Okay now that you are reading here is how I got there. According to people that believe in the religion of evolution; over the course of billions of years animals evolved from single cell organisms to the animals we have today. The problem with this belief is that we have this thing called volcanism and plate tectonics. Every few hundred million years the surface of the earth is replaced. New York one hundred million years ago was on the equator, the planet suffered an ice age that lasted a few million years. Suddenly 65 million years ago there was a sudden explosion of life on this planet. All the species we see today started 65 million years ago. If this evolution thing takes billions of years to happen the planet has not seen billions of years of a stable climate in order for this evolution thing to work.
There have been at least three ages or three separate climate changes on this planet over the last four billion years.
The first age:
The planet was molten and had a average global temperature of five thousand degrees. That is half the temperature of the surface of the Sun. I think you will agree that in this age there would be little chance of any cellular or microbial life of import.
The second age:
The Earth cooled and water suddenly appeared on the planet. Here is where we have the chance for life. The issue is that the atmosphere, the air is made up mostly of Nitrogen, Sulfur dioxide, Carbon dioxide. The water had so much carbon in it that the water was mostly carbonic acid. The animals that showed up then thrived on sulfur and carbon releasing the oxygen. Volcanoes produce the sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide in huge quantities. No species that is alive today could live in this environment. The problem with the animal life that lived in this age was themselves, they polluted the air so much that it became toxic to them killing them off. Well it killed most of all animal life, this life can be found at the bottom of the sea near volcanic vents where the conditions are like that near the surface when they were dominant. These animals are just like the ones we have near the surface but they adapted or “evolved” to the new environment. Crabs, lobsters, clams and other sea life thrive in this new toxic environment.
The third age:
The Earths orbit changed and the wobble of the Earth in conjunction with the volcanic actions caused an ice age that lasted at least two million years. This ice age covered the entire planet to a depth of two miles. This would prohibit most life we currently see on the Earth today. The tectonic plates are still moving around but only 65 to 200 million years ago did the ice melt. The sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide that were the dominant gases in our atmosphere suddenly became trace elements and the released oxygen became the dominant gas. Allow me to be clearer, the atmosphere is roughly 80% nitrogen all other gases make up the other 20% animal life cause that 20% to change depending on the surface conditions. Trees and plants like coral feed on carbon dioxide. The animals and plants that feed on sulfur are mostly gone. The carbon is dwindling now so we are going to start losing trees and plants. The current life on this planet is running out of fuel i.e. carbon dioxide. When that happens we will run into the next age of the Earth. Since the plants feed on carbon dioxide and the animals produce carbon dioxide the plants are consuming more that animals can produce. Because of this the ratio of carbon and oxygen is changing and the atmosphere will become toxic to the plants that sustain us.
What is happening now on our planet is that our oceans are boiling away from the heat of the Sun, and volcanism. This is not new; scientists have proven this back in 1972 with Apollo 17, if memory serves, hydrogen and oxygen is leaving the planet by the metric ton per second. With out that element we will not have water. As the Sun expands the Earth will get hotter, and more and more gases in the atmosphere will escape as it did on the planets Venus and Mars.
With the different ages happening just under every one and a quarter billion years how did this evolution thing happen? Evolution could not happen in less than a billion years according to the people that believe in evolution. For evolution to happen we need a stable environment for billions of years. Science has proven that we have not billions of years of a stable environment. Now if evolutionists wish to claim that it takes millions of years, for all life to evolve into different species then they might have a chance to be correct but scientific evidence does not support this. Man did not become the dominant species till ten or fifteen thousand years ago along with all the most all the species we see today. This happened after the end of the last big ice age. So now we have to have all species evolve in less than a million years.
Think it through and you will see that evolution as stated by Charles Darwin and his supporters and the numbers don’t work.
Well Krugman is a special case, so to speak...
Argument?! How dare thou argue the Holy Scripture of the Most High Times! All hail Krugman!
Yes, I agree with you. Darwinism in my view is indeed a belief system, an atheistic world-view, and it's a lie. They push pseudo science in textbooks, in videos, etc. masqueraded as fact to our children in schools. Natural systems degenerate from order toward disorder called entropy and Darwinian evolution requres faith in the opposite.
In Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells writes about textbooks filled with Darwinism and exposes the falsitites and misinformation. "A true scientist would say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evidence. Instead of teaching science at its worst, we should be teaching science at its best."
