Why can't evolution be part of god's plan?

[Care4all]

As a devout Christian, I have no problems with Scientists trying to figure out, in the physical sense of how the earth was made....or our galaxy or the universe.

And I don't see conflict...other than what a DAY is....? That i don't know, but i view Genesis 1 just as the progression of the Earth's/Galaxy's formation in layman's terms....this is what happened first, day 1, this is what happened 2nd, day 2, this is what happened next, day 3, etc.....

IT WAS NEVER meant to be a Science book with calculated specifics....There isn't a Math Book in the Bible either....so what? it wasn't meant to be one...

 

[logical4u]

This does not prove accuracy in general. Your briefing stated the process used "experimentation" or interpreted methods to determine measurements. It can be used on "specific" items (or areas), but not for all items.

Ummm... so?

And what does not being able to use it on all items have to do with the measurement accuracy on the items it can be used on?.

If biological material is found between layers of rocks, science assumes the biological material is the same age as the layers around it, without considering violent crust influences. That makes it a ....guess.

If the Biblical version is believed, it tells us the the Lord worked in "days", it also states there was a "void". It does not define the matter in the "void". Do you think it would be possible for a Being (that made light) to gather ancient pieces of rock together and make a planet, the "firmament" that parts would appear to be a lot older than the history implies?

[
This is not a matter of it "appearing" older. We're not talking about putting a nice worn finish on the rock for aesthetic purposes or something. What you are suggesting is that God deliberately fabricated the chemical composition of the materials the earth was made of to make it seem old.

For what purpose?

We do not know His purposes.

[
You either didn't read the post, or were incapable of understanding it. Please review the section on Rubidium-Strontium dating. Then give a good long think about how much MOLTEN "space dust" would be floating around the solar system.

Again, your "science" assumes the earth was whole and was changed in place. You leave no "openess" to other possibilities. The Lord could have gathered chunks from space, some molten fragments (possibly the size of continents), and other "rocks" and brought them together to form a planet. Your "belief" prevents you from considering other possibilities.

Your methods imply the climate has been similar to what it is now for all that time with a consistant growing season and no interuptions or changes.

[
No, the C-14 methods imply there has always been seasons. Or, in other words, that the earth was orbiting the sun with an axial tilt. Are you seriously going to try to argue it wasn't sometime in the last few thousand years?

Is this all the further your data goes back? I am pointing out that "science" uses time in the way it knows (based on today's physical evidence of seasons, days, etc). In human written history, there are seasons, before written history, there is no way to know what the planet was doing, how fast it was turning, how fast it rotated around the sun. Your "science" is just as narrow thinking as the "creationist beliefs", you want to discredit.

I am just pointing out, that the evolutionists' theory has more holes in it than the Biblical version.

You haven't pointed one out yet.[/QUOTE]

Your narrow view, won't let you see, there are infinite possibilities on how life came to be. I, too, am narrow minded, difference: I admit, I believe that the Lord created this planet and life as we know it. You as a "science" believer should be open to ALL possibilities until they can be proved false.

Science has not proved creation false.

 

[amrchaos]

The reason why evolution is n apart of God's plan is found in Genesis.

God created all the living creatures, Adam named them. The question for the theologian is what did Adam do with the list of names??

 

[gcomeau]

If biological material is found between layers of rocks, science assumes the biological material is the same age as the layers around it, without considering violent crust influences. That makes it a ....guess.

The only possible biological material you could be referring to would be the subject of C14 dating.

C-14 dating dates THE BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL ITSELF.

Want to try again?

We do not know His purposes.

In other words, "The evidence doesn't even remotely agree with my claim, so I'm just going to say God waved his hand and altered all the evidence, and I'm not even going to attempt to justify or explain that."

That about sum it up? Yeah, I think it does.

Again, your "science" assumes the earth was whole and was changed in place. You leave no "openess" to other possibilities. The Lord could have gathered chunks from space, some molten fragments (possibly the size of continents), and other "rocks" and brought them together to form a planet. Your "belief" prevents you from considering other possibilities.

