Science Disproves Evolution

General discussion area for all topics not covered in the other forums.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by High Threshold »

LarsMac;1528851 wrote: AP: Scientists narrow age estimate for fossils of human ancestor

Scientists say they have finally calculated the age of the youngest known remains of Homo erectus, which is generally considered an ancestor of our species.

The fossilized skull fragments and other bones were uncovered on the Indonesian island of Java in the 1930s. Determining their age has been a scientific challenge, and a wide range has been proposed by numerous studies.

In a report released Wednesday by the journal Nature, scientists conclude the remains are between 108,000 and 117,000 years old. Researchers used five dating techniques on sediments and fossil animal bones from the area, combining 52 age estimates for the analysis. The project took 13 years to complete.
But that sort of indicates that the bible has it all wrong. Doesn't it? I mean the story of Adam & Eva and the Garden of Eden and all of that can't possibly be correct.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by LarsMac »

High Threshold;1528897 wrote: But that sort of indicates that the bible has it all wrong. Doesn't it? I mean the story of Adam & Eva and the Garden of Eden and all of that can't possibly be correct.


Not really. The Bible Genesis story is just more of a legendary tale, that a scientific discussion.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by High Threshold »

LarsMac;1528898 wrote: Not really. The Bible Genesis story is just more of a legendary tale, that a scientific discussion.
But if those remains are between 108,000 and 117,000 years old doesn't it debunk the biblical account?
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by LarsMac »

High Threshold;1528901 wrote: But if those remains are between 108,000 and 117,000 years old doesn't it debunk the biblical account?


No. The Biblical account really has not specific time that can be absolutely and factually pinned down.

Besides, Those critters are pre- Homo Sapiens Sapiens. So they are not "Human" exactly. So the story of Adam and Eve would have been told much later.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by High Threshold »

LarsMac;1528903 wrote: No. The Biblical account really has not specific time that can be absolutely and factually pinned down.

Besides, Those critters are pre- Homo Sapiens Sapiens. So they are not "Human" exactly. So the story of Adam and Eve would have been told much later.
That's bad news. So ......... humans were 'created' by evolution but somewhere along the line "god" decided to take the credit, murder off everyone except Adam & Eva, and spread that cock and bull story about the Garden of Eden? Whew! That guy has a lot of blood on his hands. :(
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by LarsMac »

High Threshold;1528904 wrote: That's bad news. So ......... humans were 'created' by evolution but somewhere along the line "god" decided to take the credit, murder off everyone except Adam & Eva, and spread that cock and bull story about the Garden of Eden? Whew! That guy has a lot of blood on his hands. :(


Wow. That is pretty bizarre way of putting it.

Humans, evolved. Whether God had any part in it or not is another story, altogether.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by High Threshold »

LarsMac;1528912 wrote: Wow. That is pretty bizarre way of putting it.

Humans, evolved.


Yes, I was going to say “evolved” instead of “created” but (as always) I was trying to be politically correct for the purpose of sparing the feelings of those who might be sensitive.



LarsMac;1528912 wrote: Whether God had any part in it or not is another story, altogether.


Well, believers say he had everything to do with it but I am an agnostic and we're still in deliberation. We are open to suggestions but so far nothing sensible has been put on the discussion table. There are those who reinterpret the bible and have succeeded in eliminating some of the superstition that previous bible bashers cling to but still they use the book of fiction known as the bible as their source so they can never achieve much in the way of any supportable contribution.

Having been born and raised a Christian I have a fair bit of insight into the hocus-pocus that Christians believe and I have seen first-hand how practical, realistic, and critical thinking is tabooed in Christianity. What about yourself? What is your fundamental religious background?
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by LarsMac »

High Threshold;1528915 wrote: Yes, I was going to say “evolved” instead of “created” but (as always) I was trying to be politically correct for the purpose of sparing the feelings of those who might be sensitive.





Well, believers say he had everything to do with it but I am an agnostic and we're still in deliberation. We are open to suggestions but so far nothing sensible has been put on the discussion table. There are those who reinterpret the bible and have succeeded in eliminating some of the superstition that previous bible bashers cling to but still they use the book of fiction known as the bible as their source so they can never achieve much in the way of any supportable contribution.

Having been born and raised a Christian I have a fair bit of insight into the hocus-pocus that Christians believe and I have seen first-hand how practical, realistic, and critical thinking is tabooed in Christianity. What about yourself? What is your fundamental religious background?


I grew up in a very mixed family. There were 7th day Adventists, Christian scientists, Baptists, Southern Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Jehovah Witnesses, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Catholics, Jews, Masons, and Engineers.

Family dinners were always rather interesting.

