Creationism

[rhomphaia]

I know of only one scientist,Carl Baugh,who is a christian scientist who strongly defends creationism.i.e. The idea of the formation of the universe through intelligent design of a creator.

Are there any strong proofs that one can use to secular scientists calling creation a farce?

 

[Brother Mike]

well

There is only scientific evidence that proves evolution based on man made measurements like carbon dating, and fossils to missing links they think they found, Bones can be anything you want them to be.

However, more strong evidence points in the fossil table, that something wiped out the dinosaurs all at once. More evidence points to a flood.

Some suggest that Noah had brought dinosaurs onto the boat. As babies, dinosaurs were mostly cow size full grown. We have evidence of human tracks with dinosaur tracks.

everything that the Evolutionist prove can be tested different and their can be another conclusion drawn to support Creation. All these test are based on speculated theory, and not proven fact that we can see today.



Jesus Is Lord.

 

[rlowe]

3 off the top of my head:

There are no 2 snowflakes alike.

Bees scientifically should not be able to fly but they do. :wink:

Saturn's rings are formed of particles, yet these rings are twisted. :shock:

 

[Joebob787]

I can think of some

magnetic Core decay, DNA, Cell, Helium in zircon,Geologic rocks( Take jar, put dirt and water in it and shake it up. Watch it sort into layers.) There are more but i would have to research them

 

[bruren777]

Look at the humming bird, they are tiny. However God created them to do things other birds can't do, they can hover, they can fly backwards. Every spring they fly from Baja California to northwest Washington state. They make a return trip to Baja in late summer.

Humming birds fly at 60 mph.

They return to the exact same spot every year. They also eat insects as well as drinking nectar from flowers and humming bird feeders. Their nests are about 3/4 inch in diameter and about the same depth. They lay about 3 eggs. Each is less than a 1/2 inch in diameter.

They were created by intelligent design, whom is God!

 

[natty threads]

My son is studying evolution ardently right now.
There's no way to prove an evolutionist wrong.

The theory so completely debunks itself that if a person doesn't see it I doubt he can be shown. The only hope is to tell people, like beating a brick wall, and eventually, years after you've told them, they may figure it out.

We're reading Stephen Jay Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. I didn't realize how extreme his theories are. It's funny, because I was an evolutionist, raised by an atheist and an agnostic. My father, being a Harvard graduate, is a fan of Gould.

I had thought him a casual science writer who didn't have much of a handle on evolution. His explanations were incomplete and often were logically, well, odd. The more deeply I studied evolution the more I realized that it is logically vacant.

I had professors in college tell me that they didn't know how a mechanism worked, but they had faith that scientists would figure it out. More than one professor, when pressed, said "What are you going to do? Believe in God?"

Not coincidentally, yes.

rhomphaia, the biggest obstacle with a scoffer is that person is really really angry with God and has already decided not to see.

Stephen Jay Gould has perfected this with punctuated equilibrium.

No longer is a transition from one species to another a matter of millions or even of 100,000 years. It i a matter of just a few, or even one generation.

He claims that three species of humans inhabited the earth together just 40,000 years ago. Since many evolutionists argue and Gould does not disallow that these three species interbred at least somewhat

they aren't different species and the distinctions are imaginary.

Trying to get sense out of evolutionists has definitely contributed to my being a devout young earther.

Perhaps if there's a specific point you'd like more details on?
Non-Mendelian inheritence looks promising.

If you look up the hothead mutation you'll find some interesting reading. It relates well to articles you should be able to find on white rice reverting to red.

I also recently found on article on preventing variegated plants from reverting to non-variegated, but it was on one of those "buy the article" sites, so I didn't get a chance to read it.

So yes, there actually are viable mutations. In the case of the hothead, it is a mutation that also spontaneously reverses itself in fairly large numbers, or as some say, mutates rapidly back to its former form (which allows evolutionists to have progressively mutating flora as well as does not make them challenge their beliefs regarding DNA as the sole unit of inheritence).

In the case of the rice, a genetic trait that has been selectively eliminated will spontaneously reappear in the population.

Apparently even mutations are a conservative force.

I hope this helps.

Bless up!
Jennifer

I should say we are reading in the Gould.
We aren't actually reading it.
It's more of a reference book.

 

[rhomphaia]

What the bible implies

The Amplified Bible translation puts it beautifully this subject of evolution.

"For the creation (nature) was subjected to fraility (to futility,condemned to frustration), not because of some intentional fault on its part,but by the will of Him Who subjected it-[yet] with the hope..

That nature creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and corruption and gain an entrance into the glorious freedom of God's children." Rom 8:20-21

The words in bold once drew me like a magnet.What a wonderful way to describe a notion that came in creation's bid to fight off death and decay!

Evolution is simply adaptation to the challenges of an environment an organism finds itself in.If you look at the theory carefully, its like its basic principle is mutation/change.

When Adam fell,creation fell and strove from then onwards to adapt to death.Evolution is not a cause, but an effect! It did not birth creation.

Satan has fought to cut off God from Science using this theory,but God seems to suggest here that it is a futility,not a source of anything! No wonder scientists are ever crying about endangered species!Evolution/mutation solves nothing! nothing has succeeded in defeating death.

So when they sing evolution's praises,laugh at its futility. The new creation is coming.

 

[natty threads]

Oh pooh! Lost my post.

The upshot is that if evolutionists really believed in evolution they would realize that species dying off is a necessary part of it and would be happy not scared.

God is real.

The Bible is true.

All of Creation sings of the Glory of God.

Bless up!

Ah. Also, I am saddened that you only know of one Christian creation scientist.

Have you googled "creation science"?

Answersingenesis.org, the Creation Research Institute, and the Institute of Creation Research all come to mind as on-line resources.

It is not at all unusual for a scientist to believe some version of Creation, but they have been pushed into silence. This is changing.

Let me know if you find anything interesting.

Bless up!

BTW, my previous post had been about the difference between macro and micro evolution and that macroevolution, by definition, is not in response to environmental pressures.

By definition, macroevolution is the result of random mutation. The mutation is omnidirectional- the assumption is no tendency toward order in the mutation itself.

The directionality comes from the natural selection that follows the mutation. More complex traits are selected for after the trait is randomly produced.

Microevolution involves no mutation, is in response to environmental pressure, and is reversible, apparently even when the original genetic material has been seemingly lost.

I hope that helps you in evaluating evolutionary theory.
As you can see, microevolution in no way demonstrates even the possibility of macroevolution. It's a slick language trick. That is all.