Science Disproves Evolution

General discussion area for all topics not covered in the other forums.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by spot »

xfrodobagginsx;1527758 wrote: Sorry, I was referring to Spot essentially saying that, not you.


It's half a century since I was paid to be a scientist.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

spot;1527763 wrote: It's half a century since I was paid to be a scientist.


Here are 2 points I heard today on the radio.

1) All Carbon 14 leaves any fossil within 100,000 years according to Evolutionary Scientists. For the most part Evolutionists refuse to Carbon Date Dinosaur bones for this reason because they believe them to be millions of years old. Yet Every time a Dinosaur bone HAS ever been Carbon Dated, it comes back with measurable C-14. That proves that the bone isn't millions of years old.

2) Soft tissue in bones, Fossils breaks down within a few thousand years. Yet soft tissue has been found in many Dinosaur bone fossils.

How do you explain this?
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;1527861 wrote: Here are 2 points I heard today on the radio.

1) All Carbon 14 leaves any fossil within 100,000 years according to Evolutionary Scientists. For the most part Evolutionists refuse to Carbon Date Dinosaur bones for this reason because they believe them to be millions of years old. Yet Every time a Dinosaur bone HAS ever been Carbon Dated, it comes back with measurable C-14. That proves that the bone isn't millions of years old.

2) Soft tissue in bones, Fossils breaks down within a few thousand years. Yet soft tissue has been found in many Dinosaur bone fossils.

How do you explain this?


50000 years is actually the oldest dating that can be reliably tested with RadioCarbon Dating methods.

Whatever other material local to where fossil was retrieved will likely contain some carbon, and therefore C-14 likely to express.

What "Evolutionists" would say is that results of C-14 testing from older samples would be at best inconclusive. So, why bother with it. There are other testing processes that are far more useful for older samples.

So, anyone using the argument you just posted would be completely unfamiliar with the process, and just talking out their A..

Also, re: soft tissue

An interesting read: T-Rex Soft Tissue found
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;1527868 wrote: 50000 years is actually the oldest dating that can be reliably tested with RadioCarbon Dating methods.

Whatever other material local to where fossil was retrieved will likely contain some carbon, and therefore C-14 likely to express.

What "Evolutionists" would say is that results of C-14 testing from older samples would be at best inconclusive. So, why bother with it. There are other testing processes that are far more useful for older samples.

So, anyone using the argument you just posted would be completely unfamiliar with the process, and just talking out their A..

Also, re: soft tissue

An interesting read: T-Rex Soft Tissue found


I'll tell you why bother with it. Because it's the actual bones that have been dated, not the material surrounding the bone, yet they ALWAYS contain C-14 because they aren't really millions of years old. You say "Why bother"? The reason to bother is to confirm what Creationists already know, that these fossils are NOT millions of years old.

As pertaining to the soft tissue found in these dinosaur bones and more than the article above. They are claiming that because iron was found that somehow iron must act as a preservative. That's hogwash! There is zero evidence that iron acts as a preservative to prevent bones that are supposedly millions of years old from losing it's soft tissue. The real reason is that the bones are NOT really millions of years old.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by spot »

Do you accept that the bones were found encased in stone, that the bones must have existed before the stone formed?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
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;1527945 wrote: I'll tell you why bother with it. Because it's the actual bones that have been dated, not the surrounding the bone, yet they ALWAYS contain C-14 because they aren't really millions of years old. You say "Why bother"? The reason to bother is to confirm what Creationists already know, that these fossils are NOT millions of years old.

As pertaining to the soft tissue found in these dinosaur bones and more than the article above. They are claiming that because iron was found that somehow iron must act as a preservative. That's hogwash! There is zero evidence that iron acts as a preservative to prevent bones that are supposedly millions of years old from losing it's soft tissue. The real reason is that the bones are NOT really millions of years old.


Just based on the idea that knowing an artifact is 60+ million years old, and that radiocarbon dating is ineffective past 50 thousand years would make me question why someone would attempt use radiocarbon dating on said artifact.