I figure God doesn't care which religion you want to follow, He just expects you to be honest and caring, and take care of those who are in need. If you cannot do that, he probably has little need for your "religion"
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by High Threshold »

LarsMac;1528916 wrote: I grew up in a very mixed family. There were 7th day Adventists, Christian scientists, Baptists, Southern Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Jehovah Witnesses, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Catholics, Jews, Masons, and Engineers.

Family dinners were always rather interesting.


Holy ****! Forgive me, Lord. I mean, Holy cow! No, that's not good either. Forget about it.



LarsMac;1528916 wrote: I figure God doesn't care which religion you want to follow, He just expects you to be honest and caring, and take care of those who are in need. If you cannot do that, he probably has little need for your "religion"


My journey began when I decided to make an effort to find out what was meant by “Jesus is a Jew”. It didn't take me long to realize that Christianity is just a cult based around a handful of Jews who didn't have the patience and fortitude of faith to wait for the “Messiah” so they decide to create a false god with mystic, superstitious, hocus-pocus cockamamy and to distinguish themselves from real Jews by doing the opposite of most of the Jewish Seder and customs. Rather than putting on a kippah when entering their place of worship they demanded you remove your head covering instead. Rather than meet on the Friday/Saturday Sabbath they demanded to meet on a Sunday instead. Rather than refraining from eating pork they demanded you not eat meat on Friday. It was just a frantic dash to make themselves different from Jews yet following rules that were directly related to Judaism.

Anyway, so I wondered if it wasn't best to become a Jew and at least follow Biblical scripture in the original rather than the blasphemous doctrine of the Christian upstarts. So I began learning what I could about Judaism until I realized that it too was too superstitious.

Agnosticism makes sense and although Judaism is far more righteous than Christianity in its' tolerance ….... neither of the two are worth my time on this wonderful earth.
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6491
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am
Location: Southampton
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by FourPart »

xfrodobagginsx;1528891 wrote: Under your definition of science, evolutionary 'Science' isn't science because it does begin with the supposition that evolution is true and it works back from there. It also makes vast assumptions not based on evidence, but rather, ones that require more faith than a belief in creationism would. Admittedly, Creation Science does much the same thing. The difference I would argue is that creation science IS supported by the evidence, whereas, evolutionary science is not. Evolution is at odds with Creationism, but that's ok, because the actual evidence doesn't support Darwinian Evolution any way. Creationists admit that there are variations and mutations within the species/animal kinds, but what they reject is that these changes ever produce an animal outside of it's original species/kind. Dogs always produce dogs, cats always produce cats, horses always produce horses, ect.

Evolution wants to AVOID how a universe could create it's self in violation of the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy. It wants to avoid explaining how life sprang out of non life. The evolution of two sexes would be next to impossible, and many more things. You say there is no evidence for God, well, the violation of the laws of science to produce just the things I just listed would prove that there must be a God.


Evolution is Fact. It has been observed through fossil records. It has repeatedly been tested by way of prediction, both in the lab as well as from predicting what sort of remains would be expected to be found at specific locations, which then went on to be found, matching precisely what was predicted and at the locations predicted.

Evolution has also been observed in humans over the past few hundred years. Body sizes have increased as have proportionate brain sizes.

Your coming up with the age old Creationist dogma of Dogs producing Dogs & Cats producing Cats demonstrates that you don't have any idea of how Evolution works, despite having it explained to you time & time again. You keep thinking of Evolution as a Linear process, when it more like a tree. A mutation is born. If that mutation benefits its survival it lives to pass on the genes of that mutation to future generations. If it doesn't benefit it, it dies off. The non-mutated line also continues in its own way, branching of in an entirely different direction, where other mutations occur totally independently of its earlier cousin. In time, one branch, and many subsequent branches may result in a Cat species, whilst the other might result in the Dog line. Take the Sabre Tooth Tiger, for instance. Not surprisingly, for decades it was classified as being a Cat. It wasn't until more recent DNA testing that it was found that the Sabre Tooth Tiger was actually a Dog. A Chihuaha has the same ancestor as a Great Dane in the form of the Wolf, as does the Fox, Coyote, Dingo, etc. However, none are viable matches with the Wolf any more. They have aspeciated.

Furthermore, Evolution doesn't want to avoid anything. That implies it has some kind of conciousness. Evolution is a matter of a species adapting to an ever changing environment. If it doesn't Evolve it becomes extinct.

Another indisputable piece of evidence for Evolution is in the number of species that have vestigial organs - such as whales having fingers, humans having tail bones, birds having claws on their wings which serve absolutely no purpose, etc.
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

FourPart;1528980 wrote: Evolution is Fact. It has been observed through fossil records. It has repeatedly been tested by way of prediction, both in the lab as well as from predicting what sort of remains would be expected to be found at specific locations, which then went on to be found, matching precisely what was predicted and at the locations predicted.

