Religions > Bible > Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation"
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Jd" |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2007 06:07:36 PM |
| Object: |
Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation" |
Basically in that the speed of light may not actually be "constant"....
***Speed of light slowing down?***
Chris Bennett - WorldNetDaily.com
"The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time - eons ... billions and billions of
years. Even with all that time, it's still hard to imagine how complex biochemicals such as
hemoglobin or chlorophyll self assembled in the primordial goo. But to those of us who question the
process, the answer is always the same. Time. More time than you can grasp - timespans so vast that
anything is possible, even chance combinations of random chemicals to form the stunning complexities
of reproducing life."
"Modern physics is now considering a theory that could throw into confusion virtually all of the
accepted temporal paradigms of 20th-century science, including the age of the universe and the
billions of years necessary for evolution. Further, it raises the distinct possibility that
scientific validation exists for a (gasp) literal interpretation of the seminal passages of Genesis.
Goodbye Scopes trial."
"The theory is deceptively simple: The speed of light is not constant, as we've been taught since
the early 1930s, but has been steadily slowing since the first instance of time."
"Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John
Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat
of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was
much higher - as much as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early stages of the "Big Bang" than it
is today. (It's important to note that none of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a
predetermined. answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical
worldview.)"
Jd
.
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
22 Jul 2007 12:54:09 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 04:26:02 GMT, "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
HI Elroy,
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:5sh5a39mvgsdrq467r4fp1i6dlbmrodsr7@4ax.com...
Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elijahovah <rschiller@wi.rr.com> spoke thusly:
OF COURSE NOT, you make us evolutionists sound stupid
No, trying to wave the magic "time" wand makes you
sound stupid.
The only people who reject it are idiots like you. Proof positive
that religion rots the brain like crack cocaine.
Here's an ever-growing sample of people present and past with PhD's who have
accepted the Biblical account of creation. Showing how education actually
leads people to God.
Are there people with PhDs who do not support creation by God? Of course
there are. But don't let them tell you hardly anyone with an education would
believe in God and creationism. Here is just a sampling of people out there
who do just that.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
This list shows that even an idiot can receive a Ph.D.
And I would not lend much weight to Ph.Ds outside the sciences in this
matter. I mean, dentists? Historians? Engineers? Linguists? Educators?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
22 Jul 2007 08:51:52 AM |
|
|
Daniel Kolle <daniel.kolle@gmail.com> wrote in
news:gcr5a3pi8krterq05ndp9tq5kcqlq10jle@4ax.com:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 04:26:02 GMT, "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
HI Elroy,
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:5sh5a39mvgsdrq467r4fp1i6dlbmrodsr7@4ax.com...
Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elijahovah <rschiller@wi.rr.com> spoke thusly:
OF COURSE NOT, you make us evolutionists sound stupid
No, trying to wave the magic "time" wand makes you
sound stupid.
The only people who reject it are idiots like you. Proof positive
that religion rots the brain like crack cocaine.
Here's an ever-growing sample of people present and past with PhD's
who have accepted the Biblical account of creation. Showing how
education actually leads people to God.
Are there people with PhDs who do not support creation by God? Of
course there are. But don't let them tell you hardly anyone with an
education would believe in God and creationism. Here is just a
sampling of people out there who do just that.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
This list shows that even an idiot can receive a Ph.D.
And I would not lend much weight to Ph.Ds outside the sciences in this
matter. I mean, dentists? Historians? Engineers? Linguists? Educators?
Hell, even Kent "Prison Sex" Hovind has a fake Ph.D from an "unaccredited
institution" (his own words).
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
Help Prevent Projectile Stupidity
Duct-Tape a Fundie's Mouth Shut Today!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
22 Jul 2007 12:40:53 PM |
|
|
Hello Daniel,
"Daniel Kolle" <daniel.kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gcr5a3pi8krterq05ndp9tq5kcqlq10jle@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 04:26:02 GMT, "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
HI Elroy,
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:5sh5a39mvgsdrq467r4fp1i6dlbmrodsr7@4ax.com...
Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elijahovah <rschiller@wi.rr.com> spoke thusly:
OF COURSE NOT, you make us evolutionists sound stupid
No, trying to wave the magic "time" wand makes you
sound stupid.
The only people who reject it are idiots like you. Proof positive
that religion rots the brain like crack cocaine.
Here's an ever-growing sample of people present and past with PhD's who
have
accepted the Biblical account of creation. Showing how education actually
leads people to God.
Are there people with PhDs who do not support creation by God? Of course
there are. But don't let them tell you hardly anyone with an education
would
believe in God and creationism. Here is just a sampling of people out
there
who do just that.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
This list shows that even an idiot can receive a Ph.D.
And I would not lend much weight to Ph.Ds outside the sciences in this
matter. I mean, dentists? Historians? Engineers? Linguists? Educators?
For those of you following the religion of evolution, or wondering if you
should, it might seriously help you to notice how the vast majority of the
time these followers don't offer proof, just opinions and often insults.
It's clearly not a science they're following, but a religion that breeds
hate and contempt.
