Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever.
This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16803380.
These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So,
theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove.
Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start.
The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence,
and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity.
The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is.
The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming.
So the answer is no, you don't have any scientific evidence showing the records in the bible are accurate.
Moving on, evolution is not about the beginning of time nor about how mutations come in place, evolution theory does not say why exactly any mutation happens. It wouldn't even matter if everything was programmed to be like that because evolution would still exist, as I said you clearly do not understand what evolution tries to explain and you keep rambling about the beginning of the universe or life or how things are not random all of which are meaningless because evolution has nothing to do with them.
Well, thank you. You are finally admitting that changes occur, and that you want to call them "evolution," and that nobody knows why or how it all works. Good work. Now, at least, you have a base from which to widen your knowledge and understanding.
Which everyone calls evolution because that's what it is, the theory of evolution. I don't really understand what you mean by admitting that changes occur when I said it first that evolution is change, maybe you have a short memory. You are the one who has to admit that you were wrong, that evolution exists and you simply didn't know what it was.
Multitudes of people consider that inanimate to human is what evolution is. Evolution theory is the whys and hows of the way it happened.
There isn't any inanimate to human. There are many proofs that show that this couldn't happen, including probability math and Irreducible Complexity.
Go ahead and play with the idea some call the theory of evolution. Lots of people play with all kinds of science fiction.
Who are these people that you keep talking about?? Evolution theory as I said 10 times and you can search it's definition does not include the origin of life, do you have memory problems?
We all have memory problems.
Just because you say or write something doesn't necessarily mean anything.
You can find people all over the Internet who include abiogenesis in evolution.
By implication, evolution includes inanimate to life, even if it is not spoken directly.
The evolutionary tree of Darwin and many others supposedly takes us back the original life form. That living form didn't exist forever and ever into the past, and all of a sudden decide to change a few million years ago. If not stated directly, by implication evolution suggests that the form started somewhere along the line. That makes abiogenesis part of evolution. You even state this at the bottom of your post.
Your proof is meaningless because there are already many experiments done showing that you can in fact create life from nonliving matter:
In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested that hypothesis. They combined water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in sealed vials in attempt to replicate Earth’s original atmosphere. They bombarded the vials with heat and continuous electrode sparks to simulate volcanic activity and lightening. Eventually, the reaction produced a number of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins and, by extension, life itself.
And that was in 1952, there are many more experiments of this.
Yet it is not life. It is simply some amino acids^^^.
And they weren't found forming in nature. People had to go to great lengths to manufacture them.
All of the talk in evolution about life forms changing from one to another, can be explained by the idea that there always were multitudes of species that never changed, but always existed as their own species. In fact, this is the case, with multitudes of species dying out over thousands of years. This indicates devolution and entropy rather than evolution, with creation at the beginning.
The whole idea of evolution as fact is sweet fiction, but it is fiction because it has never been proven.
Probability math and Irreducible Complexity are just two of the things that show that evolution is impossible with regard to life.
Probability math has been debunked many times already.
http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_150__Probability_of_Evolution__.htmlThe calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have?
If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case.
Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all.
For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite.
Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.
In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-simplest-way-to-debunk-irreducible-complexity-to-an-evolution-denierhttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexityIrreducible complexity is claimed to indicate (but does not) that certain systems could not have evolved gradually. However, jumping from there to the conclusion that those systems were designed is an argument from incredulity. There is nothing about irreducibly complex systems that is positive evidence for design.
Irreducible complexity suggests a lack of design. For critical applications, such as keeping an organism alive, you do not want systems that will fail if any one part fails. You want systems that are robust (Steele 2000).
Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:
deletion of parts
addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
change of function
addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
gradual modification of parts
All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).
Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.
Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.
Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.
Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.
Posting flawed ''things'' that show evolution is impossible is not going to get you anywhere.
