Biblical Creation vs Evolution- The Fossil Record

disagreement here...the Roman Catholic church advanced and supported science, the famous Galileo dispute has been incorrectly as characterized as anti science but it more about Galileo personal clashes with the church than his science...Gregor Mendel a Catholic Monk is rightly recognized as the father of genetic study...

muslims promoted science as well,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world

 

I think we violently agree about the Catholic Church's direct scientific contributions.

Mea culpa, I was a few hundred years off (1300 to 1750 or so) the Muslim reference.

I wasn't attempting to compare the religions, merely pointing out that religion can both promote and inhibit science, sometimes at the same time (depending on the subject).

 

not a single one as should be clear. Did you read my op? if you believe one disproves creation chose any one and why, or if one proves evolution same thing.

 

Unfortunately for you, evolution is fake science. there been frauds, missteps, mistakes etc, during the 150 years or so since Darwin first posited the theory YEP. Have these frauds etc, been uncovered by SCIENCE? of course or you would have nothing to proffer to support you argument that evolution is "anti-science".

I get that your opinion is driven by your religious faith and as such is impervious to facts. One cannot argue with stupid, crazy and those of adamantine faith in their beliefs in evolution and its surrounding dogma.

Its funny, sometimes religions contribute to science (Vatican Observatory for instance) and accept prevailing secular theories like the big bang and evolution and sometimes evolution stifles both the acceptance and advancement of scientific knowledge (the muslim empire from around 1000 to the mid 1700's).

What next? life originated by itself?

 

and evolution can hinder science.

If Evolution Were True Would Science be Possible?

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if*their*thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
-C.S. Lewis (1898–1963),*The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.


Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science. Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations. So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident [our brain] to understand another accident the world? Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth. We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly. How do we know our eyes, ears, brain, and memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know. We could be in some matrix world or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ]

Science would be impossible unless our memories were giving accurate info as well as our senses such as our eyes and ears . Laws of logic are needed as well. How does matter produce a organism with memory? Or a consciousness. If this comes from mere machines [us] they why would not machines gain consciousnesses? Science needs us to be able to know our senses are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality? Also regularity in time space-uniformity [not uniformitarism] is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions.

Yet the universe is understandable, we assume the universe is logical and orderly as it obeys mathematical laws. That is how we can make predictions. Freedom to chose and consider various options free will not deterministic “dance to the sound of our genes” as Richard Dawkins described it. In fact if evolution is true evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them. evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.


But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature. I would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible. so that we were able to do repeatable* lab experiments etc. That there would be things like laws of logic, reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes, ears are accurately giving us the correct information, information to be able to do science in the first place. If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.




“Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.”
Harrison, P., The Bible and the rise of science, Australasian Science

 

Science was Started by Christians from a Bilical Worldview

“In truth the rise of science was inseparable from christian theology, for the latter gave direction and confidence to the former”
-Rodney Stark Bearing False Witness Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History Tempelton Press 2016

"Universities like cathedrals and parliaments, are a product of the middle ages.”
-Charles Haskins

“To identify the age of reason...reason originated in christian theology.”
-Rodney Stark Bearing False Witness Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History Tempelton Press 2016

"Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I’m not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed. It was, in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists." -Stephen Snobelen, Assistant Professor of History of Science and Technology,
University of King’s College, Halifax, Canada

“Science was not the work of western secularist or even diest, it was entirely the work of devout believers in a active,conciuos, creator god”
-Rodney Stark for the glory of god how monotheism led to reformations,science,witch hunts and the end of slavery Princeton university press 2003 p376


“it was in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born.In this newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound science will forever be in debt to biblical literalist “
-Stephen Snobelen professor of history of science u of kings collage halifax canada.


A book on how a christian worldview started modern science. The bible, protestantism and the rise of natural science

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Protestantism-Rise-Natural-Science/dp/0521000963

In the Book gods undertaking has science buried god? He Points out how the de-mything of nature was a biblical doctrine of a creator god existing independent of his creation enabled science to be possible.
http://creation.com/whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-lawrence-s-lerner#creationist
http://creation.com/the-biblical-origins-of-science-review-of-stark-for-the-glory-of-god

The fall of man and the foundations of science
http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Man-Foundations-Science/dp/0521117291/ref=sr_1_1?HYPERLINK

“The great scientific achievements of the 16th and 17th century were produced by a group of scholars notable for their piety, who were based in christian universities.”
-Rodney Stark Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History

• The creationist Robert Boyle (1627–1691) fathered modern chemistry and demolished the Aristotelian four-elements theory. He also funded lectures to defend Christianity and sponsored missionaries and Bible translation work.
  
