Science Disproves Evolution

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:08 pm

Teenage T. rex Fossils

https://www.icr.org/article/teenage-trex-fossils/

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:07 pm

Population Growth Matches Bible and DNA Clock

https://www.icr.org/article/population- ... bible-dna/

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:58 pm

LarsMac;1529733 wrote: Because none of what you posted offers evidence that "Proves" anything.

What it "Proves" is that the Evolutionists themselves admit that 2 Billion years ago, the sun would only be 70% as hot as it is today AND that life on earth could not survive. Even at 90% of it's strength, life could not survive. It is yet another piece of evidence that life couldn't have been on the earth 2 billion years ago as the Creation Scientists say.

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Wed Jan 29, 2020 4:05 pm

Comets Prove The Universe Cannot Be Over 10,000 years Old

http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/c ... ation.html

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Jan 29, 2020 10:30 pm

xfrodobagginsx;1529949 wrote: Comets Prove The Universe Cannot Be Over 10,000 years Old

http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/c ... ation.html

Another example which you obvioulsy failed to read completely.

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:54 pm

LarsMac;1529955 wrote: Another example which you obvioulsy failed to read completely.

I gave you an Article that looks at it from the Evolutionist side of the story, because you seem to refuse to believe anything that was written by anyone whom you disagree with. If you look at it, it is full of holes. There is no evidence of an Oort Cloud. The Hubble Telescope has never even seen any so called Oort cloud. Without an Oort cloud, the Evolutionists have no explanation as to why comets still exist seeing that they can only last up to 10,000 years:

"The Oort cloud and Kuiper belt are the reservoirs that were proposed to explain the observations of comet orbits. The Oort cloud reportedly consists of approximately 100 trillion comets occupying an immense space at the very edge of the solar system, somewhere between 1,000 and 100,000 A.U. (Druyan and Sagan 1985, Stern 2003). "

"In 1950, Jan Hendrik Oort first proposed a cloud at a great distance from the sun to explain the observations of comets. Theoretical evidence of the Oort cloud comes from the "random distribution of orbital planes and of perihelia and of the preponderance of nearly-parabolic orbits [of comets]." (Oort 1950). Through the use of computer modeling techniques, astronomers have found that "models of Solar System and Oort cloud formation have repeatedly shown that the formation of an Oort cloud is a natural by-product of the clearing and ejection of debris from the giant planets' region some, 3.5-4.5Gyr ago." (Stern 2003).

However, the Oort cloud failed to explain all of the observed comet traits due to differences in characteristics of long period and short period comets. To explain the short period comets, a disk of comet material lying just beyond the last of the giant gaseous planets was expected. The theoretical evidence eventually led to the idea of the Kuiper belt."

http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/c ... ation.html

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:19 pm

In all my years, I have yet to meet an evolutionists.

I don't think that such a critter exists. They are a figment of your imagination.

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Fri Jan 31, 2020 9:29 pm

LarsMac;1529969 wrote: In all my years, I have yet to meet an evolutionists.

I don't think that such a critter exists. They are a figment of your imagination.

So then, you have never met anyone who believes in evolution? Interesting

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Feb 01, 2020 10:20 am

xfrodobagginsx;1529983 wrote: So then, you have never met anyone who believes in evolution? Interesting
"Believe in evolution" is a meaningless phrase.

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Sat Feb 01, 2020 11:45 am

LarsMac;1529990 wrote: "Believe in evolution" is a meaningless phrase.

So then, you don't know anyone who believes that animals evolved from lower creatures to more complex creatures through the process of evolution? I am not following you.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:07 pm

xfrodobagginsx;1529991 wrote: So then, you don't know anyone who believes that animals evolved from lower creatures to more complex creatures through the process of evolution?

I believe the Science. So do most of the people I know and respect.

xfrodobagginsx;1529991 wrote: I am not following you.

In the words of Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise."