The more of you that respond, the more you show how so few of you are
anything but rational on this topic. Thanks for showing this, as others who
read this will see more and more examples of how much evolutionists are
blinded by anger because they clearly don't have a leg to stand on.
Now first of all, I'm amazed that you know all 300+ of those people. I'm
skeptical that you really know them, so If you would be so kind as to post
exactly what unique things you personally know about each and every one of
all 300+ of them that you can demonstrate they are idiots in general, that
would help to elevate your opinion beyond bigoted hatred to even start
getting close to the realm of facts.
In the meantime, please forgive us for noticing how you're really just going
to name anyone that disagrees with you, PhD or otherwise, as an idiot. And
that speaks volumes of how weak this religion of evolution really is.
Thanks for helping to support the cause of creationism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
22 Jul 2007 08:20:19 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:40:53 GMT, "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hello Daniel,
"Daniel Kolle" <daniel.kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gcr5a3pi8krterq05ndp9tq5kcqlq10jle@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 04:26:02 GMT, "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
HI Elroy,
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:5sh5a39mvgsdrq467r4fp1i6dlbmrodsr7@4ax.com...
Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elijahovah <rschiller@wi.rr.com> spoke thusly:
OF COURSE NOT, you make us evolutionists sound stupid
No, trying to wave the magic "time" wand makes you
sound stupid.
The only people who reject it are idiots like you. Proof positive
that religion rots the brain like crack cocaine.
Here's an ever-growing sample of people present and past with PhD's who
have
accepted the Biblical account of creation. Showing how education actually
leads people to God.
Are there people with PhDs who do not support creation by God? Of course
there are. But don't let them tell you hardly anyone with an education
would
believe in God and creationism. Here is just a sampling of people out
there
who do just that.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
This list shows that even an idiot can receive a Ph.D.
And I would not lend much weight to Ph.Ds outside the sciences in this
matter. I mean, dentists? Historians? Engineers? Linguists? Educators?
For those of you following the religion of evolution, or wondering if you
should, it might seriously help you to notice how the vast majority of the
time these followers don't offer proof, just opinions and often insults.
Yawn.
It's clearly not a science they're following, but a religion that breeds
hate and contempt.
That sounds like an opinion and an insult to me.
The more of you that respond, the more you show how so few of you are
anything but rational on this topic.
Oh, how cute. This is much like pseudoscientists dismissing their
opponents as pseudoscientists themselves.
Thanks for showing this, as others who
read this will see more and more examples of how much evolutionists are
blinded by anger because they clearly don't have a leg to stand on.
Creationists have no leg to stand on.
Now first of all, I'm amazed that you know all 300+ of those people. I'm
skeptical that you really know them, so If you would be so kind as to post
exactly what unique things you personally know about each and every one of
all 300+ of them that you can demonstrate they are idiots in general, that
would help to elevate your opinion beyond bigoted hatred to even start
getting close to the realm of facts.
*yawn* When cornered, idiots scream, "Hey! You do not know me!"
I do not need to personally know these individuals to know
they are idiots.
In the meantime, please forgive us for noticing how you're really just going
to name anyone that disagrees with you, PhD or otherwise, as an idiot.
Your appeal to authority loses.
Thanks for helping to support the cause of creationism.
Glad to help.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
24 Jul 2007 06:58:45 AM |
|
|
Hi Daniel,
"Daniel Kolle" <daniel.kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b308a3tbo6jkmbmu20g835udmh03ti93nt@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:40:53 GMT, "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hello Daniel,
"Daniel Kolle" <daniel.kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gcr5a3pi8krterq05ndp9tq5kcqlq10jle@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 04:26:02 GMT, "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
HI Elroy,
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:5sh5a39mvgsdrq467r4fp1i6dlbmrodsr7@4ax.com...
Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elijahovah <rschiller@wi.rr.com> spoke thusly:
OF COURSE NOT, you make us evolutionists sound stupid
No, trying to wave the magic "time" wand makes you
sound stupid.
The only people who reject it are idiots like you. Proof positive
that religion rots the brain like crack cocaine.
Here's an ever-growing sample of people present and past with PhD's who
have
accepted the Biblical account of creation. Showing how education
actually
leads people to God.
Are there people with PhDs who do not support creation by God? Of course
there are. But don't let them tell you hardly anyone with an education
would
believe in God and creationism. Here is just a sampling of people out
there
who do just that.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
This list shows that even an idiot can receive a Ph.D.
And I would not lend much weight to Ph.Ds outside the sciences in this
matter. I mean, dentists? Historians? Engineers? Linguists? Educators?
For those of you following the religion of evolution, or wondering if you
should, it might seriously help you to notice how the vast majority of the
time these followers don't offer proof, just opinions and often insults.
Yawn.
It's clearly not a science they're following, but a religion that breeds
hate and contempt.
That sounds like an opinion and an insult to me.
The more of you that respond, the more you show how so few of you are
anything but rational on this topic.
Oh, how cute. This is much like pseudoscientists dismissing their
opponents as pseudoscientists themselves.
