|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: TOE and the Reasons for Doubt | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
1) Your first two quotes are part of a dispute within evolution. Your source is misrepresenting them. The third, from Chittick is from a creationist - as should be obvious, He has no qualifications in geology or paleontology. And he is lying about the absence of transitional forms. So Dr. Donald Chittick is not qualified to comment on transitional forms. Hmm, what about those who ARE geologists like Larry Vardiman and Steve Austin? But of course, since they are creationists their opinions don't count, right? How disgusting. By the way, here are Dr. Chitticks credentials: "Dr Chittick earned his Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Oregon State University. For many years, he served as chairman of the division of Natural Sciences at George Fox University in Oregon. Since 1988, he has been an adjunct professor of chemistry at the Institute for Creation Research in the San Diego area. He was Associate Professor of Chemistry at the University of Puget Sound. He also holds patents on alternate fuels and in ‘programmed instruction.’ He was also recognized by Outstanding Educators of America & also American Men and Women of Science." Furthermore, he wasn't lying about the lack of transitional forms. You were not being truthful. The truth is that you don't have a clue about the whereabouts of the missing stages between the first identifiable bat in the fossil record and the many that should have led up to that supposed 54 million yr old sample. The same is true of rabbits, tigers, flies, flowers of all kinds, and even bacteria. They all appear abruptly in the fossil record with no transistions. That fact has been repeatedly admitted by evolutionary scientist after evolutionary scientist through the years. I well remember the big fight between Stephen Gould & company vs Richard Dawkins & his crowd. They've tried to cover their tracks since then but the damage was done and there isn't anything they can do about it. Peg was telling the truth even if she did not list all her sources. I have read the statements by most of those whom she quoted and I can verify that she did not take them out of context and if she did happen to garnish them from creationist websites...so what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Dr. Chittick is a Physical Chemist. He deals with chemicals. He is not a biologist. There is a difference. One scientist is not just as good as another scientist Tunnel vision. Such baloney. I taught from a physics textbook that was written by a PhD in Psychology. But the man happens to be better in physics than the field in which he earned his doctorate. I know how evolution believers feel about creationists. But I feel much the same way about evolutionists. I am skeptical of anything they say unless I can see that it's something truly verified.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Then you don't get it. It doesn't really matter what his PhD is in. The PhD just indicates what he spent the majority of his earlier life studying. What matters is how he spent his time after. From your bio of him, he spent his time focusing on Chemistry. What you need to show is that he spent a good amount of time studying Biology. No, you are the one who doesn't 'get it'. Look, I've been around a long time, friend. I have seen & heard Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov wax eloquent on matters of science that had little or nothing to do with their field of expertise. Richard Dawkins is constantly speaking on topics outside of his specialty. So don't give me that nonsense. Anyway, best wishes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
And that's great for you. Pope John Paul II said that evolution is not contrary to the Bible. This was a guy, I suppose, who probably knew the Bible very well. Since when did the Pope of the Catholic church look to scripture as the final authority in the first place? Not since before Constantine. I don't care what the Pope says. I care what Moses said, "For in six days the Lord God made the heavens and the earth..." Exodus 20:11 in the 10 commandments, no less. Jesus said, "But from the beginning of the creation God made the male and female", Mark 10:6. Jesus confirmed that everything Moses taught in the Pentateuch was true (Luke 24). I believe them, not the Pope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Then why are you here? Your ideas are set in stone. You will not consider any evidence, even if it were set in front of your eyes because it contradicts the Bible. It is because of the evidence that I reject evolution. Science is a province of God. He made it. When all things are considered science (true science!) will match what the scriptures teach because both come from Almighty God. "You will not consider any evidence, even if it were set in front of your eyes..." Pure prejudice. I am an ex-evolutionist. It is BECAUSE of what was set before me that I rejected evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
And what is this "true science" you're talking about? The science that Isaac Newton believed in. He was a Bible believing Christian, you know. The science that Dr. Rudolph Virchow believed in. The science that Louis Agassiz believed in. The science that Dr. Henry Morris believed in (a convert from evolution). The science that Dr. Dean Kenyon believes in (another convert from evolution). The science that Dr. Lee Spetner believes in. The Science that Dr. John Sanford (Cornell U., 50 peer reviewed papers, 25 patents, and inventor of the world renowned 'biolistic gene gun') believed in. The kind of science that Werner Von Braun believed in. Quote: " Although I know of no reference to Christ ever commenting on scientific work, I do know that He said, Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. Thus I am certain that, were He among us today, Christ would encourage scientific research as modern man’s most noble striving to comprehend and admire His Father’s handiwork. The universe as revealed through scientific inquiry is the living witness that God has indeed been at work."
