There Is Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.

yep, pretty basic indeed
although if one does not already have it's eyes open, no book will do it for him :)

no man, science, TRUE science (if you like that sort of thing) wins!

and it points towards the existence of God and a purpose.


youtube: The Case For A Creator With Lee Strobel
[link to www.youtube.com]

"According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas."

[link to www.icr.org]

Simple mathematics disproves the theory of evolution. This is known as my Jimbo Postulate.

A simple mean rate of spontaneous species evolution applied over time from an alleged single-cell organism, even over billions of years, does not and cannot account for the sheer number of species of known organisms on the planet.

Further, given a mean rate of spontaneous origination of new organisms through an evolutionary mutation, we humans should have no difficulty observing millions of new species evolving in the span of a year or so.

Finally, the rate of change of the rate of species genesis would also increase. In other words, species genesis could be represented by a 2nd order differential equation and, given initial conditions (e.g. one-cell organisim that had a genesis epoch of 4-5 billion years), a college level mathematician could derive said equation to both account for the known number of species, but also predict with a level of confidence the number of NEW evolved species that should occur in a given period of time -- something akin to cosmologists and physicists rewinding the cosmic clock back to a billionth of a second after the Big Bang.

There are the 3 pillars of the Jimbo Postulate. It came to me in an observation of a evolution of gigantic turd I laid in the toilet one day.

Rather than the missing link being a man-ape bridge, I think the real missing link should be this inability of "science" to account for the dear Mr. Darwins observations and theories.

Now why doesn't this mathematical model exists? Ah, me thinks it's missing.

presently however, neither of these curriculums are in anywise full nor complete

with both having for the most part come up short, in and of a certain truth, to date

which shortsightedness of a sort will be altogether remedied in and with the coming Age

wherein and by "all things anew" will in this event be predicated by and upon that full measure of truth which has been somewhat adulterated herein...

tis what will remain to argue and debate from that point forward that is of question in all regard, and as such yet remains to be seen

; )

So it's dumbasses being judged by more dumbasses being judged by more dumbasses ..................etc

funny, I feel strong, happy, more enlightened and GOOD knowing Jesus as Lord and Savior.

the path you are on will bump into the supernatural sooner or later and these powers will want something in exchange for any knowledge they give.

all the former occultists have the same tale: Roger Morneau, Earthquake Kelly, etc



“If you ask an American, who is his master? He will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ.”
--Jonathan Trumbull, c. 1770; Faith of Our Fathers Newsletter Fall 2003, vol 1 Issue 11

I don't see why it has to be one way or the other: evolution or God.

I also think that evolution has become a scientific religion.

Perhaps a few are ready, I always try :)
BTW, that link is directly to a PDF of The Kybalion.

i already had to choose between life in flesh and Life in Christ. the rebirth was pretty amazing :)

thx, i already have it though :)

the fact that the so called illuminati know full well that there is a God, one Omnipotent God under which their own little tin god functions and has been deployed, neath which the full measure of his fallen host prevail, under which said illumined have fallen entirely from Grace in lieu of their associations therewith, hence maintain the scientific community beneath their own thumbs with both threat and coercion in full...

just about says it all in fact and in truth

can anyone say sour grapes?

Of course we're evolving. We used to club each other to death and now we can vaporize millions of people with a nuclear bomb in a matter of seconds.

not for much longer... at any rate

clocks' tickin'

la de da

A particle is not a wave.
I am a particle.
Therefore I am not a wave.

The above is a logical conclusion.

However in reality I can be a wave and a particle at the same time.

So the above logic even though correct, does not model reality well all the time.

Now if Truth is you aim, your model will change according to reality. If dogma is your aim, then you will change reality to fit your model.

There are plenty of religious folks who feel that their model is validated by God(their ultimate definer of reality), and there are plenty of materialist folks who feel that their model is validated by science (their ultimate definer of reality).

Both, in my opinion, end up as enemies of the truth as they are willing to sacrifice it to the maintenance of their model. Quite tragic given that they both claim to worship truth in their own way.

