digs wrote:



And the scientific Laws of Thermodynamics are not mathematical. The scientific theory goes from idea, hypothesis, theory, and scientific law. A scientific law is a theory that has been irrefutably proven to be true. A scientific Law governs the physical universe. Therefore, if evolution was proven it would be called the law of evolution, because all organisms are bound by the law of evolution and evolve. However, this isn't true, and at the same time two theories can exist to explain the same thing. A theory isn't proven true and is a tested hypothesis with some supportive evidence that may still be refuted. There are different theories that try to explain how the first cell formed and lived, there are theories within evolution as to how organisms changed, there are theories about things in the evolutionary theory (as a broad general term) and none has been proven. Intelligent Design is also a scientific theory, there is evidence that supports that the universe was created, it also obeys the laws of thermodynamics. The problem with science is that it always wants a naturalists explanation to everything, when naturalism is a flawed and false philosophy. If they can't prove it naturally or empirically they dismiss it because that means something beyond science has acted upon the universe (or it's creation). Besides, governments are mainly secular and like the idea of a secular explanation (or model) for the existence of life, this explanation is evolution. Evolution neither adheres to nor openly rejects/contradicts any religion (some may argue), and they feel it isn't offensive because it's secular. To find the truth and say that truth is the Biblical Creation story would be offensive to non-Christians, and therefore scientists reject the Biblical Creation story and Christian Apologetics and Prophecies that have been fulfilled because they don't want to say Christianity is correct. And somewhat rightly so, science is about finding the truth objectively and shouldn't come from a pre-believed premise. However, because truth is an absolute science will find it, and that truth is in the Bible, which is rejected due to secular nature.

@Cecil, you didn't offend, I was just wondering if I was going overboard XD

digs wrote:



The first and second law of thermodynamics maybe? Those alone prove that the universe was created. There are many facts that support Intelligent Design. You are right in that just because evolution is false and because there is evidence against it doesn't prove Intelligent Design, but regardless there are independent proofs that support it. Intelligent Design isn't proven by the fact that evolution is wrong, it is proven because the creation demands a creator and naturalism is wrong. And the world very may well be 6,000 years old, not just because the Bible supports it, but because scientists do too and there is proof for it. The links I posted contain some. you are right about just because I found a link doesn't mean it's proven, what is right is the information on the link that proves how the earth may be roughly 6,000 years old. The place isn't a blog or a site, it's an internaitonal scientific community that studies Biblical Creationism. It isn't by one scientists, but rather is a very large organization of scientists who argue for the Biblical Creation theory, and their science proves it and at the same time debunks evolution. Besides, quantity doesn't mean it's proof, it could be propaganda. Many times in the past the majority of scientists supported something for selfish reasons or because of fear of rejection, and yet they were proven false (like with spontaneous generation). If you control the grants, you largely control the science. If the governments wants info proving evolution to support a secular agenda, they pay scientists to find what they want to hear. Did you know that Evolutionists lose more debates that Creationists do? http://www.icr.org/article/811/

digs wrote:

You are talking about genetic heredity which is fact. I edited my post above while you posted this one. And evolution is still a theory, it isn't law. We have seen single celled organism change, but this doesn't prove the evolutionary theory, it only shows how single celled organisms can borrow traits and vary. That isn't evolution, and it certainly didn't take millions of years like evolution states, more like 5 min.

digs wrote:

@Real

I didn't know the Koran said that. Actually the Bible says pretty much the same exact thing. 2Pe 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. So I guess it could be the same for the Biblical record, but I personally believe that the Creation account in Genesis is literal.

Real_ZERO wrote:



Honestly, I thought I heard about that, but since I couldn't find the verse, I thought I was wrong. And no surprise about that .

Well, actually, prophet Muhammad's companions had divergent views in the interpretation of this verse, Is it applied to six days of creation or not?

Whatever, I also do believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six days[10:3], How much each day actually? I don't know and I don't think I need to know to believe Becuase I also believe that nothing is a matter of time to God when He intends anything.

[36:82]His command, when He intends anything, is only to say to it: Be, so it is.


God knows best.

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
The Qur'an was written about 650 years after the last books of the Bible were compiled. This is the reason for some of the apparently similar, do to the fact a lot was copied but don't feel Bad the bible did the same using other religouns as well. (fact.)

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
explain 250 million years ago and Pangaea?

Real_ZERO wrote:



Is it more reasonable to refer the similarities between Quran, Gospel and Torah that they all were revealed by Almighty God ? Also, If you were knowledgeable about Prophet Mohammad, you would find that impossible too. One more thing: God had known that you and other people would say like that; below is the answer from Quran.