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:51 pm

xfrodobagginsx;1529991 wrote: So then, you don't know anyone who believes that animals evolved from lower creatures to more complex creatures through the process of evolution?There are lots of people who do believe this strawman argument; none of them, however, would understand Evolution correctly. This apparently includes you.

Before you try to run any further down your rabbit hole, let me just say that there are no higher or lower forms of life, or creatures, and that complexity is in the eye of the beholder and is most likely grounded in ignorance.

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:49 pm

Ahso!;1530027 wrote: There are lots of people who do believe this strawman argument; none of them, however, would understand Evolution correctly. This apparently includes you.

Before you try to run any further down your rabbit hole, let me just say that there are no higher or lower forms of life, or creatures, and that complexity is in the eye of the beholder and is most likely grounded in ignorance.

So, this is great that both you and Larsmac don't believe in Evolution. I would agree with you. Or if I am misunderstanding the process of evolution please explain where I am getting it wrong. How would you explain how life came about?

No higher or lower forms of life. Well we are certainly not going to agree on that. I believe that man is the highest form of life and all others are below him. Are you saying that there is no difference, in your view, in the value of a man vs the value of a flea or other animal?

I would however, agree that even the simplest forms of life are highly complex and couldn't have evolved from creatures of a lower complexity.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:18 pm

xfrodobagginsx;1530054 wrote: So, this is great that both you and Larsmac don't believe in Evolution. I would agree with you. Or if I am misunderstanding the process of evolution please explain where I am getting it wrong. How would you explain how life came about?

No higher or lower forms of life. Well we are certainly not going to agree on that. I believe that man is the highest form of life and all others are below him. Are you saying that there is no difference, in your view, in the value of a man vs the value of a flea or other animal?

I would however, agree that even the simplest forms of life are highly complex and couldn't have evolved from creatures of a lower complexity.

I am certain that whatever you understand "Evolution" to be is not what I and AHSO! (Or most Thinking people, for that matter) understand it to be.

Evolution is simply a definition of the observed process by which life forms adapt to changes in their environment. To Evolve means to change.

It is that simple.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:24 pm

xfrodobagginsx;1530054 wrote: So, this is great that both you and Larsmac don't believe in Evolution.Not as you define it.

The difference between you and me is that I've actually educated myself from the source of what Evolution is while you have gotten your information from sites like Answers in Genesis and whatever other dishonest sources you go to for information. They're lying to you and allowing you to go around looking foolish.

It's one thing to disagree, it's quite another to redefine what it is your disagreeing with just to try to make your case easier (strawman argument) since you haven't taken the time to actually learn what it is you're disagreeing with. That's what you've been doing. Go ahead and disagree with Evolution, but first, go and find out what Evolution actually is. Read the book. And please don't go insulting yourself further by claiming you already have, because then that makes you look like a complete moron who can't comprehend text.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:09 pm

xfrodobagginsx;1530054 wrote: No higher or lower forms of life. Well, we are certainly not going to agree on that. I believe that man is the highest form of life and all others are below him. Are you saying that there is no difference, in your view, in the value of a man vs the value of a flea or other animal?We're talking about observing life sans value, that's how science works. Objectivity. That doesn't mean you have to abandon your values altogether, it means that it's best to temporarily put them aside in order to make an observation. Medical students have to do this sort of thing often when practicing on cadavers. Some might find it objectionable for various reasons, but it is a necessary step to becoming proficient at their chosen field of education.

Let's try this: consider the numbers 0-9. One argument is that 9 has a greater value than any of the other numbers because it contains the most ones. In a strict sense of valuation of standing on its own that would be correct. However, that consideration of valuation becomes moot when employing numbers based on the formulas they are used in. IOW, 9 might be completely absent in a calculation because it's not needed, thus 9 has no power at all in that particular remedy. So, that would be an example of leaving out the most significant number in order to solve a problem.

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:01 pm

LarsMac;1530057 wrote: I am certain that whatever you understand "Evolution" to be is not what I and AHSO! (Or most Thinking people, for that matter) understand it to be.