Thanks for showing this, as others who
read this will see more and more examples of how much evolutionists are
blinded by anger because they clearly don't have a leg to stand on.
Creationists have no leg to stand on.
Now first of all, I'm amazed that you know all 300+ of those people. I'm
skeptical that you really know them, so If you would be so kind as to post
exactly what unique things you personally know about each and every one of
all 300+ of them that you can demonstrate they are idiots in general, that
would help to elevate your opinion beyond bigoted hatred to even start
getting close to the realm of facts.
*yawn* When cornered, idiots scream, "Hey! You do not know me!"
I do not need to personally know these individuals to know
they are idiots.
You don't need to know them to know they are idiots? Well then, you're now
expressing the behavior of a bigot. Good luck with behaving that way.
In the meantime, please forgive us for noticing how you're really just
going
to name anyone that disagrees with you, PhD or otherwise, as an idiot.
Your appeal to authority loses.
Thanks for helping to support the cause of creationism.
Glad to help.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
19 Aug 2007 09:15:09 AM |
|
|
On Jul 24, 7:58 pm, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You don't need to know them to know they are idiots?
Supposedly you believe that the 99.9% of Ph.D.s who accept evolution
are either idiots or liars.
Well then, you're now
expressing the behavior of a bigot.
Speak for yourself.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
19 Sep 2007 09:21:50 PM |
|
|
On Aug 19, 10:15 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 24, 7:58 pm, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You don't need to know them to know they are idiots?
Supposedly you believe that the 99.9% of Ph.D.s who accept evolution
are either idiots or liars.
And where exactly did I say that? Making things up, let alone about
other people, also known as being dishonest, is not a way to have a
discussion.
Well then, you're now
expressing the behavior of a bigot.
Speak for yourself.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
20 Sep 2007 05:57:31 AM |
|
|
On Sep 20, 10:21 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:15 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 24, 7:58 pm, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You don't need to know them to know they are idiots?
Supposedly you believe that the 99.9% of Ph.D.s who accept evolution
are either idiots or liars.
And where exactly did I say that? Making things up, let alone about
other people, also known as being dishonest, is not a way to have a
discussion.
You keep claiming that www.icr.org contains evidence supporting
creationism. It doesn't. You keep claiming that www.icr.org refutes
the claims of "evolutionists". It doesn't. On the contrary,
www.talkorigins.org refutes all the claims from icr. You keep
refering to "evolutionists" as if there existed a branch of reputable
scientists that disagrees that the evidence overwhelmingly supports
the evolutionary approach. No such reputable scientist exists: people
may be able to obtain Ph.D.s in other fields but that does not qualify
them to talk about biology any more than a plumber can be expected to
fix a car.
So don't talk to me about making things up and being dishonest. Try
to remove the branch from your own eye before you presume to try to
remove a splinter from my own.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
20 Sep 2007 09:45:53 PM |
|
|
On Sep 20, 6:57 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:21 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:15 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 24, 7:58 pm, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You don't need to know them to know they are idiots?
Supposedly you believe that the 99.9% of Ph.D.s who accept evolution
are either idiots or liars.
And where exactly did I say that? Making things up, let alone about
other people, also known as being dishonest, is not a way to have a
discussion.
You keep claiming thatwww.icr.orgcontains evidence supporting
creationism. It doesn't. You keep claiming thatwww.icr.orgrefutes
the claims of "evolutionists". It doesn't. On the contrary,www.talkorigins.orgrefutes all the claims from icr. You keep
refering to "evolutionists" as if there existed a branch of reputable
scientists that disagrees that the evidence overwhelmingly supports
the evolutionary approach. No such reputable scientist exists: people
may be able to obtain Ph.D.s in other fields but that does not qualify
them to talk about biology any more than a plumber can be expected to
fix a car.
So don't talk to me about making things up and being dishonest. Try
to remove the branch from your own eye before you presume to try to
remove a splinter from my own.
Martin
You danced all around but completely avoided showing what I asked. You
claimed I said:
Supposedly you believe that the 99.9% of Ph.D.s who accept evolution
are either idiots or liars.
And after asking you to show me exactly where I said that, you
couldn't seem to show that I said that at all, but just went off on
numerous tangents instead. So clearly you were lying, and I never said
it, as I already knew but figured I'd see if it was misquoted from
someone else. So again, making things up, let alone about other people
(also known as being dishonest), is not a way to have a discussion.
It's fine if you want to disagree with me, but that hardly justifies
being dishonest and telling lies about people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Thousands of Scientists Don't Reject Evolution |
21 Sep 2007 03:12:20 AM |
|
|
On Sep 20, 9:45 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 6:57 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:21 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:15 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 24, 7:58 pm, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You don't need to know them to know they are idiots?
Supposedly you believe that the 99.9% of Ph.D.s who accept evolution
are either idiots or liars.
And where exactly did I say that? Making things up, let alone about
other people, also known as being dishonest, is not a way to have a
discussion.
