The discussion is about evolution, not this warped magical view.
1 Like
Actually before the “right time”. If the trait isn’t already there, then its benefits can’t be had.
Splitting hairs again?
Whichever, timing is still crucial and beyond the “control” of ToE.
Richard
Sorry for your inconvenience!
I am Myeong Ho Park(is my real name)!
Yang_Sam_San is my nickname here, but on Google it is written without underscores.
And my blog is correct, too!
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I respect your effort to connect scientific evidence with theological interpretation, but I would like to present a different view based on direct analysis and evidence.
First, the difference between assumptions and truth. Scientific models often rely on multiple assumptions. Radiometric dating, for example, requires assumptions about initial conditions, constant decay rates over billions of years, and a perfectly closed system. Yet initial conditions can be set in countless ways, decay constancy over such vast timescales cannot be verified, and closed systems rarely exist in reality. Remove these assumptions, and the calculation collapses. The results are therefore not absolute facts, but models dependent on assumptions.
Second, the authority of Scripture. Creation was carried out by God Himself, and the Bible is His testimony given through human writers. To dismiss creation as myth is to elevate human speculation above the Creator’s own witness. Whether others treat the Bible as literature or not is irrelevant to me. But if the Bible is declared to be merely a literary work, then I will not believe it. Once Scripture is reduced to human interpretation alone, its authority collapses, and faith loses its foundation.
Third, the Bible as fact. The Bible is not a collection of legends. It has been tested for thousands of years through archaeology, history, and even scientific inquiry, and it continues to stand as a record of real events and people.
Fourth, the limits of radiometric dating. Terms like “Young Earth Creationism” do not persuade me, because they are based on dating methods that themselves rely on assumptions. We must judge by removing those assumptions, not by accepting them uncritically.
Finally, the standard of scientific discussion. Genuine scientific debate requires more than repeating knowledge acquired through education. It requires direct analysis and verification. I have undertaken that process myself, publishing 57 papers on my blog, including 38 bilingual papers on Zenodo. My arguments are therefore grounded in evidence, not just belief.
I would kindly ask that you also bring concrete evidence and independent analysis to the discussion. Only then can we engage in a meaningful debate that truly seeks the truth.
Thank you.
False. Crystallization cannot incorporate daughter products. Decay rates are defined by the balance of fundamental forces and nuclear geometry, and cannot be accelerated without also destabilizing regular matter which holds together by the same forces. Whether the system is closed is a distraction, what matters is interaction and any such effective phenomena would also be lethal. You are just saying stuff that has no actual physical meaning.
There are always assumptions, it’s turtles all the way down. But radiometric dating is based on well understood nuclear physics and is real like nuclear weapons are real. Hezekiah’s tunnel has been dated by both radiocarbon and uranium-thorium and matches the Bible, so if radiometric dating is wrong, the Bible must also be wrong.