How much do you know of Darwin personally Zoo?  I mean, have you ever read a bio on him?  Do you even know what the original name of Origin of Species was to begin with?  Did you know it had to be changed to even sell it in the first place because it was so racist? 

Did you know that it was NOT the Scientists who backed him in the beginning?  Did you know that, in fact, he rose to prominence on the coattails of religious leaders of his day?  Did you know his wife EMMA was a devout Christian reading the bible to her own children?   Did you know she wrote Darwin a letter accusing him of suppressing evidence to further his own theory?   I read his bio years ago wanting to know more about the man behind the theory. 

One thing, if anything that I picked up from this seminar I went to was  to really really not to underestimate critical thinking.  We need to be critical thinkers.  He brought out some really good points.  Of course the basic thing we have to continually ask ourseleves is this a belief or a fact?   Some of what I was taking as fact is, in fact, belief.  The Evolutionists do the same thing. 

We need to ask ourselves,

1.  Can we test it?

2.  Can we verify it?

3. Can we repeat it?

If the answer to any of those questions is no.  Then it HAS to be a belief, not a fact. 

I hope to expand more on this coming up in a separate blog on Creation Science. 

 

 

Welcome to the scientific method.


This is what makes or breaks hypotheses. Theories have been tested, verified, and repeated many, many, many, many, many, many times. They're still being tested to this day and where something appears suspect it is tested more and changed if it is found out that previous data was faulty in some way.

In the case of evolution we've been researching for over 150 years, with radioactivity over 100 years. I think we might have caught onto a fatal flaw that is so obvious by now.

~Zoo

Lula posts:

carbon/radioactive dating methods of measuring rates of decay certainly have  usefullness...jit's just that it must now be admitted that scientists cannot use this to determine the age of the earth as being 4.5 billion years old. All this is is wishful guessing.

Lula posts: [quote]It's been my understanding that Carbon/radioactive dating has long been proven unreliable with respect to the age of the earth.

 HA, I can relate... only the other way around...for years and years we've been hammered with evolution theory as fact (no critical thinking questions on the other side of the debate allowed).   I've been fighting that fbeing used in some of my kid's Catholic school textbooks!

Not any more....science is fast disproving the atheistic evolution theory of Darwinianism.

Oh blather!  Using this laptop is way tedious!

I would like a link to this.

~Zoo

Exactly.  If I give you a stopwatch  paper and pen and a burning candle  with marks on it can you figure out how long it would take to burn halfway?  Can you verify this hypothesis and write it down?  Yes.  We have the same Science.  What we CAN'T do is to know how long before the candle started burning.  How long was it burning?  How long was the candle before it started burning?  So how much was there to begin with?  We don't know when it started or if it stopped in the middle do we?  That's the problem.  That's when interpretation comes in. 

There was a guy mentioned this weekend, an Evolutionist whose last name was Milton...didn't catch his first name who wrote a book  truthfully writing about the problems with carbon dating in Chap 5 of his book (that's all I remember).  So there are even Evolutionists out there who debunk the inerrant carbon dating method.  It's not pure.  It's good and useful but it can only go back at the most 50,000 years according to their own data so how do we know what happened 65 million years ago like they report all the time? 

Then that's fine Zoo.  No problem from me, if it is indeed verified.  That's Science.  But I'm going to get into some "Science" that is believed that HAS NOT been tested nor can it be but it's still being taught as Science.  More on that later.

 

 

Didn't I cover this in reply 21?


Eh, I grow weary of this...


I suppose it is easier to say God did it all...much less thinking is involved.

~Zoo

Zoo posts: #1

Yes it plays a crucial part in the minds of Evolution theorists.  Modern ET, at least from the biology textbooks,  is based on the idea that random mutational changes  plus natural selection plus lots of time can produced new life forms. But the problem for them is mutations cannot produce cross species changes. Mutations do not give rise to new creatures, they only altar existing ones.  

For macro evolution to occur, mutations must occur frequently and be beneficial when the opposite is true. Mutations are rare and when they occur, they do not help or improve the organism,they only damage or weaken in some way so that it;s offspring if able to have any will not long survive.

KFC posts:

Right. Mutation experiments have been done by the hundreds of thousands and not one has been beneficial or had permanent good effects. That's becasue  Mutation is damage to a DNA unit, correct?  In this sense, the perfection of the code is damaged or changed.

 

In regard to the mutated form, when the antobiotic treatment is stopped, the number of the natural strain increases and the resistant strain soon dies out becasue as a mutated form it was never really strong.

So both normal variants and mutated forms can be involved. The resistance of houseflies to DDT and other chemicals is parallel to that of resistant bacteria. In any case, the resistance isn't evolution.

