"Nothing comes from nothing, and nothing ever could..."
- Sound of Music
60 years? How about 160 years. “On the Origin of Species” was published in 1859.
Well, you were wrong right off the bat.
If some evolutionist can explain how life comes from non-life that would be interesting.
If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
Science is fine with dark matter, string theory, 37 dimensions, and all manner of strange ideas which “explain” things which otherwise lack an explanation.
But the idea that an Intelligent Designer had a hand in creating the vast array of life we see on earth, just goes over the line? I think they just don’t like the concept of God.
Fossil sicence is sophisticated and objective.
Please.
“… about a billion years ago wherein, during 70-odd million years, a startling variety of new …”
In science fiction an author takes a small amount of the observed science of today and creates a story about what might happen in the future.
In evolutionary science an author takes a small amount of the observed science of today and creates a theory about what happened many many years ago. Until a theory has been proven correct by observation, it is just a big story that fits the very small facts.
It takes a lot of faith to rely on carbon dating to date something one hundred million years ago.
That is, it takes a lot of Faith to create a “scientific fact” derived on 0.00005% observation.
There are only two possibilities, there is a God or there is not a God and both scenarios are frightening. If there is a God we had better find out who He is and what He wants. If there is not a God that means we are hurtling through space at 66,000 MPH and no one is in charge.
"Nothing comes from nothing, and nothing ever could..."
- Sound of Music
Saying life came form green slime or what ever is impossible. The calculations of the odds for life self assembling exceeds the the number of atoms in the universe.
David Gelernter, a conservative Yale professor of computer science, is suffering extreme ridicule and worse from colleagues for having just published an article in the Claremont Review, “Giving up Darwin.”
...
Looks more like a well done blog post than a scientific article:
https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/
This presumes the definition of "species" prior to its bastardization 40 years ago.
Ability to mate and produce "like" offspring.
Dogs don't produce cats and no creature ever slithered to or from the ocean in sufficient numbers to reproduce a mutation.
When people present lists of names like that I think about High Anxiety.
Sadly I could only find a link to the Q&A part of the conference. and not the part where Dr Thorndyke says that the Giants on the wall behind him had given them, the psychotherapists, a nice living.
But it will do. Enjoy:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=GYlepBd8cf4
....
How can this be, the earth is only 6000 years old, right?
By the way, the Claremont Review of Books is an EXCELLENT periodical and the article by ______ is good one.
https://www.claremont.org/crb/latest-issue/
1st law of thermodynamics
+ 2nd law of thermodynamics
+ fossil record
+ genetics
+ information theory
+ direct observations of intelligent design everywhere one looks
+ mathematical odds against accidental protein formation
makes it impossible for me to accept it on faith.
Does it change the price of your morning coffee, if all of us, never really gave a crap “where we started from”?
Yep - saw a movie once where someone said monkeys developed shorter necks because it made it less likely for a broken neck to occur from a fall - IOW, the ones with longer necks had a higher mortality rate and shorter necks prevailed. That's what happens under Darwinism rather than a Blue whale and a termite springing from the same life form.