You keep claiming thatwww.icr.orgcontainsevidence supporting
creationism. It doesn't. You keep claiming thatwww.icr.orgrefutes
the claims of "evolutionists". It doesn't. On the contrary,www.talkorigins.orgrefutesall the claims from icr. You keep
refering to "evolutionists" as if there existed a branch of reputable
scientists that disagrees that the evidence overwhelmingly supports
the evolutionary approach. No such reputable scientist exists: people
may be able to obtain Ph.D.s in other fields but that does not qualify
them to talk about biology any more than a plumber can be expected to
fix a car.
So don't talk to me about making things up and being dishonest. Try
to remove the branch from your own eye before you presume to try to
remove a splinter from my own.
Martin
You danced all around but completely avoided showing what I asked. You
claimed I said:
Supposedly you believe that the 99.9% of Ph.D.s who accept evolution
are either idiots or liars.
And after asking you to show me exactly where I said that,
Once again you're changing what someone said and then calling them a
liar. How do you reconcile this with your pretense of being a
Christian? Is it because it actually *is* a pretense?
From what you quote above he never said you did say that. He
evidently inferred it from your spastic addiction to a handful of dead
or evidently brain dead purported PhDs who (you claim without offering
a shred of support) out-and-out reject evolution.
you
couldn't seem to show that I said that at all, but just went off on
numerous tangents instead. So clearly you were lying, and I never said
it, as I already knew but figured I'd see if it was misquoted from
someone else. So again, making things up, let alone about other people
(also known as being dishonest), is not a way to have a discussion.
My point exactly. Is that why you're running from my message of Sep
19th? Is it because you know that if you respond honestly to it you
will have to admit that you're a liar?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousands of Scientists Don't Reject Evolution |
21 Sep 2007 03:23:03 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:12:20 -0700, Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
On Sep 20, 9:45 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
couldn't seem to show that I said that at all, but just went off on
numerous tangents instead. So clearly you were lying, and I never said
it, as I already knew but figured I'd see if it was misquoted from
someone else. So again, making things up, let alone about other people
(also known as being dishonest), is not a way to have a discussion.
My point exactly. Is that why you're running from my message of Sep
19th? Is it because you know that if you respond honestly to it you
will have to admit that you're a liar?
Yes sir.
That is EXACTLY what it is.
Gabriel is no more capable of honesty than Goebbels,
and even that is being a bit harsh on the professional lying Nazi...
Gabriel does not have an honest bone in his pathetic child molesting
body.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
21 Sep 2007 04:40:07 AM |
|
|
On Sep 21, 10:45 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 6:57 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:21 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:15 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 24, 7:58 pm, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You don't need to know them to know they are idiots?
Supposedly you believe that the 99.9% of Ph.D.s who accept evolution
are either idiots or liars.
And where exactly did I say that? Making things up, let alone about
other people, also known as being dishonest, is not a way to have a
discussion.
You keep claiming thatwww.icr.orgcontainsevidence supporting
creationism. It doesn't. You keep claiming thatwww.icr.orgrefutes
the claims of "evolutionists". It doesn't. On the contrary,www.talkorigins.orgrefutesall the claims from icr. You keep
refering to "evolutionists" as if there existed a branch of reputable
scientists that disagrees that the evidence overwhelmingly supports
the evolutionary approach. No such reputable scientist exists: people
may be able to obtain Ph.D.s in other fields but that does not qualify
them to talk about biology any more than a plumber can be expected to
fix a car.
So don't talk to me about making things up and being dishonest. Try
to remove the branch from your own eye before you presume to try to
remove a splinter from my own.
You danced all around but completely avoided showing what I asked. You
claimed I said:
Supposedly you believe that the 99.9% of Ph.D.s who accept evolution
are either idiots or liars.
And after asking you to show me exactly where I said that, you
couldn't seem to show that I said that at all, but just went off on
numerous tangents instead. So clearly you were lying, and I never said
it, as I already knew but figured I'd see if it was misquoted from
someone else. So again, making things up, let alone about other people
(also known as being dishonest), is not a way to have a discussion.
It's fine if you want to disagree with me, but that hardly justifies
being dishonest and telling lies about people.
Are you denying making all the claims I listed above? If not then you
must believe that the 99.9% of Ph.D.s who accept evolution are either
idiots or liars. QED.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
22 Jul 2007 12:34:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 04:26:02 GMT, "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
HI Elroy,
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:5sh5a39mvgsdrq467r4fp1i6dlbmrodsr7@4ax.com...
Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elijahovah <rschiller@wi.rr.com> spoke thusly:
OF COURSE NOT, you make us evolutionists sound stupid
No, trying to wave the magic "time" wand makes you
sound stupid.
The only people who reject it are idiots like you. Proof positive
that religion rots the brain like crack cocaine.
Here's an ever-growing sample of people present and past with PhD's who have
accepted the Biblical account of creation. Showing how education actually
leads people to God.
Are there people with PhDs who do not support creation by God? Of course
there are. But don't let them tell you hardly anyone with an education would
believe in God and creationism. Here is just a sampling of people out there
who do just that.
