What has evolution done for you lately?

[RGR]

These systems are used to non-destructively explore the subsurface of the ground for a wide variety of industries and to inspect our infrastructure systems.

Yes and they were originally developed by evolutionists attempting a better way to understand locations of fossils before excavation.

Proper application of these technologies can reduce the cost of drilling and increase the production of natural gas wells and other applications where small bore drilling is required.

This was brought about by evaluating rock strata while investiagting the age of the earth. Scientists learned that drilling methods need to changed with depth, pressure and rock strata.

On this one you are partially correct. Dating methods are

[Guest LCPGUY]

Anyway until you come up with arguments backed up with facts I won't be posting again in this thread, it's not worth my time.

Thank God Almighty!!!

John

[Guest arkon]

Isnt it funny how steff tells all those lies... and then says on the last one that you are wrong, and provides no info...

Now is time to grade steff on his lies.

I looked up GPR...

RADAR is an acronym coined in the 1934 for RAdio Detection And Ranging (Buderi, 1996; Centre for the History of Defence Electronics).  The first ground penetrating radar survey was performed in Austria in 1929 to sound the depth of a glacier (Stern, 1929, 1930).  The technology was largely forgotten (despite more than 36 patents filed between 1936 and 1971 that might loosely be called subsurface radar) until the late 1950's when U.S. Air Force radars were seeing through ice as planes tried to land in Greenland, but misread  the altitude and crashed into the ice.  This started investigations into the ability of radar to see into the subsurface not only for ice sounding but also mapping subsoil properties and the water table (Cook, 1964; Barringer, 1965; Lundien, 1966).  In 1967, a system much like Stern's original glacier sounder was proposed, and eventually built and flown as the Surface Electrical Properties Experiment on Apollo 17 to the moon  (Simmons et al., 1972, see also the Apollo 17 Lunar Sounder Experiment).  Before the early 1970's, if you wanted to do GPR, you had to build your own (Ohio State University Electroscience Laboratory).  But in 1972, Rex Morey and Art Drake began Geophysical Survey Systems Inc.  to sell commercial ground penetrating radar systems (Morey, 1974).  Thus began an explosion of applications, publications, and research, fostered in great part by research contracts from the Geological Survey of Canada,  the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), and others.  There are now over 300 patents that might loosely be related to ground penetrating radar around the world (Patent Office), several companies making commercial equipment, many companies offering it as a service, and many institutions performing research (GPR Links).  Ground penetrating radar is sometimes called georadar, ground probing radar, or subsurface radar.

Seems it had nothing to do with evolutionists and fossils.

Im willing to bet that drilling methods will have more to do with underground construction, underground mining, or oil. Not fossils, or evolution.

Darwinists completely ignore the scientific method, so we dont even have to look at that one.

For example... the dating methods...C14 ...How much carbon was in the atmosphere 6000 years ago? The bible says the earth was a very green place before the flood...how would this effect the test

They dont know...so they guess. That kills the dating method, and is NOT scientific.

[Rick]

What has evolution done for me lately?

Actually alot!

It has opened my eyes to so much! Where I was once in a spiritual haze, I have come to see that it actually has a great benefit to it. At least on the forums. It's a terrific tool for causing dissension among professing believers. It's even brought to the surface that some christians hold a different view than the creational account in Genesis. Its revealed that God may not have said what He meant, and

that we can use the great minds of the scientific community to discover what he actually did. And if that fails to provide a clear explanation of what God did, then we can always look at the poetical interpretation and say that the creation account is maybe just another way that God confused us about what He did in the beginning.

And thats just with the professing christians.

Then we have the atheists. They have access to a christian forum board and are allowed to provide information in support of another alternative to the written word of God. But its o.k. to do since it has been peer reviewed by other godless scientists who agree. But its all in the interest of science, so its for the betterment of society as a whole. Its not actually denying the existence of God, Just what He said. Making Him out to be a liar and less than Holy. But that too is o.k., Because they are in dialogue with christians, many such as those above will lead these God denying individuals to the truth.