Do you have documentation to support your claim regarding those results, or as usual, are you merely repeating what you read, or heard from the Creationists claims?
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 »

spot;1527947 wrote: Do you accept that the bones were found encased in stone, that the bones must have existed before the stone formed?


Which bones? Because this has happened many, many times. Are you saying that they would date the stone around the bone rather than the bone it's self? That doesn't sound very scientific.
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

My Creationist Radio Host will be taking open calls for debate at 3 pm-4pm eastern time today, Friday. You can challenge him on any issue or topic. It could be evolution vs creation or other Christian topic. I will be listening. If you think you can debate him on facts call in today.

Bob Dutko

877 828 2262
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by High Threshold »

LarsMac;1527949 wrote: Just based on the idea that knowing an artifact is 60+ million years old, and that radiocarbon dating is ineffective past 50 thousand years would make me question why someone would attempt use radiocarbon dating on said artifact.

Do you have documentation to support your claim regarding those results, or as usual, are you merely repeating what you read, or heard from the Creationists claims?
You are thinking way too much. The Truth and the Way of the Lords is very simple:

Attached files
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by High Threshold »

"So let it be written, so let it be done"
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6491
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am
Location: Southampton
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by FourPart »

Matt Dillahunty explains it quite well...

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

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

Carbon Dating, Radio Metric Dating, Potassium Argon Dating have all been proven to be unreliable.
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;1528266 wrote: Carbon Dating, Radio Metric Dating, Potassium Argon Dating have all been proven to be unreliable.


Unreliable for what, exactly?

A hammer will prove unreliable for removing screws, An automobile will prove unreliable for trans Oceanic travel.

Tools usually are designed for specific tasks, and generally can be relied upon for those tasks.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
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 »

Link: An oldie but goody
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 »

Creation 101: Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth

https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/or ... the-earth/



Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ra ... sumptions/
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;1528301 wrote: Creation 101: Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth

https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/or ... the-earth/



Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ra ... sumptions/


Anecdotal evidence hardly qualifies as evidence.
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 »

FourPart;1528186 wrote: Matt Dillahunty explains it quite well...




The Radiometric Dating Game



https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dat ... inaccurate

Reliability of creationist sources



"The reliability of creationist sources is often questioned because those who write them are not always experts in the areas they write about. But I believe that their message is true, namely, God created the universe, the earth, and all that is in it, God created life on earth recently, and the earth since then has experienced a major catastrophe. If in a few instances creationist discussion of anomalies in radiometric dating is based on a misunderstanding of the literature, there are plenty of other acknowledged anomalies that they could have used just as well. All in all, I would much prefer creationist sources to the talk.origins FAQ and standard textbook treatments, which gloss over problems that specialists in the fields do not hesitate to admit, and present uniformitarianism, evolution, and radiometric dating as if these were beyond reproach. But I am thankful for the many voices being raised against this triumvirate of confusion, and believe that in the minds of many it is losing credibility, despite the resistance of establishment science. Most people only have time to become familiar with one of these three aspects, and so their doubts are calmed by belief in the evidence from the other two. But all three of them are in confusion."

In general, it's good to read both sides of the story. So I continue to recommend the creation web sites, including the following:

http://www.rae.org (This has a good selection of links to other sites)

http://zim.com/gjlane/science.htm(Many links)

http://www.ldolphin.org/URLres.shtml (More links than you can ever visit.)

Back to home page.
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 »

Research Shows Radiometric Dating Still Reliable (Again)

How reliable is Radiometric Dating?
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;1528378 wrote: Research Shows Radiometric Dating Still Reliable (Again)

How reliable is Radiometric Dating?
A pie in the oven is worth a hell of a lot more than a dozen obscure, winged pies in the sky on a cloudly day. The one is a fact of scent, taste and touch, the others are mere fantasies.
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

Geological strata: they’re everywhere

https://creation.com/geological-strata



"In the year-long global Flood, the world’s deepest and largest sedimentary formations were deposited in just a few months, at mind-boggling speed. Indeed, Berthault’s experiments demonstrate that three layers can form together at the same time. As the layers form, further back (‘upstream’ of the current) another three can simultaneously begin to form horizontally on top of them. Still further back, another three layers can form simultaneously on top of those. Underwater, the growing formation of layers would look something like an extremely wide set of stairs of gentle gradient, advancing in the direction of the current.