I note that relatively few are in fields actually having anything to
do with evolution.
Wonder why that is.....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
03 Aug 2007 03:19:19 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 04:26:02 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<u%Aoi.1129$iX3.869@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
HI Elroy,
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:5sh5a39mvgsdrq467r4fp1i6dlbmrodsr7@4ax.com...
Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elijahovah <rschiller@wi.rr.com> spoke thusly:
OF COURSE NOT, you make us evolutionists sound stupid
No, trying to wave the magic "time" wand makes you
sound stupid.
The only people who reject it are idiots like you. Proof positive
that religion rots the brain like crack cocaine.
Here's an ever-growing sample of people present and past with PhD's who have
accepted the Biblical account of creation. Showing how education actually
leads people to God.
You have shown us how pitifully small the band of educated people who
accept creationism are. Thanks. The only way you make it look good is to
include a bunch of people without PhDs and outside of science to fatten
up your tiny list. There are more real biologists named Steve with PhDs
than there are creationsts with some sort of decent graduate education.
You didn't even look at the list, did you. They aren't all PhDs. Of the
supposed PhDs it's not at all clear exactly what is meant by 'accept
biblical account of creation'. Still, it doesn't matter. If they believe
Young Earth Creation, that is their faith. If they claim that there is
evidence for it, that is their lies. Notice how few of these people are
actually doing research in life science areas related to evolution.
Take particular care to note that medical doctors, lawyers, theologians
and doctors of education are not PhDs. You should also ignore the many
engineers on the list, not because they don't have earned PhDs but
because they are not scientists, either.
Are there people with PhDs who do not support creation by God? Of course
there are. But don't let them tell you hardly anyone with an education would
believe in God and creationism. Here is just a sampling of people out there
who do just that.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist,
expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918-2006), founder of the Institute for Creation
Research.
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915-1995) Three science doctorates; a creation
science pioneer
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892-1979) Surgeon
Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical
Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
Is there evidence of discrimination against creation scientists?
Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview
Do creation scientists publish in secular journals?
Do creationists publish in notable refereed journals?
Bias in higher education
Peer pressure and truth
Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist
Discrimination
Science magazine refuses to hire creationist
The not-so-Nobel decision
The tyranny of 'tolerance'
View scientists of the past who believed in a Creator
Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?
Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.
Early
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Scientific method. However, see also
Culture Wars:
Part 1: Bacon vs Ham
Part 2: Ham vs Bacon
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo
'twist' and The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
Johann Kepler (1571-1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
Athanasius Kircher (1601-1680) Inventor
John Wilkins (1614-1672)
Walter Charleton (1619-1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine
(1623-1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
Sir William Petty (1623 -1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
Robert Boyle (1627-1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
John Ray (1627-1705) Natural history
Isaac Barrow (1630-1677) Professor of Mathematics
Nicolas Steno (1631-1686) Stratigraphy
Thomas Burnet (1635-1715) Geology
Increase Mather (1639-1723) Astronomy
Nehemiah Grew (1641-1712) Medical Doctor, Botany
The Age of Newton
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law;
Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than
science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of
Arianism, but it's likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity-See
Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of
Ideas 68(1):57-80, 1997)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646-1716) Mathematician
John Flamsteed (1646-1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
William Derham (1657-1735) Ecology
Cotton Mather (1662-1727) Physician
John Harris (1666-1719) Mathematician
John Woodward (1665-1728) Paleontology
William Whiston (1667-1752) Physics, Geology
John Hutchinson (1674-1737) Paleontology
Johathan Edwards (1703-1758) Physics, Meteorology
Carolus Linneaus (1707-1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
Jean Deluc (1727-1817) Geology
Richard Kirwan (1733-1812) Mineralogy
William Herschel (1738-1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed
in an old-earth)
James Parkinson (1755-1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
John Dalton (1766-1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
John Kidd, M.D. (1775-1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)
Just Before Darwin
The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr. Terry Mortenson
Timothy Dwight (1752-1817) Educator
William Kirby (1759-1850) Entomologist
Jedidiah Morse (1761-1826) Geographer
Benjamin Barton (1766-1815) Botanist; Zoologist
John Dalton (1766-1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth
compromiser*)
Samuel Miller (1770-1840) Clergy
Charles Bell (1774-1842) Anatomist
John Kidd (1775-1851) Chemistry
Humphrey Davy (1778-1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
Benjamin Silliman (1779-1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
Peter Mark Roget (1779-1869) Physician; Physiologist
Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
David Brewster (1781-1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably
believed in an old-earth)
William Buckland (1784-1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
William Prout (1785-1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872) Telegraph
John Herschel (1792-1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
Edward Hitchcock (1793-1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
William Whewell (1794-1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
Joseph Henry (1797-1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