No, my sanity keeps me from considering that possibility. Since basically all scientific geological data collected in all of human history would have to be either a mass worldwide hallucination or was magically planted by Satan to trick us or something.

And just out of curiosity, how exactly does it help your case to try to say that the rocks the earth was made up of were floating around in space until a few thousand years ago BUT ARE STILL BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? What, you think God created the universe 14 billion years ago then had to take a 14 billion year coffee break because he was all tuckered out before he finally finished off the Earth by magically assembling it out of random bits of stellar debris? Like some kind of tidying up of the scraps of creation he left lying around and didn't notice for several billion years... then he stumbled across them floating aimlessly through space and said "oops, missed that. Hmmm, maybe I'll make a planet out of them"?

What the hell are you even thinking? Seriously?

Is this all the further your data goes back?

I'm going to say this again. Actually read the post.

I am pointing out that "science" uses time in the way it knows (based on today's physical evidence of seasons, days, etc). In human written history, there are seasons, before written history, there is no way to know what the planet was doing, how fast it was turning, how fast it rotated around the sun.

There are plenty of ways to tell what the earth was doing before written human history. Your refusal to believe them doesn't render them imaginary.

 

[amrchaos]

"Again, your "science" assumes the earth was whole and was changed in place. You leave no "openess" to other possibilities. The Lord could have gathered chunks from space, some molten fragments (possibly the size of continents), and other "rocks" and brought them together to form a planet. Your "belief" prevents you from considering other possibilities."


Could it be that the earth just got hit by a couple of rocks and meteorites by chance?? I mean, why does every "shooting star" must have some mystical point behind it??

 

[Ralph]

Isn't science just discovering god's blueprints? If not, why not?

If you accept the truth as determined via the Prima Facie evidences found therein.....that God inspired the content of the Holy Scriptures ( 2 Tim. 3:16-17) and such has the power and ability to make the MAN OF GOD perfect in DOCTRINE, its impossible to accept the unprovable dogma that is the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

The principle contradiction is the fact that EVOLUTION as taught and accepted by Modern Man would have everyone believe that man 'evolved' via common descent from "DEAD MATTER" void of INTELLIGENT creation but rather by pure NATURAL random happenstance.....a hypothesis that has never came close to being validated through the Scientific Method of Observation and Repeatable experimentation that establishes even the possibility that such is plausible....might less "probable" as propagated blindly, without proof, yet man has thrown ALL HIS INTELLIGENCE right at such an absurd baseless conclusion...in a self contradictory position that man came about void of intelligence...really? How does that work? Even if LIFE is reproduced INTELLIGENTLY......how does this prove RANDOM happenstance? Just say'n....... No....in reality what they are attempting to propagate is their idea that MAN does not need GOD, and is contingent upon NO ONE but HIMSELF.....even nature falls before the GREATNESS and POMPOSITY that is PSEUDO MAN.

There has never, in the history of mankind, been the first experiment that comes close to proving this hypothesis as "POSSIBLE".......but, there is the LAW OF BIOGENESIS which states that LIFE can come only from pre-existing life...aka PROCREATION....within the same species, which has not only been proven via experimentation but it is VALIDATED through OBSERVATION on a daily basis across the depth and breath of God's creation, just as recorded in the Holy Scriptures -- Gen. 1:11,21-22, 25, 27-28.

One of my favorite quotes found in the Bible is, "Know that the Lord Himself is God; it is He who made us and not we ourselves; we are His people and the sheep of His pasture." -- Ps. 100:3. God, has asked the simple question of MAN, "....Where where YOU when "I" (God) laid the foundations of the earth? TELL ME....if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? SURELY YOU KNOW!" -- Job 38:4-5

To accept the DOGMA of man....over the actual scriptures found in the Holy Bible, which has never had ONE word therein DEBUNKED by PHYSICAL SCIENCE or HISTORY actual, is absurd. Accepting Evolution turns the Word of God into lies. Just how can anyone reject the Bible and claim to be a Christian?

