Scientific Proof Against Evil-lution

Originally posted by e4chris
I should clarify i have a degree in chemistry, not biology true, but unless you have one i doubt you can educate me much on this

Where's the compassion in Chemistry?
Chemistry will never replace religion.
Chemistry led to mustard gas.
Chemistry is a dangerous thing when taken out of the text books.
Chemistry led to 9/11

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did not say it was possible, just becasue they are both in the cat family. I said it was impossible, if they are not both in the cat family. A mule is in the horse family. That does not mean I think a mule can give birth to a shetland pony. All I said was that God has set limits. 😏

So where in the bible does it say that an animal of one species cannot give birth to one of a different species but the same 'kind'?

You seem to think that the bible gives you all the answers and that you need look no further. Where does it tell you not to expect to see lynx's giving birth to jaguars?

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
So where in the bible does it say that an animal of one species cannot give birth to one of a different species but the same 'kind'?

You seem to think that the bible gives you all the answers and that you need look no further. Where does it tell you not to expect to see lynx's giving birth to jaguars?

--- Penguin.

The Holy Bible is not a biology textbook from God. It give the information in generalities and not in specifics.

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.

God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.

(Genesis 1:11, 21-22, 24 NKJV)

The phrase according to its kind is a genearal statement meaning that God made the certain kinds of creatures that were made to multiply or reproduce according to their kind. This rules out the possibility that all creatures came from one common ancestor as Darwin hypothesized. It was left up to man to name the animals, so there is no mention of the lynx or the jaguar or lion or tiger, etc. But we get the general idea that kinds do not cross over and produce creatures of a different kind.

Originally posted by OdBod
Evolution is just one of the theories that most atheists cite .There are many others that refute the time line creationists believe in, for example do you agree that the speed of light is constant at 186000 miles per second (no point in going further until you answer) .

I don't need evolution to refuse the young earth creationist codswallop. Geology will do just fine for that. Building up miles of silt on the sea floor takes a very long time, much longer than a piddling few thousand years.

Originally posted by Kepler
I don't need evolution to refuse the young earth creationist codswallop. Geology will do just fine for that. Building up miles of silt on the sea floor takes a very long time, much longer than a piddling few thousand years.

He won't even accept the speed of light , good luck!

Originally posted by Kepler
I don't need evolution to refuse the young earth creationist codswallop. Geology will do just fine for that. Building up miles of silt on the sea floor takes a very long time, much longer than a piddling few thousand years.

The worldwide flood took care of that. See what I found on the internet below:

The worldwide flood described in the Bible would also place different fossils in the layers of the Earth’s surface. A worldwide flood would kill all the animals (except for some that normally live in water) and most of the vegetation. Without land to break up the tides, all water movement would become very turbulent, mixing the different sizes and species together with trees and other vegetation. Whatever happened to sink to the bottom first would be covered first with the earth and silt stirred up during the flood. Those plants and animals that sank later would be buried in the higher layers.

Fossil trees are often found in a position where a single fossil occupies many geologic layers at the same time. These are referred to as “polystrate fossil trees.” Are we supposed to believe these trees died and remained partly buried for thousands or millions of years until they became completely buried and fossilized? A flood, which would cause massive amounts of earth movement, is a much better explanation for the unique placement of both of these fossil types. For example, a whale that died or was killed could get temporarily stuck in an upright position and quickly buried. The same thing could happen to a tree.

Put simply, trees broken off during a flood would float until they became water-logged. Then, the denser (and larger diameter) root end of some of the trees would sink lower in the water, putting those trees in an upright position. Later, after completely sinking, the now upright trees would be buried in sediment. This happened to many trees when Mount St. Helens erupted. Any scuba diver in Spirit Lake (next to Mount St. Helens) can find many half-buried, upright trees (not stumps) in the bottom of the lake today.

These fossils and others that span multiple layers reject and disprove the concept that geologic layers always represent long periods of time. Therefore “dating” fossils by the layer of earth they are found in (to support the theory of evolution) is not valid. We do not dismiss the fact that layers can be laid down over time. We are saying that the existence of layers in the earth does not prove the passage of any specific time. Further, we do know that fossils found in different layers can be deposited at essentially the same time.

Large groups of fossils are often found together. These “graveyards” contain a wide variety of animal remains. Many different types of fossils are found mixed in with one another. How logical is it that animals would die in heaps, leaving their remains for a long period of time until they are eventually covered up with dust and become fossils? Does this happen anywhere today? Of course not.