Evolution has also been observed in humans over the past few hundred years. Body sizes have increased as have proportionate brain sizes.

Your coming up with the age old Creationist dogma of Dogs producing Dogs & Cats producing Cats demonstrates that you don't have any idea of how Evolution works, despite having it explained to you time & time again. You keep thinking of Evolution as a Linear process, when it more like a tree. A mutation is born. If that mutation benefits its survival it lives to pass on the genes of that mutation to future generations. If it doesn't benefit it, it dies off. The non-mutated line also continues in its own way, branching of in an entirely different direction, where other mutations occur totally independently of its earlier cousin. In time, one branch, and many subsequent branches may result in a Cat species, whilst the other might result in the Dog line. Take the Sabre Tooth Tiger, for instance. Not surprisingly, for decades it was classified as being a Cat. It wasn't until more recent DNA testing that it was found that the Sabre Tooth Tiger was actually a Dog. A Chihuaha has the same ancestor as a Great Dane in the form of the Wolf, as does the Fox, Coyote, Dingo, etc. However, none are viable matches with the Wolf any more. They have aspeciated.

Furthermore, Evolution doesn't want to avoid anything. That implies it has some kind of conciousness. Evolution is a matter of a species adapting to an ever changing environment. If it doesn't Evolve it becomes extinct.

Another indisputable piece of evidence for Evolution is in the number of species that have vestigial organs - such as whales having fingers, humans having tail bones, birds having claws on their wings which serve absolutely no purpose, etc.


Wrong. Evolution is NOT fact, it is a belief, a religion and a theory, nothing more. It has many gaps that cannot be explained (other than that it is wrong and Creationism is right). These gaps require faith. The missing links between all of the animal kinds is a big issue for evolutionists. Abiogenesis is another huge issue that requires faith for them. Can't be reproduced in a lab because it never happened that way.

The only form of evolution that actually happens is Lateral Adaptation, (Within the species). Creationists admit that this happens, it's obvious. The problem is that evolutionsists take examples of Lateral Adaptation (Within the species) and try to use them to prove that one animal kind evolved into another. The problem is that the actual fossil record doesn't show this to be the case. So, then they come up with the excuse that the animals must have had an unknown 'comon ancestor' and they have faith that it will some day be found. Not based on actual evidence. Faith based belief system, religion.

The way you explained evolution is exactly my understanding of the way they think, but I just don't agree with it.

As far as vestigial organs/parts, just because they don't understand the use of an organ doesn't make it vestigial left over parts. The appendix was claimed for years to be a vestigial part by evolutionists, until fairly recently it was discovered that it was part of the immune system. Lots of parts formerly thought to be vestiges are now known to be useful.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by LarsMac »

xfrodobagginsx;1528991 wrote: Wrong. Evolution is NOT fact, it is a belief, a religion and a theory, nothing more. It has many gaps that cannot be explained (other than that it is wrong and Creationism is right). These gaps require faith. The missing links between all of the animal kinds is a big issue for evolutionists. Abiogenesis is another huge issue that requires faith for them. Can't be reproduced in a lab because it never happened that way.

The only form of evolution that actually happens is Lateral Adaptation, (Within the species). Creationists admit that this happens, it's obvious. The problem is that evolutionsists take examples of Lateral Adaptation (Within the species) and try to use them to prove that one animal kind evolved into another. The problem is that the actual fossil record doesn't show this to be the case. So, then they come up with the excuse that the animals must have had an unknown 'comon ancestor' and they have faith that it will some day be found. Not based on actual evidence. Faith based belief system, religion.

The way you explained evolution is exactly my understanding of the way they think, but I just don't agree with it.

As far as vestigial organs/parts, just because they don't understand the use of an organ doesn't make it vestigial left over parts. The appendix was claimed for years to be a vestigial part by evolutionists, until fairly recently it was discovered that it was part of the immune system. Lots of parts formerly thought to be vestiges are now known to be useful.


Evolution is just a word to describe the changes that many species go through as they adapt to changing conditions in their environment.

Darwin gets a lot of credit for defining some of the processes, and for suggesting that Evolution could quite conceivably explain some of the interesting variations that scientists had discovered and defined relating to certain species, both living and extinct.

Obviously, some of those notions were later proved incorrect (You can read about them in scientific documentation at your local library.) Some of those notions have gained much support in the scientific community, and much evidence has been found to support those ideas. (You can read about THOSE in your library, as well.)