First of all God was quite clear with no ambiguity at all when He declared, "Let US make man is OUR IMAGINE......God created man in His own imagine....male and female created He them." -- Genesis 1:26-27. There is nothing mentioned about God slowly EVOLVING man from DEAD MATTER....no God said, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, AND BREATHED INTO HIS NOSTRILS THE BREATH OF LIFE.....and man became a LIVING SOUL." -- Genesis 2:7...and referenced as truth again in 1 Cor. 15:45 (so much for the ALLEGORY hypothesis, clearly the apostles taught Genesis 1 as a factual occurrence).

Just How is man in the likeness of God? God is a spirit (John 4:24) and has no PHYSICAL BODY. The Bible tells us that even Jesus, the ".....imagine of the INVISIBLE GOD" (Col. 1:15) had a physical body, even after His resurrection ( Luke 24:39).

The imagine cannot be mere physical life, for both animals and plants have physical life...yet it is only man that was made in the imagine of God. The only logical conclusion of how man mirrors God can be only IN SPIRIT...that which no one can touch, as declared by Jesus -- Luke 24:39). If only man is made in this image....with a Spirit that mirrors God....just how could man have EVOLVED from a lower life form? Animals do not have a Spirit that is made in the image of God....if they do, please present the Book, Chapter, and Verse that details this scriptural fact. At what point in the SO CALLED evolutionary process did man EVOLVE a SOUL/SPIRIT that had man mirror God?

One would have to accept the lie in direct contradiction to the WORD OF GOD...that Man has a spirit that goes back to God..while animals have a Spirit that goes back to the earth, just like the physical body of man -- Eccl. 3:18-21, 12:7 (ONCE AGAIN...so much for the Allegory hypothesis, the WISEST man in Bible has just informed us that He readily accepted Genesis 1:26-27 as the literal truth.)

Did ADAM and EVE have a belly button? Think about it. This explains how the earth can appear to be OLD. Was not Adam and Eve....CREATED fully DEVELOPED? As does Jesus accept the teachings of Genesis and CREATION....literally instead of ALLEGORICALLY -- Matthew 19:4-6.....Even Moses who is the one that is credited with editing the Torah tells us the CREATION of Genesis 1:1 is to be taken literally and not figuratively, as the Genesis creation is clearly referenced as the reason for SABBATH WORSHIP -- Ex. 20:9-11

 

[Father Time]

Noah's ark existed, it says so in the bible.

No chance, there's no way you can fit two of all the thousands of species on a boat then distribute them equally.

Even if you ignore the lack of evidence for a great flood, the story is so improbable that the only explanation is that the story is not meant to be read as nonfiction.

 

[Ralph]

Noah's ark existed, it says so in the bible.

No chance, there's no way you can fit two of all the thousands of species on a boat then distribute them equally.

Even if you ignore the lack of evidence for a great flood, the story is so improbable that the only explanation is that the story is not meant to be read as nonfiction.

The Bible Clearly lays out the EXACT dimensions of the ARK.....300 x 50 x 30 cubits (438ft x 73ft x 48ft). (Gen. 6:15). The boards were sealed with pitch. In fact it is from these dimensions that MAN parroted the first sea worthy CARGO VESSEL because such was tested to be the perfect dimension ratio, 30 X 5 x 3 to avoid capsizing. The US used cargo ships with these same ratios during WW ll. Inside the ARK were 3 decks...with the total volume capacity being 1,400,000 cubic feet...the same volume as 522 livestock rail cars. With ONE car being capable of shipping up to 240 mid sized animals such as sheep. What precluded NOAH from taking only immature animals...two each of the selected species? Species does not mean ALL THE ANIMALS on earth...just a representative of the K-9 family....which could be two coyotes or wolfs or small dogs....there is no need of having an example of the entire family of K-9....just a representative, (each of its OWN KIND -- Gen. 6:19-20), "beasts" and "birds" of the heavens (Gen. 7:2-3) as science has taught and proven that man and animals have in their DNA the DESIGN and capacity of HORIZONTAL evolution....within species to adapt to their surroundings.

