Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Evolution is a scientifically established fact. No scientist is questioning that it is real. The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening. You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.
You have not done your homework! There are thousands of scientists who reject evolution. Not tens, not hundreds, but thousands. Try again.
My definition of life only requires that a molecule can replicate itself
well then you have proven yourself wrong....a molecule cannot replicate itself......sorry.....
You know, there is a simple test.
Genesis 30:37-41
37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.
41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.
But according to Evolution and Genetics, the rods would have no effect on the offspring.
So all we have to do is copy Jacob and see which prediction is correct: Will trees stripped of bark cause similar patterns as the Bible states, or will there be no effect as science states?
is this what you were referring to?......this has nothing to do with either creation or evolution.....
it has to do with animal husbandry......having strange striped sticks in the watering trough likely was less threatening to striped animals than to the brown ones, so they were less nervous and more inclined to breed.....
Like the car, the first cell is an assembly of proteins which themselves are assemblies. The odds of it forming by chance are beyond human comprehension.
The DNA itself is evidence of creation and a creator
Evolution is a scientifically established fact. No scientist is questioning that it is real. The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening. You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.
You have not done your homework! There are thousands of scientists who reject evolution. Not tens, not hundreds, but thousands. Try again.
No. There aren't. Unless you wish to extend the definition of "scientist" to anyone with an opinion.
You have not done your homework! There are thousands of scientists who reject evolution. Not tens, not hundreds, but thousands. Try again.
No. There aren't. Unless you wish to extend the definition of "scientist" to anyone with an opinion.
Again, you stick your foot in your mouth, prepare to chew. Here are a few rather well known ones.
There is no question that some of the most famous scientists of all times believed in creation. Ann Lamont has written a book entitled 21 Great Scientists Who Believed The Bible. She devotes chapters to Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun. These men werent dummies, and they believed in creation.
My question to you is, do you believe a science teacher to be a scientist, and I don't mean homeschool teachers, but teachers in a school.
No. There aren't. Unless you wish to extend the definition of "scientist" to anyone with an opinion.
Again, you stick your foot in your mouth, prepare to chew. Here are a few rather well known ones.
There is no question that some of the most famous scientists of all times believed in creation. Ann Lamont has written a book entitled 21 Great Scientists Who Believed The Bible. She devotes chapters to Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun. These men werent dummies, and they believed in creation.
My question to you is, do you believe a science teacher to be a scientist, and I don't mean homeschool teachers, but teachers in a school.
A scientist is someone trained in a field of science and works within that field. A science professor at a university would meet the qualification, a science teacher at a high school would not.
Believing in the Bible is not the same thing as believing in creationism. Let's just take one of your folks, but we can hit the others if you like. This is a letter written on the subject by von Braun. World's Greatest Creation Scientists from Y1K to Y2K
Like the car, the first cell is an assembly of proteins which themselves are assemblies. The odds of it forming by chance are beyond human comprehension.
The DNA itself is evidence of creation and a creator
You're correct, theodds of it forming by chance are beyond human comprehension. The odds of it forming by non-random selection is within (most) humans comprehension.
You know, there is a simple test.
Genesis 30:37-41
37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.
41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.
But according to Evolution and Genetics, the rods would have no effect on the offspring.
So all we have to do is copy Jacob and see which prediction is correct: Will trees stripped of bark cause similar patterns as the Bible states, or will there be no effect as science states?
is this what you were referring to?......this has nothing to do with either creation or evolution.....
it has to do with animal husbandry......having strange striped sticks in the watering trough likely was less threatening to striped animals than to the brown ones, so they were less nervous and more inclined to breed.....
Evolution is a scientifically established fact. No scientist is questioning that it is real. The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening. You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.
You have not done your homework! There are thousands of scientists who reject evolution. Not tens, not hundreds, but thousands. Try again.
Like the car, the first cell is an assembly of proteins which themselves are assemblies. The odds of it forming by chance are beyond human comprehension.
The DNA itself is evidence of creation and a creator
You're correct, theodds of it forming by chance are beyond human comprehension. The odds of it forming by non-random selection is within (most) humans comprehension.
Right, as if the DNA was a complex machine designed by some superior intelligence
Glad you're starting to understand
OK, get your facts straight, your argument was that there is not 1 scientist who disputes the theory of evolution, you state it is a fact of evolution.
Evolution is a scientifically established fact. No scientist is questioning that it is real. The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening. You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.
You have not done your homework! There are thousands of scientists who reject evolution. Not tens, not hundreds, but thousands. Try again.
Macro evolution has never been proven and never been observed.
You're correct, theodds of it forming by chance are beyond human comprehension. The odds of it forming by non-random selection is within (most) humans comprehension.
Right, as if the DNA was a complex machine designed by some superior intelligence
Glad you're starting to understand
Non-random selection does not require any intelligence any more than the assembling of a sodium and chlorine ions into a regular solid based on a repeated pattern, a crystal, requires intelligence. That I understand, what I don't understand is why you don't understand.
Or do you refuse to accept facts that don't match up with your faith?
Right, as if the DNA was a complex machine designed by some superior intelligence
Glad you're starting to understand
Non-random selection does not require any intelligence any more than the assembling of a sodium and chlorine ions into a regular solid based on a repeated pattern, a crystal, requires intelligence. That I understand, what I don't understand is why you don't understand.
Or do you refuse to accept facts that don't match up with your faith?
Do you not understand how many orders of magnitude more complicated a single cell is that a Sodium atom?
Non-random selection does not require any intelligence any more than the assembling of a sodium and chlorine ions into a regular solid based on a repeated pattern, a crystal, requires intelligence. That I understand, what I don't understand is why you don't understand.
Or do you refuse to accept facts that don't match up with your faith?
Do you not understand how many orders of magnitude more complicated a single cell is that a Sodium atom?
I do. Do you appreciate how much time has passed since the beginning of this planet?
Simple rules can give rise to bewildering complexity. Fractals, based on simple mathmatical equations, are a great example.
The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!
I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.
I answered, "The reason scientific theories change is because we don't know everything, isn't it? We don't have all the evidence."
"Yes, that's right," he said.
I replied, "But, we will never know everything."
"That's true," he answered.
I then stated, "We will always continue to find new evidence."
"Quite correct," he said. I replied, "That means we can't be sure about anything."
"Right," he said.
"That means we can't be sure about evolution."
"Oh, no! Evolution is a fact," he blurted out. He was caught by his own logic. He was demonstrating how his view was determined by his bias.
Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But the beliefs that these models are built on are not.
The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). Evolution is the religion to which they are committed. Christians need to wake up to this. Evolution is a religion; it is not a science!
Evolution is Religion
Evolution is a scientifically established fact. No scientist is questioning that it is real. The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening. You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.
You have not done your homework! There are thousands of scientists who reject evolution. Not tens, not hundreds, but thousands. Try again.
It doesn't matter what they believe. They aren't producing the work to defend their positions. They aren't producing papers in journals like Science, Nature, PNAS, or any other peer-reviewed publications. They aren't presenting at conferences. They aren't coming up with the work that shows evolution is simply wrong.
Evolution is a scientifically established fact. No scientist is questioning that it is real. The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening. You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.
You have not done your homework! There are thousands of scientists who reject evolution. Not tens, not hundreds, but thousands. Try again.
And they are wrong.