Science works.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6491
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am
Location: Southampton
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by FourPart »

xfrodobagginsx;1528991 wrote: Wrong. Evolution is NOT fact, it is a belief, a religion and a theory, nothing more. It has many gaps that cannot be explained (other than that it is wrong and Creationism is right). These gaps require faith. The missing links between all of the animal kinds is a big issue for evolutionists. Abiogenesis is another huge issue that requires faith for them. Can't be reproduced in a lab because it never happened that way.

The only form of evolution that actually happens is Lateral Adaptation, (Within the species). Creationists admit that this happens, it's obvious. The problem is that evolutionsists take examples of Lateral Adaptation (Within the species) and try to use them to prove that one animal kind evolved into another. The problem is that the actual fossil record doesn't show this to be the case. So, then they come up with the excuse that the animals must have had an unknown 'comon ancestor' and they have faith that it will some day be found. Not based on actual evidence. Faith based belief system, religion.

The way you explained evolution is exactly my understanding of the way they think, but I just don't agree with it.

As far as vestigial organs/parts, just because they don't understand the use of an organ doesn't make it vestigial left over parts. The appendix was claimed for years to be a vestigial part by evolutionists, until fairly recently it was discovered that it was part of the immune system. Lots of parts formerly thought to be vestiges are now known to be useful.


"Lateral Adapttaion". Now there's a new phrase. I guess that's a new one to replace the other Creationist's invented phrase, "Macro Evolution". They are one & the same thing. The fact that you accept that anything changes at all proves that you accept Evolution as an undeniable fact. The thing is that Evolution is a very slow process. Obviously it is only observable within species in the short term, but the plethora of fossil records clearly demonstrate how it exists over the longer period. The Geological Ladder also shows how the Evolution of species progresses over millions of years by the absence of more advanced species among previous eras. You & your type claim that Humans & Dinosaurs lived alongside each other. If that were the case, you would expect to find Human Fossil Remains alongside Dinosaur Fossil Remains. Guess what. You don't. Nor do you find any other type of Mammalian Fossil Remains.

You refer to vestigial organs having a different purpose. Spot on. That is exactly how the existence of Evolution is demonstrated. As you say, the Appendix is understood to have some role to do with the Immune System. However, it used to be part of another stomach, as found in other Primates. Does that explain what other use a whale has for fingers, including an opposable thumb?

DNA shows that Crabs & Spiders are related. You can clearly see the similarities, but it's a far cry to say that they are the same species. You should also check out the definition of a species. It refers to a particular branch of being that is not viable with any other, despite having had a common ancestor, such as Cats & Dogs, for instance. At one time they may have been so close so as to been interbreedable, but once the differences increase, they no longer become viable.

How would you define a 'species'. One might say that they have to have the same number of Chromosomes. For instance, humans have 23. But what about someone with Down Syndrome? They have 24, as they have grown an additional copy of Chromosome 21. Does that mean they are not Human any more? They are certainly distinct from regular Humans. Only have 23 Chromosomes, as oppsed to our Chimpanzee Cousins 24 because Chromosome 2 has become fused. It is a mutation as small as a single Chromosome that can create an entirely new species. If that mutation is advantageous to its environment, then it survives to pass on those genes to the next generation. If not, it dies & the mutation stops there. If they do survive, then a new species variation is born, which later goes on in subsequent generations to mutate further, until they are indistinguishable from their ancestors.
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

FourPart;1529082 wrote: "Lateral Adapttaion". Now there's a new phrase. I guess that's a new one to replace the other Creationist's invented phrase, "Macro Evolution". They are one & the same thing. The fact that you accept that anything changes at all proves that you accept Evolution as an undeniable fact. The thing is that Evolution is a very slow process. Obviously it is only observable within species in the short term, but the plethora of fossil records clearly demonstrate how it exists over the longer period. The Geological Ladder also shows how the Evolution of species progresses over millions of years by the absence of more advanced species among previous eras. You & your type claim that Humans & Dinosaurs lived alongside each other. If that were the case, you would expect to find Human Fossil Remains alongside Dinosaur Fossil Remains. Guess what. You don't. Nor do you find any other type of Mammalian Fossil Remains.

You refer to vestigial organs having a different purpose. Spot on. That is exactly how the existence of Evolution is demonstrated. As you say, the Appendix is understood to have some role to do with the Immune System. However, it used to be part of another stomach, as found in other Primates. Does that explain what other use a whale has for fingers, including an opposable thumb?

DNA shows that Crabs & Spiders are related. You can clearly see the similarities, but it's a far cry to say that they are the same species. You should also check out the definition of a species. It refers to a particular branch of being that is not viable with any other, despite having had a common ancestor, such as Cats & Dogs, for instance. At one time they may have been so close so as to been interbreedable, but once the differences increase, they no longer become viable.

