Posted on 06/01/2017 6:17:48 PM PDT by lasereye
Refuting something is not the same as proving something. And that's the big problem with the so-called creation scientists: They equate refuting with proving. The best that creationists can do is raise speculative doubts about a scientific theory, while proving their own theory on Biblical faith. That's fine and I respect that, but Biblical faith is not science.
Could be an atheist, too, but that’s okay. We are here to help.
I have ZERO problem with evolution and the Bible. Saying that we could not be the result of evolution kind of puts a limitation on God.
“Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. is no more of a scientist than the so-called scientists who walk lock-step with the climate change religion.”
Why do you say this?
I have ZERO problem with evolution and the Bible. Saying that we could not be the result of evolution kind of puts a limitation on God.
It takes testicular circumference to post this article. Well done. Bookmarked.
As far as the title, the keen thing about evolution is it can’t be disproven.
Because it is agenda driven and result oriented. “I will prove what I believe.” That’s not science — or should I say, that never used to be science. Thanks to the global warming fruit loops, believing something now means truth with no more evidence than criticism of opposing points of view. Very sad.
Evolution is a theory and doesn’t claim without uncertainty to explain all genetic changes over time. The IC”R” again posits no alternative view to explain, other than to say “God did it”. This is a fine theological position but it lacks any scientific proof.
The faithles IC”R” seeks to prove God through science. It seeks to completely invslidate a theory through the inherent imperfection of any scientific theory.
These Godless and incompetent fools never fail to amuse.
>>As far as the title, the keen thing about evolution is it can’t be disproven.<<
Of course it can.
-——I can tell you scientifically why AGW is NOT a scientific theory and why TToE is.-——
Which theory of evolution?
Macro or micro?
Micro evolution is easily proven over a short fimeframe of hundreds of years or less.
Macro evolution is not so easily proven.
I find most of it absurd on its face. The math simply doesn’t work.
No, it can’t.
Provide one experimental example.
That’s about what I’m saying , sorta.
Today ..Now look around..
A bird is a bird not a bird turning into something else.
Evolution should be Still rolling along
with Every species having a freaky oddball
birth of a critter that is superior to it’s parents.
You’re biased, clearly.
My guess is you do not have a science degree either.
Evolution is absolutely incompatible with our Christian faith.
Scripture says that death was the consequence of sin, that death did not occur until after humans sinned.
Evolution says that death was the means through which humanity came to be.
Christ came to address sin and death.
The origin of sin and death are central to our faith ...
“DNA is a blueprint for manufacturing proteins—equivalent to manufacturing bricks, steel and glass.”
DNA is a lot more than just that.
Evolutionary theory did not predict what DNA is and it did not predict even predict the blueprint aspects of coding genes you mention above, vis-a-vis species - it was in fact totally wrong in its genetic predictions.
And I am being broad here and am describing predictions based upon the modern synthesis understanding of the early 20th century.
>>My guess is you do not have a science degree either.<<
I do indeed and it is clear you know nothing about science. Now by itself that isn’t a bad thing. I could not rebuild a diesel engine, for example, if I wanted to.
But misrepresenting science - not a good idea. It makes us all look bad.
Of course TToE is falsifiable.
You need only to find a modern horse skeleton next to millions year old dinosaur fragments.
That is just off the top of my head.
>>Evolutionary theory did not predict what DNA<<
Proof you do not understand science.
But I am not going to refight the CREVO wars. I have made it clear to lurkers that I am one of many here who DO understand science and there are more of us who DO than do NOT.
My point is made and I bid you a blessed night.
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.