|
LeashLord -> RE: Thoughts on Dog. (6/2/2006 1:09:44 PM)
|
Actually, there is a great deal of scientific evidence to support many of the Scriptures.
For example, there are over 350 prophecies in the Old Testament concerning Jesus Christ. The Romans and Hebrews (Isrealites) were prodigious record keepers - historical documents prove that Christ fulfilled all Old Testament prophecies except those concerning His second coming. The statistical probability of one person fulfilling that many SPECIFIC prophecies is 10 to the -60th power (that's 10 with 60 zeros following it)... roughly the same probablity of a tornado passing through a junk yard and leaving a fully operational Boeing 747 in its wake. This is an inarguable fact.
The foundational argument is and always will be evolution vs. creation. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR... www.icr.org) offers considerable resources for anyone desiring to study the facts supporting this eternal conflict.
There is not one piece of incontrovertable evidence supporting evolution - no fossils of transitional species, no documented observation of new species being formed, etc. This is not just my opinion... it is the opinion of many well-known and respected evolutionists like Isaac Asimov. Another famous evolutionist (I forget his name... but can look it up for anyone who requests), stated on his death bed that despite the fact that there is no evidence to support evolution, he had to believe because the only other alternative is creation... and he refuses to submit to a Higher Power (God).
Here's a sample of quotes from leading scientists and evolutionists:
"If we were to expect to find ancestors to or intermediates between higher taxa, it would be in the rocks of late Precambrian to Ordovician times, when the bulk of the world's higher animal taxa evolved. Yet transitional alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing then." (J.W. Valentine and D.H. Erwin, "The Fossil Record," in Development as an Evolutionary Process (Uas, 1987), p. 84.)
"We conclude that ... neither of the contending theories of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of new body plans." (Ibid, p. 96. Valentine is a geologist at U.C. Santa Barbara, Erwin at Michigan State.)
"At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.... The problem is that the principal evolutionary processes from prebiotic molecules to progenotes have not been proven by experimentation and that the environmental conditions under which these processes occurred are not known." (Dose, Prof. Dr. Klaus, "The Origin of Life; More Questions than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (v. 13, no. 4, 1988), p. 348. Dose is Director, Institute for Biochemistry, Gutenberg University, West Germany.)
"Both the 'Big Bang' model and the theoretical side of elementary particle physics rely on numerous highly speculative assumptions.1 But if there was no Big Bang, how and when did the universe begin? ... (Hannes) Alfven replies: "It is only a myth that attempts to say how the universe came into being...." (E.J. Lerner, "The Big Bang Never Happened," Discover (v. 9, June 1988), p. 78. Swedish astronomer Alfven, who has a Nobel Prize in Physics, maintains the universe has always been essentially the same.)
"The law of natural selection is not, I will maintain, science. It is an ideology, and a wicked one, and it has as much interfered with our ability to perceive the history of life with clarity as it has interfered with our ability to see one another with tolerance.... The law of the survival of the fittest may be, therefore, a tautology in which fitness is defined by the fact of survival, not by independent criteria that would form the basis for prediction." (Kenneth J. Hsu, "Is Darwinism Science?" Earthwatch (March 1989), p. 17. Hsu is Earth Science Head at the Swiss Institute of Earth Sciences.)
"But the first detailed study of the gaits and footprints of modern people who walk barefooted indicated the Laetoli prints are much like those of Homo sapiens and were probably not produced by Lucy's relatives, reports Russell H. Tuttle of the University of Chicago. It should be obvious that these footprints were made by true human beings; the only reason for rejecting this fact is the assumed 3.5-million year age, a time long before man is supposed to have evolved." (Bruce Bower, "A Walk Back through Evolution," Science News (v. 135, April 22, 1989), p. 251.)
"Our science is too encumbered with uniformitarian concepts that project the modern Earth/Life system as the primary model for interpretation of evolution and extinction patterns in ancient ecosystems. Detailed paleoenvironmental data tell us that the past is the key to the present, not vice versa." (Eric Kauffman, "The Uniformitarian Albatross," Palaios (v. 2, no. 6, 1987), p. 531.)
|
|
|
|
