Posted on 06/18/2005 7:04:07 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Evolutionist continually refer to what they do as "science". The problem is that without the scientific method, it is not and cannot be science. In case you are unsure about the scientific method, it amounts to these steps:Observation. Question. Hypothesis. Prediction. Experiment. Analysis. The theory of evolution makes a big mistake in that the hypotheses comes first and all facts must fit the theory. Any fact that doesn't fit is discarded.
See post 21 for an explanation of "a lack of knowledge of the workings of science".
This is supported by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity concerning the characteristics of light. Specifically, photons of light can behave dually like a stream of high-speed, submicroscopic particles, but also like a wave phenomenon.
AFAIK, wave/particle duality is part of QM, not SR. Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect is related to it, also, but not Relativity. What more proof does one need that this "mystery e-mail" by an "anonymous professor" is either a hoax, or the machinations of an ill-educated nutcase?
Your right - the best mathematical explanation for the Big Bang is M theory - with 11 dimensions - that our universe was created with the collision of two membranes in the 11th dimension.
The author would have done better to find an anomalous source.
What?
None of the versions of the Bible I've read come even close to saying this.
However, the Creationists will in general jump to defend this article. No wonder scientific work is being outsourced.
Hmm, I wonder how many posts you read on this thread. I have yet to see one creationist defend this article. For reference you might try reading posts 9, 11, and 26.
ID does not equal genesis. I dont know why fundamentalists are hitching their cart to this horse.. I suppose its the best they can do with real science..
Uh huh. So sometime about 4,000 years ago the entire earth was covered by a great flood? So where are the mass extinctions, sediment layers, etc... to show any evidence of this? How come we have any genetic diversity at all if we are all the relatively recent decendents of Noah? That's more than a little inconsistent. Even Coyoteman's story is more plausible.
Notice it says "waters" not "water". The latest theory is that all those subatomic particles, before being transformed into nuclei... exhibited the physical properties of liquids... therefore they could be the waters that Gen. refers to. First came the subatomic particles in the form of waters, next came light... Just as described!
Hmm, I don't know. It seems that scientists have proven that the human genome has less than 1% of diference from race to race. Seems plausible to me. I would think that the evolutionist theory of genetic mutation would easily account for such a small amout of diversity. That is, considering you think we all evolved from ectoplasmic goo over the course of a few million years.
I'm really curious what you are intending to say. Please support your explanation with some relevant examples from the history of biology.
I think you ought to know that evolution was accepted as a fact by biologists and theologians long before Darwin. Natural Selection was hypothesized to explain evolution, not prove it.
Bats are birds? (Leviticus 11:19)
yes, I read some work on that, that it was water that was the basic building block of life, that God used water to make the ground, to eventually make Man
Water is used in many analogies, the most prominant being LIVING WATER, I guess
THE HORSE 'SERIES' When challenged to produce a series of fossils demonstrating the transition of one species into another, the 4-3-1 toe evolution of the horse is frequently presented as evidence. However, (A) Over twenty different geneological 'trees' have been drawn up by various scientists. This is because there are 250 similar looking animals to chose from. Those which contradict the series are ignored. (B) All the known species of birds and mammals appear and 'diversify' within the last 150 Million years according to the evolutionists geological time scale. At this rate, the 70 million years it has taken simply to modify a horse's hoof is far too large a proportion of the time since mammals first appeared. There is therefore something seriously wrong with the time scale. (C) Some animals used in the sequence have differing numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae, indicating that various species have been used to compile the series, but this is ignored as this contradicts the theory. Most of these fossil animals have been found in America. Yet the first fossils of modern horses they are supposed to lead up to are found in Europe. (Present American horses are a recent introduction). Two evolutionists - Prof. George Gaylord Simpson said "It never happened in nature" and Charles Deperet called it "a deceitful illusion"
Start with that...I'll find you some more.
Having no desire to reenter the evolution debate at the moment, this article being the matter at hand, it is safe to say it is claptrap and obviously does not provide the "mechanism" it claims. Further, I am unaware of the need for believers in God's creation to identify any such "scientific mechanism". As opposed to faith.
the horned owl, the screech owl, and the gull, any kind of hawk, WEB
and the ostrich, and the night-hawk, and the seamew, and the hawk after its kind, ASV
And the ostrich and the night-hawk and the sea-hawk, and birds of that sort; BBE
and the female ostrich and the male ostrich, and the sea-gull, and the hawk, after its kind; DBY
And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after his kind, KJV
And the owl, and the night-hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, WBS
and the ostrich, and the night-hawk, and the sea-mew, and the hawk after its kinds; JPS
and the owl, and the night-hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after its kind, YLT
Which version of the Bible were you reading?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.