Their agreement with this ungodly doctrine of evolutionary science does not mean they are not christians or denying their God. It only means that they have chosen to not believe His written word concerning the account He gave until the scientific community confirms it with further discovery. A very intelligent decision to make if you want to stand in approval of the scientific comunity. But not a very wise one when you will stand in judgement before a Holy God.

And lets talk about the benefits of allowing this exchange of ideologies to continue.

1.) It increases the amount of posts.

2.) It provides reading material that reveals the dialogue between an atheist and christians who depending on whom they tend to agree with, continue to do battle over who is right. Science or God's word.

3.) It reveals that christian forum boards are a great place to obtain an audience for the scientific bashing of the Word of God.

These are just a few. Im sure others can think of more.

But all in all, evolution has its benefits. Much can be learned from it. We just have to be willing to have an open mind and allow scientific theory to take the place of faith in God.

So in conclusion, there is a place for evolutionary science. It is a valuable tool. It sure has opened my eyes.

Rick

[nebula]

Guys -

I am 100% aware of the cultural and religious battle between faith and reason.

I have also come to realize we as Christians have been fighting the wrong battle with this. If I have fought against "traditional Creationis" it is because I have seen how foolish Christians make themselves look in the eyes of the world (and not in a godly foolish way) over this. We think if we can convince the world that the world is 6000 years old, we can prove the Bible. In the eyes of the world, our attempts are flying in our faces. I have seen the fruit among those who know science.

The concepts of change in a population of species and similarities (genetics, structure, etc.) between diverse organisms is the heart of "evolution," not "man descended from apes." I will never argue that man descended from apes. However, I do acknowledge how people who are alienated from God would draw the conclusion that one population of species developed changes that "turned" them into another type of species. Unless you can understand what the mainstream scientists are actually saying about their theory, and present arguments that acknowledge you understand their position, your opposition come across as flies buzzing around their heads - annoying but no threat or challenge - and won't you just go away unless you can present something intelligent? I'm serious - this is how they see us!!

With that said, evolution does not create atheism. In ancient history, many Greek philosphers had abandoned the concept of dieties and embraced reason without the help, aid, nor concept of evolution.

So, please, if you are going to slam my faith, would you converse with me in private instead of sending subliminal messages over threads like this?

Thank-you!

[Guest arkon]

The definition of evolution has become skewed.

Those who are among the general population would tell you it is everything from the big bang to single cell life to apes to man.

Others will tell you it is merely the changing of one species to another

Still others will say it is ANY change that can be noticed that affects the way a being survives.

So I have a problem when someone says that evolution is true. Because if I say that I agree, then I agree with all. If I say I disagree, then I disagree with all.

If I say that it flies in the face of God, then people get offended.

Now I know, in my heart of hearts, that there is something that SA or you would call evolution....that I agree with. But there is a premise....for if I am to agree with the one....

Catch 22.

If you call the difference in appearance of the human race throughout the world, 'adaptation', then I would agree . But to call it evolution... I cannot agree because then people would take it out of context....because too many things are called evolution.

I do not believe that any creature ever changed, mutated, evolved, into a different kind of creature.

[nebula]

I do not believe that any creature ever changed, mutated, evolved, into a different kind of creature.

And I never said they did.

[Steff]

Isnt it funny how steff tells all those lies... and then says on the last one that you are wrong, and provides no info...

Now is time to grade steff on his lies.

I looked up GPR...

