It appears that you believe the geologists, physicists and biologists are all in a type of conspiracy to defraud the people of the Earth. This is not the thread to debate that idea, but I just wondered if that is what you believe.
No, here again what you're assuming is, that all their testing relies upon the theory of evolution. This is simply not true.
No. I am saying that their conclusions concerning the age of the earth (geologist/physicist), abiogenesis (biologist/geologist), and the early centuries of the universe (physicist) seem to be a conspiracy of lies/misdirection, according to you.
However, if they are putting across a theory as a fact, without evidence to back up their claims, then yes they are dishonest and are falsely indoctrinating based on assumptions, rather than solid observable, scientific proof.
You say they have no evidence to support their theories, yet their research notes, tests and experiments seem to show evidence. Others reviewing those notes, tests and experiments agree that it is evidence. What parts of their research do you feel is not supported by the evidence quoted in their research notes?
Here is what happens when one who works in these fields does not comply with their theory.
Christian Biologist fired for creationist belifes: (this is just one example, but hardly isolated)
Christian biologist and zebrafish researcher Dr Nathaniel Abraham is suing the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in New England, USA, for $500,000, claiming that he was fired in 2004 for telling his supervisor he did not accept evolution as scientific fact because he believed the Bible presented a true account of human creation.
Religious discrimmination is obviously alive and well in the USA establishment, despite any protestations to the contrary. Dr Guillermo Gonzales, assistant professor of astronomy and physics at Iowa State University in 2007, fired for his belief in intelligent design, despite his publishing more than his colleagues.Also note, the refusal of Scientific American to hire Forrest Mims III (The most widely read electronics author in the world) when they found out he was a creationist, despite admitting that his work was first rate (www.creationontheweb.com/mims).The irrelevance of evolution to real science is shown by the fact that Dr Abraham was not dismissed until he had been working at Woods Hole for eight months and presumably would be there still if he had not mentioned his creation beliefs....These are just some examples. People can arrive at their own ideas about conspiracy theories, but it sure doesn't look good.
Did Dr Abraham win his lawsuit? Could you provide a paper written by Dr. Abraham that provides evidence supporting instant creation of the zebrafish species and thus refutes some parts of evolution?
The overwhelming majority of biologists, geologists and physicists conclude that the evidence supports an old earth (4.6 billion years) and evolution from a common ancestor to the diversity of life that we have today.
If you were a geographer getting ready to hire an assistant, would you hire the assistant that concluded the world was flat or the one that concluded the world was a oblate spheroid? Could the flat earther claim religious discrimination if his religious book said the world was flat?
Charles Darwin "It is mere rubbish to talk about the origin of life; one might as well talk about the origin of matter."
Being right about the basics of evolution does not mean he was right about everything.
I believe in biogenesis (life coming from other similar life). Where is the evidence for abiogenesis? I know of no evidence that indicates an organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet.
What do you suppose that evidence should look like?
And fail to see how this can be tested, observed or proven?
This is a good question. Even if scientists can make cells emerge from a vat of organic/inorganic chemical, that does not prove that life on Earth started that particular way. It just shows that life COULD have started that way. Once it is shown that it could have happened at least one way, then it becomes more plausible that it did happen.
The idea that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is the most implausible hypothesis. Explain to me how DNA could have formed from any chemicals present? When the complexity of information contained in DNA in one human being is astounding and could simply not erupted spontaneously without intelligent intent. Just as the most advanced computer system requires a programmer, so too does the most complex structures in nature require designer. You can believe in spontaneous development of this if you wish, but it's not science.
What specific aspects of the "oceanic soup" theory make it implausible to you?
I never said I believe in spontaneous development. Perhaps God stirred things up a bit and put the right chemicals close together so that the first amino acids could form. Then they formed proteins. Proteins have been shown to be self replicating if given the right materials around them. These things and more have been shown to occur on their own in the right conditions.