The process can repeat until a great depth of sedimentary layers is built up. One likely cause of deposition is a gradual subsidence in areas of the earth’s crust due to tectonic movement. The advancing ‘fronts’ of these layers of sediment may have been hundreds of kilometres across.7 The prestigious journal Nature reported similar experiments by others a decade after Berthault’s first experiments.8,9"
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

spot;1527763 wrote: It's half a century since I was paid to be a scientist.


Were you a College Professor?
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 »

If you really want to keep this thread going, you're gonna have to come up with some actual Science, some day.
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 »

Knowledge Without Wisdom Is Like Water In The Sand.

https://padlet.com/macklinp21/785vgn4lhtu9
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;1528463 wrote: Knowledge Without Wisdom Is Like Water In The Sand.

https://padlet.com/macklinp21/785vgn4lhtu9


[sigh]

That one takes the cake, Bob.

"The trouble with people isn't that they don't know, but that they know so much that ain't so." - Will Rogers
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 »

If you believe that the universe is billions of years old, how do you explain this evidence?



Age of the earth

101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe

https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
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;1528478 wrote: If you believe that the universe is billions of years old, how do you explain this evidence?



Age of the earth

101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe

https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth


That is not evidence. That is a collection of assumptions. It even says so on the first page.
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;1528480 wrote: That is not evidence. That is a collection of assumptions. It even says so on the first page.


But it does not say that. They aren't assumptions. It says



Age of the earth

101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe

It's a LOT of evidence supporting creationism. Interesting how you don't even want to consider it. Why don't you take a look at them and see if you can debunk them, Instead of calling them assumptions.
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;1528505 wrote: But it does not say that. They aren't assumptions. It says



Age of the earth

101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe

It's a LOT of evidence supporting creationism. Interesting how you don't even want to consider it. Why don't you take a look at them and see if you can debunk them, Instead of calling them assumptions.


It says:

"The assumptions behind the evidences presented here cannot be proved, but the fact that such a wide range of different phenomena all suggest much younger ages than are currently generally accepted, provides a strong case for questioning the accepted ages."
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;1528508 wrote: It says:

"The assumptions behind the evidences presented here cannot be proved, but the fact that such a wide range of different phenomena all suggest much younger ages than are currently generally accepted, provides a strong case for questioning the accepted ages."


But you didn't look at, or at least respond to any of the evidence...
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

spot;1527947 wrote: Do you accept that the bones were found encased in stone, that the bones must have existed before the stone formed?


Sure. I do believe that the bones existed before the stone formed. I am not sure if every bone found was encased in stone though.
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;1528510 wrote: But you didn't look at, or at least respond to any of the evidence...
Those are all very interesting data points, but hardly offer up anything on which one can base a conclusion. Though I suppose, if one has already drawn a conclusion, one could claim that some of these items prove his/her case.

Still no science
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;1528433 wrote: If you really want to keep this thread going, you're gonna have to come up with some actual Science, some day.
Sorry, but I must disagree with you here. It is an indisputable fact that everything worth knowing about life is well-documented in the bible. What you call "science" is the culmination of man's refusal to accept the Lord our God's Creation and such endeavour can only be described as Satanic, the Devil's work. You must purge this pseudo faith in Science and turn to the bible before it is too late to save your soul. You'll thank me some day.
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

LarsMac;1528512 wrote: Those are all very interesting data points, but hardly offer up anything on which one can base a conclusion. Though I suppose, if one has already drawn a conclusion, one could claim that some of these items prove his/her case.

Still no science


While I would agree that 1 or 2 or 3 may not draw up a conclusion, 101 consistent factual pieces of evidence would. You can dismiss it as unscientific if you want. Can you give me an example of why they aren't scientific?