RADAR is an acronym coined in the 1934 for RAdio Detection And Ranging (Buderi, 1996; Centre for the History of Defence Electronics).  The first ground penetrating radar survey was performed in Austria in 1929 to sound the depth of a glacier (Stern, 1929, 1930).  The technology was largely forgotten (despite more than 36 patents filed between 1936 and 1971 that might loosely be called subsurface radar) until the late 1950's when U.S. Air Force radars were seeing through ice as planes tried to land in Greenland, but misread  the altitude and crashed into the ice.  This started investigations into the ability of radar to see into the subsurface not only for ice sounding but also mapping subsoil properties and the water table (Cook, 1964; Barringer, 1965; Lundien, 1966).  In 1967, a system much like Stern's original glacier sounder was proposed, and eventually built and flown as the Surface Electrical Properties Experiment on Apollo 17 to the moon  (Simmons et al., 1972, see also the Apollo 17 Lunar Sounder Experiment).  Before the early 1970's, if you wanted to do GPR, you had to build your own (Ohio State University Electroscience Laboratory).  But in 1972, Rex Morey and Art Drake began Geophysical Survey Systems Inc.  to sell commercial ground penetrating radar systems (Morey, 1974).  Thus began an explosion of applications, publications, and research, fostered in great part by research contracts from the Geological Survey of Canada,  the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), and others.  There are now over 300 patents that might loosely be related to ground penetrating radar around the world (Patent Office), several companies making commercial equipment, many companies offering it as a service, and many institutions performing research (GPR Links).  Ground penetrating radar is sometimes called georadar, ground probing radar, or subsurface radar.

I give you some Kudos for actually looking something up Arkon. I was wrong in stating that as a whole GPR was developed by evolutionists, however, what I was referring to was GPR developed with a coupled imaging system for getting a somewhat 3D image of the object underground. This type of GPR was developed by paleontologists in an attempt to see a fossil layout without having to dig.

GPR has a lot of uses but the advanced imaging techniques and software was developed for paleontologists originally. Nowdays the military uses it to detect mines and geologists use if for discovering mineral deposits.

[Rick]

Nebula,

I have followed many of the posts that you have written concerning evolutionary science. I have read the comments you have made as well the responses you have given to others. It's evident that you have a tremendous love for science and hold it in extremely high regard. So much so, that you have possibly allowed it to be incorporated into your personal belief system. I pose a question, Does the word of God have to be verified or understood by science in order for it to be true and accurate in its written form? If all scriptures are given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then is it in error? What does faith say? What does the world say?

I certainly dont think so. And I dont think you would believe that it needs the approval of man in order to have validity nor accuracy as well. If we as christians live by faith, we should embrace it, and not struggle against it. Or teach others to do so. Our faith is to be in God's word without the need for the approval of science or verification of a theory based on science. It is very easy to become a respecter of persons and place a higher value on their opinions when we view their words as having more validity or are more socially acceptable. But as a christian I personally place the word of God above any man's teaching when it comes to creation. He was there. He spoke the word and it was!.

As to whether it was sudden or over a period of time. We can only know in the context of the time frames given. God chose to use the day as a measurement of that time frame. If we as traditional creationist choose to believe that God did exactly as He said He did. And we are wrong, then God is wrong in giving us a day as a unit of measure. And we know that isnt so. But if we choose to read more into God's word based on discovery or scientific data, we can easily add to it or take away from it. If we look foolish for adhering to God's word in the eyes of a secular world, so be it. We would much rather stand in the truth of God's word than in the admiration of man. Faith in God does not require that anyone understand the creationist account, But it does require that we believe God. Nor does it mean that we have to appeal to them intellectually in order for them to have faith in Him. The carnal mind is at enmity with God and cannot know Him.

If any man comes to God, it will be on God's terms, not mans. Man has aspired to reach God with towers and a host of other devices throughout his existence. Nor will he reach God with intellect or with the approval of man. He will only reach God by coming to Him in faith. Faith does not require peer review, or proofs. It requires acceptance. It believes God!. and seeks His approval and not mans. It does not hold science up to God's word and require that we understand how God created, But that He did. God has already revealed to us that not everyone will come to Him by faith. Will science be one of the reasons for this? Will it be because some men will require proofs and need documentation or their theories validated first? Will some refuse to have faith because it is seen as foolishness in the eyes of such as these? Sadly, I think many will place science and their pride above the word of God that brings faith. We are called to overcome the world, not gain its approval. Faith overcomes by accepting the word of God over anything that is in opposition to it.

Rick

P.S.. Ive looked for the subliminal messages in the previous posts. I cant seem to find them. Is there a " Drink more coke" or " I want popcorn" message embedded in them? lol

[artsylady]

If we look foolish for adhering to God's word in the eyes of a secular world, so be it. We would much rather stand in the truth of God's word than in the admiration of man.

AMEN Rick!!!!