Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Then you are even more wrong. Land animals were even longer before birds, contrary to Genesis.

Your are the one saying that birds came first. Now you are pointing out an even earlier trace of a land animal.

I said Tiktaalik was a land animal, not that it was the first. I merely referred to a well known early example. Thank you for your help in supplying an even earlier example.

rossum
 
Hardy. You post #392 ceased to be significant when the geocentric system used in the Bible was replaced by the Heliocentric system of the real world.

rossum
 
Are you claiming Einstein to be wrong? That the center can be anywhere?
 
buffalo said:
the center can be anywhere
Click to expand...
Anywhere our spirit imagines itself - the earth, the sun, the centre of the galaxy, which sees the earth spinning in a helix on a trajectory that is the sun’s orbit.
 
I am not talking about Einstein, I am talking about the pre-Copernican geocentric interpretation of the Bible. That interpretation said that the earth was static and the sun went round the earth. That is wrong. They rotate about their joint centre of gravity.

If you want to bring in Einstein, then please show us where God expounds on the algebra of four dimensional manifolds in the Bible, because that is what Einstein was talking about.

Am omniscient God would have no problem describing the algebra of a four dimensional manifold.

rossum
 
I do not believe the Holy Spirit was asleep until just recently.

You know full well that the math works both ways and the only way to know for sure is to observe our solar system from an outside frame of reference. We should take this to another thread though.

Einstein admitted in the late 40’s said no experiment has proved earth to be moving. There are several experiments that showed it is not moving.

Hawking in 2010 - we cannot tell, either one can be correct.

A philosophical conclusion is required, a worldview choice.
 
Last edited:
“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.” “The true God is a living, intelligent and powerful being.” -Sir Isaac Newton
 
Last edited:
Not to mention that your DNA comes from a single sperm that won out against billions in a single ejaculation, and countless trillions in a lifetime.
 
I wouldn’t think it makes any difference except for a set of different challenges. Most of the good and bad stuff happens between conception and death, the most important of which is what we do.
 
Einstein “admitted” nothing, because he wasn’t making any concession-- he wasn’t saying he was wrong about anything. The lack of an absolute frame of reference is the essence of the Theory of Relativity-- you can find all kinds of videos in Youtube explaining it if you’d like to learn.

Basically, it’s like this. You’re on a train, holding a ball in your hand. Is it moving? Yeah, it is relative to the Earth’s surface, because you’re on a train. No, it isn’t relative to your hand, because you can see it’s just sitting there. Which is the right view? There isn’t one-- you choose whatever view is practical at any given moment.
 
Last edited:
Darwinism was invented by athesits, but the idea has infected Christianity. Christians had no need to believe in evolution - they had divine creation as an explanation for how life on earth came into existence.
For atheists, evolution is their “creation story”, which they claim is the truth, since it is supposedly a natural process evidenced by scientific facts.
 
rossum said:
To quote Thomas Aquinas: “In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”

You seem to be in the business of placing obstacles.
Click to expand...
You seem to have overlooked the part of the quote that says, “if it be proved with certainty to be false.” Since microbe-man evolution cannot be proven to be true, it cannot prove that creation over six days is false.
 
Last edited:
The theory has no scientific use. It is useful for promoting atheism.
 
It’s only your rigid adherence to Bible stories as literal truth that is the problem. Whatever is real, God made it that way, and it’s bigger than the Bible. So instead of dwelling on the literary traditions of ancient sand-dwelling peoples as the ultimate truth about our physical reality, why not open your eyes and see what God has actually done with the Universe?
 
Last edited:
I’m not really into reading science-fiction. Real science is much more interesting, I think.
 
You keep saying it has no use, and I keep telling you several uses. With all due respect, I think this is pretty much a microcosm on your approach to learning: 1) decide what you want to believe; 2) ignore anything that doesn’t agree with you-- even obvious observable facts.
 
No, I’ve gotten the supposed uses answers before. They don’t hold up.
 
This is far more influential than science fiction. This falls into the propaganda category, which is why so much time is spent promoting it here.
 
rossum said:
We have fossils of land animals, like Tiktaalik, dated millions of years before the first birds.
Click to expand...
This reminds of believers in extraterrestrials, who say, “We have the evidence of crop circles.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top