Skip to comments.Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory
Posted on 03/11/2019 2:51:56 PM PDT by Sopater
click here to read article
A theory is only as good as it’s predictions. Evolution fails to explain so many features and uses circular logic is claiming the age of the dirt give the age of the fossils and vice verse, can’t have it both ways! No explanation for Mt. St. Helens, for polystrate fossils, for carbon-14 found in dinosaur bones, etc.
Below is a link coming up on only 40 years old with proven predictions and explanations that agree with the Biblical record. Most of us don’t have the time to read 350+ pages of this free online book so I heartily endorse watching the video links because they’ll explain it in a way that words and pictures simply cannot:
Center for Scientific Creation
The link above is for the hydroplate theory by Dr. Walt Brown while the website has still been around more than half of that time. Granted 40 years is infancy when it comes to theories but this is truly the best scientific and christian explanation for the fossil record and a myriad of other previously unexplained features in our Earth, and solar system.
See, I took Logic in college.
A is false, therefore B is true just doesn't pass muster. I'm guessing you don't know anything about the General Theory of Relativity and couldn't understand the introduction in any text about it, so why form a belief about it. I don't know is a perfectly acceptable position about creation (and General Relativity).
I follow the New Testament Of Jesus Christ. Much of the Old Testament are tales and morality plays. What is the difference between Noahs Arc and the epic of Gilgamesh? Yes science has discussed a possible flood. It was caused possibly by the overflow of the Mediterranean through the Bosporus into the Black Sea 8000-10000 years ago from ice age melt water. Something like that is a theory. No solid evidence. Yet.
Evolution (no not early Darwinism as his theories were raw and lacked the kinds of evidence available today) as it stands today, Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact. Many small aspects of evolution ARE theories. The basic concept of Evolution is a fact.
God set the universe into motion. He allowed man to develop a brain. He expects man to use the intelligence he was endowed with to learn and understand from learning how to use fire, invent the wheel and leverage to understanding the species on the planet and what they evolved from.
“The basic concept of Evolution is a fact.”
Thanks. Good you are here.
No, you do not follow the New Testament Of Jesus Christ if you think that much of the Old Testament are tales. Such as in predominate modern RC scholarship , the days of creation, Eve and the Serpent, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, the extreme ages of the patriarchs, the crossing of the Red Sea, Balaam and the donkey, Jonah and the Fish, Joshua's Long Day, etc.
For in the NT the Holy Spirit refers to such stories as being literal historical events (Adam and Eve: Mt. 19:4; Abraham, Issac, Exodus and Moses: Acts 7; Rm. 4; Heb. 11; Jonah and the fish: Mt. 12:39-41; Balaam and the donkey: 2Pt. 2:15; Jude. 1:1; Rev. 2:14). Indeed the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety (2Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9), and if such an account as that of Jonah and the whale is rejected as literally true, then so can the resurrection which the Lord likened to the story of Jonah: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40) And Israel's history is always and inclusively treated as literal.
I am guessing that you converse with people from the position that you are smarter than they are. I am further guessing that you miss a lot when having discussions with others. Just a guess though.
I have a Physics Degree and I know that General Relativity is beyond the scope of MY brain. I assume that the same is true for almost everyone I might come in contact with.
Why don't you address the point I actually made, or did you not understand what it was?
If you read my post you would realize I was agreeing with you. I accept relativity even though I don’t understand it, but evolution is a crock (your words). I agree with that. So my point is that if science cannot offer a sound explanation for creation, then what is wrong with “believing” creation. That does not mean I ascribe to if not a then b (that was really pompous). It means that if you are processing something in the realm of “pick a belief and run with it “ then why not pick creation. If you read my post you would read that I said one is absurd as the other.
You explain. Look it up. Read something not published by evangelicals whose whole purposes is to look for kinks in the science. Yes their are kinks. But the basic concept is rock solid...like dino coprolites from 66 MYA.
Luddites abound. I suppose as a constitutional conservative I must hang with strange bedfellows.
Likening those who believe the OT miraculous accounts (and thus not subscribing to liberal revisionism) to Luddites means that you have done so to the risen Lord savior and judge Jesus Christ and the holy apostles.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (Romans 1:22)
How many thousands more consider Darwins theory on evolution to be sound science?
So says you. Not saying very much. Trying to make a point by comparing conservatives to liberals is a sad old saw.
I believe the teachings of Jesus Christ. I believe the whole shooting match from 14 billion years ago on down was caused by a divine presence. I dont have to follow a very narrow teaching trying to explain everything they couldnt fathom and written down by sandal wearing sheep herders.
On the other hand, I do know scientists, personally I know how egotistical they can be I dont believe the crap they put forward to push a socialist agenda. (Some with eyes open and seeing their prize. Others are useful idiots of the left or just shills for the dollars they will get in research grants and are willing to say anything to get that money)
So I do not follow scientific propositions blindly. I take everything with a grain of salt.
“You explain. Look it up. Read something not published by evangelicals whose whole purposes is to look for kinks in the science. Yes their are kinks. But the basic concept is rock solid...like dino coprolites from 66 MYA.”
You made an unsubstantiated vaguely defined assertion. I am asking you to substantiate it and define it more clearly.
To many, it’s much much more than that.
It's not the "theory" of evolution it's the "anecdotes" of evolution. There is no math what so ever to support the anecdotes.
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.