The Bible tells us the ANIMALS came to Noah....he did not have to search the earth -- Genesis 6:20. While it was taking Noah 120 years to construct this ARK, as God had given man the warning they had only 120 years left before the flood -- Genesis 6:3

As mentioned there were 3 stories on the ARK and it had one window ONE CUBIT or 18 Inches. Seven animals of every CLEAN or domestic animals were taken instead of the 2 each representatives from the wild -- Genesis 7:2-3. This provided 3 breeding stocks and one for human consumption and sacrifice -- Genesis 8:20. From these scriptural revelations it can be extrapolated that about 75,000 midsized animals could have been brought on the ARK....leaving room for FOOD storage and living space.

All one needs to do is PROVE the possibility and no one can say.......NO WAY could it have PHYSICALLY happened. The Bible declares different. No...once the possibility is established it would be the one that declared such possibility as being contradictory or FALSE to establish doubt to that possibility .....as long as the possibility exists, there can be no contradiction of the facts.....UNLESS proven. An AD HOMINEM....NO WAY! , simply establishes no credibility whatsoever.

 

[logical4u]

If biological material is found between layers of rocks, science assumes the biological material is the same age as the layers around it, without considering violent crust influences. That makes it a ....guess.

The only possible biological material you could be referring to would be the subject of C14 dating.

C-14 dating dates THE BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL ITSELF.

Want to try again?

We do not know His purposes.

In other words, "The evidence doesn't even remotely agree with my claim, so I'm just going to say God waved his hand and altered all the evidence, and I'm not even going to attempt to justify or explain that."

That about sum it up? Yeah, I think it does.



No, my sanity keeps me from considering that possibility. Since basically all scientific geological data collected in all of human history would have to be either a mass worldwide hallucination or was magically planted by Satan to trick us or something.

And just out of curiosity, how exactly does it help your case to try to say that the rocks the earth was made up of were floating around in space until a few thousand years ago BUT ARE STILL BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? What, you think God created the universe 14 billion years ago then had to take a 14 billion year coffee break because he was all tuckered out before he finally finished off the Earth by magically assembling it out of random bits of stellar debris? Like some kind of tidying up of the scraps of creation he left lying around and didn't notice for several billion years... then he stumbled across them floating aimlessly through space and said "oops, missed that. Hmmm, maybe I'll make a planet out of them"?

What the hell are you even thinking? Seriously?

Is this all the further your data goes back?

I'm going to say this again. Actually read the post.

I am pointing out that "science" uses time in the way it knows (based on today's physical evidence of seasons, days, etc). In human written history, there are seasons, before written history, there is no way to know what the planet was doing, how fast it was turning, how fast it rotated around the sun.

There are plenty of ways to tell what the earth was doing before written human history. Your refusal to believe them doesn't render them imaginary.

You have your "beliefs". When I point out other possibilities, you refuse to even consider them. You tell me "science" has the answers. When I point out other "guesses", you want to go off on the 'insanity'. I consider your "beliefs" that science has the answers, instead of the being's (G*d) explanation, that made this planet and each one of our lives, to be arrogant and insane. Your proof consists of imperfect men with imperfect types of measurements claiming they "know" how the earth was made and life "evolved". You have not proven that. You have put out some "imperfect evidence" that has no way to be confirmed by any other method or written history. It is your "belief".

I have beliefs. Your "logic" is that you can put out other "guesses" (with some systematic proofs that may or may not apply to this planet before or after it was formed) to argue against my beliefs. I have written texts (similar copies found in different places) that many, many men have claimed to be directly inspired by the One (that stated He was there when the earth was formed, that stated He made light) that made us; I believe them. You have modern men that want to explain what happened thousands and hundreds of thousands and millions and billions of years ago and claim "accuracy"; I am a skeptic. From what I have seen, these same "men" (not divine) have trouble recording the last forty years accurately. Why do you want to attack my beliefs as false while not considering other possibilities when it comes to your beliefs (oh, that's right, some man told you it was so).

