why those who deny evolution are incorrect

How exactly does one "jive" with the Christian idea of the truth?

To suggest that modern technology is somehow synonymous with the theory of evolution, is complete jive talk. If anything, modern technology is synonymous with the theory of creation. Your i-phone didn't evolve, it was created. Duh.....

 

You outdid yourself with that one, country boy. Great job. Can't wait to see a response, if any. Think of those two words...'evolve' and 'create'. Its like the chicken and the egg dilemma....one doesn't just evolve from no where, whereas one can be created from GOD. So the scenario making the most sense is that someone evolves from GOD. That should be the end of the story.

 

I disagree.

Of course, with 300 billion people all believing in the American dream, there are bound to be those who believe that their freedom, prosperity and success is predicated upon the surrender of freedom and prosperity of others. And yes, sometimes it is this picture that renders the opinion of USA.

I will not deny that it is certainly that very picture that forms my opinion of certain Americans on this forum (I'm not American, by the way).

However, I know for a fact that far the most Americans are socially and morally decent people that are able to surrender as much individual freedom and prosperity that it takes for society as a whole to make freedom and prosperity possible in the first place rather than expecting others to abandon it for their sake.

This "far the most" also include those who work within the natural sciences and who understand that science is a quest for mankind as a whole and not merely for their own little petty ideologies. Hence, USA can continue being among the top, if not The Top, of scientific and technological advance. Regardless of political and religious nutcases.

 

Actually, it evolved.

Not even the outer casing of an iPhone could exist without thousands of years of technological evolution.

 

Really? It evolved without any outside intervention?

Who knew?

 

An iPhone does not emerge through evolution. It emerges physically by industrial processes, however, all those processes evolved from prior processes.

But then, an individual organism does not emerge through evolution, either. It emerges physically by biological processes, which, likewise, all evolved.

There is no discrepancy, analogically, between the evolution of industrial processes that produce an iPhone and the evolution of biological processes that produce an individual organism.

 

If decay was inconsistent over time, we would see the evidence of this--the proportion of elements and isotopes would be very different.

 

No discrepancy? One requires physical intervention, one does not (theoretically). I'd say that's a pretty big, NO HUGE, discrepancy.

 

The emergence of an individual iPhone requires the physical intervention of industrial processes.

The emergence of an individual living organism requires the physical intervention of biological processes.

 

Face it, the analogy doesn't work.

 

science is best understood as the 'pusuit of truth'.

And the funny part is, the theories evolve over time.

he published works that eventually shared the ignorance of how 'the church' does not hold the last word. His works required the churches eat their words (apologize) even though he was not alive to witness it, mankind evolved because of what galileo did.

no one can logically deny the realities of many different 'evolutions' but the problem is, the math describing natures evolutions at the molecular (atomic) scale are reductionary and do not support a biological evolution. it is why i often point out, that since the paradigm of how mass, energy, time are incorrect, then no wonder the children are not taught 'evolution' irregardless to what any theological believers hold as real.

ie..... the scope of how energy is defined is incorrect but that last word (math describing the transition of mass (atom) energy (em/light) and time works) does in fact exist.


'the name to know'


but few know that because it aint for sale

 

So the Bible is correct as a historical text

 

I would argue the opposite most scientists are paid by the government

 

If with historical text you mean a text with a history then, sure, it's correct that the Bible has a history.

 

No the Bible records history

 

Maybe some, but it seems unlikely that the Earth would exist before light.

So by the very first book of the Bible we can conclude that no, it is not a historical text.

 

Or how the 'Spirit of God was hovering over the waters'. I might be possible for the Earth to start to form before the Sun first fired up. But it certainly is NOT possible for oceans or seas to have formed.

 

So a book of fiction can't also refer to real events?

Man, all of Tom Clancy must be true! When is Jack Ryan going to run for president?

 

This. Plus radioactive decay itself is a product of several other factors of physics. For it to not be constant, the universe would be very different, and probably not survivable.

 

Unless you are talking abouts the Hebrews being slaves in Egypt.

 

and stopped the recording as soon as people started thinking for themselves.

For example; the population explosion of the last 200 yrs has nothing to do with bible. It was science, medicine and the divide from religious adhernace that enabled mankind to focus on the good of life.


http://ecology110armine2011sp.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/population-growth-and-its-impacts/

 

So do Tom Clancy books!

Man, do you remember when the US fought the United Islamic Republic with little more than a single national guard brigade after the airborne Ebola attack on Washington DC?

Those were tough times!

 

If by history you mean story then, yes, the Bible is an edited collection of recorded stories.

 

First, I'm not a creationist by far. That said, honestly, not teaching evolution in high school biology is not going to cripple future science in the U.S. There is enough to teach in high school biology without it.

Fossil fuels are explained by living things that were buried by "the Flood." The processes are just much quicker than evolutionists wrongly assume. After all, evolutionists are wrong about the age of the earth, why shouldn't they also be wrong about the age of oil.

Pre modern humans are beasts produced by God. They are first attempts at creating humans that failed.

Everything is explained in the Bible.

As I've said, I'm an evolutionist (specifically a theistic evolutionist (which means I see evolution as being God's method of creation), and I totally agree that evolution explains the way the living world is structured and teh way living things are.

You aren't going to persuade creationists by your arguments above. You need to do much better.

 

There is no evidence that radioactive decay is not constant. What mechanism do you propose that would make it variable?

Also, scientific evidence is available for perusal.