Let's take point 1. How is that not scientific? Since no one was around 425 MILLION years ago to observe the DNA, what makes you believe the evolutionists are right and the Creationists are wrong? You REALLY believe that DNA could survive that long? Even Evolutionists don't agree with you.

From a Secular, non Creation Source:

Boston Strangler Case: How Long Does DNA Last?

"The 'Half Life' of DNA is supposedly 521 years. So how did it survive 425 million yeas. In ‘ancient’ fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old. The oldest DNA ever recorded was in Greenland Ice, and estimated to be between 450,000 and 800,000 years old."

https://www.livescience.com/38150-dna-d ... -rate.html



https://www.livescience.com/38150-dna-d ... -rate.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;1528537 wrote: While I would agree that 1 or 2 or 3 may not draw up a conclusion, 101 consistent factual pieces of evidence would. You can dismiss it as unscientific if you want. Can you give me an example of why they aren't scientific?

Let's take point 1. How is that not scientific? Since no one was around 425 MILLION years ago to observe the DNA, what makes you believe the evolutionists are right and the Creationists are wrong? You REALLY believe that DNA could survive that long? Even Evolutionists don't agree with you.

From a Secular, non Creation Source:

Boston Strangler Case: How Long Does DNA Last?

"The 'Half Life' of DNA is supposedly 521 years. So how did it survive 425 million yeas. In ‘ancient’ fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old. The oldest DNA ever recorded was in Greenland Ice, and estimated to be between 450,000 and 800,000 years old."

https://www.livescience.com/38150-dna-d ... -rate.html



https://www.livescience.com/38150-dna-d ... -rate.html


Did your high school never teach you critical reading skills?
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;1528540 wrote: Did your high school never teach you critical reading skills?


Preaching requires speaking, not reading or listening, and the only response preachers welcome is "Amen!"
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

This is one of my sources. He debates PHD Evolutionists all of the time and destroys them. They get so upset because he corners them on the facts that they hang up on him. Anyone can call him on Free for all Friday.



The Bob Dutko Show

http://www.bobdutko.com/radio-show-info/
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;1528614 wrote: This is one of my sources. He debates PHD Evolutionists all of the time and destroys them. They get so upset because he corners them on the facts that they hang up on him. Anyone can call him on Free for all Friday.



The Bob Dutko Show

http://www.bobdutko.com/radio-show-info/


I never met a "PHD Evolutionist"
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;1528616 wrote: I never met a "PHD Evolutionist"


Really? Interesting. So then, you don't believe that anyone who believes in evolution has a PHD? Evolutionary Scientists of all fields, Biology, Archaeology, Paleontology, ect.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by High Threshold »

LarsMac;1528616 wrote: I never met a "PHD Evolutionist"
I just assumed they are the much-needed counterbalance to "PHD Spontaneous Generationalislsts", PHD Snake Oil Doctors, and Evangelists.
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

LarsMac;1528540 wrote: Did your high school never teach you critical reading skills?


Well, I don't think they needed to. Common sense helps.
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;1528700 wrote: Well, I don't think they needed to. Common sense helps.


Why, yes, it would.
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;1528702 wrote: Why, yes, it would.


Which is why I looked at the Creation evidence as compared to the Evolution that I was taught in School and the Creation evidence won. You may not agree, but I doubt you have really taken the time to consider the evidence. You won't even admit that it IS evidence, but it is.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by High Threshold »

LarsMac

You're just not looking at the evidence subjectively enough to make a "common sense" conviction. I know it may be difficult but you just have to try harder and apply yourself to the task at hand in order to come to the correct conclusion.
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;1528715 wrote: LarsMac

You're just not looking at the evidence subjectively enough to make a "common sense" conviction. I know it may be difficult but you just have to try harder and apply yourself to the task at hand in order to come to the correct conclusion.


OH MY GOSH!

Why, you must be RIGHT. Thank you! I think I understand. Subjectivity is the KEY! I must work on that.
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;1528719 wrote: OH MY GOSH!

