Previous 11 - 20 Next
It might be, fuzzy, I'm not a young earth proponent myself, I subscribe more to the "a day is like a thousand years to God" interpretation of Genesis, which is to say Gods time is not our time, but that aside, I don't discount the possibility of a young earth, unlike the secularists and materialists, I am always open to ALL of the evidence, even if the evidence challenges conventional wisdom or naturalism.
Thanks fuzzy, much appreciated, and you make some terrific points too.
If you watch the video I posted you will see a number of documented cases, of actual scientists coming forward to tell their stories of being ostracized and worse, losing their jobs, their funding etc.. all for the sin of questioning Darwin and/or implying ID might make some valid scientific points worth considering. Thats the answer to the question, singularity, and whether you know it or not, you are helping to forward that level of totalitarianism and demand for absolute conformity within the sciences, mostly (though not exclusively) where it pertains to Darwin. I would suggest you keep an open mind and watch that video, it might give you something to think about, not in terms of your science, but in terms of freedom, including the freedom to think and inquire in science.
singularity wrote: "That some people choose not to accept evolutionary science is again their right, but in the sciences they are a vanishingly small minority. Look at respected scientific publications, and you won't find a single peer-reviewed article professing doubt that some form of natural selection has been responsible for the evolution of life on Earth, at least not in the last century. This alone should be a powerful testament to the success of the theory." == And why do you think that is? Because there is uniformity of thought and universal acceptance of Darwinian evolution in the scientific community, or because the scientific community has been politicized and they behave like a priesthood where it pertains to Darwin, ostracizing its heretics? This documentary makes the answer to that question crystal clear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g
"That some people choose not to accept evolutionary science is again their right, but in the sciences they are a vanishingly small minority. Look at respected scientific publications, and you won't find a single peer-reviewed article professing doubt that some form of natural selection has been responsible for the evolution of life on Earth, at least not in the last century. This alone should be a powerful testament to the success of the theory." = And why do you think that is? Because there is uniformity of thought and universal acceptance of Darwinian evolution in the scientific community, or because the scientific community has been politicized and they behave like a priesthood where it pertains to Darwin, ostracizing its heretics? This documentary makes the answer to that question crystal clear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g
I think its possible that man and dinosaurs at some point shared the planet simultaneously, but this little twerp is trying to equate creationism with young earth and they are not the same, that was my point.
Exactly right fuzzy, and when I say its impossible to believe DNA code is random, I don't mean impossible to my mind, I mean mathematically impossible, as in it so far exceeds 10 to the 50th Power to 1 (itself a mathematical impossibility) that it makes 10 to the 50th Power to 1 seem likely, its essentially the equivalent of suggesting you can randomly hit the lottery every day for the next ten thousand years, and thats without even considering a second code!
AGAIN, sorry for the multiple posts, but until TH upgrades its software and adds an edit feature, its the only alternative we have if we want to make edits. That said, this will be the last edit and final draft :-)
Reasons, OUTSIDE OF RELIGION, entirely within science, to question Darwinism: 1. The first cell. And please don't tell me Darwin is not an explanation for the origin of life, because the title of his damn book is "the origin of the species", and you damn well better believe the Neo-Darwinists are selling Darwinian evolution as the natural/material substitute for the idea that God is necessary to explain life. Therefore the mystery of the first cell cannot be dismissed as unimportant. It has to be answered with more than some wild-eyed hypothesis, otherwise evolution cannot be accepted as an adequate explanation for the origin of life, and there is no adequate explanation for the first cell, because we know that cells die, but we have never observed a cell coming into being from nothing, from anything other than another cell. I need a real, provable answer to this question, not some pothead hypothesis about multiverses or what have you. 2. The highly sophisticated, complex & specific information that comprises DNA code, and the degree to which the code would require redesign to complete the process of large scale macroevolution ... without killing the species. In my view its impossible to believe that DNA code is random. Its far too sophisticated (four bit digital code), far too complex (our computers are only two bit), and if thats not enough, the specific information contained in DNA can ONLY be explained with intelligence. There can be no other explanation as I see it. That doesn't mean it has to be God, though God is obviously implied, but DNA by its very nature screams out 'intelligence', and renowned atheist Anthony Flew saw it precisely the same way, its a big part of the reason why he abandoned Darwinian theory and accepted the ID POV. Lastly, just try to introduce new code into Windows and transform it into a Mac and let me know how it goes, lets see how far you can get before the system crashes and burns. Well large scale macroevolution at least demands the same level of adaptation, which starts with the DNA code, and yet the species never dies? Sorry, that makes NO SENSE, none whatsoever. There are more reasons to question Darwinism, many more, but IMO those two are all you really need.
Sorry for the multiple posts, but until TH upgrades its software and adds an edit feature, its the only alternative we have if we want to make edits.
Reasons, OUTSIDE OF RELIGION, entirely within science, to question Darwinism: 1. The first cell. And please don't tell me Darwin is not an explanation for the origin of life, because the title of his damn book is "the origin of the species", and you damn well better believe the Neo-Darwinists are selling Darwinian evolution as the natural/material substitute for the idea that God is necessary to explain life. Therefore the mystery of the first cell cannot be dismissed as unimportant. It has to be answered with more than some wild-eyed hypothesis, otherwise evolution cannot be accepted as an adequate explanation for the origin of life, and there is no adequate explanation for the first cell, because we know that cells die, but we have never observed a cell coming into being from nothing, from anything other than another cell. I need a real, provable answer to this question, not some pothead hypothesis about multiverses or what have you. 2. The highly sophisticated, complex & specific information that comprises DNA code, and the degree to which the code would require redesign to complete the process of large scale macroevolution ... without killing the species. In my view its impossible to believe that DNA code is random. Its far too sophisticated (four bit digital code), far too complex (our computers are only two bit), and if thats not enough, the specific information contained in DNA can ONLY be explained with intelligence. There can be no other explanation as I see it. That doesn't mean it has to be God, though God is obviously implied, but DNA by its very nature screams out 'intelligence', and renowned atheist Anthony Flew saw it precisely the same way, its a big part of the reason why he abandoned Darwinian theory and accepted the ID POV. Lastly, just try to introduce new code into Windows and transform it into a Mac and let me know how it goes, lets see how far you can get before the system crashes and burns. Well large scale macroevolution at least demands the same level of adaption, which starts with the DNA code, and yet the species never dies? Sorry, that makes NO SENSE, none whatsoever. There are more reasons to question Darwinism, many more, but IMO those two are all you really need.
Previous 11 - 20 Next