In "The Death of Evolution", Wallace Johnson writes, "Today, when the theory of evolution can be shown to be not credible, we hold the paradox of a new surge of evolutionary propaganda flooding the world through the mass media and our educational systems. It must be terribly important to some people to persuade men that they are only animals and that science needs no God. If you are wondering why, the following will help to explain. Newman Watts, a Longdon journalist, wrote a book entitled, "Britain without God". In his research for that book he discovered something. He discovered that those who would shoot Christianity to pieces are using the bullets of evolution. This is his warning descisive and clear: "Every attack on the Christian faith made today has, as its basis, the doctrine of evolution."
Paladin77
Daiwa posts #39Who is forcing the theory of evolution on anyone? No one is required to believe it..... It is a scientific theory postulated to explain observed phenomena, nothing more, nothing less. Take it or leave it. For your argument to make any sense whatsoever, we would have to ban education entirely.
I know for fact that Darwinism and cosmic evolution theory is foisted upon school children from 5th grade on up. Children for the most part believe what they read in textbooks, see in videos and what is taught in the classroom as substantially true. Carl Sagan was replaced by cosmologist Stephen Hawking as pop hero representing the atheist scientific community back when my daughter was in 10th grade. A substitute teacher brought a PBS video of Hawkings selling his Big Bang and Steady State theories as reality itself. We heard, "in the beginning was the "Big Bang" that over billions of years the universe, then earth and eventually man evolved from patterns of matter." Hawking was allowed to have the only and last word on a controversial and weighty subject as the origin of the universe in a classroom.
I, as an adult, can take it and leave it, but I'm a critical thinker and most kids nowadays aren't really taught to critically think and never to question their teacher.
If you wish to get good grades in school you have to act as if you believe it. If you disagree you will be punished with bad grades even if you say all the right things on your test papers. I am proof of that, I went from an A in biology to a C just because I argued with the professor. That is forcing religion on people.
Exactly the point I was getting at earlier, but you explained it better. *claps*
I don't see any conflict between religion and science. Religion has to accept the science of the day and penetrate it to the mystery.
Who sayas that Religion hasn't accepted science? We've accepted that the world is round, that the days mentioned in Genesis weren't 24 hour periods (well, some of us have), and more. Why can't you accept that we can accept scientific concepts that have been proved? Evolution hasn't been proved, it is still theory and with missing evidence where there should have been hundreds to thousands of years worth. When they can find the "missing link" I'll consider that just like I consider everything else that I chose to believe in. However, to force your beliefs (unproved theories) on children as fact is like me forcing on you my beliefs.
What is there to stop me from believing that the New York Times isn't God-inspired?
You can believe whatever you wish. If you want to say that you're the messiah that's your right. If you want to belive in the mighty power of a doughnut, that's your right. The kicker is I say that I believe in the Bible and I get told that I don't have the right, kinda a double standard, hum?
*EDIT* I will change that last comment because people will over react as soon as they see it to "I get told that me believing what I believe is forcing it on others, kinda a double standard, hum?" Please don't quote just that out of context, if you want to quote it include this line.
I don't see people claiming that you don't have the right to believe the Bible. There is, however, a difference between believing the Bible, and judging others by your beliefs. But that is another argument for another day.
You can believe the Bible to be true, and I can believe it to be a collection of writings that aren't necessarily "holy" from that period of time. Neither of our beliefs really hinders the other's, and to imply that I am claiming you don't have the right to believe as you wish is incorrect.
Silver and Jade tears posts #41
oh that it were...for we wouldn't be having this discussion.
No, the Evolution theory posits something else....it's a molecules-to-man natural transformation in which new, higher genetic information is gained which was not possessed by one's ancestors. It's the idea of change over eons of time from one species into a completely different one with different DNA...for example reptiles supposedly changing into birds.
Natural selection isn't evolution under this definition becasue new higher genetic info is not gained, but instead tends to be lost at best. NS only conserves existing genetic information in life forms.
variety within kind is not evolution either...this is due to reshuffling or recombination of genes and again new, higher info is not gained in the process giving rise to variety.
What you described above is growth to maturity which is a normal pattern of growth from conception to adult...same thing with seeds growing into mature plants...that's not evolution for the same reason as above.
