Darwin's Dilemma, God spoke and it was fully formed

[TinMan]

""" Dickinsonia"" is not the biography of Charles Dickens.... tho you might think so, @TinMan

So.....The Scientific Fossil Record hilarity continues.... like these actual headlines.. found in "Scientific" Journals, or similar.

""""How Fake Fossils Pervert Paleontology"""​

and here is the article and it's discussion of manufactured fake fossils for the private marketplace can lead to problems just like say a forged painting. Or are you suggesting that art is just something made up too?

""""9 Fossils and Finds That Were Total Fake""""​

which includes Piluxy River Tracks which has a major display at the Creationist museum despite the fact that no one ever thought they were actual footprints

"""""3 Science Hoaxes Of Today: From Theranos To Fake Fossils"""""​

yeah forgeries are a pain. just like forged art

“False” Microfossils Challenge our Interpretation of the Fossil Record"""​

I don't think you actually read this one

 

[Behold]

and here is the article and it's discussion of manufactured fake fossils

Im saying that when you need to believe that you came from a Chimp, then any fake fossil record is going to make you happy to keep swinging on the tangled vine that is "the theory of evolution".

I showed you Legit "fake fossil" records, confirmed in at least 4 Scientific Journals and from the Faculty at Oxford who teach this Junk.

You can only just spin and spin and spin again.

 

[TinMan]

Im saying that when you need to believe that you came from a Chimp, then any fake fossil record is going to make you happy to keep swinging on the tangled vine that is "the theory of evolution".

Humans didn't evolve from Chimps as anyone with even a basic grasp of the theory of evolution knows and understands. Humas and Chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

I showed you Legit "fake fossil" records, confirmed in at least 4 Scientific Journals and from the Faculty at Oxford who teach this Junk.

You can only just spin and spin and spin again.

and none of these fake fossils were considered to be legitimate by scientists.

Your logic in this is really twisted. Can someone fake a fossil? obviously yes just not very well. The existence of that fake fossil doesn't change the existence or legitimacy of the millions of actual fossils. Can a talented artist create a fake Picasso? Yes but that doesn't have any effect an the paintings Pablo created, they still exist and they are still real.

 

[Hobie]

The connecting fossil record is a theory.
Carbon dating is not actually completely accurate.

And the Big Bang, is a Theory... and what is interesting about it... is that you have to ask yourself.... "IF... there was a big bang" then there had to be something available that banged. = In other words, the MATERIAL that "banged".... Where did it come from..?
Did it "self generate" from "Blank nothingness", of itself?

A.) NEVER

So, this is where SCIENCE tries to hid the ball in the Truth cups and shift them around as Theory and teach Theory as Truth and Reality.., Because..... the REAL Discussion is not about the "Bang"....... but with regards to where the STUFF came from that they say is the original" Bang."

I know where it came from.....

A.) You can't have creation without a Creator

Also....

Currently there is BUZZ regarding AI.... Artificial Intelligence, and this Ai, can recreate what its fed, the preexisting Data...that.. its given to analyze, and thereby recreate something that is seemingly a carbon copy, rearranged.......but that is re-creation of what previous exists.,
That is RE-CREATION..

Reader, if you deal with an Atheist, and they are all fired up about ". ""Well you can't prove that God exists"... Then just tell them...
= "Well you can't prove that God doesn't exist".
And leave them there, as there is no need to try to argue with a "Stop" Sign or a Brick Wall, and that's what you are up against.
Neither of those have "ears to hear".

Or, and next, you can point out that a Red Rose.... can't be created from NOTHING, by any type of SCIENCE.
However....

They can clone one.
They can Hybrid one.
They can plant one.
But they can't CREATE one out of the AIR... out of NOTHING>..

I know who Did.
And so do you, if you are a Believer, as God created it all "After its Kind", and that means fully formed.
it means the Original Chicken was not created from the egg, nor was the first Dinosaur.

Very true..

 

[amigo de christo]

The title of this thread . Darwins dilema . HE THOUGHT LONG and HE THOUGHT WRONG .
should have stuck to creationism in the bible . Simple enough . Now let all that has breath
both praise and thank and rejoice in the glorious LORD .