Seemingly spontaneous compound structure: Snowflake
Is an intelligent designer required to build each snowflake or did He just put the laws in place so that delicate thing could form on its own?
Just because a scientist maybe an expert in what he can test and observe today, does not mean he's expert in origins or how things were in the land before intelligent observation and testing were possible. This is based on alot of assumptions and faith and sadly often passed across as science. To mix true testable science with theories, even if those theories are just assumptions, is a form of indoctrination without fact.
Could you provide me with some of the assumptions requiring faith that the evolutionist scientists are using?
No matter how you try and explain what must have occured in the beginning, it requires faith and it depends on what you're willing to put your faith in. Whether things that happened with purpose and intelligence/life, or whether they happened by chance...and were they complete? Or did they gradually evolve and gain new information?
I agree that the substances have to exist in the first place. Additionally, the properties ("laws") by which they combine also have to exist. Those properties are what makes the possibility of abiogenesis decidedly non-random. Chemical combinations happen because that is the way the universe is. If you believe that those properties and laws were laid down by a Creator, I cannot refute that and do not attempt to do so. However, God putting those properties in place and creating all matter and energy, does not refute evolution or abiogenesis. It just means that God set things up so life would occur.
Yes I absolutely believe that all life, variation and laws arrived through intent, intellect and purpose. Whether I believe that God required billions of years of evolution in order for these things to reach fruition is something highly debatable. Again, we've not observed any signs throughout history of animals and human beings being any different than what they are today. More blind assumptions on our past based on pre-conceived beliefs.
What preconceived beliefs are you talking about? Can you provide an example of an experiment where the preconceived belief lead to the conclusion that one animal evolved from another?
I mentioned before that the reproductive system could not be half finished and continue to produce life. The complexity of the reproductive system is what is necessary for life to take place cannot possibly have occured without fully functioning organs in place. Even now, people can have trouble conceiving, though they have all the equipment. Things can still go wrong. How on earth would half evolved creatures have brought forth after their own kind during their evolution?. All these things must be in place and working so that life can beget life. Billions of years of evolution? This makes no sense in light that all life dies eventually, unless we keep reproducing offspring to keep it going.....Even if you go down to the tiniest miscroscopic forms of life, they ALL have complexity. You tell me something that does not? Then give me an example of its evolution/reproduction. That is started off without full information, yet new information was somehow added as time wore on..... You cannot possibly evolve gradually into a complex being, if the complexity was not there from the beginning to allow for continuation of a species.
These things cannot be compared with amalgam toxicity testing. Amalgams exist today, we can observe and test. Even then, there are arguments over accuracy in testing and many things can come into it. Low mercury levels do not always equal lack of poisoning. Yet some doctors believe it does. There are many different reasons for test results too and alot of contradiction. Now if there are contadictions in testing a solid existing material and its' effects today? How then can you possibly test the past?
There are a number of things stated above that would require a great deal of discussion to provide an adequate explanation of even why the questions are not the right questions. I would be glad to deal with them one at a time, if you like. However, to go into all of them would cause us to diverge from the topic at hand, which I thought was abiogenesis.
Question: Since you believe we can't test the past, do you think that forensic science results should be inadmissible in court?
Actually, the burden of proof lies on the evolutionist who is teaching their theories as fact in the science room. By your statement above, you obviously feel like Linda, who uses the term "Truck loads" of evidence.....then why don't we see this? So far I've heard nothing but assumptions and animated pictures without any solid proof. See if evolution was scientific, it would not be debatable. There should be easy observations to see this in action or in the past at least, without the evolutionists scrabbling for a missing link. Evolution should be obvious and speak for itself time and time and time again. All arguments would be put to sleep very quickly.
By that same token, the evidence and conjecture that amalgams cause health problems is not scientific because it is debatable. Is this what you are saying?
