Ecclesiastes 11:5 vs Modern Science

[JohnHurt]

I'm not sure where you came up with the notion that only fossils do radioactive decay. That is simply false. All rocks that have radioactive isotopes within them experience radioactive decay. In fact all radioactive isotopes decay. That is the definition of radioactivity. And it is the identity of the radioactive isotope that determines the rate of decay, not the material that it is found within. So any rock that you find anywhere on earth can be dated with radiometric dating as long as it contains radioactive isotopes. Not just fossils. The key is that there has to be radioactive impurities incorporated in the structure of the rock when was formed. Which doesn't necessarily happen with every rock or every fossil for that matter. In fact, many fossils are not dated using radiometric dating of the fossil itself. But rather by dating the rock layers in which they are found.

The Radioactive Carbon 14 dating theory is founded on the idea that the ratio of Carbon 14 to 12 created in the atmosphere by the sun does not change. So Carbon 14 created each year by the sun remains steady, and only starts to decay in the rock and fossils where the fresh air with the newly created Carbon 14 cannot reach.

Here is the variation of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere during the period of nuclear testing:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarb ... iderations

There are other reason that can cause the results of Carbon 14 dating to be inaccurate, like the burning of coal. I suppose a volcano would do the same thing.

Radioactive dating is not accurate, there are too many unknown variables.

There is no grand conspiracy to discredit creationism. Creationism is essentially irrelevant to the conduct of biological research one way or the other. Genesis is about as relevant to science as the Navajo creation myth of the creation of father sky and mother earth. Or the creation myth of the Chinook peoples here in the Pacific Northwest which involves salmon, a magical thunderbird beast, and the first people emerging from thunderbird eggs. Or the Norse creation myth involving the Norse gods Odin and Frigg who populated Asgard with the first people. Or hundreds of other creation stories. They are all interesting and tell us about the beliefs of ancient people and cultures. But they aren't science. And science doesn't spend its time trying to confirm or refute any of them including Genesis.

I think it is the "other way around". "Science" depends on "magic" more than any other "religion".

Man is now his own "god". "Science" dispenses with "Intelligent Design" and worships before these idols:

THE IDOLS OF "SCIENCE" (Pick one or more to worship.)

1. Matter Created Itself. Nothing Created the First Hydrogen atoms, they just "happened".




2. Life Created Itself out of the Matter that Created Itself. Life has no purpose. There is no Creator. There is no Intelligent Design.




3. Abiogenesis is not the same as "Spontaneous Generation" so cells can magically create themselves. (I still scratch my head on that one.)


4. Random Chance can beat entropy. Throw metal up in the air, long enough, and a car can fabricate itself.




5. One Species can evolve both a male and female of another species at the same time and place so that they can breed, through "random chance". This "luck" has happened repeatedly to create every species that has ever lived, but it has never been seen by humans, and has never been recreated in a laboratory or under controlled conditions.





6. Only what you see in the material world is real, there is no higher plane of existence, there is no purpose or reason for this existence. When you die, you are dead all over, like Rover. Man is just another animal. There is no Higher Consciousness, nothing created this world, and so all of the people that walk this world are also "nothing".




I don't know, Ken. I think that none of the Idols of Modern Science can speak for themselves with observable facts, they really cannot move to produce repeatable results in a laboratory, and so it takes a lot of "Blind Faith" to believe that any of these deaf and dumb idols made from the stone of outdated ideas could ever be "real".

Especially Idol #5, that Evolution can create both a male and female at the same time, that is a really ugly idol. That one would take a LOT of prayer to make it work. Just keep your eyes closed and believe, and maybe it can really speak to us.

As far as "Modern Science" rallying to the cause of "truth", I don't see a lot of "scientists" discussing the problems with their blind acceptance of "Piltdown Man" or "Nebraska Man". Both of these "scientific discoveries" were contrived "fakes". How many more fakes has "science" given us that we still don't know about?

What is called "Science" is a cult of men that believe they are right and everyone else is wrong, and they have no problem with lying to the rest of us. Like telling us that "Abiogenesis" is not "Spontaneous Generation", - Give me a break! That is absolutely ridiculous.

