Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Don't Believe In Evolution? Try Thinking Harder
Rocky.C
Member (Idle past 3008 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 06-17-2015


(1)
Message 13 of 41 (761560)
07-02-2015 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
06-30-2015 7:06 AM


These articles are nothing but filth!!
It doesn't surprise me that evolutionists resort to negative stereotyping of creationists. It is something that they have become very good at. It is more or less the only weapon they have in their arsenal. They certainly don't have science on their side.
In any event, belief in Christ is a religion. So is believing in evolution. Both group must have faith. Anyone who says otherwise is not being honest.
My great-great-great-great grandfather (his name was Common Sense) had faith, and he believed in creation. And based on the Holy Bible and that unwavering belief he made several startling predictions.
He predicted that animals will produce after their own kind. He predicted that a canine will give birth only to a canine--never to a porcupine, monkey, or any other animal; that a feline will give birth to a feline; and, that a coelacanth will only come from another coelacanth. He wrote in his own words that a coelacanth will never morph into something other than what it is.
Furthermore, he predicted that cockroaches will produce only cockroaches, and that crocodiles will produce only crocodiles. He said that his descendants could verify his predictions by a process called science. In this case, he called it "operational/observable science."
My 4greatgrandfather, Mr. Common Sense, accepted, as fact, that all animals were created six thousand years ago, and that there was a worldwide flood that destroyed all air breathing birds and land animals.
Mr. Common Sense was certain that the global flood, which covered the entire earth, would have quickly buried billions of organisms, and that this event would have left millions of fossils that would be discovered in time.
He predicted that the flood would have sorted and deposited the plants and animals by buoyancy , density, habitat, and mobility. He firmly believed that trilobites, crabs, some fish and bottom dwelling animals would be found in the lower layers of sediment.
My 4gg, Mr. Sense, wrote in his journal that amphibians, reptiles and some mammals would be found in the succeeding layers. He asserted that birds, humans, and the more intelligent and mobile animals would seek higher ground and become the last to perish. Not being covered quickly with sediment, he believed that they would leave few fossils. He (I believe more from prophecy that prediction) stated that more than 400 mammals would be found in the same rock strata as dinosaurs. Wow!!! Talking about insight.
Based upon his understanding of the nature of humanity, as revealed within the pages of that wonderful Book, the Bible, he predicted that people would gradually come to accept a process called "evolution." And, that they would intentionally distort and misrepresent the fossils in order to achieve their goal. I don't know how he knew this, but that man had it going for him.
I am sad to say that my 4gg was right when he predicted that dishonest men would subvert the fossils and the story that the fossils told.
Common Sense (and, I don't know how he could have known this--but he did) wrote with all capital letters in his journal that unscrupulous men would devise a system of dating the fossils by the rocks they were found in. And by dating the rocks by the fossils that were found in them. He called it "circular reasoning" at its most extreme. It was, according to him, absurd, and against true science.
He was furious that this trickery (or, I can't quite make it out. it could be quackery) went against (pardon the pun) common sense; reliability; integrity; but most of all science, especially "operational science."
Common Sense wrote that the only point that everyone will be able to agree on is that all these fossils died. We do not know whether any of them had reproduced or not. And, he was absolutely right in saying that if any of them did, there is no reason to believe they were capable of doing what animals today can't do; and that is to produce offsprings that are not of their own kind.
Wow, this is some exciting stuff, but I have promised to take my lovely wife to dinner. I know everyone is as excited as I am to see how much insight and foresight my g44, Common Sense, had. He was a remarkable man, but I must put his journal up for tonight.
I will publish some more of his journal at a later date.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 06-30-2015 7:06 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Coyote, posted 07-02-2015 8:23 PM Rocky.C has replied
 Message 16 by dwise1, posted 07-03-2015 12:19 PM Rocky.C has not replied
 Message 17 by ringo, posted 07-03-2015 12:19 PM Rocky.C has not replied
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2015 10:04 PM Rocky.C has not replied
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-04-2015 12:18 AM Rocky.C has replied
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2015 12:44 PM Rocky.C has not replied
 Message 24 by dwise1, posted 07-06-2015 2:46 PM Rocky.C has not replied
 Message 41 by Larni, posted 07-11-2015 6:31 AM Rocky.C has not replied

Rocky.C
Member (Idle past 3008 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 15 of 41 (761587)
07-02-2015 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Coyote
07-02-2015 8:23 PM


Re: Nonsense ^2
Oh yeah, I forgot to add:
My 4gg said that one day discussion groups would be started about this very topic. He also said that people who know very little about creation would post meaningless links. It was his opinion that they would be incapable of typing their own words.
He wrote in his journal that these unscrupulous people would be incapable (because the light of truth would scramble their brains) of putting anything in their own words (I think he said that it would be difficult for them to get pass, duh--Yes, that's it. He said they were stuck on the word "duh," whatever that means.
I don't understand how he knew, but he said these lazy people would post links because they did not understand what they were posting themselves. People never answer these easy questions themselves. Because they can't.
I hope nobody does that on here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Coyote, posted 07-02-2015 8:23 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Phat, posted 07-06-2015 8:21 AM Rocky.C has not replied
 Message 22 by Phat, posted 07-06-2015 8:25 AM Rocky.C has not replied

Rocky.C
Member (Idle past 3008 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 25 of 41 (762078)
07-08-2015 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dr Adequate
07-04-2015 12:18 AM


In 1966, astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were just two important criteria required of a plant in order to support life: "the right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star."
Extrapolation estimates using these two criteria put the number of such planets in the universe at or about a septillion. This is a 1 followed by 24 zeros.
In other words, 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets capable of supporting life.
We were told this by scientists. Some of them might even be as smart as you guys on this board!
Armed with this vital and (scientific) information that supported them with spectacular odds, both the public and private sectors funded projects that searched for intelligent life (SETI).
The years rolled by and we heard absolutely nothing but deafening silence. Congress finally defunded SETI in the mid 90's. However, private funding continues into 2015, but still no intelligent signals from space.
Over the past fifty years our knowledge of the universe has increased. And it has become abundantly clear that there were /are far more factors necessary for life than what Sagan imagined.
From his 2 parameters (right star-distance) we jumped to 10, then 20,then 50. All the while the number of planets capable of supporting life dwindled to a few thousand and dropping.
As factors continue to be discovered, the number of planets capable of supporting life has shrunk to zero. These same scientists, who were so eagerly searching for alien life in the past, say that even we shouldn't be here.
As of today scientists acknowledge that there are more than two hundred known parameters necessary for a planet to support life. Each of these parameters must be perfectly met or it all falls apart.
Astronomer and scientists also agree that "the fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all."
Astrophysicists now know that values of the four fundamentals forces (gravity, the electromagnetic force, 'strong" and "weak" nuclear forces) were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist.
For instance, "if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction--by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000--then no stars could have ever formed at all." Wow!!!
Astronomer Fred Hoyle, who coined the term "big bang," said that his atheism has been "greatly shaken" by these developments.
Hoyle has stated that "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology...the numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that "the appearance of design is overwhelming."
Oxford professor and atheist Dr. John Lennox has said "the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here."
Atheist Richard Dawkins "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
Yet, he refuses to believe what his mind and his instinct tell him is true.
These are those God spoke of in the first chapter of Romans, but they are not all. There are many more like them.
20 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:
21 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.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-04-2015 12:18 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ringo, posted 07-08-2015 3:22 PM Rocky.C has not replied
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 07-08-2015 4:13 PM Rocky.C has not replied
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2015 4:10 AM Rocky.C has not replied
 Message 29 by Rocky.C, posted 07-09-2015 7:53 AM Rocky.C has not replied

Rocky.C
Member (Idle past 3008 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 29 of 41 (762125)
07-09-2015 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rocky.C
07-08-2015 2:21 PM


Richard Dawkins wrote, biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.
Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.
If living things look as though they were designed, how do evolutionists know they were not designed?
Dawkins could see the truth without admitting the truth. Yet, he still needed a natural mechanism from an evolutionary point of view to explain what his own eyes told him about living things. He latched onto "natural selection."
His conclusion: Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.
What Dawkins fails to understand is that "natural selection" is not a creating process. It selects from information that is already present in the organism. Who designed the information? Information cannot be created from non-information.
How do minor beak changes explain the origin of either finches or their beaks?
How does pre-existing information explain the origin of the information itself?
Doesn't Dawkins sound like God's description of a fool? Doesn't Crick also?
Romans 1:19-22
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 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:
21 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.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Again, if an organism gives the appearance of having been designed, how do we know that it was not?
{Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
Error 403 - Forbidden

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rocky.C, posted 07-08-2015 2:21 PM Rocky.C has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Pressie, posted 07-09-2015 8:05 AM Rocky.C has not replied
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 07-09-2015 8:07 AM Rocky.C has not replied
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2015 1:55 PM Rocky.C has replied

Rocky.C
Member (Idle past 3008 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 35 of 41 (762183)
07-09-2015 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Adequate
07-09-2015 1:55 PM


What evidence do you speak of? We both have the same evidence and I see nothing that suggests evolution is even slightly possible. And neither do these scientists; many of whom were atheists or agnostics;
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity.
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science."
Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique."
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."
More quotes are at:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html
Remember Romans 1: 19-23
"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 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:
21 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.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."
Come on man, open your eyes. Don't shut out what is in plain sight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2015 1:55 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 07-10-2015 3:25 PM Rocky.C has not replied
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-10-2015 4:04 PM Rocky.C has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024