"When astronaut Frank Borman returned from his unforgettable Christmas, 1968, flight around the moon with Apollo 8, he was told that a Soviet Cosmonaut recently returned from a space flight had commented that he had seen neither God nor angels on his flight. Had Borman seen God? the reporter inquired. Frank Borman replied, No, I did not see Him either, but I saw His evidence. WERNHER VON BRAUNVice President Engineering and Development Fairchild Industries Germantown, Maryland 1976 Now, my skeptical friend, let me ask you? Why do you believe that the philosophy called 'evolution' is a science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Evolution is not a philosophy, it is a science. No, evolution is not a 'science'. It is an interpretation of scientific fact. Biology, geology, astronomy, physics, ect. are legitimate studies of science. Evolution is not. Now please explain why all those sightings of the volcanic activity on the moon should be ignored including all the ones sighted by Sir Wm Herschel and other astronomers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Terrific post, brother. Have you read John Sanford's "Genetic entropy-Mysteries of the Genome?" I've read some reviews and I'm trying to get my hands on a copy. I have a copy of it sitting next to me as I type. It's a terrific book. you can find it here: http://www.otsecure.net/pssi/index.php?main_page=product_... Sanford believed in and taught evolution for 50 yrs so his conversion (and the reasons for it) are highly disturbing to evolutionists who understand the implications. Equally disturbing to them was the conversion of Dr. Dean Kenyon, formerly of Stanford. He wrote 'Biochemical Predestination' in order to prove the chemical evolution of life on earth. But after some of his students challenged him with questions he could not answer and being given A.E. Wilders book "Mans Origin/Mans Destiny" he realized the hopelessness of his position and tossed out evolution and rejected his own book. Evolutionists hate it when things like that happen. This argument about lunar regression and the time factor is another explosive issue that they are confronted with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
That's why evolution is a science. It isn't a belief simply because scientists are willing to consider new data and how the Theory of Evolution interprets the new data. Evolution is not a science. I rejected it on the basis of scientific evidence against it. It isn't even close. Forget the quote about the moon activity. I meant that for another thread. Best wishes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
So give us this scientific evidence that evolution is not science. In case you haven't noticed, I have given a couple hundred pieces of evidence in the last ten days. But it seems that skepics like you just arbitrarily brush aside anything that goes against your philosophical presuppositions as if none of it counts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
So okay, you've got lots of pictures of guns. How do they add up to murder? You don't explain, you just show us more guns. That's not a good analogy. Perhaps you've heard the phrase, 'a picture is worth a thousand words.' Let me show you the fallacy of what you said. Take the objects found in coal mines such as the human tooth encased in coal I posted a few days ago. Now how many options do we have that a human tooth will be found in carbinferous rock when 'evolution' tells us that humans did not live during the formation of coal? But it wasn't just the tooth. Through the years people have found hammers, gold chains, and all other kinds of objects that cannot be rationally explained by those who hold to an accidental world that happened all by itself. You argument is so shallow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
It's not evidence against evolution at all. As you have been told dozens of times. But you just don't listen. Wrong. Almost all of it is evidence against evolution. Some of it, like the living fossils of bats, rabitts, the tooth encased in coal (among many other objects that should not be found in cretacious rock) and the example of Laminin all suggest that the scriptures are truthful and the skeptics who say otherwise are dead wrong. It is their/your prejudices talking, nothing more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Where is your evidence that they're ancient human artifacts from the time of Noah, which I assume is when you believe coal layers were layed down. For one thing, evolutionists teach that humans did not live during the age that coal was formed, 250 million yrs ago. Quote: "Coal formation first began some 250 million years ago in an age called 'carboniferous period'." Page not found - Kids Portal For Parents So it is for you and your evolutionist comrades to figure out just how all those objects got encased so far below the surface of the earth when in fact it takes humans to produce human teeth, gold chains, hammers, etc. Evolution is a sorry joke. I laugh at it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
No, it is your assertions and prejudices talking. You've been shown that your understanding of current evolutionary theory is sorely lacking at best. If so then my prejudices are well founded as an ex-evolutionist. Even the so-called 'experts' on this website have done a pitiful job defending their beliefs. I haven't seen anything that would be even close to convincing for someone who perhaps has not made up their minds in the matter. You and those like you are just pretending.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Have you considered the possibility that people placed them there? THAT kind of 'reasoning' is exactly why I continue to reject evolutionary theory...among many other reasons. Do you think that people would go to the trouble of digging, in some cases, hundreds of feet below the surface of the earth just to place those objects there? Even so, what process would they use to encase the objects in coal? And what about the engineers that were merely doing their jobs and found the objects by accident? Are they all lying? You are wishful thinker. Such thinking is hard to respect. What are you going to do when geologists dig up a full grown T-Rex with the remains of a human in its belly? That day is coming.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024