Evolution is simply a definition of the observed process by which life forms adapt to changes in their environment. To Evolve means to change.

It is that simple.

I know what evolution is. I went to public Schools and Universities. I took the classes. It's just that you don't seem to like the fact that I don't believe in it after looking at both sides of the issue.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:20 pm

xfrodobagginsx;1530109 wrote: I know what evolution is. I went to public Schools and Universities. I took the classes. It's just that you don't seem to like the fact that I don't believe in it after looking at both sides of the issue.That's because of the fact that your version is unbelievable, which is what a strawman argument is meant to do. Evolution has nothing to do with any issue, it's science - which you obviously cannot comprehend.

Back down the rabbit hole with you.

Before I send you down, let me ask you a question; what do you make of the fact that, as I rightly pointed out, Jesus advocated for the abortion of Judas?

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:31 pm

xfrodobagginsx;1530109 wrote: I know what evolution is. I went to public Schools and Universities. I took the classes. It's just that you don't seem to like the fact that I don't believe in it after looking at both sides of the issue.

I haven't the faintest idea what you mean by "both sides of the issue."

You make evolution out to be some sort of big monster thing. You obviously read much more into it than is there.

That must be the Straw Man that AHSO! is talking about. So, which one is the Straw dog in your world? The Micro, or the Macro?

We can take care of the straw for you. I have lots of matches.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:40 pm

LarsMac;1530119 wrote: I haven't the faintest idea what you mean by "both sides of the issue"Christians such as this cannot look at anything without moralizing, thus seeing everything as moral issues of good vs evil. They are incapable of objectivity.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:47 pm

LarsMac;1530119 wrote: That must be the Straw Man that AHSO! is talking about. Reframing an argument, or redefining it so it is more easily disputed in their minds. Christians do this constantly when it comes to science, or anything really. Nothing he says is accurate, but the language is close enough that it masks the deceptions. Christian based websites work very hard to do this to their readers.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:26 pm

Ahso!;1530127 wrote: Reframing an argument, or redefining it so it is more easily disputed in their minds. Christians do this constantly when it comes to science, or anything really. Nothing he says is accurate, but the language is close enough that it masks the deceptions. Christian based websites work very hard to do this to their readers.

I know all too well how that works. I've been kicked out of more churches than you have probably been in because I can't shut up in Sunday School.

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:57 pm

Ahso!;1530112 wrote: That's because of the fact that your version is unbelievable, which is what a strawman argument is meant to do. Evolution has nothing to do with any issue, it's science - which you obviously cannot comprehend.

Back down the rabbit hole with you.

Before I send you down, let me ask you a question; what do you make of the fact that, as I rightly pointed out, Jesus advocated for the abortion of Judas?

Jesus never advocated for the abortion of Judas. He said that it would have been BETTER for him if he had never been born because of the HELL that is awaiting him. He didn't say that his mother should have aborted him.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:05 pm

xfrodobagginsx;1530145 wrote: Jesus never advocated for the abortion of Judas. He said that it would have been BETTER for him if he had never been born because of the HELL that is awaiting him. He didn't say that his mother should have aborted him.Yes he did. I've shown you the irrefutable evidence.

What you're saying is that every abortion that has ever occurred would have resulted in that person going to hell? So, you agree that never having been born due to abortion is good? I'm glad you and Jesus agree.

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:28 pm

Please ask me this in the "How To Get To Heaven When You Die" thread and please provide the chapter and verse of this supposed evidence.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:32 pm

xfrodobagginsx;1530160 wrote: Please ask me this in the "How To Get To Heaven When You Die" thread and please provide the chapter and verse of this supposed evidence.showthread.php?t=65728&highlight=jesus

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:50 pm

Ahso!;1530112 wrote: Evolution has nothing to do with any issue, it's science

Evolution is not based solely on Science. It is faith based. There are many gaps and missing links in the 'theory' of evolution which are not based on Science. Those gaps don't mean I am not able to comprehend it, it means that it is faith based and not proven, meaning that it's not scientific.