And when you show them, to their face, that they are wrong, they just ignore you. It is a religion based on faith, like any other.

It is a religion that lets Man make his own Laws, and ignore the Laws of the Creator. When Man makes his own laws, he ultimately destroys his own civilization. There has never been a successful civilization based on atheism, or the "Religion of Science". Ask Robespierre and the people in the French Revolution.

And so the bogus "Religion of Science" promises you wealth and fame among men, but only if you "believe", or at least say you do. It gives you the "heaven" men want, right here on earth. But you must "believe" in the impossible.

I think I would rather be poor, unknown, and have the truth, than to preach the teachings of these dumb idols to the unlearned and the gullible for wealth and fame.

Thanks,

[JohnHurt]

One other reason that evolution is impossible is that there are no evidences of all of the "unsuccessful" attempts by random chance to create a more "evolved" organism that is better suited to its environment..

For example, for evolution to create a bird, it would have to know the viscosity of the air so that the wings would be of the proper size and shape, and create a new bird species with the correct power to weight ratio that would enable the bird to get off the ground. Evolution would also have to create a bird that was aerodynamically stable. And it would have to know how to design a feather for flight, and insulation.

So if Evolution is a series of "random" events, then where are all of the birds that can't fly, like a bird with only one wing, or a bird with 3 wings? A bird that is too fat to fly? Or a bird with the tail feathers on the front of the bird and not the back? Or a bird with the wings on the feet, or has the wings put on backwards? Where are all of the mistakes that "random chance" must surely make?

So if 99.99% of all mutations are downward, then where are these downward mutations?

Why don't we see these "less than perfect" animals on earth today?

And if evolution is truly random, and it creates an unsuccessful mutation through random chance, then it would keep creating the same unsuccessful mutation over and over again. Where are these "also ran" mutations?

There is supposed to be "survival of the fittest". Why is every species designed to be "perfect" from the start, and works in a well designed way to interact with its environment.

If Evolution is an "active process", then there should be some sort of "proof" that it can create anything at all, even the downward mutations. Do we see this in Nature? No.

Do we even see any new species created by evolutionary processes? No.

Remember, Evolution has to create a male and female at the same time and place so they can breed and create this new species. So if Evolution creates just a male of a new improved species, and not the female at the same time, then this new species will also fail.

So where are they? Is there even one new species?

Evolution is an active process, right? Where are we unable to monitor this process? Why can we not "invoke" evolution in a laboratory to "help" it create a new species?

Here is the answer:

Evolution is an impossible theory, and it is not based on observed phenomena.

[JohnHurt]

The other reason Evolution cannot be true is because of the obvious design we see in the natural world.

For example, photosynthesis uses light, or a photon, to create a sugar, and not create heat as it does in every other substance.

Photosynthesis is a technology so far advanced above our "science" of today, that at most, we can only describe it. We don't really understand it.

But then they tell us that the miracle of photosynthesis happened by "random chance".

It is like looking at the Golden Gate Bridge and saying that metal in the bridge was deposited in a glacier in Canada, the glacier moved from Canada over millions of years and extended over California, and after the last ice age, the glacier melted and left this bridge intact as the way it looks today, through "random chance".



Or you can say that someone created it.

Using Occam's Razor, which is the simplest explanation?

Wouldn't the same explanation hold true for how life, and how all of the species on Earth were created? That something designed life, as life could not have possibly have happened by random chance?

Our existence on this planet is not a riddle to be solved, but an experience. Whether we can solve how life and all of the species were created, I don't believe that is possible.

But if we are going to be "scienfific" about the origin of life, we have to eliminate the theories that are too complex or require too much "good luck" to ever have possibly happened. We need a simple explanation. And that this world, and all of the life in it, was created by Intelligent Design, is a much better explanation that matches what we see in the world today.

[Ken]

One other reason that evolution is impossible is that there are no evidences of all of the "unsuccessful" attempts by random chance to create a more "evolved" organism that is better suited to its environment..

