Texas silences schools on scientific theories

Thanks for the good news. Your thread title is misleading. "God poofed" is not a scientific theory even though it may ultimately be correct. God didn't need to poof after he created an evolving universe.

 

Evolution has no strengths. Everything about it is weak and false. It should have never been taught in schools. It was being taught as fact and NOT a theory in my high school in the 60's. The Bible and prayer were also banned from my high school at that time.

 

Is the universe evolving?

 

I guess it depends on how you define evolving. We know that the universe is expanding, that new stars are being formed and that old stars are dieing. Is that evolving?

 

I still remember the picture of a fetus and correlating it to evolution. This ridiculous theory had already been refuted and abandoned by scientists themselves years before, but it was still in our textbook!!

Oh, yeah, and they used to teach how evolution took eons for animals/men to change. Then suddenly, because they couldn't find good evidence for this, along came the theory my son learned - how evolution happened overnight almost. I think it's called the Cambrian theory or something like that. My son read "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" (by an agnostic) and won a debate contra evolution in 8th grade in a very liberal school that teaches evolution.

I didn't even believe in evolution before I was a Christian. In high school, I laughed at the pictures of apes turning into men in our books.

 

I'd like to know at what point "Christian" evolutionists believe man had free will installed ?

 

If you refer to the Cabrian Explosion, that is not why it is taught. It is not an explanation of anything, but an observation that in a relatively short period of time, the fossil record shows a rise of many complex organisms. There are many hypotheses offered to explain this phenomenon, but there is no one accepted answer. It is one of the mysteries we have yet to uncover the underlying causes for, not an hypothesis itself to explain anything at all.

 

Thanks for the correction. It was something my son learned about -- not me -- but I did personally hear Gould expand on it. I took my son to hear Gould because the teacher gave extra credit to any student who went, so we tromped to downtown DC at night on the Metro to the Press Club and heard him in person. I was not impressed. My son had a question but was not called on.

I think complex organisms came about fast because God created them.

 

>Is the universe evolving?

Excuse sloppiness. God created a universe in which biological life forms can adapt to changing environments by a process which is called "evolution"by most people.

 

It's called "adaptation". Just like scripture says, beings reproduce after thir own kind. One species does not become another.

 

Theistic evolution allows for the actual creation by God. Man was created exactly as it says in scripture. It also allows and explains all the scientific findings which do not fit into the short span of time that many would ascribe to the world.

As Curtis has stated, species do not cross-over. Man was never an ape.

On the question of "free will", I ask, What 'free will". DO you mean natural intelligence which man was created with? The intelligence which allows for choice of doing this or that, or not doing at all?

Theistic evolution helps me to understand all the dated bones found in Alberta, Canada. If we can believe carbon dating.These are animals not found in the Bible, but there they are. What to do with them?

Just remember, theistic evolutionists do not deny God and do not deny the scriptures as God's word in fact and in deed.

Cheers,

Jim

 

There are several who deny the Genesis account, right here, among us.

 

Curtis, Maybe I should have said that as a theistic evolutionist, I Don't Deny the Genesis account, and I have been a theistic evolutionist for about 44 years.

Cheers,

Jim

 

That's the question that Naturalists* don't want discussed.

*One who espouses the doctrine of Naturalism, not those who study nature.

 

Your last point is spot on Marcia!

To make a correction as Magnetic Poles explanation is misleading and highly abbreviated. The Cambrian Explosion in fact is strong evidence that evolution is false! It actually tends to give greater support for Creation.

It is one of the greatest obstacles for evolutionists. It is debated and discussed among all ranks but often downplayed or even misrepresented by Darwinians. However, Darwin was aware of this 150 years ago himself but hoped the fossil record or science would eventually show otherwise somehow.