How would you define a 'species'. One might say that they have to have the same number of Chromosomes. For instance, humans have 23. But what about someone with Down Syndrome? They have 24, as they have grown an additional copy of Chromosome 21. Does that mean they are not Human any more? They are certainly distinct from regular Humans. Only have 23 Chromosomes, as oppsed to our Chimpanzee Cousins 24 because Chromosome 2 has become fused. It is a mutation as small as a single Chromosome that can create an entirely new species. If that mutation is advantageous to its environment, then it survives to pass on those genes to the next generation. If not, it dies & the mutation stops there. If they do survive, then a new species variation is born, which later goes on in subsequent generations to mutate further, until they are indistinguishable from their ancestors.


Lateral Adaptation is Micro Evolution, not Macro Evolution. Macro Evolution is fictional and it's one animal kind evolving into a different animal kind. Proof of this occuring is completely void from the fossil record, yet evolutionsts use examples of Micro Evolution to prove Macro Evolution. The evidence is overwhelming that Dinosaurs lived with men. There are ancient writings about them by Marco Polo, Alexander the Great and many others. There are ancient cave drawings of them that exactly match known dinosaurs. There are sculptures of them as well. And Kent Hovind does a great job of proving it, giving over 100 examples of how they lived with men, which destroys evolutionary theory as well.

I don't believe that the appendix used to be another stomach. Interesting you should bring up the whale having fingers. It makes me think of the snake in the garden of Eden where it had legs and Scientists have confirmed that they have legs or did at one time, but God cursed them to crawl on their belly.

FACT: 999 our of 1000 mutations are negative, yet it would take thousands of positive mutations in a row for evolution to be true. Even if 1 out of 2 mutations were positive, and they aren't, just to get 200 positive mutations in a row would be a number larger than the number of atoms in the Universe.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by LarsMac »

Micro and macro evolution are more "made-up phrases" from the Ass-backwards creationists.

Charles Darwin never used the word, Evolution. at least not until something like the 7th edition of his work, after it had been used to refute his findings.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by High Threshold »

Creationism = Spontaneous Generation. Equally substantiated by way of scientific fact.
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

LarsMac;1529146 wrote: Micro and macro evolution are more "made-up phrases" from the Ass-backwards creationists.

Charles Darwin never used the word, Evolution. at least not until something like the 7th edition of his work, after it had been used to refute his findings.


Think what you want. They don't have the transitional fossils. The evidence doesn't support it.
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

LarsMac;1528993 wrote: Evolution is just a word to describe the changes that many species go through as they adapt to changing conditions in their environment.

Darwin gets a lot of credit for defining some of the processes, and for suggesting that Evolution could quite conceivably explain some of the interesting variations that scientists had discovered and defined relating to certain species, both living and extinct.

Obviously, some of those notions were later proved incorrect (You can read about them in scientific documentation at your local library.) Some of those notions have gained much support in the scientific community, and much evidence has been found to support those ideas. (You can read about THOSE in your library, as well.)

Science works.


That's what it Literally means, however, it's not the brand that is being pushed in the Schools. Darwinian Evolution is and that's the brand where one species/animal kind evolves into another.

Yes, the notion that one animal kind can evolve into a completely different one is incorrect. The evidence doesn't support it. The only thing Darwin was correct on was that evolution does occur, but it's on a micro scale, not a macro one. Science does work.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by LarsMac »

xfrodobagginsx;1529201 wrote: That's what it Literally means, however, it's not the brand that is being pushed in the Schools. Darwinian Evolution is and that's the brand where one species/animal kind evolves into another.

Yes, the notion that one animal kind can evolve into a completely different one is incorrect. The evidence doesn't support it. The only thing Darwin was correct on was that evolution does occur, but it's on a micro scale, not a macro one. Science does work.


Please do show me where you got that from reading Darwin's work.

You do realize that a species can transition to a related species. Look at the evolution of the genetic ancestors of horses. They did not start off as Cows, and become horses.

A Zebra and an Ass are both in the same genetic "stream" as the common Horse, but they are not horses. However they all developed over time from a common ancestor. That is Evolution in a nutshell.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

LarsMac;1529204 wrote: Please do show me where you got that from reading Darwin's work.

You do realize that a species can transition to a related species. Look at the evolution of the genetic ancestors of horses. They did not start off as Cows, and become horses.

A Zebra and an Ass are both in the same genetic "stream" as the common Horse, but they are not horses. However they all developed over time from a common ancestor. That is Evolution in a nutshell.


