near the Equator, not white-skinned people, even though the dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate.

Black skin absorbs the heat from the sun's rays more than white skin. Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

Animals like bears, tigers, lions, and zebras living near the equator have heavy fur while humans living north of the Arctic Circle have bare skin. A leopard from the jungle near the equator has fur like the snow leopard of the Himalayas.

The snow leopard grows thicker hair but the jungle leopard would also if moved to a cold climate. Horses and dogs grow a heavy winter coat in colder climates. Natural selection isn't working as falsely claimed by Charles Darwin.

The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body. http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html

~

Believe

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

And Be Blessed Beloved

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Love, Joe

[Eha]

8 hours ago, FresnoJoe said:

Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species.

fact and period. denying it is just not scientific approach. +1

[Kan]

On 2/27/2016 at 5:45 PM, Goldenshark123 said:

Our intelligence and whether we want a higher power to exist are irrelevant. There is no evidence to prove a higher power exists.

No evidence for a higher intelligence, would only apply to those with very low intelligence.

But to be more informative, intelligence is not necessarily the problem when it comes to appreciating nature, because the mind can be manipulated into a system of thought which is always in denial of the truth and in the mode for resisting it as well, without necessarily being aware of it.

The Bible says that sin causes this denial, and that it is quite toxic and stubborn, to the extent that the majority in the world are fully soaked in it.

Ephesians 4:18, "Having the understanding darkened..." the mind is switched off.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom. God made the mind to appreciate its Creator, so if it doesn't, the lights are off to knowledge of His creation as well.

The proper exercise of faith is not a notion or thought, but an intelligent recognition and acceptance of the truth in the Bible and nature.

 

[enoob57]

On ‎2‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 1:45 AM, Goldenshark123 said:

Our intelligence and whether we want a higher power to exist are irrelevant. There is no evidence to prove a higher power exists.

Perhaps if you have your head buried in the sand.... with all the enumerable suns and the incalculable power that brought them to be?
How they got there is not in question  really!  The presentation of the universe is enough to debunk this statement- cause we certainly
didn't make it nor do I think something comes from nothing / unless your yes is really no then perhaps absolutely there are no absolutes  
 

[Guest Teditis]

I don't understand evolutionists, their theory has been debunked many times over but they

still cling to the hope that one day they'll find some transitional species... impossible.

[enoob57]

Desperate people have desperate ways ...

[thereselittleflower]

You know that even Richard Dawkins recognizes the evidence also points to intelligent design which  means there must have been a designer, yes?