 

[Hobie]

The fossil record shows that nearly all major animal groups abruptly appeared on earth. Dubbed the 'Cambrian explosion,' this dramatic burst of biodiversity without clear evolutionary precursors has created headaches for evolutionists ever since Darwin. He knew that if the animals were found fully formed and didnt 'evolve', that the fossil record contradicted what his 'theory of evolution' predicted. In his book 'On the Origin of Species', Darwin declared that if his theory of evolution were true “it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited… the world swarmed with living creatures.” Yet Darwin admitted that the fossil record below the Cambrian strata did not show such creatures. Instead “species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks" without any evidence of prior ancestral forms. Darwin frankly acknowledged that this lack of ancestral forms was “a valid argument” against his theory. But Darwin basically hoped that time would provide the evidence that was lacking. And now we have the James Webb Space Telescope show much the same in the heavens, were they hoped to see empty space before the Big Bang, they find fully formed galaxies and stars. It is a problem as if their theory of the Big Bang is correct, these telescopes should be able to see ‘times’ when no stars or galaxies exist. But it appears stars and galaxies exist, no matter how far out they look.

The James Webb Space Telescope discovers enormous distant galaxies that should not exist

Giant, mature galaxies seem to have filled the universe shortly after the Big Bang, and astronomers are puzzled.

www.space.com

So what will it do to their theory if no part of the visible universe fails to contain stars or galaxies and instead the heavens testify of Creation exactly as described in Scripture.

Psalm 33:6​

6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Psalm 33:9​

9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Hebrews 11:3​

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Genesis 1:1-5​

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

​

​

They, as many others, will come up with another 'scientific' theory to replace the discounted one.

 

[Gottservant]

Darwin was blind to the notion of a "double".

Someone who doesn't see "doubles", doesn't value connections related to anything with an identity.

In other words, Darwin was trying to create value, because of a problem he had with attributing it.

That value is now understood, but imagining it doesn't make anything possible (by it).

 

[Jericho]

@Hobie sure, Evolutionists believe a lie, but they also believe the truth as well - species literally morph between 'kinds'

How do you discover that species morph, without speculating that they morph into one another? That's the difficulty.

I think part of the answer is that species retain an inexchangeable potential, that is, one of their traits is that they only expect to be what they already were (because there is more potential in that, than change). It's like God gives them a proviso: the more you dilute your species, the less you are able to grow your potential. Instinctually, every creature knows to avoid this!

How you assert this (inexchangeable potential), in a positive case, is still a mystery to me - but I think about it constantly. If men could just humble themselves to being men, I think we would really be getting somewhere!

What you are describing is microevolution but it's really just the expression of the variations within a species. A moth may change its color to adapt to the environment, for example, but it's still a moth. What Darwin described is macroevolution, the changing of one kind into another. That has never been observed in nature or duplicated in the lab, so it will forever remain a theory.

 

[Chains Broken]

It is a problem as if their theory of the Big Bang is correct, these telescopes should be able to see ‘times’ when no stars or galaxies exist. But it appears stars and galaxies exist, no matter how far out they look.

I won't go into how the Big Bang started as a Christian theory and was rejected by atheist scientists, and is not at all incompatible with Christianity.

If the people operating these telescopes look for "times" before stars then they just see nothing, because there's nothing to look at. They can't find the distance (and therefore the age) of nothingness because its nothing. JWST uses infrared radiation to see God's creations in the sky, it needs to recieve radiation from something (stars, galaxies) to work.

And for the record, their findings with JWST are very consistant with their opinion of the age of the universe.

I very strongly believe that Christians are defeating themselves trying to disprove scientific findings when should be trying to prove Christianity instead (especially the NT).

And the Big Bang, is a Theory... and what is interesting about it... is that you have to ask yourself.... "IF... there was a big bang" then there had to be something available that banged. = In other words, the MATERIAL that "banged".... Where did it come from..?
Did it "self generate" from "Blank nothingness", of itself?

It came from God, I have no idea how this "nothing to everything without God" theory would even work.

 

[Hobie]

What you are describing is microevolution but it's really just the expression of the variations within a species. A moth may change its color to adapt to the environment, for example, but it's still a moth. What Darwin described is macroevolution, the changing of one kind into another. That has never been observed in nature or duplicated in the lab, so it will forever remain a theory.

Well, it looks like the 'theory' is being debunked and people are seeing it is a hoax, just made up to reject Creation and the Creator..