Science Disproves Evolution

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:10 am

Evolution of the Solar System?

Evolutionists claim the solar system condensed out of a vast cloud of swirling dust about 4.6 billion years ago. If so, many particles that were not swept up as part of a planet should now be spiraling in toward the Sun. Colliding asteroids also would create dust particles that, over millions of years, would spiral in toward the Sun. (To understand why, see "Poynting-Robertson Effect" here ) Particles should still be falling into the Sun’s upper atmosphere, burning up, and giving off an easily measured, infrared glow. Measurements taken during the solar eclipse of 11 July 1991, showed no such glow (a). So the assumed “millions of years and this explanation for the solar system’s origin are probably wrong.

Disks of gas and dust sometimes surround stars. That does not mean planets are forming in those disks. Some disks formed from matter suddenly expelled from the star (b). Other disks formed from impact debris or other matter near the star. Early astronomers called the disks planetary nebula, because they mistakenly thought they contained evolving planets.

a. “For decades, astronomers have speculated that debris left over from the formation of the solar system or newly formed from colliding asteroids is continuously falling toward the sun and vaporizing. The infrared signal, if it existed, would be so strong at the altitude of Mauna Kea [Hawaii], above the infrared-absorbing water vapor in the atmosphere, that the light-gathering power of the large infrared telescopes would be overkill....In the case of the infrared search for the dust ring, [Donald N. B.] Hall [Director of the University of Hawaii’s Institute for Astronomy] was able to report within days that ‘the data were really superb.’ They don’t tell an entirely welcome story, though. ‘Unfortunately, they don’t seem to show any dust rings at all.’ Charles Petit, “A Mountain Cliffhanger of an Eclipse, Science, Vol. 253, 26 July 1991, pp. 386–387.

“... interplanetary dust is not highly concentrated around the sun. In situ measurements made with impact detectors aboard the two Helios probes, which reached a heliocentric distance of 60 [solar radii], have also shown that the spatial IDP [interplanetary dust particles] density gradually levels off inside ~100 solar radii.

“Our two-dimensional IR [infrared] observations have shown unambiguously that a prominent circumsolar dust ring did not exist at the time of the 11 July 1991 solar eclipse. Consistent with these results, a second recent IR eclipse experiment also found no evidence of surface brightness enhancements. P. Lamy et al., “No Evidence of a Circumsolar Dust Ring from Infrared Observations of the 1991 Solar Eclipse, Science, Vol. 257, 4 September 1992, p. 1379.

b. L. F. Miranda et al., “Water-Maser Emission from a Planetary Nebula with a Magnetic Torus, Nature, Vol. 414, 15 November 2001, pp. 284–286.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:12 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:13 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:13 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:14 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:14 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:15 am

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:16 am

You're starting to repeat yourself Ahso!.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:18 am

AnneBoleyn;1475278 wrote: You're starting to repeat yourself Ahso!.I know. That's all Pahu does too. I'm following his lead.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:46 am

Ahso!;1475274 wrote:

Bible Accuracy

1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:

The Rocks Cry Out

In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

Scientific Facts in The Bible

Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki

SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible

3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

100prophecies.org

http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProph ... stdays.cfm

About Bible Prophecy

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Bible Prophecy

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:41 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:42 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:44 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:45 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:46 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:47 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:49 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:51 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:55 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:59 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:01 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:05 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:06 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:07 am

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:15 am

Ahso!;1475288 wrote:

Why do you believe any of those things are right?

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:17 am

Ahso!;1475298 wrote:

The Bible is historically accurate and pulls no punches.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:19 am

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:28 am

Ahso!;1475304 wrote:

You mention sex and birth. Perhaps you will find this interesting:

Figure 16: Male and Female Birds. Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce?

If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.

a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible.a

c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical,b and electricalc compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.

d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes that scientists can describe only in a general sense.d

e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.

f. This remarkable string of “accidents must have been repeated for millions of species.

Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.

Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals.e

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction.f But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?

