111
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Mar, 2019 02:56 am
@farmerman,
Then again, there are a few traits that get turned off or are "redirected" in the embryo of birds mammals. Eg, gill slit information gets redirected to become inner ear and another functionary (which I forgot where). Im wondering whether the traits,,active diapsid reptiles, sea squirts,agnathid fish,amphioxus, and amphibians are among the only chordates) .

HERES AN ARTICLE I FOUND















































Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Mar, 2019 07:02 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Then again, there are a few traits that get turned off or are "redirected" in the embryo of birds mammals. Eg, gill slit information gets redirected to become inner ear

That's what I mean, like sure, we no longer need those gills up here on land, and radically different hearing IS needed, so BAM! let's reuse them as inner ears. They're about in the right spot morphologically, nothing like that job of moving that land mammal's nostrils up top to make whales, not to mention that hellish job of adding a few heat exchangers for cooling their now internal testicles to the right temperature in the sea in time before all the males went sterile, why hell, gills to ears is a piece of cake by comparison, the oxygen transfer mechanism isn't much related to sound to electro chemical transfer, but hey, they are both kind of transfers, so close enough!

There comes a time when you have to take a step back and say - Wait a ******* minute, this sounds like a 'just so' story for nerdy kids.
0 Replies
 
Helloandgoodbye
 
  0  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2019 10:11 am

One thing I would like to reiterate is how evolutionists come to the conclusion of ‘old age’ results.

Remember, the key is the fact that their assumptions dictate their conclusions.

Ie. If a person assumes that tree rings are ‘annual rings’ *before* applying the math calculation, The result will be much older then if a person assumes the tree rings are produced multiple times per year.
Observational science confirms that tree rings can be produced multiple times per year.

Ie. if a person assumes that layers of ice in the Arctic are produced only twice per year (when using ice cores as a method for dating) in the summer and winter *before* applying the math calculations, the result will be a much older date then if a person acknowledges the observational science that layers of ice are produced multiple times per year.

Ie. when radiometric dating techniques are applied, if a person assumes that the sample being dated has not been contaminated by mother nature, or that the rate of decay has not been accelerated in the past, the result will be much much older ages too of course.
Which observational science has confirm these are serious issues with these techniques.

There are hundreds of different techniques which could be used, but all of them have the same fundamental problems.
So the next time someone is trying to convince you that the earth is old, ask them what are their assumptions they are heavily relying upon to get their desired, and easily manipulated result, which they are trying to sneak by you! If they are even aware of such.... they may have been terribly indoctrinated with the idea that slow and gradual processes are the only way to interpret the evidence.

It is that simple.
Which is why the door is wide open for a ‘young earth’😎

In other words, the dating techniques are only accurate if the assumptions originally made are accurate.

Keep in mind as well, The same principle applies when People observe the world around us in the present, And see flesh eating and disease everywhere, And then assume this has always been since the dawn of time.
There is plenty of observational science that suggests otherwise! ( yes, even mosquitoes were vegetarian in the past woot woot!)

Such assumptions create drastically different conclusions.





I posted the above information on the last page, and thought I would build onto it with a video explaining the ‘rapid’ formation of coal. (In the link below) Addressing the common misconception that it takes slow and gradual processes over millions of years to form.
https://isgenesishistory.com/surprising-things-coal-flood/
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2019 10:15 am
@Helloandgoodbye,
you have no fuckin idea of what your talking about so why not just shut up and folks wont know you hve the intellectual range of a windshield wiper.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2019 10:18 am
I would like to trade for some of those vegan mosquitoes right now.
0 Replies
 
Helloandgoodbye
 
  0  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2019 10:28 am
https://www.icr.org/article/8214
‘Darwinian evolution does not explain as small a step as evolving a new version of a single protein, then why would anyone expect it to explain the evolution of all the new proteins required to transform a protozoan into a person?’

Not. A. Single. Protein. Ever Observed being formed by natural chance processes, never mind the implementation of one!
Bankrupt. The theory is so bankrupt. A fairy tale.

