Examine your worldview, I beg you.
Posted on 06/09/2017 11:01:38 AM PDT by fishtank
June 8, 2017 | David F. Coppedge
Stop the Presses! Human Evolution Falsified!
Human bones found in Morocco undermine almost everything that has been taught about human evolution since Darwin. But is that news? Happens every year, doesn’t it?
This news is so hot, we have to get the word out now and wait for a fuller analysis later. Evolutionary paleoanthropology is in big trouble, if a new find in Morocco is as important as the news are making it out to be. Announced in Nature this week, the discoverers are dating bones from five individuals at over 300,000 Darwin Years old – over 100,000 years older than when they thought modern humans first began to emerge. And it was found in northern Africa – not at Olduvai Gorge or in some South African cave where most of the attention has been focused. Added to that, the discoverers found stone tools and chemical evidence of cooking, and are saying these people probably lived all over Africa at the same time!
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
“I get into trouble in these threads also. Somehow you can’t believe in science and God.”
True. Have you noticed that the radical creationists are not all that different from the radical Muslims and radical environmentalists?
In all three examples you have to strictly adhere to a very narrow interpretation of dogma or else be branded a heretic or unbeliever and even targeted for sanction or death for your dissent.
There’s no room to question their beliefs for the simple reason that their beliefs can’t withstand questioning.
As they try to explain away their critics their explanations become as convoluted as a Gaelic knot and their arguments inevitably turn back on themselves to disprove or contradict their original thesis.
And that’s where their arguments also start to resemble complex lies.
I’m with you.
How would the “process” of evolution create the trillions of differences which went towards creating the 10s of billions of different species we see in plants and animals.
There is an “intelligence” or that went into the trillions of decisions that went into what a species looks like, why it’s got arms and legs, why it’s got eyes and ears and feels through touch and smells and tastes, and biggest decision of all, why any species possesses the ability to think or use a brain in any capacity.
Evolution documents the apparent progression from the simplest to the most complex of life forms. But, it does not explain why or how or when or even or what features are needed in order to survive. Evolution does not document the why certain life forms will get eyes or ears or legs or brains or other characteristics. The characteristics are said to have been by necessity, but the necessity is a decision, like why a giraffe has a long neck to reach up for its food.
Life is very complicated, and evolution is a simple explanation, and leaves out the biggest questions of all, and that is, where did the decisions come from, to equip all life-forms to survive and even thrive in so many different environments. Evolution? Again? Nope, evolution is still the documentation of apparent progressions, with no real explanation of why or how or when or where or “who”. Nature has a way of doing things, but then, how did nature gain such capabilities?
And, no, the world is not 6,000 years old, and the universe is not just a “mere” 13.8 billion years old. There is a lot more to life and our planet and our universe, than humans can even begin to comprehend.
Agreed
My first! Well, except for Mrs. JimRed, and she's stuck with me. Bless you!
Agreed completely.
Evolutionists can’t seem to wrap their minds around the fact that their beliefs are just as much faith-based as creationist beliefs. But none of us were there. Creationists place their faith in Scripture. Evolutionists place their faith in uniformitarianism, believing that there could’ve never been any conditions or circumstances when decay rates, etc., could’ve been different.
The Apostle Peter, in 2 Peter 3:1-6, condemns uniformitarianism in its denial of God’s Word. The Apostle specifically mocks the scoffers for being unwilling to admit that the Flood occurred.
Christ, in Matthew 7, condemns false prophets, which are people who call God a liar, claiming He said something He didn’t say, and claiming He didn’t say something He said. There’s really no doubt at all that God, in Genesis, teaches a 6-day creation. Whenever “yom” is used with an ordinal number, it ALWAYS means a 24-hour day. And God eliminated doubt even further by speaking of the evening and the morning of each of those days.
If that’s where it ended would be one thing. But then the Bible proceeds to teach creation throughout Scripture, even into the Book of Revelation. (Rev. 4:11, 10:6, 14:7)
So for a Christian to deny creation is a dangerous place to be. It’s not just Genesis they must deny, but passages strewn throughout Scripture, including Christ’s own words (Mark 10:6, 13:19). There’s also, of course, John 1:1-3 which declares Christ was the Creator.
But hey, if evolutionists thrown a bunch of lifeless chemicals together and can create a fully functional single-celled organism, complete with organelles, cytoplasm, a cell membrane, a nucleus and DNA they could prove their point. Problem is, that’s simply not possible and so could never happen. Period. Or if they could provide just a few uncontested examples of the millions of intermediate life forms required between species they could also prove their point. But they haven’t.
If this were my site, you’d be banned as a serial spammer, repeatedly.
From:
http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm
“Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We’re working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!”
“... and to champion causes which further conservatism in America.”
I sincerely think Darwinism is an enemy of freedom and conservatism.
If you can get Jim to agree, then I’ll be banned,
“...but here I stand I can do no other.”
“Uniformitarianism is the assumption...”
Yes, yes, but what if your assumption is incorrect? It is an untestable hypothesis, after all.
Examine your worldview, I beg you.
It needs to be answered: How did Carbon-14 end up in diamonds?
http://www.icr.org/article/diamonds-may-be-creationists-best-friend
“Simultaneously during the RATE project, John Baumgardner discovered that diamonds contain measurable concentrations of carbon-14 that date them at less than 50,000 years, assuming conventional concentrations of atmospheric carbon-14 when they were formed. The question naturally arose—what was the source of the carbon-14?”
ps: that #91 is the kind of thing that'll shirley get folks to buy what you're peddling.
“Wow, an obnoxious high brow who is proud of it. All puff, little substance.”
It’s not easy being me. Finally I’ve found someone who appreciates all that I have to put up with in this world. Thank you for that.
You’re welcome. Glad to be of service.
Have a good day.
“Anyhow doesn’t 300,000 years kind of mess with the six thousand year limit”
Why would you believe this 300,000 number? I don’t.
God created the heavens and earth and everything in it in 6 24 hour days. I don’t know if it was exactly 6,000 years, but it wasn’t millions of years or hundreds of thousands of years, either.
“Incorrect. It is the job of those who support a theory as the best explanation for a phenomenon to answer challenges to the weaknesses of their theory, not the other way around.”
No. Not all theories are as well documented or as empirically provable as relativity. You will note that even relativity is still a theory. Imperfect, but the best we can do so far on the subject.
There is no specific body that accepts theory into the body of science. You are free to ignore evolution as a theory if you wish. Even if you have no alternative. You are free to disprove it as best you can. But if you want to play in that sandbox, you gotta figure out what you think makes sense and explain it somehow.
Science in general accepts evolution because it seems to answer the objective facts as we see them as best as we are able to explain it. It’s just the best way to explain biological diversity so far. It need not explain everything, and it surely doesn’t. It’s up to folks who study it to advance, extend, or disprove parts or all of the theory.
It’s not up to a theory to explain all inconsistencies that inevitably arise. Those who get emotionally invested in one outcome or another are not likely to succeed in doing anything
True that you can’t personally go back in time but no physical evidence in geology, physics, chemistry, etc. contradicts this assumption and, it is support by overwhelming observations.
That is easily answered by the fact that the environment has a lot of carbon 14 and it constitutes background “noise” that is corrected for in radiometric testing. Carbon 14 testing in once living samples is not accurate and thus not usable beyond 50,000 years.
Dumb it down for me: are random genetic mutations what led to mankind's status as the only truly sentient being, clearly distinguishable from all the other animals?
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.