For example, for evolution to create a bird, it would have to know the viscosity of the air so that the wings would be of the proper size and shape, and create a new bird species with the correct power to weight ratio that would enable the bird to get off the ground. Evolution would also have to create a bird that was aerodynamically stable. And it would have to know how to design a feather for flight, and insulation.

So if Evolution is a series of "random" events, then where are all of the birds that can't fly, like a bird with only one wing, or a bird with 3 wings? A bird that is too fat to fly? Or a bird with the tail feathers on the front of the bird and not the back? Or a bird with the wings on the feet, or has the wings put on backwards? Where are all of the mistakes that "random chance" must surely make?

Your fundamental misunderstanding is the notion that evolution is random. It is the opposite of random. In fact, "evolution" itself is just a word. What Darwin actually proposed was a "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection." And the entire premise and mechanism of evolution that it is based on non-random selective pressures. What Darwin called the "survival of the fittest".

And as for evolutionary dead ends? The fossil record is filled with them. In fact more than 99.9% of the species that have ever lived on earth are now extinct. Not because of humans but because they were evolutionary dead-ends in the face of changing ecosystems. We have, for example, identified thousands of different species from the Cambrian. Not one survives today. They were extinct long before humans arrived on the scene. The best known Cambrian animals were trilobites which are commonly found in rock layers around the world. They finally died out at the end of the Permian, about 251 million years ago. More recently we have plenty of examples from the Pleistocene. Megafauna on every continent experienced widespread extinctions during the late Pleistocene as the ice ages ended and glaciers retreated to the poles as the result of global climate change. Humans may have played a role in that one but I find it implausible that small populations of primitive humans caused worldwide extinctions of over 50% of the megafauna on the planet.

[Ken]

The other reason Evolution cannot be true is because of the obvious design we see in the natural world.

For example, photosynthesis uses light, or a photon, to create a sugar, and not create heat as it does in every other substance.

Photosynthesis is a technology so far advanced above our "science" of today, that at most, we can only describe it. We don't really understand it.

But then they tell us that the miracle of photosynthesis happened by "random chance".

What is it that you think we don't understand about photosynthesis? Seriously? Even HS biology students understand the mechanisms of photosynthesis (if they are paying attention that is )

And scientists have created artificial photosynthesis in the lab many times. Here is just one recent example: https://news.uchicago.edu/story/chemist ... ng-systems

In any event, the mechanism of photosynthesis itself has undergone tremendous evolution and development over time. It isn't just species that evolve, biological processes also evolve. The first primitive photosynthetic organisms in the earth's early oceans were primitive bacteria that absorbed infrared light rather than visible light and produced sulfur and sulfate compounds rather than oxygen. Hundreds of millions of years after that, cyanobacteria evolved that began to produce oxygen from visible light. Then more complex eukaryotic red and brown algae which eventually gave way to green algae and the first land plants which eventually became complex vascular plants. With the process of photosynthesis changing and becoming more complex along the way.

By the way, photosynthesis (along with its counterpart, cellular respiration) are the real reason we are carbon based life forms and not silicon based life forms. The twin processes of photosynthesis and respiration upon which all life is based require the gaseous and liquid cycling of carbon which can take gas forms (CO2) and liquid forms (glucose) and is soluble in water. Carbon moves in and out of cells in gas and liquid forms during all the processes of life. Silicon, on the other hand, only forms solid crystals in both its pure form and in all its various molecular combinations. Carbon dioxide, for example, is a gas that can cycle in and out of every cell on earth during the processes of respiration and photosynthesis. Silicon dioxide is a crystalline solid (quartz) that doesn't cycle anywhere. It can erode from solid rock into sandy beaches over time. But it just sits there. Unlike carbon, silicon also cannot form long chains with itself. There are a few marine plankton species that have managed to incorporate silicon into their skeletons such as diatoms. But it is fairly insoluble in water so not a particularly useful building block for life despite being the 2nd most abundant element on earth (after oxygen) and being vastly more abundant than carbon.