 

[gcomeau]

You have your "beliefs". When I point out other possibilities, you refuse to even consider them.

No, i do not refuse to consider them. I consider them, in about 5 seconds determine they are contradicted by all available evidence, then refuse to consider them further.

You tell me "science" has the answers. When I point out other "guesses", you want to go off on the 'insanity'. I consider your "beliefs" that science has the answers, instead of the being's (G*d) explanation, that made this planet and each one of our lives, to be arrogant and insane. Your proof consists of imperfect men with imperfect types of measurements claiming they "know" how the earth was made and life "evolved".

Do you even realize what you're doing here? You are arguing a position so diametrically opposed to all available evidence that you have to resort to saying the evidence has been magically tampered with... and you're criticising people for believing the available evidence as being arrogant and insane for doing so.

You're funny. Really.

 

[Ralph]

logical, you're a poor ignorant basterd. Did you know that science proved the world to not be flat? Science also came up with vaccines, and modern surgical techniques to help the sick, or would the world be better off without these advances in science? Maybe we should just all go back to thinking the world is flat?

Is that not the point? "THINKING" is not SCIENCE...its philosophy, pure SCIENCE is demonstrated in Observed, Repeatable, Experimentation that concludes in the DEMONSTRABLE conclusion of FACT. Even Quantum Science/ Mechanic evidences of FACT are derived through the OBSERVATION of POTENTIAL. There can be no "PHYSICAL LAW" if there is the lack of observation and reproduction to validate the consistency of that projected LAW.

Assuming that something that is OBSERVED TODAY has remained constant throughout antiquity is all but ABSURD...due to the OBSERVED fact of the CONSTANTLY changing NATURE of Physical Reality. The Universe has been OBSERVED EXPANDING AND CHANGING. This makes the THEORY of time travel...etc...unprovable. Just how would that work? If one had the POTENTIAL to go back in time or forward in time......just where would one find themselves? Does Science KNOW exactly where this earth...this solar system...this Galaxy was located and positioned in relation to the entire ENTIRE universe 1 million years ago? Does man even have the capacity to measure or map that location? This entire Galaxy is MOVING....EXPANDING, and all TIME is based upon that movement. Such Theory is based upon PHILOSOPHY......not science...because the only place that it exists is in the MIND OF MAN, in a world found only in one place.......between his ears. Simply because someone can IMAGINE something and use existing Scientific Facts to quantify a portion of that imagined product....does not make the final product a Scientific Fact.....because there is the probability of ERROR. Regardless of how small that error might be....where there is the possibility thereof....there can be NO ABSOLUTE fact...aka LAW.

 

[gcomeau]

logical, you're a poor ignorant basterd. Did you know that science proved the world to not be flat? Science also came up with vaccines, and modern surgical techniques to help the sick, or would the world be better off without these advances in science? Maybe we should just all go back to thinking the world is flat?

Is that not the point? "THINKING" is not SCIENCE...its philosophy, pure SCIENCE is demonstrated in Observed, Repeatable, Experimentation that concludes in the DEMONSTRABLE conclusion of FACT. Even Quantum Science/ Mechanic evidences of FACT are derived through the OBSERVATION of POTENTIAL. There can be no "PHYSICAL LAW" if there is the lack of observation and reproduction to validate the consistency of that projected LAW.