If life evolved, why would any form of life live long beyond its reproductive age, when beneficial changes cannot be passed on? All the energy expended, supposedly over millions of years, to allow organisms to live beyond reproductive age would be a waste. In other words, why haven’t all organisms evolved reproductive systems that last a lifetime?

Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that could reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle.g

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 37.** Sexual Reproduction

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 1:29 pm

Pahu;1475270 wrote:

Evolutionists claim the solar system condensed out of a vast cloud of swirling dust about 4.6 billion years ago. If so, many particles that were not swept up as part of a planet should now be spiraling in toward the Sun. Colliding asteroids also would create dust particles that, over millions of years, would spiral in toward the Sun. (To understand why, see "Poynting-Robertson Effect"

No they don't. Evolutionists don't concern themselves with astronomy (or astrology in your case). Nor has any cosmology scientist ever claimed that they formed from bits of amassing dust. They started as large lumps of rock which, having mass attracted other items by way of their own gravity, in much the same way as a crystal seed does.

Disks of gas and dust sometimes surround stars. That does not mean planets are forming in those disks. Some disks formed from matter suddenly expelled from the star (b). Other disks formed from impact debris or other matter near the star. Early astronomers called the disks planetary nebula, because they mistakenly thought they contained evolving planets.

Says who? What happens happen over billions of billions of years. Who are you to say that what you claim to know after a life of less than a micronth of the blink of an eye in relative terms is so? Sounds pretty damned arrogant to me. When bubbles floating in the air bump into each other they usually combine to make bigger bubbles. With billions of pieces of 'dust', most of the smaller ones of which are bigger than our own moon, they are always bumping into each other. Sometimes they bounce off, like snooker balls & go their seperate ways. Other times they combine to make a bigger piece of 'dust'. This, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

“For decades, astronomers have speculated that debris left over from the formation of the solar system or newly formed from colliding asteroids is continuously falling toward the sun and vaporizing. The infrared signal, if it existed, would be so strong at the altitude of Mauna Kea above the infrared-absorbing water vapor in the atmosphere, that the light-gathering power of the large infrared telescopes would be overkill....In the case of the infrared search for the dust ring,

Not so. The speculation is that it is either heading outward from its source, or being drawn into the strongest source of gravity. When the both forces are equal, orbit results until such time as one of the forces is changed - usually by the mass of the greater force being increased.

“... interplanetary dust is not highly concentrated around the sun. In situ measurements made with impact detectors aboard the two Helios probes, which reached a heliocentric distance of 60 have also shown that the spatial IDP density gradually levels off inside ~100 solar radii.

In the great plan of things, the planets are mere interplanetary cosmic dust. Last I was aware this speck of interplanetary dust we call earth, as well as several other specks are quite highly concentrated around the sun.

“Our two-dimensional IR observations have shown unambiguously that a prominent circumsolar dust ring did not exist at the time of the 11 July 1991 solar eclipse. Consistent with these results, a second recent IR eclipse experiment also found no evidence of surface brightness enhancements.

Utter bollocks. Furthermore, it may have escaped your notice that the Universe is not 2-Dimensional. Indeed, a 2-dimensional shot of Saturn, taken from the right angle would 'prove' that it had no rings. 2-Dimesnional images are next to worthless. They give no representation of depth.

Pahu;1475305 wrote: You mention sex and birth. Perhaps you will find this interesting:

Nothing of Brown's could possibly be described as 'interesting'.

Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce?

No they don't

If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.

Correct, and they obviously did.

The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

Far more mutations have become extinct than continued to thrive. That is the nature of evolution.

The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible.

There are millions of species which are Hermaphrodite. There are others which can, and do, change sex.

The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical,b and electrical c compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.

As above.

d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes that scientists can describe only in a general sense.

Thus denying the existence of DNA, which has only been discovered within the last 50 years - and you expect that in that timeframe modern science to have learned everything there is to be learned from it.

The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.

So how about reptillian eggs, where they're left abandoned, later to continue to hatch, regardless. The gender of many reptiles is also determined by the temperature of the eggs.

f. This remarkable string of “accidents must have been repeated for millions of species.