  
• Cell phones depend on electromagnetic radiation theory, which was pioneered by creationist James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)
  
  
• Computing machines were invented by Charles Babbage (1791–1871), who was not a biblical creationist but was a creationist in the broad sense. He ‘believed that the study of the works of nature with scientific precision, was a necessary and indispensable preparation to the understanding and interpreting their testimony of the wisdom and goodness of their Divine Author.’
  
  
• The creationist brothers Orville (1871–194 and Wilbur Wright (1867–1912) invented the airplane after studying God’s design of birds.
  
  
• The theory of planetary orbits was invented by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), famous for claiming that his discoveries were ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’. Kepler also calculated a creation date of 3992 BC, close to Ussher’s.
  
  
• The theory of gravity and the laws of motion, essential for the moon landings, was discovered by the creationist Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727).
  
  
• The moon landing program was headed by Wernher von Braun (1912–1977), who believed in a designer and opposed evolution. And a biblical creationist, James Irwin (1930–1991), walked on the moon. See also Exploring the heavens: Interview with NASA scientist Michael Tigges.
  

• Vaccination was discovered by Edward Jenner (1749–1823—note that Darwin published Origin in 1859)
  
  
• Antisepsis by Joseph Lister, creationist.(1827–1912)
  
  
• Anaesthesia by James Young Simpson (1811–1870), who believed that God was the first anaesthetist, citing Genesis 2:21.
  
  
• Germ theory of disease by Louis Pasteur, creationist (1822–1895), who disproved spontaneous generation, still an evolutionary belief.
  
  
• Antibiotics, developed without the slightest input of evolution, by the serendipitous discovery by Alexander Fleming (1881–1955), who had previously discovered lysozyme, the ‘body’s own antibiotic’. And Ernst Chain (1906–1979), who shared the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine with Fleming (and Howard Florey (1898–196) for discovering penicillin, was a devout Orthodox Jew and anti-Darwinian. His biography noted ‘Chain’s dismissal of Darwin’s theory of evolution’, and his belief that ‘evolution was not really a part of science, since it was, for the most part, not amenable to experimentation—and he was, and is, by no means alone in this view’. As an understanding of the development of life, Chain said, ‘a very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory.’ And speaking of certain evolutionary examples, he exclaimed, ‘I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.’
  
  
• Insulin: its vital function was first discovered by the creationist Nicolae Paulescu (1869–1931), who named it ‘pancreine’. He anticipated the discoveries of Frederick Banting and John Macleod, who were awarded the 1923 Nobel Prize for Medicine for their work on insulin. See Denied the prize.
  

‘A very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory … I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.’

—Ernst Chain, co-winner of 1945 Nobel Prize for discovery of penicillin, on Darwinian evolution

In modern times, we have the outspoken biblical creationist Raymond Damadian (1936–), inventor of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner, and Graeme Clark (1935–), the inventor of the Cochlear bionic ear who is a Christian.




Physics—Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
Chemistry—Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
Biology—Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
Geology—Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
Astronomy—Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
Mathematics—Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler

To illustrate the role of Christians in the rise of science, Stark researched ‘scientific stars’ from 1543 to 1680, the era usually designated as the ‘scientific revolution’, and came up with a list of the top 52. Of these, 26 were Protestant and 26 Catholic; 15 of them were English, 9 French, 8 Italian, 7 German (the rest were Dutch, Danish, Flemish, Polish and Swedish respectively). Only one was a sceptic (Edmund Halley) and one (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 at least of which could be characterized as ‘devout’ because of their evident zeal.

 

What you are referring to is "The Golden Age of Islam", a time of supposed greatness with advances in everything.

Actually the Golden age was a time when they gained riches from the countries they invaded, including the knowledge of the east, mainly china and India.
They were run out of Europe, and their last stand was on the Med. which Thomas Jefferson put a stop to.
They then retreated into the deserts of the Mid-east, where they remained for 200 years, until oil money brought them out, with the same sicko sh-t from the 10th century.
Works were translated into Arabic, and then claimed as their inventions.
Virtually everything claimed can be traced back to the originals.
Goodle "1001 inventions of Islam", It gives you an idea of what was going on.

I understand they invented the condom from sheep intestines,,
But the British improved on it by taking it out of the sheep.

 

way off topic but yes, the supposed advanced culture of islam was actually mostly Byzantines who were allowed to continued un-harassed by Muslim rulers. great book, wont say another word on it myself.

https://www.amazon.com/Bearing-Fals...2448799&sr=1-1&keywords=bearing+false+witness

 

violent??? really?

neither of those two religious were anti science, as long as the scientists didn't attribute their discoveries to anything but god they were good...

 

It appears obvious you don't actually know what the theory of evolution actually is. It makes NO claims as to the origin of organic terrestial life. NONE.