Assuming that something that is OBSERVED TODAY has remained constant throughout antiquity is all but ABSURD...due to the OBSERVED fact of the CONSTANTLY changing NATURE of Physical Reality. The Universe has been OBSERVED EXPANDING AND CHANGING. This makes the THEORY of time travel...etc...unprovable. Just how would that work? If one had the POTENTIAL to go back in time or forward in time......just where would one find themselves? Does Science KNOW exactly where this earth...this solar system...this Galaxy was located and positioned in relation to the entire ENTIRE universe 1 million years ago? Does man even have the capacity to measure or map that location? This entire Galaxy is MOVING....EXPANDING, and all TIME is based upon that movement. Such Theory is based upon PHILOSOPHY......not science...because the only place that it exists is in the MIND OF MAN, in a world found only in one place.......between his ears. Simply because someone can IMAGINE something and use existing Scientific Facts to quantify a portion of that imagined product....does not make the final product a Scientific Fact.....because there is the probability of ERROR. Regardless of how small that error might be....where there is the possibility thereof....there can be NO ABSOLUTE fact...aka LAW.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what you're ranting about there... and seriously it would be a lot easier if you didn't try to capitalize several words a sentence in innapropriate ways. The best I can tell you're trying to say that scientific findings based on the constancy of basic physical laws throughout history are invalid because it is only an assumption that those laws have remained constant at all?

If so, you are incorrect. That is not assumed, it is experimentally verified. The Oklo natural reactor at Gabon for example establishes with effectively no doubt that radioactive decay rates have been unaltered by any statistically measurable amount for well over a billion years. And an entire battery of cosmological measurements tell us through direct observation what the laws of physics were up to going back billions and billions of years (because by looking at things billions of light years away, we are directly observing what they were doing billions of years ago) and those laws don't keep changing. They're constant.

That clear things up for you?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

youre one to talk, after asking if im really that ugly after you neg repped me.

youre all class, dipshit

logical, you're a poor ignorant basterd. Did you know that science proved the world to not be flat? Science also came up with vaccines, and modern surgical techniques to help the sick, or would the world be better off without these advances in science? Maybe we should just all go back to thinking the world is flat?

 

[logical4u]

logical, you're a poor ignorant basterd. Did you know that science proved the world to not be flat? Science also came up with vaccines, and modern surgical techniques to help the sick, or would the world be better off without these advances in science? Maybe we should just all go back to thinking the world is flat?

The thing about faith: we don't need the world proved to be "not flat". We believe that there was an AWESOME Lord that planned and made the world with all its life. Concentrating on if the world was made flat or if it was made round is ignoring the One that made it. Science uses G*d's materials and laws to prove what G*d already knows. The people then tell others how great man is. You are missing the point: science is being used as a "belief" that the One is less than Almighty. Science will not acknowledge (they use the laws and prove the laws) the physical laws were made by the Lord. The people that "believe" in science over G*d pretend they have control on knowledge when they ignore the Greatest Knowledge there is: the Lord.
Christians don't have a problem with scientific laws. We use them to understand our world and to accomplish work. It is just we are not foolish enough to believe that our world and life just magically happened because of gravity, strong and weak atomic forces, and electromagnetism. Those that use "science" as a religion do believe that those forces combined and the ordered world we live in, just happened.

 

[logical4u]

You have your "beliefs". When I point out other possibilities, you refuse to even consider them.

No, i do not refuse to consider them. I consider them, in about 5 seconds determine they are contradicted by all available evidence, then refuse to consider them further.

You tell me "science" has the answers. When I point out other "guesses", you want to go off on the 'insanity'. I consider your "beliefs" that science has the answers, instead of the being's (G*d) explanation, that made this planet and each one of our lives, to be arrogant and insane. Your proof consists of imperfect men with imperfect types of measurements claiming they "know" how the earth was made and life "evolved".

Do you even realize what you're doing here? You are arguing a position so diametrically opposed to all available evidence that you have to resort to saying the evidence has been magically tampered with... and you're criticising people for believing the available evidence as being arrogant and insane for doing so.

You're funny. Really.

And you are sticking to a "belief" that men that made up some tests to date materials are "very" accurate. They can go back a few hundred years with real accuracy, maybe a few thousand years with fairly good accuracy; these can be verified with written history and following the historical years backwards. Okay, I get it. Now how can you verify tests that date something at 10,000 years or 1,000,000 years or 1,000,000,000? You can't. Men without perfect understanding developed a rational test that gives them an idea of how "old" one thing is. They cannot prove that everything around it is the same age, or even if it was from this planet (they don't have the knowledge or the time to do it). All they can do is take "samples" and apply their summations to the surrounding area. The belief in "science" encourages a very narrow view of the world and dismisses the written Truth given to us by the creator.