Exactly. You could say the same of a static non evolving species. To remain unevolved it must rely on non-interference of any other species. There are even different species of human. I don't just refer to skin colour, but to bone structure, etc. If creationism were true all humans would be identical clones. Same race, same colour, same hair colour, same eye colour, same bone structure, etc.

Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.

Absolutely - and the evidence points to the former being true.

Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals.e

You have proved my point. They are, on the whole, very similar. There are, however, certain exceptions. This is the nature of evolution. Things change. Sometimes they work & thrive. Other times they don't & die out.

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction.f But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?

You are claiming that organisms don't divide - or more to the point that they don't divide & form other organisms different to the others. If that is the case, then how come you aren't one massive ovum (although I have my doubts with you. You seem to have the same brain capacity)?

If life evolved, why would any form of life live long beyond its reproductive age, when beneficial changes cannot be passed on? All the energy expended, supposedly over millions of years, to allow organisms to live beyond reproductive age would be a waste. In other words, why haven’t all organisms evolved reproductive systems that last a lifetime?

This is why DNA is genetically coded with a lifespan. Very few animals do live much beyond their reproductive age. Those that do tend to be those that nurture their young, which gives one perfectly valid reason.

Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that could reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle.

Not a miracle - a fully understandable bio-chemical manifestation.

You see, every single one of your (or rather your master's) claims have been quashed.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 2:42 pm

FourPart;1475309 wrote: Evolutionists don't concern themselves with astronomy.

Physical cosmology is the scholarly and scientific study of the origin, evolution, large-scale structures and dynamics, and ultimate fate of the universe, as well as the scientific laws that govern these realities.[1]

Physical cosmology is studied by scientists, such as astronomers and theoretical physicists. Modern cosmology is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which attempts to bring together observational astronomy and particle physics.[2]

[From Wikipedia]

xxxxx

Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.

Absolutely - and the evidence points to the former being true.

What evidence?

All of your comments reveal a dogmatic desire to cling to myth rather than the facts of science. Pathetic!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:32 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:33 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:34 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:34 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:35 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:36 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:36 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:37 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:47 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:48 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 4:14 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 4:25 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 4:27 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 4:28 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 4:30 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 4:32 pm

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 1:16 am

Pahu;1475313 wrote: Physical cosmology is the scholarly and scientific study of the origin, evolution, large-scale structures and dynamics, and ultimate fate of the universe, as well as the scientific laws that govern these realities.[1]

Physical cosmology is studied by scientists, such as astronomers and theoretical physicists. Modern cosmology is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which attempts to bring together observational astronomy and particle physics.[2]

[From Wikipedia]

Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.

What evidence?

All of your comments reveal a dogmatic desire to cling to myth rather than the facts of science. Pathetic!
How often must we go through this little song & dance. You ask the question. You are given the answers. You choose to ignore the answers when they don't fit in with your master's fantasies, then you paste a whole load more of his tripe - usually on a totally different subject, in the hope that everyone will forget what garbage you've been spouting, and then start all over again.

The evidence is in fossil records, demonstrating the gradual progress from lower species to higher level of species over milions of years in a smooth line. Changing in species to adapt to their environment in the shorter term has even been observed, as in my earlier examples of the Speckled Moth, evolving to camouflage itself with the pollution that made it's native Silver Birch trees black, and then, as pollution was cleaned up & the trees reverted to their original colour how they evolved back / re-evolved to their former colouring. This is the basis of most evolution. Change or die. If your theories were true, the moth could never have change its colouring in the first place.