Also, keep this in mind when you hear anything about transitional fossils. This is a good indicator (New information never been observed) those who claim whales evolved from land mammals etc. are interpreting them all wrong. 😳
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2019 10:38 am
@Helloandgoodbye,
Yes. Life is much more like a Donald Duck cartoon. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2019 12:01 pm
@Helloandgoodbye,
I guess you never got the memo tht Darwin hd NO IDEA about biochemistry and he published his ed 1 of the "Origin..." several years before Fr Mendel even came up with the idea of chromosomes and genetics.

darwin' s theory is based upon three points. You can look em up, but I hav doubts about your abilities.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2019 12:04 pm
@Helloandgoodbye,
Quote:
Bankrupt. The theory is so bankrupt. A fairy tale.
Is this the BS your pastor has you spread?

The theory seems to work and NO EVIDENCE refutes it. Pretty good record eh??

Is your genesis base myth equally loaded with evidence (Im gonn say No!!)
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2019 07:47 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Sounds like Catholic Dogma. I can’t find anything like that in scripture. It is written that the thousand year reign begins with Christ’s (physical) return and that he would lead during that time.
. I believe the Bible is an accurate objective view of the universal plan of God. Please quote the scripture you are referring to so I can read it in context.
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Apr, 2019 07:35 am
@brianjakub,
Leadfoot
Quote:
The Heavenly Warrior Defeats the Beast Rev 19
11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

king of kings and lord of lords.

17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

19 Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20 But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21 The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.


I suspect this is the verse that preceeds verse 20 of Revelations which puts it into context. The Rider on the white horse is the Word of God being delivered to the world through the Jewish nation. (and they were a conquering nation)

Then Rev 20
Quote:
The Thousand Years
20 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They[a] had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.


This is portraying Jesus entering the world. He has the key to the abyss which is the christian church which was established on His teachings, His death on the cross, and the arrival of the Holy Spirit in the upper room on Pentecost Sunday.

This is Catholic interpretation of Scripture delivered by the authors of the Scripture and refined by the early doctors of the Church. Most is well documented some was passed on in tradition.
Helloandgoodbye
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Apr, 2019 07:49 am
Ever heard of Living fossils?
https://io9.gizmodo.com/12-of-the-most-astounding-living-fossils-known-to-sci-1506539384

One of my favourites is the Coelacanth:
https://creation.com/coelacanth-does-not-walk
‘Before it’s discovery, Palaeontologists enthusiastically taught that coelacanth fishes were the ancestors of land creatures! 🤦🏼‍♂️THey interpreted and daydreamed this creature walking around.😳
**Of course, they knew coelacanths only as fossils’** people.can speculate all they want about dead things. Wild interpretations abound.
Discovered in 1938, this fish has been observed doing nothing but swimming, of course.😉

Fossils are fickle. They will sing any song you want to hear.
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/evolutionist-caught-lying-for-their-religion-fossils.8079719/

In other words, many species which allegedly lived hundreds of million years ago are still alive and well today.... except of course any ‘transitional species.’
Not only are transitional species missing alive today, but they do not exist in the fossil record either. They only exist in the imaginations of evolutionists and in the textbooks....like the Coelacanth 🙄

If the theory had any predictability power at all, one would expect to find new ‘transitional proteins’ (new genetic information) on an ongoing basis as well as transitional species alive and well today too. But Evolutionists just keep coming up empty-handed.
Bankrupt. The theory is absolutely bankrupt.

Scientists can manipulate old age results using dating techniques by relying heavily on assumptions, and they can also manipulate ‘transitional species’ results by terrible interpretations.

Then again, maybe whale evolution is my favorite. The Pakicetus was/is labelled a transitional fossil/specie because it shares similar ear design as a whale.
Oh, Such shallow standards and criteria to label something as transitional!!

Interpretations. Interpretations. Terrible interpretations.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Apr, 2019 08:51 am
@Helloandgoodbye,
The problem with the above crap is that its only written as a second hand "understanding" from a bunch of religion apologists who MUET find errors with science or otherwise the control they apply to their flock is lost.

1ALL whale fossils share several functional structural and sensory bones from land dwelling artidactyls to cetaceans.

Having some moron critique how the physiology is interpreted is like aparakeet explaining P chem.