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:01 pm

Ahso!;1530161 wrote: showthread.php?t=65728&highlight=jesus

I answered this in the "How To Get To Heaven When You die" Thread.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 06, 2020 7:42 pm

xfrodobagginsx;1530187 wrote: I answered this in the "How To Get To Heaven When You die" Thread.Please answer in the proper thread. That's where I will prove to you without doubt that you are 100% wrong.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:48 pm

xfrodobagginsx;1530185 wrote: Evolution is not based solely on Science. It is faith based. There are many gaps and missing links in the 'theory' of evolution which are not based on Science. Those gaps don't mean I am not able to comprehend it, it means that it is faith based and not proven, meaning that it's not scientific.

Whatever YOU think of as Evolution may not be based completely on science. We may finally agree on something, here.

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:38 pm

Ahso!;1530193 wrote: Please answer in the proper thread. That's where I will prove to you without doubt that you are 100% wrong.

The thread that you made the claim to me what Science Disproves Evolution. That thread is for discussing Evolution Vs Creationism. How To Get To Heaven When You Die is for discussing Bible and theology type topics. Can we just discuss it there?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:55 pm

xfrodobagginsx;1530216 wrote: The thread that you made the claim to me what Science Disproves Evolution. That thread is for discussing Evolution Vs Creationism. How To Get To Heaven When You Die is for discussing Bible and theology type topics. Can we just discuss it there?No! There is a thread dedicated to the subject, so that's where it should be discussed. Unless, of course, you want to concede that I am, in fact, correct, and you are wrong.

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:18 am

LarsMac;1530194 wrote: Whatever YOU think of as Evolution may not be based completely on science. We may finally agree on something, here.

That's not what I said. I said that Evolutionary 'Science' isn't true Science because it's faith based. Much of it is unproven, yet it is pushed as fact.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:58 am

xfrodobagginsx;1530243 wrote: That's not what I said. I said that Evolutionary 'Science' isn't true Science because it's faith based. Much of it is unproven, yet it is pushed as fact.See, you don't know what you're talking about.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Feb 08, 2020 1:07 pm

xfrodobagginsx;1530243 wrote: That's not what I said. I said that Evolutionary 'Science' isn't true Science because it's faith based. Much of it is unproven, yet it is pushed as fact.

What you said was: "Evolution is not based solely on Science..."

My reply as directly on point.

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:41 pm

LarsMac;1530249 wrote: What you said was: "Evolution is not based solely on Science..."

My reply as directly on point.

...And it's NOT based soley on Science. It's faith based. They claim it is not, but it is. That's my assertion. It has nothing to do with what you perceive as my perception of it. It has to do with the fact that there are many areas that can be pointed out that are faith based that they preach as factual when they are not.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:01 pm

xfrodobagginsx;1530277 wrote: ...And it's NOT based soley on Science. It's faith based. They claim it is not, but it is. That's my assertion. It has nothing to do with what you perceive as my perception of it. It has to do with the fact that there are many areas that can be pointed out that are faith based that they preach as factual when they are not.Your assertion is wrong.

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:47 pm

Ahso!;1530290 wrote: Your assertion is wrong.

I would show you evidence, but you don't seem interested in it so why waste my time. Think what you want.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:47 pm

xfrodobagginsx;1530296 wrote: I would show you evidence, but you don't seem interested in it so why waste my time. Think what you want.There is no legitimate evidence that supports your claim. What did your college science professors say when such ridiculousness was suggested?

BTW, what college did you attend?

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:41 pm

Ahso!;1530304 wrote: There is no legitimate evidence that supports your claim. What did your college science professors say when such ridiculousness was suggested?

BTW, what college did you attend?

...And like I said, this shows that you aren't interested in discussing it and looking at both sides.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:00 pm

xfrodobagginsx;1530305 wrote: ...And like I said, this shows that you aren't interested in discussing it and looking at both sides.And like I said; you didn't go to college.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:03 pm

Should I list all your obvious lies, holy man of God?