I fully agree that a species can transition into a related species. That's Lateral Adaptation, Micro Evolution. Yes, there are many different breeds of horses, but they always stay horses. I would agree that the Zebra and the Ass are of the same genetic stream as the common horse. I would disagree when you say that they aren't horses.

They are types of Horses. They never change into non horses. Look at a Zebra or an Ass, they are clearly in the same family as Horses, which is why they can reproduce.
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

Eighty-Five Reports of Biological Remnants in Fossils

https://www.icr.org/article/11736/
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by LarsMac »

xfrodobagginsx;1529272 wrote: Eighty-Five Reports of Biological Remnants in Fossils

https://www.icr.org/article/11736/


Do you have any articles from credible sources?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

LarsMac;1529286 wrote: Do you have any articles from credible sources?


By Credible do you mean that it has to agree with your point of view? Because that IS a credible source. It just doesn't agree with you. I can give you a link to a source that agrees with you, but I don't agree with it.

Here is a source that believes that Darwinian Evolution is true.

https://www.livescience.com/60944-ancie ... ctica.html
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by LarsMac »

xfrodobagginsx;1529310 wrote: By Credible do you mean that it has to agree with your point of view? Because that IS a credible source. It just doesn't agree with you. I can give you a link to a source that agrees with you, but I don't agree with it.

Here is a source that believes that Darwinian Evolution is true.

https://www.livescience.com/60944-ancie ... ctica.html


Let's try again.

your post shared an article that says that another publication summarizes a list of 85 instances of organic matter in fossils.

But it does not actually link to that article, nor does you post offer any of that evidence, or even a quote from the referenced article.

So essentially, all you offered was hearsay.

I merely asked if you had any examples of said evidence. It would certainly make a difference if any of that evidence you have to offer came from credible sources.

In reply you offer a piece from another site which may, or may not be credible, but the article has nothing whatsoever to do with your initial statement.

So, I ask, again, do you have any articles(preferably from credible sources)?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

LarsMac;1529312 wrote: Let's try again.

your post shared an article that says that another publication summarizes a list of 85 instances of organic matter in fossils.

But it does not actually link to that article, nor does you post offer any of that evidence, or even a quote from the referenced article.

So essentially, all you offered was hearsay.

I merely asked if you had any examples of said evidence. It would certainly make a difference if any of that evidence you have to offer came from credible sources.

In reply you offer a piece from another site which may, or may not be credible, but the article has nothing whatsoever to do with your initial statement.

So, I ask, again, do you have any articles(preferably from credible sources)?


It's based on MULTIPLE sources and reports they went on to say:

" Some of the reports describe whole tissues like blood vessels, dried but intact skin, and connective tissues on or inside fossils like dinosaur bones. Other reports describe whole cells like red blood cells and bone cells. Other reports in the review paper describe biochemicals specific to animals (not microbes), including proteins, collagen, elastin, ovalbumin, and keratin. All these reports revealed three trends that call for a vast rethink of the mainstream age of fossils."

Here is one such Article by them:

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/la047682e

Here is another:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... 08.00446.x'



I'm not looking up all 85 for you, sorry.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by LarsMac »

xfrodobagginsx;1529318 wrote: It's based on MULTIPLE sources and reports they went on to say:

" Some of the reports describe whole tissues like blood vessels, dried but intact skin, and connective tissues on or inside fossils like dinosaur bones. Other reports describe whole cells like red blood cells and bone cells. Other reports in the review paper describe biochemicals specific to animals (not microbes), including proteins, collagen, elastin, ovalbumin, and keratin. All these reports revealed three trends that call for a vast rethink of the mainstream age of fossils."

Here is one such Article by them:

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/la047682e

Here is another:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... 08.00446.x'



I'm not looking up all 85 for you, sorry.
Thank you.

I wasn't asking for you to provide all 85 documents. But a listing of them would be quite within bounds.

Though I suspect that you and your YEC'rs are arriving at conclusions that may be a tad premature.

The problem is when you hear of some new bit of evidence, you immediately jump to a conclusion something like: "that can't happen if the Evolutionists were right, so it must prove that WE are right."

I'll will wait for the scientists to study the questions like "How did that happen" and see what they come up with.

Meanwhile, I will read the provided articles, and see what they have to say.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

LarsMac;1529323 wrote: Thank you.

I wasn't asking for you to provide all 85 documents. But a listing of them would be quite within bounds.

Though I suspect that you and your YEC'rs are arriving at conclusions that may be a tad premature.

The problem is when you hear of some new bit of evidence, you immediately jump to a conclusion something like: "that can't happen if the Evolutionists were right, so it must prove that WE are right."

I'll will wait for the scientists to study the questions like "How did that happen" and see what they come up with.

Meanwhile, I will read the provided articles, and see what they have to say.


