Posted on 06/09/2017 11:01:38 AM PDT by fishtank
Darwinism has nothing to do with the age of the earth which is probably billions of years old.
True Science is opposed to Darwinism for many reasons, two of which are:
1) Darwinism ignores the second law of thermodynamics which states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state https://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html and
2) There is no evidence of Darwinism’s requirement of transference between animal groups. “When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there” https://sites.google.com/a/georgiasouthern.edu/etmcmull/no-evidence-for-evolution-scientists-research-and-darwinism
Darwinism fails the scientific method and is a lie, a fantasy dreamed up by a disillusioned Christian who himself had fundamental problems with his own myth which he should have squashed like a moth.
There is no “Truth” with a capital “T” in science. All science can do is show us for a time what may be happening until we find a better theory. Only math contains a grain of truth and math could not exist without design.
Atheism is totally irrational since they “think” that everything comes from nothing and chaos. All the Design in Nature proves a Designer, at least. Whether you “believe” in a Deity is the key to Objective Truth (Our Constitution)——which is the most rational way of truly thinking and the ONLY moral way to perceive a just earth for humans.
Christianity is the most ethical system of any theology or philosophy. Only the Christian worldview created the Age of Reason and the Renaissance and the US Constitution. No other belief system has free will and Natural Law Theory as its basis—that of logic and reason and individualism (what makes us human and gives us dignity).
There is no more “perfect” system of morality since you can never use another person as a Means to an End in true Christianity. Darwinian “ethics” is removal from rationality and totally inhumane-—and is pragmatic-—the survival of the fittest where the individuals can be killed, enslaved or sodomized and it is “good” if the State benefits.
True Science is opposed to Darwinism for many reasons, two of which are:
1) Darwinism ignores the second law of thermodynamics which states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state https://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html and
2) There is no evidence of Darwinism’s requirement of transference between animal groups. “When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there” https://sites.google.com/a/georgiasouthern.edu/etmcmull/no-evidence-for-evolution-scientists-research-and-darwinism
Darwinism fails the scientific method and is a lie, a fantasy dreamed up by a disillusioned Christian who himself had fundamental problems with his own myth which he should have squashed like a moth.
Yeah, and speaking of Darwinism, where did obummer come from?
OK, but let’s stick to scientific facts and fiction.
True Science is opposed to Darwinism for many reasons, two of which are:
1) Darwinism ignores the second law of thermodynamics which states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state https://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html and
2) There is no evidence of Darwinism’s requirement of transference between animal groups. “When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there” https://sites.google.com/a/georgiasouthern.edu/etmcmull/no-evidence-for-evolution-scientists-research-and-darwinism
Darwinism fails the scientific method and is a lie, a fantasy dreamed up by a disillusioned Christian who himself had fundamental problems with his own myth which he should have squashed like a moth.
>>>Time, the all purpose explanation by evolutionists.
Well, the descendants of Noah were able to adopt distinct features such as those seen among the people of Africa, Asia, the Americas, the Caucuses,and the aboriginal people in Australia in just few thousand years.
Wow, it's almost like you never heard a debate on the subject or you would know that's not true.
God did create everything in a complete form. Adam and Eve were created as adults; Trees, plants, animals were created at the age that they could “bear fruit”. Which makes perfect sense. (without the chicken, you can't have the egg)
He did not create an “old earth” to fool us, the earth has just gotten older since creation, so of course there are fossils. I do believe the truth of His Word, that man is a God-created being.
There are those who prefer to think they are an evolution of apes. This makes no sense at all to me. If apes had evolved into humans then all apes should have evolved, but haven't.
Then there is the question of where did apes come from? All of the millions of living things in this world crawled out of primordial ooze and self-created the world and all within it - including apes?
Well, where did the primordial ooze come from?
So publish a paper. You are way too emotional.
Whether or not you accept it as such, you are making a statement of "faith".
And concerning evidence - what evidence do we have that life can appear spontaneously? Even Hawking gives this little credence:
We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small. Some people have therefore suggested that life came to Earth from elsewhere, and that there are seeds of life floating round in the galaxy. However, it seems unlikely that DNA could survive for long in the radiation in space.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html
It's almost humorous how this point is give such short shrift; in essence he simply kicks the can down the cosmological road.
Which leaves us where? If it is "unlikely" that life can spontaneously generate, we must consider the possibility that life was generated intentionally.
Logically (reasonably) we must then consider the possibility of a Creator.
“Anyhow doesn’t 300,000 years kind of mess with the six thousand year limit.”
Only if you assume radiometric dating is accurate and all the initial assumptions of it are true?
Beginning Conditions Known
Beginning Ratio of Daughter to Parent Isotope Known (zero date problem)
Constant Decay Rate
No Leaching or Addition of Parent or Daughter Isotopes
All Assumptions Valid for Billions of Years
There is also a difficulty in measuring precisely very small amounts of the various isotopes
Then we have the ongoing debate now about C slowing down and atomic time winding down.
The Decreasing Speed of Light - Evidence by Barry Setterfield
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdTlOVTDbNU
Not that it will do any good. Creationists are generally proud of their "faith" being immune to facts or reason.
Evolutionists use circular reasoning to prove their point.
Bmk.
If America evolved from England, then why is England still around?
I get into trouble in these threads also. Somehow you can’t believe in science and God.
Nothing emotional - just some facts - facts that Darwinism cannot overcome. .
Science has questions that we cannot answer. Religion has answers that we cannot question.
What’s the scientific method got to do with evolution? Evolution is not demonstrable using the scientific method.
I’ve heard debates, been in debates, and am in one now with someone who also has no answer to two stated fundamental problems with Darwinism.
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.