On the other hand, if there was a worldwide flood, causing everything to drown, you would expect the bodies of all types of unrelated animals to eventually come to rest on the bottom of the body of water, in piles. As we mentioned before, the mobile sediments on the water’s “floor” would easily move around and start covering these piles of animals, forming mass “graveyards.”

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am trying to make it clear to everyone that creationism and evil-lution are on opposite sides. There can be no mixture of the two. There is no room for luke-warm Christians. You must not be wishy washy. You must declare yourself on one side or the other. The agnostic is afraid to commit. At least the atheists have the courage to make that commitment, ...[text shortened]... o hear that support coming from the unwary.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Oh, please.

This has got to be one of the most stupid things I've ever read on the internet, and that is saying something.

This is a major factor as to why people do not listen to Christians any more.

Stupid is as stupid does. There's also a lot of stupid people, Christians all, unfortunately, on the Texas school board of education.

This "my way or the highway" idiocy is just stupid, too.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Oh, please.

This has got to be one of the most stupid things I've ever read on the internet, and that is saying something.

This is a major factor as to why people do not listen to Christians any more.

Stupid is as stupid does. There's also a lot of stupid people, Christians all, unfortunately, on the Texas school board of education.

This "my way or the highway" idiocy is just stupid, too.

Here is a video link that I hope you will take the time to watch since it concerns your attitude, as well as many others, toward Genesis and Christianity.

YouTube

Originally posted by OdBod
Evolution is just one of the theories that most atheists cite .There are many others that refute the time line creationists believe in, for example do you agree that the speed of light is constant at 186000 miles per second (no point in going further until you answer) .

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99111&page=1

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Where's the compassion in Chemistry?
Chemistry will never replace religion.
Chemistry led to mustard gas.
Chemistry is a dangerous thing when taken out of the text books.
Chemistry led to 9/11

i spent 3 years studying medicinal chemistry... pharma, drugs, the difference between life n death to some, compassionate enough, penicillin is very compassionate vs coughing to death, we did study the bad chemists yes...........haber yes.....

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible is not a biology textbook from God. It give the information in generalities and not in specifics.

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit [b]according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.

God created great sea creatures and every ...[text shortened]... we get the general idea that kinds do not cross over and produce creatures of a different kind.[/b]

Do you think the bible set out to provide a detailed / precise explanation of how the creatures evolved, do you think thats its purpose among others?

to me its almost like its saying next, move on, it is not a science book it doesn't try anywhere else that i know of to explain scientific things.

Originally posted by e4chris
Do you think the bible set out to provide a detailed / precise explanation of how the creatures evolved, do you think thats its purpose among others?

to me its almost like its saying next, move on, it is not a science book it doesn't try anywhere else that i know of to explain scientific things.

I believe the purpose of the Holy Bible was to provide us with a foundation of physical and spiritual truths that we could build upon. It clearly did not intend to provide anything about evil-lution. However, what it does teach contradict that idea; first, because it provides only about 6000 years for it to happen and secondly, because it teaches special creation by God with the various kinds of creatures reproducing only after their kind.

So unless one wishes to change its meaning, by including adaption, selective breeding, and natural selection, which some have done, then there is no proof of evil-lution. Some have decided to call this change in definition micro-evolution so that they can still believe in the concept.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The worldwide flood took care of that. See what I found on the internet below:

The worldwide flood described in the Bible would also place different fossils in the layers of the Earth’s surface. A worldwide flood would kill all the animals (except for some that normally live in water) and most of the vegetation. Without land to break up the tides, all wa ...[text shortened]... s of animals, forming mass “graveyards.”

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml

Unfortunately a catastrophic event such as the flood cannot take care of several miles depth of fine silt on the seabed. The stuff needs calm conditions to settle and takes a long time to do so. We know this from observation. It is happening today and it is possible to measure the stuff and determine how long it takes to build up. A global flood should be evidenced by a hiatus in deposition globally. Unfortunately that is not the case.

Nothing to do with fossils or some pseudo science you found on that well known repository of rubbish known as the internet.

Originally posted by RJHinds
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99111&page=1

Excellent! In your OWN words do you accept that the speed of light through a vacuum is 186000 miles per second and cannot be exceeded.

Originally posted by OdBod
Excellent! In your OWN words do you accept that the speed of light through a vacuum is 186000 miles per second and cannot be exceeded.

That is the generally accepted approximation, but I do not have the knowledge to know if that speed can or can not be exceeded by the light itself. The Holy Bible says God made the light as well as that God is light. So this would indicate that God has control of light in any medium.