Evolution thread.

By these links.

http://www.icr.org/article/distant-starlight-big-bang

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-speed-of-light-slowed-down/

Yes there is. Micro evolution deals with changes within a certain family like the canine. Macro evolution deals with that and changes from one family into another. Like a single cell to a human.

So all what we see come from randomness including your brain? If so how do you trust your thoughts and reasoning process?

Can you show a benificial mutation that added genetic information?

I think so.

 

FWIW, I'm no supporter of the endangered species list and laws enforcing their protection. As comedian George Carlin once said "let them go gracefully".

 

But it takes a outside person (the cop) to make sure all those witnesses are telling the truth. What cop is making sure radio metric dating is sound?

What they actually measured was an increase and decrease of the magnetic field not a reversal.

I would look at the KBS tuff. They date it at 300 million years old until they found a human skull in it.

- - - Updated - - -

Check links above.

 

I beg to differ.

http://creation.mobi/young-universe-evidence

Thank you.

There are plenty of young earth scientists as well. Only about 55% of scientist believe in evolution.

 

So are you going to actually educate yourself about radiometric decay as a measurable constant? how the speed of light and observed microwave radiation points to the age of the universe? that to date there as not been a single scientific discovery that has refuted or negated either the big bang theory or Evolution, despite millions of man hours by highly trained people trying to do exactly that?

I'm afraid that such inculcated nonsense is impossible to dislodge externally. Only you can have a epiphany and begin to see reality. That doesn't mean you have to stop believing in god, but it does require a update to your dogma.



Like I said before, arguing with somebody who possess blind faith, is a fools errand. Refuting nonsense and ignorance might be worth it for others reading such an exchange, but as to moving the needle on your flawed perceptions? NOPE.

 

Evidence for the above contention?

 

Define a year.... Please...

A year was never defined in the Bible...

We define a year by one revolution around the Sun - many cultures didn't and many still don't today - some don't even acknowledge time, others measure time by generations or by when their leader is born and dies...

Also I find it funny how some will use terms like "flat earthers" yet will go to the 6,000 year thing..... Do you not see the contradiction there? so they new the Earth goes around the Sun for it to be a year, yet they thought the Earth was allegedly the center of the universe and the Sun revolved around the Earth? yet the Earth was flat?

All these ideas contradict one another - you cant hold one of them while believing another...

 

So are Humans considered Gods since we created all of the different dog breeds in such a short time frame?

 

Couldn't find it. It's been awhile since I've heard it. However here's a link.

http://www.truenews.org/Creation_vs_Evolution/scientists.html

 

A year was how long the sun went around the sun. And actually all the way back to the Greeks at least they knew the earth is round. Even the Bible says so in Isaiah 40:22

 

I gave a link above dealing with starlight and here's a link on radiometric dating.

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric Dating, and The Age of the Earth.htm

- - - Updated - - -

No. We take what nature does a speed it up to its limit. Nothing supernatural or anything.

 

"Scripture, science, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue." oxymoron

 

Each scientist is a cop. Results must be reviewed and replicated. Significant theories get special attention. There are scientists today doing experiments that could invalidate results from Einstein, even. In science, the larger rewards go to those who blow away old ideas and establish new, more accurate understanding.

It is not just reversals of magnetic polarity - it is also the gradual changes in orientation.

Yes, scientists do find errors.

The thing is, this is all based on data - evidence. That is what we need to be watching. In fact, the bible states that we may explore the universe to discover how it works. And, that is what scientists are doing.

 

You misrepresent these scientists. None of their works of science admits any notion of god.

That is Newton's work (and that of each of these individuals) includes absolutely nothing from the bible.

They may have believed the bible on some topic, but their contributions to science which warrant them being on that list do not include that.

 

First place it's not me, it's the site. Second I think the point is that these men had little conflict between science and the Bible.

The site also list a bunch of modern scientists who believe in YEC.

 

I gave a link above showing how radio metric dating isn't valid.

When did we observe one?

I agree.

- - - Updated - - -

Why is it a oxymoron?

 

Robert Gentry? Are you serious? yes of course you are.

Well considering his "work" is basically rejected by just about every serious scientist, no wonder you believe that accepted science is wrong and this religious quack with an agenda is correct.



As to that idiotic article "big bang and starlight" I started to read it and got to this:

does this look like the same throughout space to you?

Map of cosmic background radiation
the rest of the article is so much absolute nonsense that I must assume the author knew he was lying thru his teeth.