Just After Darwin
Richard Owen (1804-1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Matthew Maury (1806-1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an
old-earth*)
Louis Agassiz (1807-1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser,
polygenist*)
Henry Rogers (1808-1866) Geology
James Glaisher (1809-1903) Meteorology
Philip H. Gosse (1810-1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810-1895) Archeologist
James Simpson (1811-1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
James Dana (1813-1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817-1901) Agricultural Chemist
James Joule (1818-1889) Thermodynamics
Thomas Anderson (1819-1874) Chemist
Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819-1900) Astronomy
George Stokes (1819-1903) Fluid Mechanics
John William Dawson (1820-1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902) Pathology
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) (WOH) Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization;
Immunization
Henri Fabre (1823-1915) Entomology of living insects
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures;
Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far
younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
William Huggins (1824-1910) Astral spectrometry
Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
Joseph Lister (1827-1912) Antiseptic surgery
Balfour Stewart (1828-1887) Ionospheric electricity
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical
thermodynamics
P.G. Tait (1831-1901) Vector analysis
John Bell Pettigrew (1834-1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert
Gases
Sir William Abney (1843-1920) Astronomy
Alexander MacAlister (1844-1919) Anatomy
A.H. Sayce (1845-1933) Archeologist
John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic
valve
Early Modern Period
Dr. Clifford Burdick, Geologist
George Washington Carver (1864-1943) Inventor
L. Merson Davies (1890-1960) Geology; Paleontology
Douglas Dewar (1875-1957) Ornithologist
Howard A. Kelly (1858-1943) Gynecology
Paul Lemoine (1878-1940) Geology
Dr. Frank Marsh, Biology
Dr. John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
Edward H. Maunder (1851-1928) Astronomy
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939) Archeologist
William Ramsay (1852-1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
Charles Stine (1882-1954) Organic Chemist
Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short (1885-1955) Surgeon
Dr. Larry Butler, Biochemist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation" |
20 Jul 2007 07:59:31 PM |
|
|
Gabriel wrote:
Hi Jd,
"Jd" <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in message
news:opvd83dkebovk1jjmpn1h4o297ueccdmv9@4ax.com...
Basically in that the speed of light may not actually be "constant"....
***Speed of light slowing down?***
Chris Bennett - WorldNetDaily.com
"The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time - eons ...
billions and billions of
years. Even with all that time, it's still hard to imagine how complex
biochemicals such as
hemoglobin or chlorophyll self assembled in the primordial goo. But to
those of us who question the
process, the answer is always the same. Time. More time than you can
grasp - timespans so vast that
anything is possible,
This is the common deception they throw out there: that anything suddenly
becomes possible just because vast amounts of time pass.
If you leave your garage empty and locked, a new mercedes will not suddenly
materialize next week, next month, next year, or next century. And 13
billion years from now, still no new car.
If a hurricane goes by, it's not going to assemble a 747 jet. Even if you
wait your whole lifetime for all hurricanes.. or 1,000 years for all
hurricanes.. or 13 billion years for all those hurricanse. Still not going
to assemble a 747 jet.
Life doesn't get created from lifelessness in nature. Didn't happen over the
past month, year, decade, century, or the thousands of years we've seen.
It's not suddenly going to happen just because 13 billion years go by.
One of the great "Gods" the evolutionists worship: the magical "13 billion
year God can create anything because it only takes time to do it". Those who
are more objective know better than to think time itself has inherent magic
in it.
God Bless!
Thanks! I don't often get replies so refreshing.
Jd
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation" |
02 Jul 2007 04:00:54 AM |
|
|
On Jul 1, 8:13 am, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Jd,
"Jd" <ZionsF...@att.net> wrote in message
news:opvd83dkebovk1jjmpn1h4o297ueccdmv9@4ax.com...
Basically in that the speed of light may not actually be "constant"....
***Speed of light slowing down?***
Chris Bennett - WorldNetDaily.com
"The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time - eons ...
billions and billions of
years. Even with all that time, it's still hard to imagine how complex
biochemicals such as
hemoglobin or chlorophyll self assembled in the primordial goo. But to
those of us who question the
process, the answer is always the same. Time. More time than you can
grasp - timespans so vast that
anything is possible,
This is the common deception they throw out there: that anything suddenly
becomes possible just because vast amounts of time pass.
If you leave your garage empty and locked, a new mercedes will not suddenly
materialize next week, next month, next year, or next century. And 13
billion years from now, still no new car.
If a hurricane goes by, it's not going to assemble a 747 jet. Even if you
wait your whole lifetime for all hurricanes.. or 1,000 years for all
hurricanes.. or 13 billion years for all those hurricanse. Still not going
to assemble a 747 jet.
Life doesn't get created from lifelessness in nature. Didn't happen over the
past month, year, decade, century, or the thousands of years we've seen.
It's not suddenly going to happen just because 13 billion years go by.
One of the great "Gods" the evolutionists worship: the magical "13 billion
year God can create anything because it only takes time to do it". Those who
are more objective know better than to think time itself has inherent magic
in it.
On the contrary, nobody here believes that in 13 billion years you
will ever get a clue but the galaxies forming, the sun and Earth
forming and life evolving on Earth. That's relatively plausible.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation" |
02 Jul 2007 08:35:09 AM |
|
|
Hi Martin,
"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1183366854.373479.97410@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 1, 8:13 am, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Jd,
"Jd" <ZionsF...@att.net> wrote in message
news:opvd83dkebovk1jjmpn1h4o297ueccdmv9@4ax.com...
