Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
... I scanned it ... there are a few details that I would disagree with ... but the article is remarkably free from the usual 'flights of fancy' that Evolutionists normally confuse themselves with.Well then I can only assume you didn't read it. Because I'm pretty sure you have shown you don't agree with some of it at least.
...it's remarkably like an account of Evolution that a young Creation Science Student, that I know, wrote recently ... progress at last ... and on Wiki no less ... and being proudly quoted by an Evolutionist!!!!:eek::D
... no problem with speciation (within Kinds) ... which is what was described!!!Although the changes produced in a single generation are normally small, the accumulation of these differences over time can cause substantial changes in a population, causing the emergence of new species.
monosharp
Not 'kinds', emergence of new species.
...I would just modify the conclusion as follows:-You have no problem with a common ancestor for all life ? (Please for the love of <insert favourite superhero/deity> listen, this does not mean abiogenesis (the beginning of life) it simply means that once life began, it diverged into all known species.)
"Similarities among species (within Kinds) suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (of their Kind) through this process of gradual (and/or rapid) divergence."
... let me put it this way ... all Kinds, except Mankind, were DESIGNED to Evolve and to rapidly Speciate!!!If you want to believe that a deity created one form of life and that life evolved over time into all the species we have now then thats compatible with evolution.
0 -
... let me put it this way ... all Kinds, except Mankind, were DESIGNED to Evolve and to rapidly Speciate!!!
Now this is a major concessions guys and girls. Its just down to all but one species now? Did not expect that.
So animals do evolve and speciate? What were the last 1000 posts about?
0 -
Now this is a major concessions guys and girls. Its just down to all but one species now? Did not expect that.
So animals do evolve and speciate? What were the last 1000 posts about?
Nah, he's said this before. Animals evolve within "kinds", which are a little bit like genuses and a little bit like species, but with a fluid enough definition that it can be changed for every new piece of evidence found.
Ironically, all the "proofs" of evolution that J C wants - such as a dog giving birth to a cat or something - would instantly disprove it, and go to show how little he knows what he's talking about.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
... and here are the mechanisms courtesy of extracts from the article linked at the bottom of this quote - I don't agree with everything in it ... but most of it makes a lot of sense :-... let me put it this way ... all Kinds, except Mankind, were DESIGNED to Evolve and to rapidly Speciate!!!
Preposterous Nonsense
Confirmed evolutionist Derek Hough, highly respected author of “Evolution – A case of stating the obvious”, is one of an increasing number of scientists who now regard Charles Darwin’s theory that the staggering variety of life on earth was accidentally created by blind Natural Selection acting on tiny variations or random mutations in reproducing cells as utterly "preposterous" (his word).
The Self Developing Genome
The intellectually honest Hough therefore postulates the necessary existence of a "self developing genome" -- a complex controlling mechanism in cells that somehow orchestrates and regulates the DNA copying process in order to prevent "errors" and the creation of “unfit” forms that would then have to be weeded out by a process of natural selection. The genome, Hough predicts, is "likely to consist of a complex multi-hierarchal process which will astound us with its ingenuity".
Again, he is trying to explain why the fossil record does not demonstrate the accidental existence of zillions of "unfit" organisms, the discovery of which Darwin said would be essential to the truth of his theory and that he predicted would very soon be found. (Editor's note: As of 3.45pm today they have still not been found!)
Meaningful Mutations
If Hough is correct, then it becomes clear that “mutations”, the sudden unexpected changes in organisms, which result in the famous four-leafed clover, for example, or Mendel’s smooth and wrinkly peas, are not due to accidental “DNA copying errors” as cells divide and multiply, as has long been accepted, but are purposefully generated by an astonishing meta mechanism – the “Self Developing Genome” -- which can actually respond to the needs and pressures of the organism's environment.
But where does Derek think the first magical self developing genome came from? Since it must be far too complex to have possibly evolved on earth, he suggests that it must have arrived on a comet from a distant galaxy, or one of the infinite number of parallel universes envisioned by cosmologists! (Editor's note: Please do not laugh, folks. This is serious Evolutionist science)
Gene Switching
Astonishingly, however, the "Economist" article reports that just such an orchestrating, or "gene switching", mechanism has now been discovered in dogs -- and can explain how one ancient pair of dogs could have made possible all the breeds we now have. (Editor's note: Ancient Jewish tradition has it that Noah called them "Rover" and "Lassie".)