Evolution undermines the "preconditions" for rational thought? Given your complete mischaracterization of what Darwin's theory actually states, and your convoluted word salad, I would have to say that anti evolution demonstrates a lack of rational thought.

You presume the conclusion and work back from that to fit your so called "evidence". Hardly rational and sure as hell ain't scientific.

Yes science would be impossible if we had not evolved to become sapient. Nothing like stating the obvious.

Please explain how "regularity in time space-uniformity" is needed to do science, starting with a definition of what the hell you are talking about.

I totally agree one needs knowledge to do science.

A so now evolution is nothing more than a reaction to brain chemistry? That is hilarious.

Convolution appears to be a deliberate tactic.

I get it. creation must be true because you possess human senses and are sapient.

No reason to trust our senses and no way to prove them. I love it. Unfortunately this all makes sense to you.

That is one of the biggest piles of bullshit I have ever heard. But I guess fallacious nonsense is the only real defense for biblical literalists.

AS if the bible is anything but the invention of man, like every other religion and their holy scriptures.

Such spiritual conceit is the bane of human civilization.

 

They ALL disprove the Biblical creation story as they are not made of mud. They all point to the validity of Human Evolution being accurate as each is part of the chain leading to what we are today.

 

Using the tactic once is commendable, but rinse and repeat is intellectually lazy and quite lame.

But thanks for the demonstration of how churlishly your reject obvious and uncomfortable facts.

 

Psst. don't bring up DNA and how all terrestrial life has it and how much is shared amongst all living things, some more than others.

 

You cant steal a miraculous creation of first life than begin to evolve just because you cannot exspalin it. Further you just showed how an emotional rant does not in anyway respond to the point made in my post.





Agreed, and since evolution cannot give justification for those laws and assumptions, evolution cannot exspalin science and thus it would be impossible if evolution were actually true. ""regularity in time space-uniformity"" we need to assume the laws of nature operate the same today as they always have or science would be impossible. If their are no laws put in place on creation by a creator, that is a assumption we cannot make.



No, our brains are nothing but random chemical reactions if evolution were true, so why trust anything about random matter?




Yet you believe these assumptions are true with no foundation and no rational reason to accept them from your own worldview of evolution.



one last emotional rant to ignore truth. Like it.

 

that is great, know just pick any one and show how/why. I will forever leave the forum. You have the chance to prove evolution here and know and disprove the bible. Show me your best fossil and why. Otherwise it just looks like all you need to do is hear an evolutionist claim a missing link and by faith you accept and believe. I am more concerned with truth and looking at thing skeptically. See my op for that.

 

Using the tactic once is commendable, but rinse and repeat is intellectually lazy and quite lame.

But thanks for the demonstration of how churlishly your reject obvious and uncomfortable facts.

 

Psst. don't bring up DNA and how all terrestrial life has it and how much is shared amongst all living things, some more than others. Or it might point to a single creator [even admitted by dawkins, but he said it was aliens lol]

https://www.amazon.com/Expelled-Intelligence-Allowed-Ben-Stein/dp/B001BYLFFS


Does Similarity prove a Common Ancestor?



A designer would use the same elements if he were the creator over all of creation to show one creator rather than multiple creators. All the books in a library are made up of the same 26 letters, this does not prove they all evolved from Morse code. As a baker would use similar ingredients to make a chocolate cake and a vanilla cake, so God made animals using similar designs patters [showing one god] and animals would be as similar as their functions were similar. The honda prelude and the honda accord have thousands of interchangeable parts, did they both evolve from a skateboard ? or was the same company making them for similar purposes?


What evolutionist see as evidence of a common ancestor can equally be evidence of a common designer, for example Humans and chimps are as similar as their functions are. If similarity proves common ancestry, than clouds are made up of 100% water, watermelons are 97% water, the missing link is jellyfish 98% water. Evolutionist need to show how lower forms of animals changed into the supposed higher forms of animals, or at the very least, show a working observable mechanism. Similarity shows similarity, not evolution. They simply pick what similarities that seem to fit evolution and make sure they are in the textbooks and the public hears about them. Yet there are so many comparisons that go against evolution and can group animals totally different that somehow do not make it in.

“The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified, professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."
—*J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist 49:1961, p. 240.



It was the creationist who prediction that common design would also lead to common genetics, unlike the evolutionist predictions of the time that came true see.


Major Evolutionary Blunders: Evolutionary Predictions Fail the Reality Test
http://www.icr.org/article/major-blunders-evolutionary-predictions/


"The older text-books on evolution make much of the idea of homology . . Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene-complex, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down."—
-Randall, quoted in *William Fix, The Bone Peddlers, p. 189.

"When Professor [*George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the advance of biology."—
*Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1962, p. 567.