Why must anyone fear the truth?

Why must religious folks tremble at the idea that God might have created man from the base mater of the universe? After all they do believe that God made man from the dust of the earth right? Why must believers be martyred and persecuted for admiting factual evidence? Why must believers with doctorates tiptoe around for fear of offending a "preacher of the truth"? Why the dogmatic brainwashing of school kids?

And why must materialsit folks tremble at the idea of creation when they believe in the big bang (their version of something out of nothing), or at the idea that Darwin's theory is now archaic and does not measure up to the facts of modern science data? Why must scientists live in fear of loosing jobs and reputations for admitting factual evidence? Why should scientists have to petition for the truth when that truth is already borne by facts? Why the dogmatic brainwashing of school kids?

I find it all very mysterious.

Interfacing with both the worlds of faith and of science I find it also quite sad.

Being faithful to archaic model of reality, when the light of Truth shine brighter for us than it did to those who created those models, is not a praiseworthy thing. Phrenology coincided with darwinism.

Evidence does not lie.
Interpretation does.

The logic of such arguemtns is correct but the categories posited by such logic, as well as its conclusion can and do fail to correlate with realtiy at times.

So when interpreting the evidence, whether in a lab or reading scriptures, take care that you interpret with a love of Truth, not inherited dogma, and beware either/or thinking.

For those who are interested in a third way look up Rupert Sheldrake and his theory of morphic resonance. For those with a slightly more mystical bent the Phenomenon of Man by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

ascension in spirit is catalyzed by adversity
thus those you speak of provide the needed sparring partner
such that those individuals who search the true god
may ultimately express their will of knowing God so powerful
that they reach it

this turns out to be a really great thread with great inputs

Christians haven't disproved anything. There are obviously elements of Evolution that are observationally present that the bible takes no account.

Plus if there is a creator, this says nothing about Christianity. It's just as likely that the Greek Pantheon is real.

true but if you take all conceptions of divinity humanity ever had, boil them together, you'll get the essence of the concept :)

such will no longer be necessary in the presence thereof that which they've questioned so long now in seeking

and the hands of the dyal sit at the ready to bring such forth with a certainty

whereupon the dead might bury their own in order hereunto

tick tock

agreed.

what you refer to as ascension comes about with and by/through a full resurrection, having been justified hence duly ordained

not just having been resurrected from the flesh into their original spiritual bodily form, but thereafter into that immortality which was lost with the apocalyptic destruction of the first earth Age

as such there will be two opportunities for such prior to the onset of the Eternity, that third and final earth and Heaven Age

the first follows the 7th Trumpet at the end of our present Age, to which the Bride alone shall attend

the second opportunity for such doth not arrive until the end of the Age of teaching comprised of the forthcoming thousand year period known as "The Lords Day" hereupon

many will benefit greatly from the upcoming interim period known most widely as the Millennium Age

whereby a full and complete restoration and regeneration of this entire lapsed creation might be attained

Yep, and evolution is one way organisms adapt to their environment.



Do you have another clever word to describe mutation and natural selection? Evolution is the generally accepted term. Genetic mutation and natural selection are both proven facts of life, and they're the two integral parts that make up evolution.



Yeah, lies, such as a mythical man named Noah building a huge ship to save all the world's creatures. Or the lie of some vengeful God who lives up on a cloud in the sky.



American high school kids aren't exactly trustworthy sources of knowledge.

actually i was referring to the preparation on behalf of the bride :)
afterwards it's like you say

Ohh my god.... this forum is hilarious. So many ignoramuses on here

Natural selection IS NOT random.
Genetic mutations are random.

So you have random mutations being acted upon by the natural selection process. Some mutations may be beneficial for a creature in a particular environment, others not so much. Natural selection weeds out the bad mutations, and the good mutations are passed on to future offspring.

forgive me, not my intention to in anywise offend

; )

none taken, just clarifying :) have a good night

LOL, Lee Strobel is not a scientist.

I read his book, "The Case for Christ" and I was not at all convinced by his flimsy evidence.

thank you, and you as well...

; )