Why, you must be RIGHT. Thank you! I think I understand. Subjectivity is the KEY! I must work on that.
You are true-blue & solid, LarsMac. I knew that once I explained it to you that you'd understand.
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6491
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am
Location: Southampton
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by FourPart »

High Threshold;1528514 wrote: Sorry, but I must disagree with you here. It is an indisputable fact that everything worth knowing about life is well-documented in the bible. What you call "science" is the culmination of man's refusal to accept the Lord our God's Creation and such endeavour can only be described as Satanic, the Devil's work. You must purge this pseudo faith in Science and turn to the bible before it is too late to save your soul. You'll thank me some day.


I would most certainly agree that Science is definitely the culmination of Man's refusal to submit to Superstition-based Deities. It is the method by which we seek the TRUTH.

All Science commences with the premise of "I do not know".

Science then takes the evidence then, based on this evidence formulates a hypothesis that might explain the evidence.

Science then seeks more evidence & evaluates whether or not it supports the hypothesis or not. If not, then the hypothesis is likely to be falsified & discarded & the process begins again. If the evidence continues to support the Hypothesis, then Science then puts this Hypothesis, along with the evidence up for Peer Review in the hope that someone will be able to falsify it.

Others will then examine the evidence closely & decide whether or not the Hypothesis has validity.

Science then predicts the type of evidence that would validate the Hypothesis.

Once sufficient evidence is found & that there is ample Peer Review the Hypothesis attains the status of a Theory, which is the highest standard in Science. It is never, however, an ultimate definite, as the very nature of Science is looking for ways to be proven wrong.

Theism, on the other hand, works on the basis that it already knows all the answers, based on a book of Superstitious storys, written by primitives who knew nothing about the basics of Science. They didn't understand things like lightning, therefore it was caused by the anger of God throwing spears. They didn't understand stars, so it was determined to be holes in the firmament dome above the earth - holes which would also allow the rain to come in, as they didn't understand the rain cycle either. All of which were supposedly created by God. All of which preceded Science. Eventually, however, those with a bit of intelligence started to realise how stupid this was & looked to more realistic explanations, and thus Science was born.

Theists still continue to Cherry Pick what they want from the Bible, glossing over the horrendously false statements made in said Bible, that were previously taken as absolute literal truths. Others will even deny the Scientific evidence, insisting that the Bible is still true, insisting that there is no such thing as Space Exploration, and that there really is a crystalline firmament, and that the earth is a flat disc - as specified in the Bible.

Do you still hold to these Biblical truths or do you believe in the Science that has debunked these fantasies? Once you admit that the Bible is flawed in its stories then you have to acccept that it could be right about everything else.

Furthermore, Evolution isn't necessarily entirely in conflict with Creationism, as it deals only with the changing of what already exists. Evolutionism isn't concerned with how the Primordial Slime was first formed. Although 99.9% of those who believe in Evolution would not give it any credibility, the Science of Evolution would have no evidence to suggest that it wasn't a God who created that Slime. Although, having said that, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. I can't prove that there is no God, but I have never seen any evidence to prove that one exists either.

This is where Occam's Razor comes in. If something can be explained in naturally demonstrable ways, why look for something less rational & more complicated in order to explain it?
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by High Threshold »

FourPart;1528764 wrote: I would most certainly agree that Science is definitely the culmination of Man's refusal to submit to Superstition-based Deities. It is the method by which we seek the TRUTH.

All Science commences with the premise of "I do not know".

Science then takes the evidence then, based on this evidence formulates a hypothesis that might explain the evidence.

Science then seeks more evidence & evaluates whether or not it supports the hypothesis or not. If not, then the hypothesis is likely to be falsified & discarded & the process begins again. If the evidence continues to support the Hypothesis, then Science then puts this Hypothesis, along with the evidence up for Peer Review in the hope that someone will be able to falsify it.

Others will then examine the evidence closely & decide whether or not the Hypothesis has validity.

