Creation AND Evolution (prayer, preferences, conventions, Eden)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obviously, the discussion regarding this issue is at an impasse when both sides have made their minds up.
Christians are led astray when doubt is sown towards God's words;
But evolutionists are never led astray when doubt is sown towards macro evolution.
Why? Because the ever changing face of macro evolution allows it to change when their "facts" and their "truths" are not written in stone. There are no truths about macro evolution for anyone to cry foul on.
And yet evolutionists cannot perceive why some christians sees the redefining of the evolution theory from gradual macro evolution to punctuated macro evolution as making up their fairytale as they go along?
Obviously, the discussion regarding this issue is at an impasse when both sides have made their minds up.
Christians are led astray when doubt is sown towards God's words;
But evolutionists are never led astray when doubt is sown towards macro evolution.
Why? Because the ever changing face of macro evolution allows it to change when their "facts" and their "truths" are not written in stone. There are no truths about macro evolution for anyone to cry foul on.
And yet evolutionists cannot perceive why some christians sees the redefining of the evolution theory from gradual macro evolution to punctuated macro evolution as making up their fairytale as they go along?
Best leave them to God then.
There is no question of doubting God's word, only doubting that God's word, interpreted as absolutely literally correct in every detail, has no room for the evolutionary process attested by mere proof of Micro -evolution, accepted even by creationists, and a heap of evidence that it amounts to macro evolution in appropriate cases, given time.
There is no making it up, the theory is set out. If you don't buy it, that is up to you. I ask only that the evidence be looked at fairly and the closed -minded idea that the Bible is totally closed to anything but a literally -interpreted Genesis -type creation considered as possibly the preferences of some people.
We have seen that no evidence at all is given for Genesis -literal Creation, only some rather misconstrued objections to the theory - easily set straight.
Did you know that scientific evidence abounds to support the biblical accounts of creation and the flood? Were you aware that reports outlining this evidence passed peer review, and were published in the open scientific literature? Have you heard that, decades later, this evidence still stands unrefuted by the scientific community?
Understand this, we will NOT take a creationist website seriously. Taking this site seriously would be equivalent to taking a site that gives evidence for claims of Islam, Paganism, Judaism or any other religion you can imagine.
It does not matter if the creationist website sources it's material from a legit scientific source either (before that comes up)!
I have faith (hope? belief?) that the internet - that people like us - are going to change the world by changing minds.
And the key to changing minds is to expose them to knowledge. The net is making research free to anyone with a device and a connection. That extraordinary access to information dwarfs the invention of the printing press by many orders of magnitude.
One of mankind's near-goals should be developing a cheap net-accessing device available to all and making access free and global.
That should level the playing field in a couple/three generations.
And stupid threads like this will be good for nothing but nostalgic chuckles.
The Polonium Haloes were indeed the Only evidence I found in an intensive search - together with diamonds in volcanoes. The Polonium haloes have long since been debunked,(1) despite attempts to revive them last year. The Diamonds are neither here nor there. Volcanoes can be of any date. There is no sound evidence for Creation, that I am aware of.
(1) there are several explanations of why the Polonium Haloes do not stand up as valid evidence. talk origins ( it has to be said) provides the fullest debunking.
Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.
In the end, Gentry's young Earth proposal, based on years of measuring discoloration haloes, is nothing more than a high-tech version of the Creationist "Omphalos" argument. This is the late nineteenth century proposition that while God created the Earth just 6,000 years ago according to the Genesis account, He made everything appear old. Unfortunately, because Gentry has published his original work on haloes in reputable scientific journals, a number of basic geology and mineralogy text books still state that microscopic discoloration haloes in mica are the result of polonium decay.
P.s This is not dismissing the 'evidence' with nonsense about Cows giving birth to whales, but a full explanation of why the 'evidence' is fatally flawed. There is no scientifically sound evidence for Creationism. Creation only works if one believes that God worked through the evidentially demonstrated medium of deep time geology and evolution of life -forms.
P.p. s This is just another explanation of why Gentry's explanation is not only unsound but there are serious problems with it. Gentry (1970, 1974), himself, notes a number of aspects about concentric haloes which cannot be explained by the alpha decay hypothesis. Dwarf and giant haloes cannot be reconciled with any known alpha decay energies. Gentry postulates that these anomalous size haloes represent new elements or new forms of alpha decay. Neither explanation seems likely given the current state of knowledge of radioactive elements (ICRP, 1983; Parrington, et al., 1996). Other haloes show "ghost" rings which don't correspond to any measured alpha decay energy, and which remain unexplained. Finally, there are "reversed coloration" haloes, supposed uranium haloes in which the gradation of color intensity in the circular band is opposite to, and the ring diameters offset from, those in a "normal" uranium pattern. Other exceptions to Gentry's energy vs. ring diameter model have been noted by Odom and Rink (1989) and Moazed et al. (1973). Gentry speculates on the cause(s) of some of these anomalous features, but provides no empirical data to support any explanation. Indeed, Gentry appears to be more willing to question the evidence provided by the physical samples than to question the validity of his model.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-17-2015 at 09:52 PM..
Why? Because the ever changing face of macro evolution allows it to change when their "facts" and their "truths" are not written in stone. There are no truths about macro evolution for anyone to cry foul on.
And yet evolutionists cannot perceive why some christians sees the redefining of the evolution theory from gradual macro evolution to punctuated macro evolution as making up their fairytale as they go along?
.
Actually scientists would see this a one of the strengths of the scientific method - that as new data becomes available, we are willing to modify our theories, even throw them out entirely if warranted, in the search for truth. Creationists start with what they see as truth, then go to great lengths to refute any data that conflicts with their belief. Incredibly, but there are actually people who think the earth is only 6000 years old. I have much more respect for someone who says, well in light of recent evidence, I may have to modify the way I interpret the Bible. That's not being heretical; that's using the brain God gave you.
Actually scientists would see this a one of the strengths of the scientific method - that as new data becomes available, we are willing to modify our theories, even throw them out entirely if warranted, in the search for truth. Creationists start with what they see as truth, then go to great lengths to refute any data that conflicts with their belief. Incredibly, but there are actually people who think the earth is only 6000 years old. I have much more respect for someone who says, well in light of recent evidence, I may have to modify the way I interpret the Bible. That's not being heretical; that's using the brain God gave you.
When it comes to Creationists changing their beliefs based on evidence, don't hold your breath.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