The Cambrian Explosion is a factual record which shows the beginning of all major and complex groups of living animals. This is highly damaging evidence which contradicts and refutes evolution. A brief but good article with quotes can be found here. http://www.learnthebible.org/creation_science_cambrian_explosion_disproves_evolution.htm


The greatest pillar of evolution was the purported fossil record. The fossil record also disproves evolution and the Cambrian Explosion strongly supports that as a fact. Science has continued to advance and as more artifacts have been gathered it has continued to raise more doubts and obstacles to the theory. If evolution were true the opposite would have easily been shown to occur. It is but one of many significant obstacles for them and a real "monkey" on their back! Pun intended.

The fossil record does not show the evolution of species though evolutionists often try to depict such. Again and again scientists are proved over zealous, wrong or corrupt with lies at times being exposed. Just Google on the many times or falsities of the "missing link" reportedly being found! Remember the "missing link" slogan and how it was depicted many years ago? It was and still is simply an attempt to keep the theory alive. Darwin himself helped perpetuate falsified drawings by German biologist in an attempt to give credence to the theory. This was one of the greatest and longest running hoaxes until the 1990's when embryologist Michael Richardson exposed the truth. BTW, Haeckel's drawings were known to be fakes for a century by prominent evolutionists but never reported as such until Richardson exposed it.

Despite this biology textbooks were reported as still depicting the drawings as factual many years afterward. I read one two years ago that at least made mention the drawings were doctored but downplayed that. It also began to discuss the problems with the Fossil record in regards to evolution but then completely changed the subject. Instead of clarifying the point the book simply and abruptly began to note the “many new archaeological discoveries” over the years. The book seemed quite good but I found numerous examples where it began to mention some of the major scientific problems with evolution but then offered no elaboration for the students. It completely omitted many of the other challenges or disproved facts. I borrowed the textbook from a relative in order to see how it is presented today. I will say it was presented more honestly than when I was in school and thus why I say “seemed good”. Evolution was only presented within one or two chapters of the textbook with many other good and interesting chapters.

Ann Coulter notes the Miller-Urey experiment is still taught as factual in textbooks to this day though it was proved false, questionable at best, many decades ago. There are scientists who continue to manipulate that experiment and hypothesis in hopes of making it conceivable but always with highly debatable results. Other hypothesis of origin have arisen because of the significant obstacles to this.

Piltdown Man is another example. Having been taught as factual and hailed as the great discovery by the Darwinian theorists for many decades only to later be proved a complete hoax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man You would think a scientific community concerned with accurate data would have discovered this sooner? It however is only one of many hoaxes and highly debatable facts as purported by evolutionists, scientists, or advocates of evolution. Whenever a new species or variation of species is discovered Darwinians often depict it as proving evolution, only later to show otherwise. Peppered moths are an example where they were fraudulently staged for textbooks. http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/pepper.shtml It is still lauded today by many as a great example of evolution however.


So as science has continued to advance, with molecular and many other fields challenging the theory, evolutionists are required to continually revise their theory. Often to the point of contradicting the core of the theory but effectually making it difficult for anyone to ever disprove. Richard Dawkins is a prime example why any and all challenges to the theory of evolution is highly ridiculed. Because the only other alternative is Gods creation.

Richard Dawkins is one of "the" great evolutionist and atheists but has admited the possibility of God being the creator. He also noted a belief that aliens began it all. http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2543431/is-richard-dawkins-still-evolving.thtml

It is junk science and I applaud Texas.:applause:


I would love to know what God thinks of it all.
BTW He created it the way He says He did. See p.1 of the Bible:godisgood:

 

It is more than amusing that some will accept carbon dating with such things as the Dead Sea Scrolls and other biblical artifacts, but deem it false when it comes to dating something like the fossils found in Alberta. They were not fabricated by any stretch of the imagination.

Cheers,

Jim

 

There is nothing at all misleading about what I said, so please stop lying. There is neither intent, nor actual misrepresentation in my comments:

As for abbreviated, it was not intended to be a science lecture. But I did include a link to an article with a fairly good bit of information.