If you are relying on the "science" offered up by these clowns to rationalize your YEC philosophy its no wonder actual facts cannot penetrate the veil.

 

Well, I guess we will have to wait until science solves the issue.

Single cell to human is not a change from one family to another, but a change of one kingdom to another and it is still the same concept, just over a much longer period of time.

I'm sorry, I thought you were astute enough to understand my analogy, but obviously I overestimated you. Let me explain again. The parts are added on randomly, but the process is not random since only working configurations are passed on. Evolution is not truly random since only organisms that can survive in their environment would live to pass on their genes, so an organism is shaped by its environment (sex too, but that's a topic for a different day).

Early homosapien diet consisted mainly of vegetables with meat and some whole grains so they lacked the ability to digest milk, however in cultures that learned to raise and milk animals, a small mutation that made it possible to digest milk became prominent, thus in population like Northern Europe and the Middle East, milk tolerance became common while in parts Africa and Asia, milk tolerance is rare.

Or we can talk about the ability to process sugars, sickle cell anemia or blue eyes.

 

I am talking about the time for the Earth to make a full orbit around the Sun. Since that is the standard definition for a year, I was using that. Now if Young Earth Creationists are using a different definition for a year, they need to say so, however, if they say that 6,000 of their years are equal to 14 billion solar years, then they are not Young Earth Creationists are they?

 

The giant circle is you're trying to disprove science that has tested and retested, challenged, and proven its information over time. You've done nothing but dispute what is know with what you believe, and you've offered nothing in the way of counter-argument. You haven't given your position, nor your supporting evidence, so really all you've done is say "no it's not" to whatever is posted. Pretty weak argument, really.

 

So a logical conclusion is that you are exaggerating that only 55% of scientists believe in evolution. Part of that depends on your definition of "believe in evolution." My views could be construed as either creationist or evolutionist, for example. If your definition of evolution is a totally atheist view, then, no, I don't believe in evolution. I, personally, believe that evolution is God's creative process. Why? Well, I have studied biology for 8 years in undergraduate/graduate, and have studied it ever since as an enthusiast rather than student. I don't believe that the God I believe in would have intentionally (i.e. intelligent design or special creation) created some of the living things out there. It just doesn't fit that my God would have intentionally created such strange things, such as a mite that rapes it's brother (i.e. injects it's sperm into the brother's sperm sac) while the brother is raping it's sister, all within the egg sac. Any being that would have created that monstrosity intentionally is evil. There are numerous things like that in nature, and, while I can believe that God set up the processes that might result in such a thing (aka evolution), I can't beleive that God would have intentionally created such a thing. To put it more succinctly, I'm a theistic evolutionist. I believe that evolution is God's method of creation, and that science fairly accurately has predicted the age of the earth, etc. The evidence is out there, and there are only two possibilities to explain why all the different methods of radiometric dating produce roughly the same age of the earth--the first is that the measurement is correct, the second is that God for some reason created an earth that was 6000 years old, but looks and feels 4.54 billion years old. Practically speaking, there is no difference between how the earth looks with either of those two scenarios. IMHO, most creation "scientists" are frauds who are pulling the wool over the eyes of their followers. Kent Hovind is the best example of a liar and cheat in creation science. IMHO, it's common. Personally, I would be very leery of such types of people--who lie in the name of God.

 

Macro evolution simply means micro evolution accumulating many alterations to its DNA over a long period of time.

 

Micro Evolution= Change over decades/centuries

Macro Evolution= Change over thousands/millions of years

The only actual difference being TIME and thus our ability to see it happening.

 

I would disagree. Can you refute these?

http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/dalrymple-to-agu-member-11-1992.htm

http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/dalrymple-to-fellow-geologist-11-1995.htm

That part may be wrong but I notice whenever I mentioned the axis of evil (what you just show'd) as proof against the Big Bang people will say "the difference is minute", but when something like my link states that the uniformity of the CMB disprove the Big Bang you show me that its not. Which is it?

 

Ok.

And can you prove one evolved into another?

I understand the analogy. You're saying that randomness created a new gene in the sequence and natural selection carries it on. Two questions:

1. Have we ever observe this in nature?

2. Even if we observed this in nature who would the new mutation marry?

First place this could just as easily be a gene sequence already in the code being pronounced. I mean all mammals drink milk so its not like introducing rocks into our diet.

Ok, fire away.