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:16 pm

Manganese Nodules Inconsistent with Radiometric Dating

https://www.icr.org/article/11758/

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:13 pm

xfrodobagginsx;1530357 wrote: Manganese Nodules Inconsistent with Radiometric Dating

https://www.icr.org/article/11758/

more reading:

The authors were surprised to find that globally the nodules occur in regions where the bottom current speeds are far too slow to remove sediment. Instead, the nodules are associated with seafloor fauna.

"Organisms such as star fish, octopods and molluscs seem to keep the nodules at the seafloor surface by foraging, burrowing and ingesting sediment on and around them," Dr. Dutkiewicz said. "Although these organisms occur in relatively low concentrations on the abyssal seafloor, they are still abundant enough to locally affect sediment accumulation."

This insight is supported by direct seafloor observations of nodule fields by independent studies. "Our conclusion is that deep-sea ecosystems and nodules are inextricably connected," Dr. Dutkiewicz said.

The study results also suggest that the regions where nodules are most likely to occur are more extensive than what has previously been assumed and include vast areas that are yet to be explored -- findings with important industrial as well as conservation implications.

-https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 175642.htm

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:41 pm

Remembering Dr. John Whitcomb

https://www.icr.org/article/11761/

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:02 am

xfrodobagginsx;1530396 wrote: Remembering Dr. John Whitcomb

https://www.icr.org/article/11761/Let me know when you decide you'd like to engage in dialogue in a mutually respectful manner.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:39 pm

Science is a method which has a set procedure.

1. Observation.

2. Hypothesise.

3. Evidence to support hypothesis

4. Form premise to falsify hypothesis

5. Experimentation

6. Peer Review.

7. Repeat from 3 until argument sufficiently sound to warrant becoming a Theory.

Religion gets as far as stage 2. Evolution cannot be faith based as evidence is required to even get as far as the experimental stage, and as with all Science it is always looking for ways to falsify itself. Religion does not have that facility.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:54 am

FourPart;1530562 wrote: and as with all Science, it is always looking for ways to falsify itself. Religion does not have that facility.Of course religion doesn't have such a mechanism because it's a false narrative right out of the gate. What religious people have to do is go about pleading with people to believe it blindly by lying. That's exactly what we see Alice constantly doing. He lies about his education so to falsely claim authority on a subject that he posts nothing but falsehoods about. He claims to know a God he's never met. He claims his emotional anxiety is spirituality. He lies about everything.

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:48 pm

FourPart;1530562 wrote: Science is a method which has a set procedure.

1. Observation.

2. Hypothesise.

3. Evidence to support hypothesis

4. Form premise to falsify hypothesis

5. Experimentation

6. Peer Review.

7. Repeat from 3 until argument sufficiently sound to warrant becoming a Theory.

Religion gets as far as stage 2. Evolution cannot be faith based as evidence is required to even get as far as the experimental stage, and as with all Science it is always looking for ways to falsify itself. Religion does not have that facility.

Since Evolution hasn't been proven, it is faith based. The missing links between each animal kind demonstrate this leap of faith that many here don't want to admit. If you can't prove it, it is faith based and they can't prove that there are transitional fossils because their isn't any evidence for it. All they have is examples of Lateral Adaptation, within the species.

Evolution cannot prove or demonstrate how:

1) Life began

2) The two sexes evolved

3) The 4 chamber heart evolved

4) Irreducible Complexity of many organs such as the Eye.

5) Where the Transitional Fossils are?

Let me say that when we say the term "Evolution" we mean on a macro scale, NOT a micro one within the species. Therefore, you cannot give examples of an animal with some minor variation from all others of it's species and claim that it's evidence of a transitional fossil. You need a fossil of a half species/animal kind evolving into another kind. Those are not present in the fossil record.

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:16 pm

The Latest Feathered Dinosaur Confuses Categories

https://www.icr.org/article/11811/