KFC posts:

I found this from CP Martin pg. 102 in AmericanScientist Jan. 1953...not once has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation..(one which is a known mutation and not merely a reshuffling of latent characteristics in the genes), nor such a mutation that was permanent, passing on from one generation to another.

Could it be that those you found in your search are a reshufflingof latent characteristics?

 

I thought you did cover it, Zoo, if that helps any.

 

Fortunately it's not solely based on mutation.  Some mutations have occured...but on the genetic level so they can be passed on.  The majority of mutations have no effect, some are detrimental and some are beneficial.

I had a fruit fly example where just the environment and food choice allowed them to evolve into two unique species.  I'll dig it up if you want to check it out.  So called "macroevolution" is just "microevolution" over a longer time period.  Longer time=greater chance for variation.

Selective breeding is also a form of evolution...albeit more of an unnatural selection.  Of course it hasn't been near long enough to make them completely unable to breed, but you can clearly see huge variation within the species.  If they were isolated then they'd become unique species.  Like foxes, wolves, and coyotes...all canine, yet very different species.

Heck, there were even different species of humans existing:  Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo neanderthalensis, and us, Homo sapien.  Out of those only we were able to survive...natural selection at play right there.  Show me in the Bible where it tells us about those different species of humans.

Thanks, Jyth...was pretty sure I did.

~Zoo

 

Lula posts:

 

Zoo posts:

I don't have link, but will quote directly including the highlights from my daughter's 10th grade biology book by Kenneth R. Miller, Ph.D. Prentice Hall Fourth Edition, 1998.

Page 272......Darwin and other scientists have accumulated a vast amount o0f evidence that proves that evolution has occurred. Some of the evidence certifies that planet earth is more than four billion years old....Much of the evidence is found in the rocks of the earth itself.

Evidence that supported the idea that the eatrth was very old first came from geologist James Hutton in 1788.  Hutton proposed that rocks, mountains and valleys had been changed gradually ...and becasue these processes operate slowly, Hutton argued the Earth had to be more than afew thousand years old.....

In 1830, Chrales Lyell carried these arguments further. Lyell's work was an important influence on Darwin's thinking. The evidence proved to Hutton and Lyell that the Earth wasvery old. ... At the same timeother sceintists while examining Earth's rocks began to make some startling idscoveries. In the stones they examined they found fossils.

Pg. 273...Earth's story is not complete without a "clock" totell us when things happened. Dating the Earth's past with the help of a record in the rocks is called the geologic time scale. ..More than 100years ago researchers noticed that certain layers of rock often appeared in the same verticalorder where everthey were found. It is the position of the layers relative to each other that determines their age. This knowledge helped geologists assemble a column of rocks in which each layer represented a different period of time.

Lower rock layers were depositied before the upper layers provided the upper layers have not been disturbed sincethey were formed. In addition fossils in the lower layers are older than fossisles found in the layers above them. Relative dating is a technique use to determine the age of the fossils relativeto other fossils found in the differentlayers of the rock.  However, because geologists did not know howlong ittook for the layers to form they could not determinethe actual age of the fossils.

In the middle of this century, scientists were provided with a tool called radioactivity that could determine the actual age of rocks. Rocks are made up of different elements..some are radioactive....(defines half-life)...Each radio element has a different half-life. Uranium 238 hasa halflife of 4.5 billion years During that time half of the uranium 238 atoms in a rock sample decay into lead 206.  Carbon 14 has a half life of 5770 years and half the carbon 14 decays to nitorgen 14. Elements with different half lifes provide  natural "clocks" that tick at different rates. When properly interpreted these clocks help scientists date rocks...

Suppose geologists have uncovered what they think is avery old rock one they think might date back to the birth of our planet...to determine the age, they measure and compare the amounts of Ur 238 and lead 206 it ocntains. Next they determine how much lead has been produced by radioactive decay since the rock was formed. Becausewe know the halflife of ur 238, we can calculate rocks age.     

Pg. 275....Because it has a relatively short half life, c-14 isn't really useful in dating samples that are more than 60,000 years old ..after this period there is really too little carbon 14 left tomeasure accurately...page 276....The traces of radioactive isotopes enable scientists to calculate the actual age of of a sample..process known as radioactive dating..The evidence provided by radioactive dating along with observations of loong trm geological processes has enabled geologists to compile a remarkable accurate history of life on our planet.

Using this data, scientists have determined that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old....by combining radioactive dating, relativedating, and observations of importanet  events in the history of life on Earth scientists have divided the 4.5 billion years into large units called eras.

Page 280 ...to place an absolute date on a fossil, scientists look for a sample of rock fromame geological layer and test its age by using radioactive dating. Potassium 40 works well with old fossils anbd c-14 is an accurate way of dating more recent fossils.

See what I mean about my frustration with what they teach unwary students? Radioactive dating isn't as straightforward as this...it's not 100 prooftrustworthy...it's loaded with problems...

first we don't know how much Uranium 238 was in the rock in the first place and there is no way to tell how much lead in the came from Uranium or how much lead there was from the  start.