The neat thing about evolution theory is that ALL the evidence supports the result

Dwelling on early ideas of evolution or embryology is doing a disservice to both religion and science.
Religion, if it were honest , would deal with the evidence of the time and not try to assault todays science with dumb ideas of 100 years ago. (Remember, it was a state legislature run by Fundamental Christians who wanted to have the value of pi declared to be 3.0000, and lets not forget that theyve opend a huge amusement park centered about a mythological vessel and fairy tale flood and claim such BS beliefs as"Scientific fact".


Why would you need to find "new" transitional proteins since all proteins are defined based on three part assemblages of purines or pyrimidines. Wheres the "transitioning" going??

weve inserted 5 additional (existing) proteins into lab created cells. SO WHAT??


I can see that "fossils give you lotsa trouble". Youve gotta try to prove that a theory is impossible so that you retain control over your flocks of sheep.

There are many paleo and bio(real world) scientists who are religious,however very very very few are blindly fundamentalist .(less than 0.01% as computed by AGU an AGI), I wonder what the Creation clowns have to say about thiose values??

Being a CReation SCientist today is mostly a career move in which a failing dead end teaching position can be re-inflated with popularity among a knuckle dragging base of believers.

They reall are unable to debate, they can only post econd hand crap from CRI or "Dr Dino"
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Apr, 2019 10:35 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
[quote]Quote:
The Heavenly Warrior Defeats the Beast Rev 19
11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

king of kings and lord of lords.

17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

19 Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20 But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21 The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.


I suspect this is the verse that preceeds verse 20 of Revelations which puts it into context. The Rider on the white horse is the Word of God being delivered to the world through the Jewish nation. (and they were a conquering nation)

Then Rev 20
Quote:
The Thousand Years
20 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They[a] had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.


This is portraying Jesus entering the world. He has the key to the abyss which is the christian church which was established on His teachings, His death on the cross, and the arrival of the Holy Spirit in the upper room on Pentecost Sunday.

This is Catholic interpretation of Scripture delivered by the authors of the Scripture and refined by the early doctors of the Church. Most is well documented some was passed on in tradition.
First, thank you for the thought put into this.

Here are the key questions I have about the Catholic interpretation.

They say Rev 19 above is the arrival of the 'Word of God' which is interpreted as the Old Testament text or the Tora part of it anyway. But then you equate it with the nation of Israel. I can't follow the logic behind this. The scriptures clearly indicate that it is a person that is arriving in a very sudden and earthshaking way. I can't think of any person who fits the title of "Word of God" better than Jesus Christ. And clearly that global battle and capture of the Beast described at 19:17 has not yet occurred. Rev. 19:15 says: “He will rule them (the nations) with an iron scepter.” If "He" is the OT, I hope you can agree that it is not ruling the world right now. There is no way to legitimately interpret "king of kings and lord of lords" as the Jewish Old Testament, we both know who fits that description.

You/Catholicism have interpreted this literally: "And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God."
If there is any book in the Bible that is recognized as Metaphorical, it is Revelation. Consider this my brother, you have had your head bitten off many times here.
So the question here is: Who is in which of the two resurrections.

I think this is Paul's one sentence summary of the events in Rev. 19

1Th:4:16: For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

The dead in Christ I take to mean all those who followed Christ's message. What the minimum passing grade is, I don't know, but it isn't literally losing your head. Most of us are screwed if it is.

True, the second resurection is not until after Christ's return, the thousand years of his rule is up, and the final battle is over.

Re:20:13: And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Re:20:14: And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Re:20:15: And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

The Catholic interpretation does not satisfy my need for coherence. In their scenario, the 1000 years sound's like a perk given to just the folks alive at the time Christ returns (Christians and otherwise) and the lucky dead Christians who were decapitated. The Christians that died prior to that miss out completely. This just doesn't pass the sanity test for me.

It only makes sense to me that the first resurection applies to all who are 'His' and only He can make that call. I think the purpose of the 1000 years is to complete our (Christians) understanding of what his kingdom is all about. Judging by what I see in the world, it could well take that long.