Basically in that the speed of light may not actually be "constant"....
***Speed of light slowing down?***
Chris Bennett - WorldNetDaily.com
"The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time - eons
...
billions and billions of
years. Even with all that time, it's still hard to imagine how complex
biochemicals such as
hemoglobin or chlorophyll self assembled in the primordial goo. But to
those of us who question the
process, the answer is always the same. Time. More time than you can
grasp - timespans so vast that
anything is possible,
This is the common deception they throw out there: that anything suddenly
becomes possible just because vast amounts of time pass.
If you leave your garage empty and locked, a new mercedes will not
suddenly
materialize next week, next month, next year, or next century. And 13
billion years from now, still no new car.
If a hurricane goes by, it's not going to assemble a 747 jet. Even if you
wait your whole lifetime for all hurricanes.. or 1,000 years for all
hurricanes.. or 13 billion years for all those hurricanse. Still not
going
to assemble a 747 jet.
Life doesn't get created from lifelessness in nature. Didn't happen over
the
past month, year, decade, century, or the thousands of years we've seen.
It's not suddenly going to happen just because 13 billion years go by.
One of the great "Gods" the evolutionists worship: the magical "13
billion
year God can create anything because it only takes time to do it". Those
who
are more objective know better than to think time itself has inherent
magic
in it.
On the contrary, nobody here believes that in 13 billion years you
will ever get a clue
It's a shame insulting is the only method you have of debating.
but the galaxies forming, the sun and Earth
forming and life evolving on Earth. That's relatively plausible.
So science to you is whatever seems plausible. No proof. No evidence. I wish
you luck in the field of science. Perhaps that's why you resort to immature
insults.
Take care.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation" |
01 Jul 2007 12:01:09 AM |
|
|
On Jun 30, 8:13 pm, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Jd,
"Jd" <ZionsF...@att.net> wrote in message
news:opvd83dkebovk1jjmpn1h4o297ueccdmv9@4ax.com...
Basically in that the speed of light may not actually be "constant"....
***Speed of light slowing down?***
Chris Bennett - WorldNetDaily.com
"The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time - eons ...
billions and billions of
years. Even with all that time, it's still hard to imagine how complex
biochemicals such as
hemoglobin or chlorophyll self assembled in the primordial goo. But to
those of us who question the
process, the answer is always the same. Time. More time than you can
grasp - timespans so vast that
anything is possible,
This is the common deception they throw out there: that anything suddenly
becomes possible just because vast amounts of time pass.
No, not "anything". Just the evolution of living things.
If you leave your garage empty and locked, a new mercedes will not suddenly
materialize next week, next month, next year, or next century. And 13
billion years from now, still no new car.
That's because cars are not living things.
If a hurricane goes by, it's not going to assemble a 747 jet. Even if you
wait your whole lifetime for all hurricanes.. or 1,000 years for all
hurricanes.. or 13 billion years for all those hurricanse. Still not going
to assemble a 747 jet.
That's because airplanes, metals and plastics are not living things.
Life doesn't get created from lifelessness in nature.
Says who? You should learn about physics, chemistry and biology first,
before making such an idiotic assertion.
Didn't happen over the
past month, year, decade, century, or the thousands of years we've seen.
It's not suddenly going to happen just because 13 billion years go by.
But it did.
One of the great "Gods" the evolutionists worship: the magical "13 billion
year God can create anything because it only takes time to do it". Those who
are more objective know better than to think time itself has inherent magic
in it.
And your "god" is *all* "magic". It poofed itself into existence (or
it always existed...), then it poofed out the whole universe, and it
poofed out humans. That's absurd. Hint : there's no need for the whole
universe. Just our solar system (if that).
Olrik
God Bless!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation" |
01 Jul 2007 07:30:12 AM |
|
|
Hi Olrik,
"Olrik" <olrik666@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183266069.894156.97910@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 30, 8:13 pm, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Jd,
"Jd" <ZionsF...@att.net> wrote in message
news:opvd83dkebovk1jjmpn1h4o297ueccdmv9@4ax.com...
Basically in that the speed of light may not actually be "constant"....
***Speed of light slowing down?***
Chris Bennett - WorldNetDaily.com
"The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time - eons
...
billions and billions of
years. Even with all that time, it's still hard to imagine how complex
biochemicals such as
hemoglobin or chlorophyll self assembled in the primordial goo. But to
those of us who question the
process, the answer is always the same. Time. More time than you can
grasp - timespans so vast that
anything is possible,
This is the common deception they throw out there: that anything suddenly
becomes possible just because vast amounts of time pass.
No, not "anything". Just the evolution of living things.
Oh, not just the creation of ~non~ living things from non-living matter.
That's too hard. Just the creation of infinitely more complex, conscious,
intelligent ~living~ things from nonliving matter, which would be even
harder.