I appreciate your willingness to look at the evidence. My hope is that you will consider all of the evidence that I provide and at least look at it.

IF this were the ONLY piece of evidence showing that these things aren't millions of years old, you might be right, however, it's just another piece in a long list of evidence refuting the notion that these fossils are millions of years old.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by LarsMac »

xfrodobagginsx;1529332 wrote: I appreciate your willingness to look at the evidence. My hope is that you will consider all of the evidence that I provide and at least look at it.

IF this were the ONLY piece of evidence showing that these things aren't millions of years old, you might be right, however, it's just another piece in a long list of evidence refuting the notion that these fossils are millions of years old.


There is nothing in the articles that suggest the fossils referenced are not millions of years old.

Only YEC's seem to thing that.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Ahso! »

xfrodobagginsx;1529220 wrote: I fully agree that a species can transition into a related species. That's Lateral Adaptation, Micro Evolution.LOL! You haven't a clue what you're talking about.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

Ahso!;1529337 wrote: LOL! You haven't a clue what you're talking about.


I know EXACTLY what I am talking about. You don't. If you think that animal kinds can evolve into completely different animal kinds, you don't know what you are talking about because there is no evidence to support that.
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

LarsMac;1529336 wrote: There is nothing in the articles that suggest the fossils referenced are not millions of years old.

Only YEC's seem to thing that.


Yes it does and here is why: The fact that there is soft tissue in the fossils in the first place shows that they can't be millions of years old because soft tissue can only last a few thousand years without breaking down inside of a fossil, yet we find many, many cases of soft tissue being found in these bones. It's even been found in rib bones, which are smaller than the leg bones, showing that it had to be recent.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Ahso! »

xfrodobagginsx;1529338 wrote: I know EXACTLY what I am talking about. You don't. If you think that animal kinds can evolve into completely different animal kinds, you don't know what you are talking about because there is no evidence to support that.Right!
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by LarsMac »

xfrodobagginsx;1529340 wrote: Yes it does and here is why: The fact that there is soft tissue in the fossils in the first place shows that they can't be millions of years old because soft tissue can only last a few thousand years without breaking down inside of a fossil, yet we find many, many cases of soft tissue being found in these bones. It's even been found in rib bones, which are smaller than the leg bones, showing that it had to be recent.


I would suggest reading more of those articles before making presumptions.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

LarsMac;1529343 wrote: I would suggest reading more of those articles before making presumptions.


I am not making presumptions. Look, this is how I am looking at it:

I am telling you the facts. FACT: Soft tissue is found in these bones. FACT: Soft tissue can't survive more than thousands of years according to Creationists and at most 1 million years according to Evolutionists. THEREFORE: these bones cannot be 65 million years old. So, then instead of concluding that, the Evolutionists try to come up with an explanation of why the soft tissue is still there after 65 million years, while not even considering that the bones and tissue might not really be 65 million years old. They theorize that since iron is present in some of these that iron must act as a preservative (even though they have no evidence for this other than it's presence. The bones contain pores and oxygen would transfer and break down this tissue in thousands of years. The bones are not completely sealed off from the air.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by LarsMac »

xfrodobagginsx;1529372 wrote: I am not making presumptions. Look, this is how I am looking at it:

I am telling you the facts. FACT: Soft tissue is found in these bones. FACT: Soft tissue can't survive more than thousands of years according to Creationists and at most 1 million years according to Evolutionists. THEREFORE: these bones cannot be 65 million years old. So, then instead of concluding that, the Evolutionists try to come up with an explanation of why the soft tissue is still there after 65 million years, while not even considering that the bones and tissue might not really be 65 million years old. They theorize that since iron is present in some of these that iron must act as a preservative (even though they have no evidence for this other than it's presence. The bones contain pores and oxygen would transfer and break down this tissue in thousands of years. The bones are not completely sealed off from the air.


When confronted with new evidence, most scientists will say something like, "Based on what we know, that shouldn't be so." and, "We have no immediate explanation for that" and "We have more work to do on this"

On the other hand, Creationists say, "science is wrong"



Me, I'll wait for the scientist to figure it out.

What I have found in some reports is what they actually are saying is that they have fossils which included fossilized soft tissue. Which means the tissue was sealed off and replaced by minerals during the fossilization process. So, we are not talking about actual skin and blood and such actually surviving all this time.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... pala.12360

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Soft_tissue_preservation
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

LarsMac;1529375 wrote: When confronted with new evidence, most scientists will say something like, "Based on what we know, that shouldn't be so." and, "We have no immediate explanation for that" and "We have more work to do on this"

On the other hand, Creationists say, "science is wrong"



Me, I'll wait for the scientist to figure it out.