While working on this reply I think I stumbled onto the answer to another question bugging me for some time. In the scenario where Christ returns and all Christians are raised, what happens to all the ones alive who are not currently in the book of life? It looked like they get a delayed judgement and the benefit of 1000 years. But reading Rev 19, it looks like they could join the initial battle on the side of the Beast and perish at the start of the thousand years.

That poses another even deeper question about who joins Satan at the end of 1000 years but I've run on long enough.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on any of this.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Apr, 2019 10:42 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
The neat thing about evolution theory is that ALL the evidence supports the result
That's not at all true, but if it were, it would prove nothing. I can weave an arbitrary story around any set of evidence that is 'neat' and explains a possible scenario, but that does not make it true.

I could say the same thing about ID theory, but it would not prove anything.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Apr, 2019 11:22 am
@Leadfoot,
Very good questions. You must look at how the Catholic mass makes the entire story of the Bible a reality for each individual that participates in the sacraments. Every time a Catholic receives the Eucharist in a state of Grace their salvation is complete (kind of like a rapture). But they must leave the church and go back into a fallen world where they may fall again and have to go through the process of confession and penance so they can receive the Eucharist again.

More to come on your specific questions and points.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Apr, 2019 11:47 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
But they must leave the church and go back into a fallen world where they may fall again and have to go through the process of confession and penance so they can receive the Eucharist again.
This has always mystified me. It seems to make salvation a game of musical chairs. One's only hope is that the music stops at the right moment. How does one get comfortable with that?

Another thought on my last post. Note that the dead who are raised in the second resurrection are judged only by their works. Considering what is said about being justified only by my works, I'd be worried. Personally, I couldn't point to a single accomplishment that furthered God's kingdom or justified the kind of reward promised to me. I think what God is looking for in us is revealed in the scripture: "As a man thinketh, so is he."

Looking forward to your other thoughts.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Apr, 2019 09:52 am
@Leadfoot,
all the evidence supports and none refutes.(I get tired of saying the ame thing over and over). Its what separates a "theory" from a "belief".

You discount evidence because it is dangerous to ID's worldview. Theres really no fact upon which to base it as even a hypothesis.


Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Apr, 2019 10:31 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Theres really no fact upon which heres really no fact upon which to base it as even a hypothesis.

Oh come now, the fact that there is even one sentient being able to wonder about it is fact enough.

And if you put forth the position that I am not qualified to make that call and should defer to experts, then why should I believe you rather than someone with significantly more qualifications? James Tour makes the statement that = anyone who tells you they know how life came to be is lying.

But I don't discount the positions of those on the other side of the question. Here are a few of theirs. Why don't you believe them?

Quote:
Richard Dawkins – “…I don’t know how life began, nor has anyone else…”
He is silent about what evidence persuaded him to believe in abiogenesis. He has a backup plan just in case…Panspermia

Jerry Coyne – “…Just because scientists don’t know how life originated (I guess that includes him), it doesn’t mean they will not know in the future…”
He is also silent about what evidence persuaded him to believe in abiogenesis now…

PZ Myers – “…We Now Know For Sure How Life Did Not Begin on Earth…”( guess that means he doesn’t know).
He is also silent about what evidence persuaded him to believe in abiogenesis.

Larry Moran – He doesn’t know. He is also silent about what evidence persuaded him to believe in abiogenesis. He is a fan of metabolism first but is silent on the many chicken-and-egg paradoxes leading to origins of metabolism.

Dan Graur – He is silent about the OOL and what evidence persuaded him to believe in abiogenesis.

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/the-embarrassing-science-of-the-origins-of-life-the-missing-piece-of-evidence-that-persuaded-scientists-to-believe-in-abiogenesis/

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Apr, 2019 11:23 am
Here we go again with that idiotic theistic dodge, abiogenesis. If there is no life, and then life arises, that's abiogenesis, no matter what the process. Evolution is concerned with hat happens once life is present, not with how life got here. I can think of few theses more moronic than that if one cannot state to certainty how life arose, then somebody's magic sky daddy ought to be the obvious choice. Got any evidence that your magic sky daddy even exists, big boy?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 04/21/2019 at 12:24:54