[10-37]
This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah. on the contrary it is a confirmation of revelations that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.
[38]
Or do they say: he has forged it? Say: Then bring a chapter like this and invite whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful.





I'm not geologist not even a geology student but what the problem with Pangaea anyway?

digs
Then why is evolution still a theory? It hasn't been proven, that's a lie.

I know just because evidence proves fossils aren't millions of years old doesn't mean it is 6,000 years old or that it corresponds with the Biblical record. However, upon further research we find that these things do correspond with the Biblical record. This doesn't prove it, but the correspondance means that the Bible accurate in the literal description of the Creation story and we can assume that the Bible is right from the information we find.

And as to your conclusions, the article I posted shows how the soft tissue being present means that the fossil is only several thousand years old, tissue and blood cells cannot last more then several thousand years, and not nearly one million years.

Did you know that Evolutionists lose more debates that Creationists do? http://www.icr.org/article/811/

Cuddlebuns wrote:



You do realize that there are very few scientific laws, and that they are all based on theories, right? So you're basically saying that since cell theory is a lie that means things without cells are alive too, and basically means that all of biology is a lie. That also means that since atomic theory is a lie then not all matter is made of atoms, and that means almost all of chemistry and a large part of physics is a lie.

Since theories are lies then the laws based on them must be lies too, so all of science is a lie.



Using that logic, I could make many incorrect assumptions about many things. I could assume that soft tissues can last longer than we originally thought, or that it's not even a T-rex bone but from another reptile that was extremely similar to it. Even though I don't have any proof that either of those are true, they correspond with my beliefs so I can assume that they are true.



I may be mistaken, but don't soft tissues only decay because decomposing bacteria cause them to? Or is it possible for fossilized tissue to decompose without any decomposing bacteria ever coming into contact with them? I tried Google but couldn't find anything about it.



Did you know that the article doesn't provide any sources to prove that claim is true? They simply say "creationists always win these debates" without even take any quotes or making any references to any specific debate to support this claim. They also say that because evolutionists refuse to debate them (because they feel that creationism isn't a legit science and has no place in a scientific debate) they must be scared to debate them because they know they will lose. The author sounds like a bully on the playground who taunts kids for walking away from a fight because they must be scared to lose.

They also say that no "true" evolution has ever been witnessed during human history. I wonder how they explain new strains of the same pathogens that are immune to old medicines, or new breeds of dogs that have been made over the past few hundred years?

vinsane01 wrote:

If you believe haruhi is a god then the universe was possibly created yesterday. lol

I havent heard anyone with this kind of belief before. I can even imagine the earth being that young. Heck if you tell that to my 6 years old niece she'll tell you youre stupid. (she read dinosour books) lol. Its no use debating this, the best thing for people to believe in the truth or an estimation of the truth is to read and be unbiased in the process. Remember google is your friend. But be sure of the credibility of what your reading.

digs

I never said a theory was a lie, but a theory isn't proven fact. Laws are based on theories, but they are no longer theories because they have been proven true. All I am saying is evolution isn't proven fact, the fine details within the theory haven't been proven either, we don't understand ambiogensisis, which is the basis for evolution and finding an understanding of how things got here. Just because something is a theory doesn't make it true, many theories in the past have been debunked and proven false.

And the soft tissues fossilized, regardless, it was rare to find soft tissue that old and even evolutionists are angry because there isn't any way it could have survived for over 60 million years. I am not too sure either, but what I do know is that with this distinct fossil they found heme (the protein). The protein would have naturally denatured well before 60 million years could pass, meaning that it must have been much much younger. The other issue is that the soft tissue wasn't fossilized. If you want, here is what the evolutionary scientists explained about this phenomenon, there is also a rebuttal of it too. http://creation.com/squirming-at-the-squishosaur

I found an article that talks about it and it cites a source, but the source is a book and not online http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htmThe article (not the posted one) does state though that even a national organization that is the mouthpiece against creationism advises scientists not to debate with creation scientists. It also shows that many well respected evolutionary scientists refuse to debate with creationists. Here is an article talking somewhat about the debates of evolution, but more importantly the academic monopoly to prevent the theory from being debated http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v12i10f.htm

And new strains of the same pathogen are caused when they take traits from other pathogens, that is what happened with the black plague, an experiment was also done ont hat to find if DNA or proteins was genetic material back in the 1900's. That isn't evolution and it isn't the same kind of evolution scientist say all living organisms went through to become what they are.

lalouse wrote:

Okay, then what about ancient egypt?...there are proofs that they existed more than 30,000 years old...so how can the earth be only 6,000 years old ha? and the wise craft is Witchcraft, or paganism..or which ever you chose to take..