reasonvemotion wrote:"There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing".
So where does this leave evolution. It is a "wish" theory.
This is subject to volumes of debate at the moment in the area of quantum mechanics.
This is not relevant to the theory of evolution because evolution does not rely on first cause arguments.
reasonvemotion wrote:
How we came into existence. The revelation was that the earth and the universe were created in six literal days about 6,000 years ago (Genesis 1:1-2:1). Because violence and corruption became widespread, most of life on earth was destroyed by a worldwide flood about 4,300 years ago (Genesis 6:5-7:24). This can be seen in geological and fossil evidence and is consistent with a catastrophic flood. As to how we came to be, science really has no explanation.
This is a 'God of the gaps' argument. It is not a scientific argument.
Last edited by Ginkgo on Sat Feb 23, 2013 3:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Are you also saying that everything was created 6,000 years ago, include the ability of humans to write?
This is the YEC position (yes my position) Genesis 1:1-31 took place ~6,000 years ago in 6 standard days. Everything was 'very good' originally (6 times God said 'and God saw that it was good'). Adam and Eve disobeyed God which brought death/pain/suffering etc etc into the world. As Reasonvemotion said Noahs flood was ~1,656 after creation (~4,300 years ago). Then Jesus came 2,000 years ago because of what Adam and Eve did/ to save mankind. Now mankind can be reconciled with God by accepting Jesus and admitting you/me are sinners and Jesus was God and asking forgiveness of sins. Then the myth of 'evolution' might become quite obvious. 'Evolution' =the lie to get mankind to disqualify themselves from seeing Jesus as God/being saved. Very VERY effective.
This is a very good theory and I commend you for it. But it isn't a scientific theory because it cannot be proven false.
P.S.
Actually, I think what you have said here is more than just a theory it is an undeniable truth. It is definitely not falsifiable. Would you agree?
Ginkgo you fall into the 99% of atheists who has not even read the bible of the atheism/'evolution' CULT (Charles Darwins 'On the origin of myths i mean species'). Therefore no clue is had to the subject matter at hand ('evolution'). Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone who has to have a conversation with someone who has not.
jinx wrote:Ginkgo you fall into the 99% of atheists who has not even read the bible of the atheism/'evolution' CULT (Charles Darwins 'On the origin of myths i mean species'). Therefore no clue is had to the subject matter at hand ('evolution'). Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone who has to have a conversation with someone who has not.
Sorry, but I am not an atheist. I believe that Genesis is not to be taken literally. It was written in an allegorical and poetic fashion.
Until Darwins myths have been read there is no foundation for analysis of the subject. Hence i try not to waste my time with people commenting on a topic they have NO clue about.
jinx wrote:Until Darwins myths have been read there is no foundation for analysis of the subject. Hence i try not to waste my time with people commenting on a topic they have NO clue about.
I have contributed a number of posts on the topic and asked you some specific questions so as you can inform me on the subject matter. To date you have not answered my questions.
Animals bring forth after their kind. Fish bring forth fish, dogs bring forth dogs, cats bring forth cats. This is science (observable phenomena). Every observed law of nature in 6,000 years of recorded/written history shows neo-darwinian 'evolution' to be without foundation. Someone is welcome to believe it by religious faith but it is not science.
jinx wrote:Animals bring forth after their kind. Fish bring forth fish, dogs bring forth dogs, cats bring forth cats. This is science (observable phenomena). Every observed law of nature in 6,000 years of recorded/written history shows neo-darwinian 'evolution' to be without foundation. Someone is welcome to believe it by religious faith but it is not science.
Even though you won't answer my questions I will attempt to addresses your concerns.
This is because cause and effect (observable phenomena) has no logically necessity when it comes to observable events being conjoined. Science has long recognized this fact since Hume.
Evolution would agree with your statement. We cannot observe the mechanism of cause and effect. I don't see the problem.
Until Darwins myths have been read there is no foundation for analysis of the subject. Hence i try not to waste my time with people commenting on a topic they have NO clue about.
Science =OBSERVABLE phenomena (if one was inclined to they could look in their nearest dictionary under 'science' to find words like OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE, REPEATABLE, EXPERIMENTAL). That doesnt mean someone cant believe by religious faith in a process that has never been observed (fish bring forth something other than a fish, dog bringing forth something other than a dog etc etc) but it is not science. 'Evolution'=the lie.
The theory of evolution is expressed positively as if they were facts and to have the stupidity of attacking it is to be labelled ignorant. No open minded person can accept the theory of evolution to be the "law" or be critical of anyone who questions the process, as there are "difficulties" in this "process". There is a very real state of uncertainty over evolution among scientists. The current scientific debate over the mechanisms of evolution demonstrates that evolution is not a proven fact of science.
University biology teachers KNOWINGLY indoctrinate their students. People dont seem to realise the complete absence of genetic mechanism for adding NEW things like organ systems, biochemical pathways etc etc.
jinx wrote:Until Darwins myths have been read there is no foundation for analysis of the subject. Hence i try not to waste my time with people commenting on a topic they have NO clue about.
Science =OBSERVABLE phenomena (if one was inclined to they could look in their nearest dictionary under 'science' to find words like OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE, REPEATABLE, EXPERIMENTAL). That doesnt mean someone cant believe by religious faith in a process that has never been observed (fish bring forth something other than a fish, dog bringing forth something other than a dog etc etc) but it is not science. 'Evolution'=the lie.
Observable, testable, repeatable and experimental science is quite comfortable with he fact that we can never observe evolution in progress. As I said before, evolution would agree with the basis of your statement.
Observable, testable, repeatable and experimental science is not at odds with the idea there is no logical necessity when it comes to cause and effect. You seem to think there is a conflict here. Could you elaborate?
Observable, testable, repeatable and experimental science is quite comfortable with he fact that we can never observe evolution in progress
HAHAHAAHAH.
Im sorry i cant elaborate. I would recommend everyone on earth buy and read Charles Darwins 'On the origin of species'. One book. One myth. 'Evolution'=the lie.
reasonvemotion wrote:The theory of evolution is expressed positively as if they were facts and to have the stupidity of attacking it is to be labelled ignorant. No open minded person can accept the theory of evolution to be the "law" or be critical of anyone who questions the process, as there are "difficulties" in this "process". There is a very real state of uncertainty over evolution among scientists. The current scientific debate over the mechanisms of evolution demonstrates that evolution is not a proven fact of science.
Of of course there are huge gaps in the theory. Of course it is not a proven fact. I would be the last person to attack anyone over their criticisms of evolution. Evolution is also subject to enormous volumes of SCIENTIFIC criticism. This is how science works. In the end evolution may well be replaced or modified by a different SCIENTIFIC theory. The history of science has shown this to be the case.
As I have said on many occasions, evolution is a scientific theory because it is subject to falsification. In other words, the observable evidence may well show the theory to be incorrect. Creationism is not a scientific theory because it cannot be falsified.
Last edited by Ginkgo on Sat Feb 23, 2013 6:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Observable, testable, repeatable and experimental science is quite comfortable with he fact that we can never observe evolution in progress
HAHAHAAHAH.
Im sorry i cant elaborate. I would recommend everyone on earth buy and read Charles Darwins 'On the origin of species'. One book. One myth. 'Evolution'=the lie.
Already read it way back in my first and second year at Uni