Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is, but, it has to be or else the paradigm comes crumbling down. It will be a while before they come to grips with this.
 
Providence - God is active is sustaining existence. Does He tweak? He may need to tweak the results of human action to save us.
 
What? Carbon dating is limited to around 50,000 years. If you find carbon, it is under 50,000 years old.

They date fossils found in rock layers by their assigned ages based on uniformatarianism. They now admit catastrophism.
 
Last edited:
How about - Genesis 1 appears to be written from God’s perspective.

Imagine a rolled up measuring tape 7 layers. God sees all at once. We live on the graduations and have to look past all of them.
 
buffalo said:
It is know soft tissue cannot survive thousands of years let alone 68 million.
Click to expand...
It was assumed. Not known. Big difference.
hmmmm Date the bones not the rocks.
Click to expand...
Since the means of dating the bones directly is not as accurate as we would like, dating the rocks they are in is the next best thing.
Do you believe a universal probability bound exists?
Click to expand...
I don’t know what that means.
buffalo said:
Right, because we know it has to be that old. Yet no known mechanism accounts for this ability.
Click to expand...
Just because we don’t know the mechanism does not mean it is impossible. It just means we haven’t learned how it is done yet.
Now that they are cutting more bones more soft tissue is being found. They RC dated some to 28000 years ago.
Click to expand...
Some? Not all? As I said before, it is not destructive to the theory of evolution if we happened to find some younger dinosaur remains, as long as most of them are older.
They date fossils found in rock layers by their assigned ages based on uniformatarianism. They now admit catastrophism.
Click to expand...
Actually it is a combination of the two. And it does not invalidate the method of igneous bracketing to date most dinosaur bones, for even if some of the earth’s crust was affected by sudden upheavals, most of it was formed gradually.
 
Last edited:
From God’s omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent perspective, to us, who only by the grace of the Holy Spirit can understand it, facilitated by His Church, providing interpretations to fit the paradigms of the times in which we live.
 
Last edited:
It was assumed no carbon was left to date. Not known. Big difference.

Carbon dating is pretty accurate. The big surprise is that there is any carbon left to date. Couple this with soft tissue and it becomes a real issue not so easily explained away. But, keep trying. See if you can convince anyone.

UPB is 10^150. Since the beginning of time if is calculated all the events at planck time are around 10^72. When calculating odds of something being chance vs design anything over 10^150 is considered designed or planned. When looking at the odds of the first usable protein fold being useful is calculated is it well beyond chance. Looking at all the fine-tuning we see, puts us into design area.

Essential reading…a trillion trillion years or more Uh OH! Essential reading for evo supporters.

When Theory and Experiment Collide

idvolution.blogspot.com

Essential reading.....a trillion trillion years or more

IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin
idvolution.blogspot.com idvolution.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:
Is nature mostly a tinkerer or an inventor? or was it all front loaded? by Who?
Who did the front loading?

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

more… IDvolution.org: Is nature mostly a tinkerer or an inventor? or was it all front loaded? by Who?
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Carbon dating is pretty accurate. The big surprise is that there is any carbon left to date. Couple this with soft tissue and it becomes a real issue not so easily explained away. But, keep trying. See if you can convince anyone.
Click to expand...
I think you have the harder job to convince anyone, since the conventional understanding is that dinosaurs were 65 million years ago. Hardly anyone disputes that. Normally I don’t subscribe to the bandwagon fallacy, but since you were trying to use it on me, I thought it only fair to use it right back at you.
UPB is 10^150. Since the beginning of time if is calculated all the events at planck time are around 10^72. When calculating odds of something being chance vs design anything over 10^150 is considered designed or planned.
Click to expand...
Giving something an acronym and pretending that it is a meaningful calculation does not automatically elevate it to the level of having real meaning, as opposed to someone’s made-up theory.
 
J Harlen Bretz was the only guy who got it right about the scablands. He was ostracized and marginalized. It tool 50 some years for the rest of geologists to affirm his claim. He was then vindicated. We don’t do science by consensus. It is provisional and one finding can overturn prior belief.

Right, they are still digesting the new info. It takes some time.

If you are playing poler and your opponent gets dealt 4 aces 5 times in a row, those odds can be calculated. At what point do you cry foul and say this is impossible, it was rigged? If 5 times in a row does not convince you, how about 10 times of 100 times?
 
Nature tinkers all the time. It cannot be shown that novel organs can be produced by chance in an already working, living, integrated system, but tinker it does. Single-celled living things should have stayed that way but they didn’t. The story we are told is that they upgraded to more complex and more complex forms. That they added novel organs and other parts and became many of the same sea creatures we see today. That they modified again to breathe in water and air. And again to breathe air exclusively. Somewhere, human beings were on the way too. No reason to believe that. So nature continued to tinker away until it came up with human beings. No evidence that’s the way it happened. But here, we are being told about the “science” of wishful thinking.

Digital code in DNA - two codes. That alone should give anyone pause.
 
Two codes? It is more than that Ed. It has meaning frontwards, backwards, layered, and double meanings. The god of BUC did it though. It just has to be that way for “we cannot let the divine foot in the door”.
 
That appears to be the reality while the un-reality is constantly being promoted here.
 
buffalo said:
J Harlen Bretz was the only guy who got it right about the scablands. He was ostracized and marginalized. It tool 50 some years for the rest of geologists to affirm his claim. He was then vindicated. We don’t do science by consensus. It is provisional and one finding can overturn prior belief.
Click to expand...
One solid finding. Not one questionable finding.
If you are playing poler and your opponent gets dealt 4 aces 5 times in a row, those odds can be calculated. At what point do you cry foul and say this is impossible, it was rigged? If 5 times in a row does not convince you, how about 10 times of 100 times?
Click to expand...
Probability with respect to card games is on a solid foundation because the probability space is perfectly known. Probability with respect to how the universe might have been created enjoys no such solid foundation. It is speculation, pure and simple.
 
We have two choices here. God is either a deceiver or Natural Evolution is true.
 
You honestly think it took 6 days for an all powerful God to create the universe and then he took a rest?

Wow it must have been a real effort on God’s part.
 
Last edited:
Indeed, the target search space is magnitudes greater.

“This now tells how precise the Creator’s aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 10123rd power. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0’s.” Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we would fall far short of writing down the figure needed.1

Roger Penrose - English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science
1 (References: Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind, 1989; Michael Denton, Nature’s Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 9)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top