Referring to your definition of Evolution. You know full well that your argument against Evolutionists refers to the Biological aspect of things. Your Wiki link mentions nothing of this. It's like comparing a Plane, meaning an aircraft with a Plane, as in a carpenter's tool. They are the same words bearing no relationship to each other in the given context. Biological Evolution occurs WITHIN cosmology. Of course it does - otherwise there would be nowhere for it to evolve in the first place, so in that sense it is related in the same way that you can say that soil is fattening, for without soil there could be no grass, and without grass man could not have genetically evolved wheat, with which to make flour, with which to make cakes, which are fattening. Therefore soil is the cause of obesity. Your logic is no different. The evolution that you are primarily denying in the face of what everyone else accepts as being fact begins from the base point of the Primordial Slime. When a blacksmith fashions a horseshoe he doesn't go mining the iron ore. He starts with the base metal. He does not, however, deny the origins of that metal having come from the ore & being process up to the point of the metal. It simply doesn't concern him. It is not relevant to the matter in hand. In the same way an Evolutionist accept how the planet was formed through basic physical Cosmology. That is not relevant to their point of study. If it were there would be nowhere to start learning things.

This is the fundamental difference between Evolutionists & Creationists. Creationists don't understand anything. They don't want to understand anything. They are told a primitive fairy story that some God suddenly says "It Is That Way Because I Say So", and that's good enough for them. Case Solved. Evolutionists, on the other hand, see patterns in life & strive to understand why. They ask questions why & seek to find the answers, even when the answers are in conflict with the primitive, infantile "Because I Said So" ruling, which is more like a little child having a tantrum in a playground ("Goooaaalll" ... "No Goal" .... "Why Not?" ... "Because I said So!").

You are an absolute hypocrite. The comfort of your way of life is founded on the backs of those who have chosen to see beyond the God figure. The very internet you are using relies on satellites which would not have been possible if man had kept to the accusations that even to aim for heavier than air flight would be against God's ordnance. Then when it came to Space Flight, than it would be invading God's Domain. If you really believe in the twaddle you spout you should revert to dressing in the skins of the animals you hunt with a hand crafted spear, with none of the modern comforts or medicines - all of which are contrary to God's "Because I Said So". Keep to what he gave you. Anything else is second guessing His will.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:54 am

Just ignore the Troll, Fourpart, he's not worth the time. Screw Pahu and his God. I'm going to have fun in this thread and also post positive Evolution research instead.

Video: First human? Jawbone fossil in Ethiopia sheds light on human origins - Telegraph A piece of jawbone with teeth attached, uncovered in Ethiopia, is the earliest known fossil of the genus Homo, to which humans belong, researchers said on Wednesday.

The discovery suggests that humankind's ancestors were living in what is now the Ledi-Geraru research area of Afar Regional State, Ethiopia, in open grassland environments, near lakes, rivers, and active volcanoes, about 2.8 million years ago, or 400,000 years earlier than previously thoughtThis is an awesome discovery.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:33 am

Christian Activist Files Ballot Measure To Execute All Gay People By 'Bullets To The Head' - The New Civil Rights Movement

A Christian activist would like to see all gay people in California executed by firing squad, just so the rest of the citizenry can avoid having to endure God's "wrath." Matt McLaughlin last week paid $200 to file a ballot initiative with the Attorney General in Sacramento that proposes his Sodomite Suppression Act become law.

McLaughlin calls homosexual sex "buggery," and "sodomy," and labels it "a monstrous evil that Almighty God, giver of freedom and liberty, commands us to suppress on pain of our utter destruction even as he overthrew Sodom and Gomorrha [sic]."

He says that it's "better" that non-gay Californians kill the gays rather than have to suffer God's punishment.Where do you stand on this, Pahu?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:46 am

Pat Robertson to ‘abhorrent’ moms: ‘Covens’ use your Facebook ultrasounds to curse ‘unborn babies’

Televangelist Pat Robertson warned this week that women could have their pregnancies cursed by a “coven of witches if they posted ultrasound photographs on Facebook.

In an email to Robertson on Monday’s 700 Club, a viewer explained that her daughter was pregnant.

“Young parents now regularly post fetal ultrasound photos as their Facebook photo, the woman wrote. “From a spiritual point of view, is there any harm in doing this?

At first, Robertson said that he didn’t think that posting ultrasound photos was harmful, but then he seemed to change his mind. How about this one, Pahu, do you align yourself with that other loony-tune Pat Robertson?