The Technical Accuracy of Genesis
If God did indeed engineer such mechanisms into all "kinds" of organisms, as he clearly did, then evolutionists now have even more massive complexity to explain the origins of.
Meanwhile the new discovery serves to confirm the scientific accuracy of the Genesis account -- namely that all the organisms we now know are simply breeding variations of the set of "kinds" of organisms that God originally created -- which is why dogs will continue to be dogs, and roses continue to be roses, no matter how exotic they become, and why endless breeding of fruit flies has produced only more fruit flies.
Micro and Macro Evolution
In summary, although variation within "kinds", sometimes called "micro-evolution", is a fact of life and has generated new varieties over the centuries, as Darwin observed and as is evidenced by every seed catalog and book on cattle breeding – "macro-evolution", the creation of new "kinds" of organisms has never taken place, and is simply wishful thinking on the part of those not willing to accept the simple truth of the Genesis account.
Extinct Forms and Fossils
Extinct and exotic organisms, not discussed above but evidenced in the fossil record, were always complete and fully functioning forms, not “unfit” rejects.
Some of those extinct organisms, such as the woolly mammoth and the saber-toothed tiger, for example, were evidently variants on still-extant forms and lived in the pre-Flood world that lasted from Adam to Noah.
Embarrassing Admissions
As a result of the shameful connivance of the mass media, the BBC in particular, and the peddling of evolutionary myth in every biology text book and encyclopedia, encouraged by the scientific ignorance and intellectual capitulation of too many religious leaders, evolutionists have understandably but erroneously assumed that the battle against the Bible and divine creation has finally been well and truly won.
As a result, they have now began to crawl out of the trenches and foxholes, so to speak, to make an astonishing and embarrassing admission -- namely that the theory of evolution is unproven, simplistic nonsense.
Derek Hough's book is a prime example, and should be required reading for every Christian person. Also recommended are: "Evolution: a Theory in Crisis", by Michael Denton, and "The Great Evolution Mystery", by Gordon Rattray Taylor.
ADDENDUM -- Mendel would turn in his grave . . .
A recent article of the above title in the British "New Scientist" magazine (27 May 2006, page 16 ) says: "Another direct challenge has been posed to one of the cornerstones of biology, Mendel's laws of inheritance" -- which state that the characteristics of a particular offspring are dictated by dna, by the combination of dominant and recessive genes in the two parents.
However, in direct violation of Mendel's laws, researchers at a university in Nice, in France, have now discovered in breeding experiments involving mice with brown tails and spotted tails that even after several generations, puppy mice may be born with spotted tails when neither parent possesses the relevant genes. The researchers suggest that in addition to DNA, the action of which is govnerned by Mendel's laws, molecules of RNA may also be transferred in the reproductive process and be instrumental in passing on genetic information not present in the DNA in the genes, a kind of back-door delivery. How it does this is not known, but the team leader stated that "such oddities are likely to be just the tip of the iceberg".
Meanwhile, the lay observer could be forgiven for assuming from the confident assertions of evolutionists of the likes of Richard Dawkins, who declare non-believers in the gospel of Darwin to be literally insane, that "Evolution" already has all the answers -- even claiming DNA to be the source of mind, personality, consciousness, emotion and instict. The simple fact is that, despite their wild speculations, science does not even understand the function of most of the DNA found in cells, casually dismissing it as so much genetic waste of "junk".
... and you can read all about it here:-
http://www.creationfoundation.co.uk/Evolution/e4.html0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Again, he is trying to explain why the fossil record does not demonstrate the accidental existence of zillions of "unfit" organisms, the discovery of which Darwin said would be essential to the truth of his theory and that he predicted would very soon be found. (Editor's note: As of 3.45pm today they have still not been found!)
Any organism that dies childless is by definition an unfit organism.
And unless you are trying to suggest that every single fossil has produced children, the fossil is full of unfit organisms.0 -
J C wrote:Again, he is trying to explain why the fossil record does not demonstrate the accidental existence of zillions of "unfit" organisms, the discovery of which Darwin said would be essential to the truth of his theory and that he predicted would very soon be found. (Editor's note: As of 3.45pm today they have still not been found!)
Really, these guys might tend to disagree.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement