|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
...observable science attests for the accuracy of scripture. Give me one example where this is so. Edited by bluescat48, : clarification There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
After all, one of the cardinal rules of evolution is the desire to improve and survive. That may be the outcome, but evolution has no direction. Evolution is simply descent with modification. Changes may be benificial, neutral orharmful. In most cases the harmful don't survive to pass the trait on to offspring. Neutral modifications can become benificial if the environment changes and this modification is helpful to the survival. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
And btw, what you are describing is the view of neo Darwinism, not original Darwinism. All you people have learned in 130 years is how to fine tune the excuses and justifications for the inconsistencies which exist in your pseudo science. That is what science does, fine tune. There are no absolutes in science. Science is not religion, we have no mythological dogma. As for calling evolution pseudoscience, that's your opinion. The fact is that evolution is not pseudoscience but real science. The theory of evolution is just as robust as gravity, oxidation-reduction, the periodic law, and heliocentric solar system. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
ArchangelThat is what science does, fine tune. There are no absolutes in science. writes: You know what is interesting about your response here bluescat? Your very response to me is solid evidence of the religious type dogma of evolution and the very aspects of pseudo science which I have criticized above The first blow to your insinuation of scientific dogma, is what I stated earlier.
bluescat48 writes: That is what science does, fine tune. There are no absolutes in science. As I said there are no absolutes. If would not be anything of major consequence if a new theory of evolution was to be brought out tomorrow which overturned the current theory. The point is that there has to be evidence not mere ancient writings. The point of no dogma is just that, science modifies itself through constant research. How can this be dogma, when it in itself is changed through research, and modified as the evidence shows? Edited by bluescat48, : typ There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
But true science doesn't claim new facts based on assumptions and unproven conclusions as evolution does. 1) Science does not deal in "facts or assumptions," but in evidence.2) Evolution deals with the same method as the other science specialties. All science is based on conclusions drawn from the observed evidence. Whether it is evolution, astronomy, forensics or any other scientific discipline. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Now you might argue that they are not jellyfish, as they are Ctenophore rather than Cnidaria, but they are popularly called jellyfish by people and are mostly non-toxic. That is the problem with common names. The same goes for people calling apes, monkeys or non bug insects(insects not of the order hemiptera), bugs. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Sure if a new completely materialistic theory came out tommorrow that excludes God and the Bible, Wrong. If a new viable theory were to include your god that was based on evidence then I could accept it. The pivot is not god but is evidence. Edited by bluescat48, : the submittance didn't post whole message There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
KJV Isaiah 49:22 writes: he that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: It says circle not spheroid. What translation says sphere or spheroid?Spreadeth as a tent does not mean expanding. Job 26:7 is part of a parable.
Job 27:1 writes: 1 Moreover Job continued his parable, and said Apologetics writes: Life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11) written 1400 BC. In 1616 AD blood is found to be the key factor in life. A key factor not the key factor. As for your dates of writing, no evidence that they were written any earlier that the 9th century BCE with Isaiah even later about the 5th century BCE after the exile. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Nowhere does the bible actually date the age of humanity at 6000 years. We haven't said that it did, but that is the age that the YECs use, some go as far as 10000. Most are simply using Bishop Uscher's calculations. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024