Before I start I fail to see how geological evidence is considered to be a low standard of proof. It's a science just like every other. If you mean that
them being real doesn't mean that the Quran is real... I did say that those stories could have been passed on from generation to generation. I'll
provide you with my sources next time I sign in I don't have the time to look right now. I have a point I wish to convey.
So are you guys saying that I'm choosing to interpret the Quran to find miracles that suit my religious beliefs? Is that what I'm being accused of? The 7 layers of ozone (which should've read atmosphere, sorry) and the embryonic development cycle is just me interpreting things to bolster my ridiculous cause?
I'm really hurt. Also what's this about the Red Sea splitting being vastly improbable? Is it because we have never seen it happen for ourselves?
Funny isn't it? How people interpret data to suit their own cause?
You guys are absolutely WITHOUT a shadow of a doubt correct. Evolution is as real as the air we breathe. Screw them religious idiots who succumb to half assed interpretations and wild assumptions about the existence of a being they have no evidence to support. Not like evolution (or micro-evolution to be more specific). You know the part of evolution proved time and time to be correct in labs and in nature. But much like the splitting of the Red Sea, Macro-evolution has never been seen. In fact.. There is not one single shred of evidence that evolution can bring about a new species. Not in labs, nature or fossils. Scientists have simply chosen to interpret data in a way that supports it. Blasphemous? I think not... Ok here let me explain. I'll give you an example of what has been proven time and time again. An organism that mainly uses light to get food but can also create food in darkness was placed in a very dark room. 600 generations later it adapted to the conditions. The organisms within that species that required light died out while the ones that didn't require light as much lived on and passed on it's genes. This is an example of a species using an already existing characteristic in it's gene pool. It has adapted to life without light. Again it is not a new species. Yet scientists have interpreted this data as well as fossils in a way that proves evolution.
Now objective scientists (even those who are evolutionists themselves) state that claiming micro-evolution is proof enough that macro-evolution is possible is insane.
I leave you with these...
Fossils:-
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), "Paleontology and Uniformitariansim." Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
Speciation:-
"Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not necessarily lead to greater adaptation ... Natural Selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than improve it ... Natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species' chances of survival, but simply enables it to 'track,' or keep up with, the constantly changing environment" [Richard C. Lewontin (evolutionist); "Adaptation." Scientific American (and Scientific American Book, Evolution), Sept. 1978]
"If most evolutionary changes occur during speciation events and if speciation events are largely random, natural selection, long viewed as a process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution." [Steven M. Stanley (evolutionist), Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 72:640-660, (1975), p.648.]
(This following statement is my own) In a nutshell it's as crazy as believing in God. This again does not mean that God does exist. It also doesn't mean that evolution as we know it is impossible.. It's just "vastly improbably". All I'm trying to say is some people (please notice how I said some people if you don't then this is obviously not directed at you) choose to mock the idea of a God creating everything yet they believe so strongly in something that is like I said.. Completely baseless. 2nd law of thermodynamics (Layman terms.. A system left on its own will deteriorate instead of continuing to enhance) apparently "it is a profoundly and empirically established scientific fact." I take it that evolutionists believe that creationists use it with no good reason, but like everything else I've found scientists talking about how it's actually a very good argument. From what I gathered it's one of the main idea's behind the impossibility of life spontaneously occurring in an inanimate world.
So for one to believe in Macro-Evolution, his standard of evidence has to be quite low. I leave you with one final thought.
"It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available." [Prof. G. A. Kerkut (evolutionist, Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, Univ. of Southampton) in Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, London, 1960, p. 150]
It is a matter of I know it's there I just need to unearth the proof. I've got people with me who believe and others who doubt, but I know one thing for certain the truth will be revealed someday.
Let me know if you want me to add examples of scientists interpreting data incorrectly to bolster macro-evolution and those relating to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
So are you guys saying that I'm choosing to interpret the Quran to find miracles that suit my religious beliefs? Is that what I'm being accused of? The 7 layers of ozone (which should've read atmosphere, sorry) and the embryonic development cycle is just me interpreting things to bolster my ridiculous cause?
I'm really hurt. Also what's this about the Red Sea splitting being vastly improbable? Is it because we have never seen it happen for ourselves?
Funny isn't it? How people interpret data to suit their own cause?
You guys are absolutely WITHOUT a shadow of a doubt correct. Evolution is as real as the air we breathe. Screw them religious idiots who succumb to half assed interpretations and wild assumptions about the existence of a being they have no evidence to support. Not like evolution (or micro-evolution to be more specific). You know the part of evolution proved time and time to be correct in labs and in nature. But much like the splitting of the Red Sea, Macro-evolution has never been seen. In fact.. There is not one single shred of evidence that evolution can bring about a new species. Not in labs, nature or fossils. Scientists have simply chosen to interpret data in a way that supports it. Blasphemous? I think not... Ok here let me explain. I'll give you an example of what has been proven time and time again. An organism that mainly uses light to get food but can also create food in darkness was placed in a very dark room. 600 generations later it adapted to the conditions. The organisms within that species that required light died out while the ones that didn't require light as much lived on and passed on it's genes. This is an example of a species using an already existing characteristic in it's gene pool. It has adapted to life without light. Again it is not a new species. Yet scientists have interpreted this data as well as fossils in a way that proves evolution.
Now objective scientists (even those who are evolutionists themselves) state that claiming micro-evolution is proof enough that macro-evolution is possible is insane.
I leave you with these...
Fossils:-
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), "Paleontology and Uniformitariansim." Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
Speciation:-
"Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not necessarily lead to greater adaptation ... Natural Selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than improve it ... Natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species' chances of survival, but simply enables it to 'track,' or keep up with, the constantly changing environment" [Richard C. Lewontin (evolutionist); "Adaptation." Scientific American (and Scientific American Book, Evolution), Sept. 1978]
"If most evolutionary changes occur during speciation events and if speciation events are largely random, natural selection, long viewed as a process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution." [Steven M. Stanley (evolutionist), Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 72:640-660, (1975), p.648.]
(This following statement is my own) In a nutshell it's as crazy as believing in God. This again does not mean that God does exist. It also doesn't mean that evolution as we know it is impossible.. It's just "vastly improbably". All I'm trying to say is some people (please notice how I said some people if you don't then this is obviously not directed at you) choose to mock the idea of a God creating everything yet they believe so strongly in something that is like I said.. Completely baseless. 2nd law of thermodynamics (Layman terms.. A system left on its own will deteriorate instead of continuing to enhance) apparently "it is a profoundly and empirically established scientific fact." I take it that evolutionists believe that creationists use it with no good reason, but like everything else I've found scientists talking about how it's actually a very good argument. From what I gathered it's one of the main idea's behind the impossibility of life spontaneously occurring in an inanimate world.
So for one to believe in Macro-Evolution, his standard of evidence has to be quite low. I leave you with one final thought.
"It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available." [Prof. G. A. Kerkut (evolutionist, Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, Univ. of Southampton) in Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, London, 1960, p. 150]
It is a matter of I know it's there I just need to unearth the proof. I've got people with me who believe and others who doubt, but I know one thing for certain the truth will be revealed someday.
Let me know if you want me to add examples of scientists interpreting data incorrectly to bolster macro-evolution and those relating to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