I am saying that while you are calling me ignorant and other names, I am demonstrating to you that your theories can no more "prove" accuracy than my beliefs can. That leads to my original point that those that "push" evolution (and define it as "adaption") are not interested in working within G*d's plan, they want to use science to take G*d's place. They simply have a problem admitting there could be a greater Being in the universe than they, themselves. I believe that, to be arrogant.

 

[Diuretic]

The fundamentalist mindset is difficult to reason with, it's closed to anything other than its own beliefs. It brooks no opposition, it wields a sword of wilful ignorance, although the sword is blunt it can still bruise. Science doesn't seek to attack religion but fundamental religionists, ever fearful of the mythologies that are their core beliefs, will seek to attack, distort and demean science. It's transparently obvious and a bit sad.

 

[logical4u]

logical, you're a poor ignorant basterd. Did you know that science proved the world to not be flat? Science also came up with vaccines, and modern surgical techniques to help the sick, or would the world be better off without these advances in science? Maybe we should just all go back to thinking the world is flat?

Is that not the point? "THINKING" is not SCIENCE...its philosophy, pure SCIENCE is demonstrated in Observed, Repeatable, Experimentation that concludes in the DEMONSTRABLE conclusion of FACT. Even Quantum Science/ Mechanic evidences of FACT are derived through the OBSERVATION of POTENTIAL. There can be no "PHYSICAL LAW" if there is the lack of observation and reproduction to validate the consistency of that projected LAW.

Assuming that something that is OBSERVED TODAY has remained constant throughout antiquity is all but ABSURD...due to the OBSERVED fact of the CONSTANTLY changing NATURE of Physical Reality. The Universe has been OBSERVED EXPANDING AND CHANGING. This makes the THEORY of time travel...etc...unprovable. Just how would that work? If one had the POTENTIAL to go back in time or forward in time......just where would one find themselves? Does Science KNOW exactly where this earth...this solar system...this Galaxy was located and positioned in relation to the entire ENTIRE universe 1 million years ago? Does man even have the capacity to measure or map that location? This entire Galaxy is MOVING....EXPANDING, and all TIME is based upon that movement. Such Theory is based upon PHILOSOPHY......not science...because the only place that it exists is in the MIND OF MAN, in a world found only in one place.......between his ears. Simply because someone can IMAGINE something and use existing Scientific Facts to quantify a portion of that imagined product....does not make the final product a Scientific Fact.....because there is the probability of ERROR. Regardless of how small that error might be....where there is the possibility thereof....there can be NO ABSOLUTE fact...aka LAW.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what you're ranting about there... and seriously it would be a lot easier if you didn't try to capitalize several words a sentence in innapropriate ways. The best I can tell you're trying to say that scientific findings based on the constancy of basic physical laws throughout history are invalid because it is only an assumption that those laws have remained constant at all?

If so, you are incorrect. That is not assumed, it is experimentally verified. The Oklo natural reactor at Gabon for example establishes with effectively no doubt that radioactive decay rates have been unaltered by any statistically measurable amount for well over a billion years. And an entire battery of cosmological measurements tell us through direct observation what the laws of physics were up to going back billions and billions of years (because by looking at things billions of light years away, we are directly observing what they were doing billions of years ago) and those laws don't keep changing. They're constant.

That clear things up for you?

No, it doesn't. Those rocks are taken from areas (a fraction of the evidence). Small amounts of data (comparitively speaking) might not be an accurate representation of the larger cross segment of geological material. It is a "scientific" guess. You can test samples over large areas, but you are assuming that material was always there without any other influence. I repeat, there is no way to know if these tests are taken of material formed here on this earth or somewhere else. Has the reactor been used on meteorites and found the same things? Can cosmic influences change decay rates? Has that been proven or is it more theories?