Second no one knows for absolutely certain that Uranium has always broken down at the same speed. Was the rock sample polluted somehow?  What if somelead wasmixediniwth lava beforeit wasformed? or washed into by ground water ust before it hardened? 

It's a known fact that scientists have done radioactive dating on rocks of known age and come up with dates that were wrong by tens of millions of years. Take the Hawaiaian volcanoe that erupted in 1801. Scientists tried to date the lava 12 times and came up with dates from between 140 million years to 2.96 billion years. Again radioactgive dating doesn'tprove anything about the age of the earth....at best it's an attempt, an assumption  to date the age of rocks and that's how it should be purported in science text books..

Isochron dating.

"Isochron dating is a common technique of radiometric dating and is applied to date certain events, such as crystallization, metamorphism, shock events, and differentiation of precursor melts, in the history of rocks. Isochron dating can be further separated into mineral isochron dating and whole rock isochron dating; both techniques are applied frequently to date terrestrial and also extraterrestrial rocks (meteorites). The advantage of isochron dating as compared to simple radiometric dating techniques is that no assumptions about the initial amount of the daughter nuclide in the radioactive decay sequence are needed. Indeed the initial amount of the daughter product can be determined using isochron dating. This technique can be applied if the daughter element has at least one stable isotope other than the daughter isotope into which the parent nuclide decays."



I know the 4.5 billion years thing was around, learned it myself. Makes sense to me.

I wanted a link to show where scientists have said that it is flat out wrong or "wishful thinking."

~Zoo

Different species of humans , nah, no way. Where's the proof...you know those transitional  forms between apes and humans?

Man...there's only one species and all humans belong to this one...ancient man, early man and Modern man all are members of one species.....homo sapiens.  The name homo sapiens in latin is "the wise one".

Australopithicines is supposed to be the oldest  human ancester, an apefrom the neck up...found in Africa.  After 20  years of study, the Australopithicine has been determined to be an ape in the chimpanzee family.  One of the most famous Australopiticines was named "Lucy".  Homo habilis is another ape. In the 1960s, Leakey found some teeth and skull fragments at Olduvai. He datedthem at 1.8 million years and decidedthey belonged to the humanfamily and namedthem homo. Today, many experts have clearly shownthat habilis was nothing more than a large brained Australopithicines. ..an ape, not a human and not a transition between the two.

The Australopithicinbes like modern apes had a wide range of varieties, but they were all pure apes.

According to A R. Kennedy's book, "Homo Erectus never existed", 1987. The famous ape-man, Java Man,  was supposed to be the species called homo erectus, the so called missing link. In 1891, A medical doctor , Eugene Dubois, found on the island of  Java a piece of a skull and leg bone.  He called it an erect ape-man, Ptithecanthropus erectus.  Turns out that Dubois kept it a secret for 30 years that he had also found 2 human skulls in the same area. Peking man is also called homo erectus.  All the homo erectus skulls that were found belonged to humans.   Homo erectus had a brain size likethat of modern man and vey similiar to the Neanderthal man who can be shown to be true human who had serious ricket and syphilis problems.

piltdown Man was a fraud which fooled the world's sceintists for nearly 50 years.

Hiumans are truly unique andthey don't have apes for ancestors. Dna has proven that beyond a doubt. The Holy Bible tells us that man alone was created in the image and likeness of God. Man alone has an immortal soul and we are created to live  eternal life in happiness or the dark, hellish  abyss.  

 

Wow...what a rationalization. Neanderthals were a whole species just riddled with rickets and syphillis? That's a little hard to believe.


A bipedal ape is a pretty good indicator that humans and they share a common ancestor, if they were not indeed the ancestor to begin with.


DNA shows pretty surprising similarities between us and our hairy cousins. In the high 90th percentile. Seems pretty darn likely. Also their behavior is eerily like ours, their innovation, several things, actually.

Then again, being on the same level as the rest of God's creatures doesn't resonate with Christianity. We're above all that...God bless our egotism.

~Zoo

 

Ya, com'on Zoo, remember the drill.....can you test it, verify it and repeat it? 

Is it fact or belief?....

again.....fact or belief Zoo?   Didn't I already cover this in my latest thread.....the fossil record shows that man has always been man, ape has always been ape...etc? 

fact or belief?  Maybe it points to the same designer?  I'd like to talk more about this later...too late now. 

As far as I know the textbooks keep changing because these theories keep changing but the bible remains constant, unchanging and there has been nothing found thus far that is not consistent with scripture.  Nothing. 

One thing Kerby said this weekend at the Seminar as he held up the bible...."if I can get you to doubt the first chapter of this book, I own you."  Who do you think he was talking about?