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.
God didn't sleep on Saturday and wake up on Sunday. The Bible just says He ceased from work the 7th day. The Israelites were, under the law, required to cease work on the Sabbath. They weren't required to sleep the whole day.
Since the evolution theory hasn't been proven to be true at all, why rewrite the Bible?
Even now, they are rewriting the evolution theory by saying that time was not a factor for maco evolution since the explosion in the fossil record in the Cambrian period "suggests" that all major life forms today came from that time period.
The going rewrite of the evolution theory is Punctuated Macro Evolution; Not Gradual Macro Evolution any more.
But then again, any rewrite would suggests what? That they did not know what they were talking about in the first place; and so what makes any one believe that they got it right now when it is a present going "theory" yet to be proven.
Stick with the King James Bible and trust Jesus as your Good Shepherd for the wisdom to see the truths in His words.
Punctuated evolution came out in 1972 I believe. It is not a rewrite. Nothing in science every comes out completely understood in such a way that new research will not cause for adaptions or tweaking of the original theory. Gould never said that punculated equilibrium was the only way evolution works and if you are using his work against evolution, he personally argued for evolution and against creationism. The Cambrian explosion does not mean that time was not a factor. Believe what you wish but do not misrepresent evolution. I would think that if your Bible and God are so true both of them could stand up on their own without being dishonest about evolution (and how all science works as well).
Since the evolution theory hasn't been proven to be true at all, why rewrite the Bible?
It's not possible to have 100% proof of any scientific theory. But the theory of evolution has strong evidence to support it. Read "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne if you would like to investigate the evidence for yourself.
There is no evidence, on the other hand, for a global flood. So at this point, evolution has more evidence to support it than does the book of Genesis.
The double standard is truly amazing: evolution needs 100% proof, but the global flood needs no evidence at all.
Punctuated evolution came out in 1972 I believe. It is not a rewrite. Nothing in science every comes out completely understood in such a way that new research will not cause for adaptions or tweaking of the original theory. Gould never said that punculated equilibrium was the only way evolution works and if you are using his work against evolution, he personally argued for evolution and against creationism. The Cambrian explosion does not mean that time was not a factor. Believe what you wish but do not misrepresent evolution. I would think that if your Bible and God are so true both of them could stand up on their own without being dishonest about evolution (and how all science works as well).
I'll admit that I am giving an opinion about punctuated macro evolution based on the given presentation as you are doing as well, but that does not make either one of us dishonest.
Gould had inferred that all major forms living today had originated "macro evolution style" from the Cambrian period, and it is on that basis that I see him saying "indirectly" that time is no longer a factor for macro evolution.
I mean, really. punctuated macro evolution is not the same as gradual macro evolution; therefore the difference is removing time as a factor for macro evolution to occur. There is nothing dishonest about it.
Throughout most of the 20th century, researchers developing the synthetic theory of evolution primarily focused on microevolution, which is slight genetic change over a few generations in a population. Until the 1970's, it was generally thought that these changes from generation to generation indicated that past species evolved gradually into other species over millions of years. This model of long term gradual change is usually referred to as gradualism or phyletic gradualism . It is essentially the 19th century Darwinian idea that species evolve slowly at a more or less steady rate. A natural consequence of this sort of macroevolution would be the slow progressive change of one species into the next in a line, as shown by the graph on the right.
Beginning in the early 1970's, this model was challenged by Stephen J. Gould, Niles Eldredge, and a few other leading paleontologists. They asserted that there is sufficient fossil evidence to show that some species remained essentially the same for millions of years and then underwent short periods of very rapid, major change. Gould suggested that a more accurate model in such species lines would be punctuated equilibrium
Now that is my opinion based on this rewrite of the theory of evolution which has been a work in progress from the beginning in being proven yet to be true; which means it is still in the abstract; hardly proven at all. It is a work of fiction; as in science fiction.
It's not possible to have 100% proof of any scientific theory. But the theory of evolution has strong evidence to support it. Read "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne if you would like to investigate the evidence for yourself.
There is no evidence, on the other hand, for a global flood. So at this point, evolution has more evidence to support it than does the book of Genesis.
The double standard is truly amazing: evolution needs 100% proof, but the global flood needs no evidence at all.
Of what are you afraid?
Did you check on the internet?
There is evidence for a world wide flood; it is just that evolutionary scientists are not going to mention it for it would spoil their presentation of their findings which is in favour of the unproven evolution theory.
From # 13 to #58 are the ones that address the general evidence; pointing one out;
Quote:
48) Mountain-high water level marks found throughout the world are consistent with the recession of a global flood.
I can see why Biblically, what people are afraid of regarding the world wide flood.
2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
The pre tribulational rapture event is coming when God will judge His House first, leaving saved believers that were not abiding in Him, behind to face the coming fire on the third of the earth and the subsequent New World Order and its mark of the beast system to survive of the great tribulation.
So for all those that get left behind; this promise is from God.
Romans 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
There is reason to fear the global flood than the evolution theory; isn't there?