[JohnHurt]

And scientists have created artificial photosynthesis in the lab many times. Here is just one recent example: https://news.uchicago.edu/story/chemist ... ng-systems

The "photosynthesis" they discovered is to break apart a CO2 molecule to create oxidized water using photons and an enzyme.

When they can use sunlight to make a carbohydrate that someone can eat, like a potato can do every day, I will be impressed.

Your fundamental misunderstanding is the notion that evolution is random. It is the opposite of random. In fact, "evolution" itself is just a word. What Darwin actually proposed was a "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection." And the entire premise and mechanism of evolution that it is based on non-random selective pressures. What Darwin called the "survival of the fittest".

And as for evolutionary dead ends? The fossil record is filled with them. In fact more than 99.9% of the species that have ever lived on earth are now extinct. Not because of humans but because they were evolutionary dead-ends in the face of changing ecosystems. We have, for example, identified thousands of different species from the Cambrian. Not one survives today. They were extinct long before humans arrived on the scene. The best known Cambrian animals were trilobites which are commonly found in rock layers around the world. They finally died out at the end of the Permian, about 251 million years ago. More recently we have plenty of examples from the Pleistocene. Megafauna on every continent experienced widespread extinctions during the late Pleistocene as the ice ages ended and glaciers retreated to the poles as the result of global climate change. Humans may have played a role in that one but I find it implausible that small populations of primitive humans caused worldwide extinctions of over 50% of the megafauna on the planet.

That species are extinct is not the point. Maybe you don't understand the question, or maybe you do, and don't have an answer.

The question is, for every "upward" mutation, there are thousands of unsuccessful "downward" mutations. Where are these downward mutations? Why don't we see them today?

Evolution is a dynamic process. Why don't we see any evidence of this process today?

Because Evolution is impossible, even in the laboratory, it is impossible.

It is impossible for one species to create both a male and female of a new species, at the same time and place.

Evolution is the Religion of a "Science Cult" that has taken over the world of true science.

The way you know it is a "cult" is how it handles heretics. Anyone that disagrees with the cult dogmas of Evolution and other impossible theories will lose their teaching jobs, or not have their papers published.

Consider Andrew Wakefield, and his research, and what happened to him when he linked the rise in Autism to vaccines.

Consider Ignaz Semmelweis that suggested that doctors should wash their hands between surgeries, and was ridiculed to insanity.

Consider Royal Rife who discovered the mortal oscillation frequency of bacteria and viruses inside the human body, and was able to destroy these pathogens with electro magnetic waves (my friend cure himself from Lyme disease using a Rife machine.) Royal Rife was ruined by the "scientific" community.

This "Cult of Science" is the main barrier to humans ever moving ahead into the research of new ideas.

Consider that fenbendazole has shown promise with curing cancer. Or that distilled cannabis oil (Rick Simpson oil) can cure skin cancer through apoptosis. Or the work of an Italian doctor to investigate if cancer was a fungus and could be treated with baking soda. We will never know.

This "Cult" rules over us, and prevents the introductions of new ideas that should at least be evaluated.

And the "Cult" hog ties the minds of the young with these ridiculous ideas that man is some sort of evolved monkey.

Thanks, and have a great day.

John

[Ken]

That species are extinct is not the point. Maybe you don't understand the question, or maybe you do, and don't have an answer.

The question is, for every "upward" mutation, there are thousands of unsuccessful "downward" mutations. Where are these downward mutations? Why don't we see them today?

Mutations happen all the time. Most are either damaging and the organism does not survive, or they are benign and have no effect since much of each organism's genetic code is filler and doesn't actually code for genes. The theory of natural selection suggests that evolution will only select for traits (mutations) that confer some competitive advantage to an organism.

In any event, I'm not sure what you mean by "downward" mutations. Take any species you want from insects to humans and you will find tremendous genetic variety within the gene pool. This is partly due to mutations. Some of them will disappear if they are disadvantageous. Some will become more prevalent in the population if they confer and advantage.

Evolution is a dynamic process. Why don't we see any evidence of this process today?

We do. There are endless examples all around us and throughout the fossil record.

Have a good day yourself.