We're talking about the creation of life from lifelessness. Not the
macro-evolution of life once it's been created (which you have no conclusive
proof for either, just wishful thinking). Creation of life from lifeless
matter is not possible, it's not been shown to be possible, and it doesn't
just suddenly magically become possible because billions of years pass by.
But then again, macro-evolution has no proof whatsoever either. Just wishful
thinking from fossils that won't even cooperate, which is part of the reason
fossils to this day continue to get faked, and why we don't even have any
sign at all of these intermediate forms that must have surely existed, if
not still exist, of crosses between different species.
Scientists realize the dilemma, and true to the form ~on this topic~ of
trying to remain blind, and blind everyone right along with them, rather
than accept the truth
"Gould and a colleague proposed a new hypothesis, called
"punctuated equilibrium," in a desperate bid to explain away the fossil
gaps. They suggested that radically new species somehow managed to evelop
rapidly among isolated populations, conveniently leaving behind no fossils
to document the process. When these new creatures rejoined the larger,
central populations, this resulted in the preserving of fossils that
suggested the sudden appearance of new species."
[Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial]
If you leave your garage empty and locked, a new mercedes will not
suddenly
materialize next week, next month, next year, or next century. And 13
billion years from now, still no new car.
That's because cars are not living things.
So you're claiming it's easier to create a ~living~ thing from lifelessness,
than another non-living thing from lifelessness?! Wow. Just wow. Read again
what you're claiming. I want to go out and get some "create living things
from non-living things" playsets for some kids at school. All this time
they've only had "create non-living things from non-living things" playsets.
I'm sure they'd like yours better. Where can they get it?
To you it's easier to create life from lifelessness than a mere lifeless
man-made thing. I think you might have it backwards on what's really easier.
If a hurricane goes by, it's not going to assemble a 747 jet. Even if you
wait your whole lifetime for all hurricanes.. or 1,000 years for all
hurricanes.. or 13 billion years for all those hurricanse. Still not
going
to assemble a 747 jet.
That's because airplanes, metals and plastics are not living things.
See above.
Life doesn't get created from lifelessness in nature.
Says who? You should learn about physics, chemistry and biology first,
before making such an idiotic assertion.
Idiotic assertion? You mean like the assertion that it's easier to create
~living~ things from non-living matter than it is to create other non-living
things from non living matter?
It's no wonder you start resorting to insults. What you claim is illogical
at best.
Didn't happen over the
past month, year, decade, century, or the thousands of years we've seen.
It's not suddenly going to happen just because 13 billion years go by.
But it did.
You have no proof of this. Your ownly proof is "well, billions of years went
by, so it happened because billions of years went by." That's circular
reasoning. Where's your proof that life can be created by nothing but
lifeless matter naturally? They haven't shown this yet.
One of the great "Gods" the evolutionists worship: the magical "13
billion
year God can create anything because it only takes time to do it". Those
who
are more objective know better than to think time itself has inherent
magic
in it.
And your "god" is *all* "magic". It poofed itself into existence (or
it always existed...), then it poofed out the whole universe, and it
poofed out humans. That's absurd.
No, what's absurd is the assertion that it's easier to create ~life~ from
lifelessness, by randomn chance, than to create other non-living matter from
lifelessness, by random chance.
It makes a ton more sense that God, who is all-powerful, created humans and
the universe than that life was created from lifelessness, and all the order
of the universe and life was created by what started out as some
inexplicably guessed big bang. Go blow something up in your garage, and see
if it eventually results in life forms that evolve into humans. Or must you
wait 13 billion years before that explosion shows you the fruit of new human
life foms?
Hint : there's no need for the whole
universe. Just our solar system (if that).
Olrik
God Bless!
Dean Kenyon, a biophysicist from San Francisco State University, who had
co-authored an influential book asserting that the emergence of life ~might~
have been "biochemically predestined," because of an inherent attraction
between amino acids. This seemed to be the most promising explanation for
the conundrum of how the first living cell could somehow self-assemble from
nonliving matter.
But Kenyon repudiated the conclusions of his own book, declaring that he had
come to the point where he was critical of all naturalistic theories of
origin. Due to the immense molecular complexity of the cell and the
information-bearing properties of DMA, Kenyon now believed that the best
evidence pointed toward a designer of life.
Specialists at the highest levels of achievement .. said they were
theists -- not in spite of the scientific evidence but because of it. ..
"Many scientists are now driven to faith by their very work."
- Allan Sandage, "A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief," available at
www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth15.html (January 7, 2003)
Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan,
2004.
Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, Md.: Adler &
Adler, 1986.
Hanegraaff, Hank. The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution.
Nashville: Word, 1998.
Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press,
second edition. 1993.
Wells, Jonathan. Icons of Evolution. Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2000.
Progress past your own high school and college textbooks: they've been shown
to still be propagating the lies about evolution. (Some atheists try to
explain this dishonesty by claiming these are not even written by
scientists) Haekel's embryos, even 140 years after scientists shown him to
be the fraud he is by faking them, are still being passed off as facts.
Thank you for posting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation"</ | | | | |