Those are not websites from credible institutions. Any crank can put anything on the Internet. There are websites that "prove" 9/11 was perpetrated by the U.S. government.
Those are not websites from credible institutions. Any crank can put anything on the Internet. There are websites that "prove" 9/11 was perpetrated by the U.S. government.
Same can be said for evolution sites; even educational ones when they present evolution theory as if it has been proven true when it hasn't been at all.
Need I remind you about what punctuated macro evolution means in disproving gradual macro evolution?
How credible are those sites you so deemed as such when that is proof that the evolution theory has always been in the abtsract; a fairytale being rewritten when evidence starts to go the other way undeniably? There is nothing to prove that they know what they are talking about before or now.
Same can be said for evolution sites; even educational ones when they present evolution theory as if it has been proven true when it hasn't been at all.
Need I remind you about what punctuated macro evolution means in disproving gradual macro evolution?
How credible are those sites you so deemed as such when that is proof that the evolution theory has always been in the abtsract; a fairytale being rewritten when evidence starts to go the other way undeniably? There is nothing to prove that they know what they are talking about before or now.
Get your refutation of evolution published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, and I will consider it.
Get your refutation of evolution published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, and I will consider it.
Haha. Yeah, right. There is an oppression in the field of science wherein any one challenging the evolution theory is labelled a "creationist", lose their job, their tenure, and their position to submit a peer review. There is no real academic liberty to prove or disprove in relations to the evolution theory.
I'll admit that I am giving an opinion about punctuated macro evolution based on the given presentation as you are doing as well, but that does not make either one of us dishonest.
Gould had inferred that all major forms living today had originated "macro evolution style" from the Cambrian period, and it is on that basis that I see him saying "indirectly" that time is no longer a factor for macro evolution.
I mean, really. punctuated macro evolution is not the same as gradual macro evolution; therefore the difference is removing time as a factor for macro evolution to occur. There is nothing dishonest about it.
Now that is my opinion based on this rewrite of the theory of evolution which has been a work in progress from the beginning in being proven yet to be true; which means it is still in the abstract; hardly proven at all. It is a work of fiction; as in science fiction.
All science is a work in progress, all science not just the ones that you do not think agree with your creationist You even refused to use the correct termininolgy.
I could disprove the Bible easily, all I have to do is make stuff up based loosely on what is written in the Bible and then show that the stuff I make up is false. That is the MO of creationist' sites.
By the way evidence against the global flood predates Darwin as does the one time period needed for punctionated equilibrium which although rapid in geological times still requires long periods of time, read Gould's books if you doubt that.
You infer that almost all biologists, paleontologist, physical anthropologists, cosmologists, geoloists, geographers and physicists are dishonest writing and teaching science fiction and basically being frauds. Is there not a Commandment against false testimony
In another thread about could a scientist be a Christian Sir Issac Newton was brought up. One of his famous quotes was "If I could see farther than anyone it is becuause I stood on the shoulders of Giants" or something very similiar. Eldredge and Gould stood on Darwin's shoulders, they did not hack him off at the knees. That is how science works and I would suspect that both of them would be pleased if in 5 years or 50 years there are major revisions to their theory. That is how science works, a constist search for a more accurate model of how everything works and it is not a weakness but a true strength. We did not stop learning sciences in 1859 and we hopefully do not in 2015.
The punctuational nature of punctuated equilibrium has engendered perhaps the most confusion over Eldredge and Gould's theory. Gould's sympathetic treatment of Richard Goldschmidt,[SIZE=2][38][/SIZE] the controversial geneticist who advocated the idea of "hopeful monsters," only exacerbated the matter, which led some biologists to conclude that Gould's punctuations were occurring in single-generation jumps.[SIZE=2][39][/SIZE][SIZE=2][40][/SIZE][SIZE=2][41][/SIZE][SIZE=2][42][/SIZE] This interpretation has frequently been exploited by creationists to mischaracterize the weakness of the paleontological record, and to portray contemporary evolutionary biology as advancing neo-saltationism.[SIZE=2][43][/SIZE] In an often quoted remark, Gould stated, "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."[SIZE=2][44][/SIZE] Although there exist some debate over how long the punctuations last, supporters of punctuated equilibrium generally place the figure between 50,000 and 100,000 years.[SIZE=2][45[/SIZE]
Punctuated equilibrium is often portrayed to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism.[SIZE=2][51][/SIZE] This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next.
It is not honest if all you do is select creationists sites and use them as a conclusion on what evolution is and how it works and that is it false. I would not go to athesist's sites only to determine what the Bible says or what literalists or creationists say, I would and do read their own sites to see what they actually say for themselves.
Enough with you, Gould spent considerable effort defending his works from being misused by Creationists and now that he is dead he can no longer do so but others do. I heard from his own mouth how it troubled him the twisting and misrepresenting of his words and works by your side. I am glad I had the opportunity to hear him live. He was a scientist not a fiction writer. You might want to read his book the Rock of Ages to see how hard he tried to make it so that science and religon would not conflict and still some of the religious lie about him and his work.
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.