So are English, Social Studies, History, Home Economics, Woodworking Shop, Physical Education and other curriculum components. So what? If we can't teach science because it's 'foisted,' we can't teach anything.
Good point; it destabilizes and rots the foundation of our education. According to their logic, from here-on-out, all curriculum is suspect. There goes the very foundation for society, not to mention the foundation of their religion.
All you are proof of is that your professor was a pathetic excuse of an educator - and it's a strawman anecdote, anyway.
*sigh* And you didn't include the other part, just ignored it entirely. And I made the correciton within about a minute of posting so you can say that it wasn't there if you want, but that was just what I thought someone would do. Thanks.
Would adapatation in the long term not result in evolution as you describe here?
Argh, sorry, double post... browser glitch.
Plate tectonic theory does nothing to invalidate or disprove evolution. To the contrary, plate tectonics and evolution have been inescapably intertwined. And what is plate tectonics but 'evolution' of the physical earth?
You're confusing evolution with evolution theory. Evolution is when an organism adapts to it's surroundings. Evolution theory is the concept that a species can completely change into another species, such as from ape to man. All things are known to adapt to their surroundings, they can pick up a characteristic or drop a characteristic, but there are limits.
The potentially confusing statement that "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature.[1][2][3][4][5][4][6][7] This statement arises because evolution is used in two ways. First, the "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in populations of biological organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experimentations. Second, the "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur. Misuse and misunderstanding of how these terms are applied to evolution have been used to construct arguments disputing the validity of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
Interesting that now, years later after the damage has been done at least to some kids that soaked this up hook, line and sinker, that Hawkings has rejected the BBTheory. What good did it do to indocrtinate those kids through this video?
Daiwa if you don't understand the difference between teaching english, social studies, etc. and teaching evolutionary theory as fact, then we have no more to discuss.
Because I didn't realize that it was a correction to that post... it says your last comment, which I assumed was a comment prior to the one you made to me.
It still implies that I am saying that you are forcing your beliefs, which is still incorrect.
So a declarative sentence having a subject, a verb and an object is just a theory, not a fact, right? Your shortcomings are not my problem, Lula. Amen.
Beg to differ. The limits you say exist don't.
It is incorrect, which was my point. As I stated much earlier freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. Christians are being told the equivilent to shut up there shouldn't be anything about your religion anywhere that it can be seen even though it is, and has been, the most highly practiced religion in the US (sorry, I know I'm excluding atheism, but then it's not considered to be practiced so still vaild). It is bound to touch society in some form.
Many U.S. adult citizens identify themselves as Christians (76%).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
Feel free to prove me wrong. I'm more than willing to accept more information.
Sorry, it is the best I can do because I don't try to speak for everyone I used my own experiences.
Please explain.
I like this one better.
She's trying to say plates move therefore they change the earth, however she's using the word evolve instead which doesn't fit.
This is no a rebuke, please let her explain. I say this because I don't want to misunderstand what she ment.
and I'm sure this is quite true. Heard this story over and over again. So much for open minded non believers.
ok then. You've just described most of the educators because this happens frequently even in High School. One of my sons got all A's in his English classes in his senior year except for one. He took alot of English, as much as he could, because he decided his Junior year to be a journalist so he loaded up. One teacher took exception to his Christian views and upbringing. She made sure he got a C. He could never please her no matter what he did. In one class I remember his telling me when they were discussing the DaVinci code how rude and condescending she was towards him. She would pick him out of the class when she talked about "those Christians" who believe such and such and use my son as an example. It was pretty clear. We never fought it but it was clear that C was on purpose. Writing, especially is very subjective we figured so what could we do?
I've talked to many Christian Teachers out there that have to keep quiet. One HS Science teacher out there teaches the Evolutionary Theory even though he doesn't buy it. So when he gets to this part of the curriculum he says "some Scientists say....." showing quite clearly that he doesn't believe it to be truth.
He's not to give his Christian opinion but if a kid asks an honest question, he answers honestly even if it means he gives a Christian answer but he's not allowed, of course, to teach from a Christian POV.
I've heard the same sort of thing from health teachers as well when it comes to sex ed. They are being forced to teach what they believe is not what is in the best interest of the kids but if given the chance they will answer from a Christian POV but only if asked first.
We've come a long way from where education first started in this country and not for the better I might add.
Sorry seems to be my day of not saying things the PC way... seems to me that she was saying that.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