Are Newton's laws of motion, scientific? You do realize that at the beginning of the 20th century those laws were debated and eventually overturned/refined due to Einstein? Does that mean they really weren't scientific. Scientists debate the conclusions of other scientists all the time. I don't think you can use "debatable" as a criteria for deciding evolution and abiogenesis are not science.
As far as "truckloads of evidence" is concerned. I can see how you have doubts. You don't work with the evidence or read the research. You may have been exposed to evolution opponents only and have taken what they say as fact. Have you looked at any research that provides support for evolution? It does exist.
Some people can truthfully claim that there are truckloads of evidence because they have been in the thick of the research. Others just believe it when many scientists that they respect point to the mountains of research and evidence. That is expedient when you have already made up your mind but not if you are still trying to find out what is most correct. That is why I don't point to 'mountains of evidence" as my evidence that the Theory of Evolution is correct, that doesn't help anyone.
As I said before, if you want to talk about one particular question that you have about evolution, I will provide as much explanation/evidence as I can dig up. I just ask that we stick to one topic and not ask a lot of side questions.
The evidence will be forced to fit around their belief system, rather than the other way around. There are ex-evolutionists who seem to feel that the evidence itself was what drove them to creation/design. Instead of having their belief confirmed by evidences, they found it being challenged and even slowly deroded. Investigation is what drove them to design....
Could you provide a particular example where the evidence was forced to fit the evolutionist belief system?
How could it be "out-of-context" or "irresponsible" for creationists to quote what Prof. Jacobson put forward as gospel truth for evolution in 1955? He now calls it "bad science". We must wonder how many of his own statements Darwin would now retract if he was alive today!
It appears by this statement that you believe we have not advanced biology at all since 1955. Have you ever made statements based on your understanding that you later realized were incorrect? Do you think scientists get it right all the time and never have to eat crow a little?
Evolutionists continue to cling to their ideas, regardless of lack of viable evidence one way or the other. You can try and bring God into your theory and say that it can still be compatible, but again your theory is still based on assumptions of what took place before recorded history....and therefore does not require anybody to believe in it, unless that is where they wish to put their faith. My faith is in the God of the bible, not the God of time, chance and billions of years of evolutionary processes.
Again, you state that we cannot research the past. Archeology is not science?
I don't place evolution under the same catagory as credible science. Where are examples of organisms evolving and gaining new information along the way through evolution? Give me an example of simplicity becoming complexity over time. How can new information be added spontaneously unless the information is not already there in the first place?
The answer to this depends on what you mean by complexity and what you will accept as evidence. For example: Dr. Barry Hall, a microbiologist, took out part of the DNA code that allowed a particular bacteria to "digest" lactose. He then grew colonies of bacteria from that original bacterium. When they ran out of all food except lactose, they should have died out. However, some survived and when studied, revealed that they had reacquired the ability to digest lactose through a mutation on another gene. Is this evidence of increased complexity and beneficial mutation?
How about the fossil record showing the gradual change of reptile jawbone portions into the 3 bones that make up the middle ear of the mammals? This change is observed in fossils that are found in a consistent time line from well before any mammal fossils are found up to when the first classified mammal fossil is found.
Evolution occurred whether the theory of how it happened is correct or not.
Again, this is based on faith and assumptions rather than any viable or solid proof. And then you accuse creationionists of the same. when creationists simply believe what is already around them and what history has repeatedly shown to us....why do you evolutionists toy around with the land before time and fill in the gaps with your own dubious theories and call it science? Creationists don't require this at all. Variation and reproduction....where's the mystery? We don't see any kind becoming something it's not, nor have we even observed this, other than variation. "Micro-evolution" if you really want to throw the word in there.
The PHD scientists that have studied biology and evolution are either right, liars or are ignorant in their own field of study. Since you say that they just make things up, you seem to be leaning toward calling them liars.
This faith you say these scientists exhibit (implying that they don't know what they are doing as scientists), what is it they have this faith in?