"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find ‘homologous’ genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless."
—*Sir Gavin De Beer, Homology, an Unsolved Problem (1971)


"What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns,’ in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked that question in 1938, and it has not yet been answered.


Homoligous structures often come from different genes and some genes produce different structures, thus refuting horology as an argument for evolution. The Molecular evidence also often contradicts the fossil record in many cases.
-The Greatest Hoax on Earth Jonthan Safarti p 95


grouping animals based on similarities was done before Darwin
p35 joc 25 [2] 2011


homology problems for evolution design vs common ancestor
p43-45 creation mag 34 [4] 2012

Problems with the evolutionary interpretation of limb design
http://creation.com/limb-design-homology


article/pictures on homology
http://creation.com/homology-made-simple





CONVERGENCE—Then there is convergence. "Convergence" occurs when different creatures have similar organs. For example, the woody plants generally have a growing edge (cambium) between the inner part (xylem) of the plant and its outer part (phloem). But this similarity arises because it is the best way for that general type of plant to grow, so the Designer used this basic pattern for nearly all trees—even though most are totally unlike each other in many other ways. It is foolish to suggest that plants have the intelligence to make the decision themselves as to how they shall be structured, for they have no brains. They do it because they were designed that


Hemo Globin red blood cells is found amongst vertebra's and is scattered among a Variety of animals without backbones and is also found in worms, starfish, clams, insects, bacteria and no definite pattern was found. The
Aortic arch is found in 5 animals that have no evolutionary resemblance. if evolution were true, it is clear that all animals in each of those five basic aortic arch types would have to be closely related to one another. Indeed, the evolutionists loudly proclaim that similarities require evolutionary descent.

"If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins."—

*Thomas Hunt Morgan, "The Bearing of Mendelism on the Origin of the Species," Scientific Monthly 16


Those animals that share the FIRST type of aortic arch are these: horses, goats, donkeys, zebras, cows, sheep, pigs, and deer.Those animals that share the SECOND type of aortic arch are these: whales, moles, shrews, porpoises, and hedgehogs.Those animals that share the THIRD type of aortic arch are these: skunks, bears, kangaroos, rats, raccoons, dogs, opossums, squirrels, beavers, wombats, mice, porcupines, cats, and weasels.Those animals that share the FOURTH type of aortic arch are these: dugongs, some bats, sea cows, duck-billed platypus, echidna, and human beings.Those animals that share the FIFTH type of aortic arch are these: walruses and African elephants.


Evolutionists claim that the information is “conserved.” Conserved is the evolution-speak label tagged to the phenomenon of finding nearly identical traits across many wildly different organisms. Such organisms supposedly “emerged” from unrelated pathways and carried unchanged (i.e., “conserved”) information for the similar trait across evolutionary time—while many other traits were greatly changing. Finding information for similar traits is certainly a factual observation. But believing that they are “conserved” is a declaration based in imagination…and firm convictions that evolution happened. In contrast, if the common trait is found in only a few diverse creatures, evolutionists then imagine “convergent evolution” happened.

There is a less mystical, more straightforward explanation that is consistent with what engineers do. It may be that different creatures are designed to retain specific developmental architecture for the common purpose of reutilizing regulatory pathways to recover ancestral states when the situation for them is suitable. Stable mechanisms that can be reactivated when useful are more consistent with intelligent forethought since “Darwinian evolution…is near-sighted and agnostic with regard to goal.”

- Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. Major Evolutionary Blunders: Breaking Dollo's Law

 

Wow .. you reject history and science.. You don't have to be ignorant to be a Christian.

 

So i was thinking of what blind faith you have and how i wish Christians had that faith. You were shown drawings of images loosely based on fossils and imagination and told they prove evolution. I could only compare with me showing a picture of jesus arsing from the dead and saying see he came back to life, he must be the son of god. Plus you have even been given example of how evolutionist lie and distort such models in museum, yet you still believe, amazing.

 

After reading your interactions with others here, I am going to pass on wasting my time interacting with your obvious inability to discuss this topic.

Have A Nice Day

 

Well,he thinks science began with Christians rather than with the ancient Egyptians and Greeks..

 

It's amusing you think random quotes, likely taken out of context, is in any way scientific evidence that refutes evolution.

 

I totally agree. hence very strong agreement to the extent its the "literary" opposite of violent disagreement, not meant as a literal condition.

 

Ok
Could you give a very approximat idea of how old the universe is
How old the earth is

How old life is

And how old humanity is

The numbers do not need to be at all precise. I just want to know if you. Have a general timeline. Or if god created all at approximately the same time..., maybe 6-10k years ago? Was earth created at the same time as the universe. Was humanity created the same time as other life and dinosaurs?

 

Well, well, well... here we go again.