What I have found in some reports is what they actually are saying is that they have fossils which included fossilized soft tissue. Which means the tissue was sealed off and replaced by minerals during the fossilization process. So, we are not talking about actual skin and blood and such actually surviving all this time.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... pala.12360

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Soft_tissue_preservation


Actually that's not the way it is. When confronted with new evidence, the Evolutionary Scientists make up unsubstantiated scenarios of how it is that the evidence doesn't support their claim. Creation Scientists don't have to say that Science is wrong, because the evidence supports what they believe. Creationists do believe in Science, we just don't interpret the evidence the same as evolutionists do. Actually, that's not true. They have detected Collagen, blood cells and DNA in this soft tissue. It's not mineralized.

Red Blood Cells& Soft Tissue In Supposed 75 Million Year Old Dinosaur Fossils:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33067582

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird-s ... ls-n372446

Dinosaur surprise: Scientists find collagen inside a 195-million-year-old bone

https://www.latimes.com/science/science ... story.html

2Ti 3:7 "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

Those are some good examples right there. Creationism isn't Pseudoscience. It's backed by Science.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by LarsMac »

xfrodobagginsx;1529408 wrote: Actually that's not the way it is. When confronted with new evidence, the Evolutionary Scientists make up unsubstantiated scenarios of how it is that the evidence doesn't support their claim. Creation Scientists don't have to say that Science is wrong, because the evidence supports what they believe. Creationists do believe in Science, we just don't interpret the evidence the same as evolutionists do. Actually, that's not true. They have detected Collagen, blood cells and DNA in this soft tissue. It's not mineralized.

Red Blood Cells& Soft Tissue In Supposed 75 Million Year Old Dinosaur Fossils:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33067582

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird-s ... ls-n372446





Dinosaur surprise: Scientists find collagen inside a 195-million-year-old bone

https://www.latimes.com/science/science ... story.html

2Ti 3:7 "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."


Still waiting for actual Scientists to explain it.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

LarsMac;1529433 wrote: Still waiting for actual Scientists to explain it.


Why do you need someone else to explain it to you? You are capable of thinking these things through on your own. Look at the evidence and what does it tell YOU?
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by LarsMac »

xfrodobagginsx;1529436 wrote: Why do you need someone else to explain it to you? You are capable of thinking these things through on your own. Look at the evidence and what does it tell YOU?


I haven't finished reviewing the evidence, yet, and only an idiot would draw conclusions without consulting the people who make a living exploring such evidence to help understand it.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

50 Years of Creation Research and Scholarship

https://www.icr.org/article/11694/
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

Bob Dutko has a wealth of knowledge on Creation vs Evolution. You can listen to his radio program and get it for free or you can purchase it here:



Top Ten Proofs

https://toptenproofs.com/pages/products
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

More Evidence That The Earth Cannot Be Billions Of Years Old:

3 Billion Years Ago, the son would only be 70% as hot as it is today, but if the son were only 90% as hot as it is today all life on earth would cease.

Faint young Sun paradox:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox



Scientists find possible solution to “faint young Sun paradox”

https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/scient ... n-paradox/
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by LarsMac »

The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

LarsMac;1529653 wrote: https://www.popsci.com/where-and-when-did-life-begin/


The Article says that life began 3.77 billion and 4.28 billion years ago, however, the Faint young Sun paradox demonstrates that this is an impossibility because 3 Billion years ago, the sun would only be 70% as warm as it is now. Even if the son were only 90% as hot as it is now, all life on earth would not survive. This is further proof that the earth is not 3 Billion years old or at a minimum is proves that life on earth isn't 3-4 Billion years old.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by LarsMac »

xfrodobagginsx;1529677 wrote: The Article says that life began 3.77 billion and 4.28 billion years ago, however, the Faint young Sun paradox demonstrates that this is an impossibility because 3 Billion years ago, the sun would only be 70% as warm as it is now. Even if the son were only 90% as hot as it is now, all life on earth would not survive. This is further proof that the earth is not 3 Billion years old or at a minimum is proves that life on earth isn't 3-4 Billion years old.


You obviusly didn't read the articles that you posted, then.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Ahso! »

xfrodobagginsx;1529338 wrote: I know EXACTLY what I am talking about. You don't. Do you play chess? If you do one should presume you know the rules to the game?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

LarsMac;1529679 wrote: You obviusly didn't read the articles that you posted, then.


Yeah I read them. What is it that I am missing?
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by LarsMac »

xfrodobagginsx;1529731 wrote: Yeah I read them. What is it that I am missing?


Because none of what you posted offers evidence that "Proves" anything.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

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.
Post Reply

Return to “General Chit Chat”