 

[logical4u]

This makes the THEORY of time travel...etc...unprovable. Ralph, what planet do you spend most of your time on where people think that time travel has been proven?
What a jackass!

logical, We believe that there was an AWESOME Lord that planned and made the world with all its life. You can believe in Santa Claus as well, doesn't make him real. you'd need some real proof.

You use His, the Lord's laws and call them "science". There was a Sant Claus, his name was St Nicholas and he bitch slapped Arien (might have mispelled the names) for speaking similarly about the Godliness of Yeshua. Shame he isn't here now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who believes that evolution/creationism is a salvation issue has a very poor grip on a relationship with Jesus Christ.

 

[Ralph]

logical, you're a poor ignorant basterd. Did you know that science proved the world to not be flat? Science also came up with vaccines, and modern surgical techniques to help the sick, or would the world be better off without these advances in science? Maybe we should just all go back to thinking the world is flat?

Is that not the point? "THINKING" is not SCIENCE...its philosophy, pure SCIENCE is demonstrated in Observed, Repeatable, Experimentation that concludes in the DEMONSTRABLE conclusion of FACT. Even Quantum Science/ Mechanic evidences of FACT are derived through the OBSERVATION of POTENTIAL. There can be no "PHYSICAL LAW" if there is the lack of observation and reproduction to validate the consistency of that projected LAW.

Assuming that something that is OBSERVED TODAY has remained constant throughout antiquity is all but ABSURD...due to the OBSERVED fact of the CONSTANTLY changing NATURE of Physical Reality. The Universe has been OBSERVED EXPANDING AND CHANGING. This makes the THEORY of time travel...etc...unprovable. Just how would that work? If one had the POTENTIAL to go back in time or forward in time......just where would one find themselves? Does Science KNOW exactly where this earth...this solar system...this Galaxy was located and positioned in relation to the entire ENTIRE universe 1 million years ago? Does man even have the capacity to measure or map that location? This entire Galaxy is MOVING....EXPANDING, and all TIME is based upon that movement. Such Theory is based upon PHILOSOPHY......not science...because the only place that it exists is in the MIND OF MAN, in a world found only in one place.......between his ears. Simply because someone can IMAGINE something and use existing Scientific Facts to quantify a portion of that imagined product....does not make the final product a Scientific Fact.....because there is the probability of ERROR. Regardless of how small that error might be....where there is the possibility thereof....there can be NO ABSOLUTE fact...aka LAW.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what you're ranting about there... and seriously it would be a lot easier if you didn't try to capitalize several words a sentence in innapropriate ways. The best I can tell you're trying to say that scientific findings based on the constancy of basic physical laws throughout history are invalid because it is only an assumption that those laws have remained constant at all?

If so, you are incorrect. That is not assumed, it is experimentally verified. The Oklo natural reactor at Gabon for example establishes with effectively no doubt that radioactive decay rates have been unaltered by any statistically measurable amount for well over a billion years. And an entire battery of cosmological measurements tell us through direct observation what the laws of physics were up to going back billions and billions of years (because by looking at things billions of light years away, we are directly observing what they were doing billions of years ago) and those laws don't keep changing. They're constant.

That clear things up for you?

If ANYTHING is BASED UPON THE LAWS OF PHYSICS....such is a PHYSICAL LAW. No theory is a physical law simply because it is not based upon the demonstrable laws of physics.....but rather on SUBJECTIVE human thought void of OBJECTIVE, OBSERVABLE, REPRODUCIBLE experimentation that demonstrates the consistency needed to conclude such as A FACT of Physical Law. Evolution is as far removed from the OBSERVED LAWS of physics as is day from night. Can you spell? If you can the spell..........

D E F L E C T I O N

When your ad hominem ignorance is proven wrong.......I suppose that is all you have left, deflection through feigned ignorance. If you are incapable of reading and comprehending the previous retort there if no further need in addressing your Circular Argumentation. Believe me....the "re-run" is no better than the premiere.