Science then predicts the type of evidence that would validate the Hypothesis.

Once sufficient evidence is found & that there is ample Peer Review the Hypothesis attains the status of a Theory, which is the highest standard in Science. It is never, however, an ultimate definite, as the very nature of Science is looking for ways to be proven wrong.

Theism, on the other hand, works on the basis that it already knows all the answers, based on a book of Superstitious storys, written by primitives who knew nothing about the basics of Science. They didn't understand things like lightning, therefore it was caused by the anger of God throwing spears. They didn't understand stars, so it was determined to be holes in the firmament dome above the earth - holes which would also allow the rain to come in, as they didn't understand the rain cycle either. All of which were supposedly created by God. All of which preceded Science. Eventually, however, those with a bit of intelligence started to realise how stupid this was & looked to more realistic explanations, and thus Science was born.

Theists still continue to Cherry Pick what they want from the Bible, glossing over the horrendously false statements made in said Bible, that were previously taken as absolute literal truths. Others will even deny the Scientific evidence, insisting that the Bible is still true, insisting that there is no such thing as Space Exploration, and that there really is a crystalline firmament, and that the earth is a flat disc - as specified in the Bible.

Do you still hold to these Biblical truths or do you believe in the Science that has debunked these fantasies? Once you admit that the Bible is flawed in its stories then you have to acccept that it could be right about everything else.

Furthermore, Evolution isn't necessarily entirely in conflict with Creationism, as it deals only with the changing of what already exists. Evolutionism isn't concerned with how the Primordial Slime was first formed. Although 99.9% of those who believe in Evolution would not give it any credibility, the Science of Evolution would have no evidence to suggest that it wasn't a God who created that Slime. Although, having said that, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. I can't prove that there is no God, but I have never seen any evidence to prove that one exists either.

This is where Occam's Razor comes in. If something can be explained in naturally demonstrable ways, why look for something less rational & more complicated in order to explain it?


Science disproves the bible but it does not disprove a Supreme Being. Those few words convey my refusal to disbelieve in Agnosticism.
xfrodobagginsx
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by xfrodobagginsx »

LarsMac;1528719 wrote: OH MY GOSH!

Why, you must be RIGHT. Thank you! I think I understand. Subjectivity is the KEY! I must work on that.


No, Objectivity is key. You are using your preconceived ideas rather than looking at the actual evidence and letting it speak for it's self.
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 »

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.
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 »

FourPart;1528764 wrote: I would most certainly agree that Science is definitely the culmination of Man's refusal to submit to Superstition-based Deities. It is the method by which we seek the TRUTH.

All Science commences with the premise of "I do not know".

Science then takes the evidence then, based on this evidence formulates a hypothesis that might explain the evidence.

Science then seeks more evidence & evaluates whether or not it supports the hypothesis or not. If not, then the hypothesis is likely to be falsified & discarded & the process begins again. If the evidence continues to support the Hypothesis, then Science then puts this Hypothesis, along with the evidence up for Peer Review in the hope that someone will be able to falsify it.

Others will then examine the evidence closely & decide whether or not the Hypothesis has validity.

Science then predicts the type of evidence that would validate the Hypothesis.

Once sufficient evidence is found & that there is ample Peer Review the Hypothesis attains the status of a Theory, which is the highest standard in Science. It is never, however, an ultimate definite, as the very nature of Science is looking for ways to be proven wrong.

Theism, on the other hand, works on the basis that it already knows all the answers, based on a book of Superstitious storys, written by primitives who knew nothing about the basics of Science. They didn't understand things like lightning, therefore it was caused by the anger of God throwing spears. They didn't understand stars, so it was determined to be holes in the firmament dome above the earth - holes which would also allow the rain to come in, as they didn't understand the rain cycle either. All of which were supposedly created by God. All of which preceded Science. Eventually, however, those with a bit of intelligence started to realise how stupid this was & looked to more realistic explanations, and thus Science was born.

Theists still continue to Cherry Pick what they want from the Bible, glossing over the horrendously false statements made in said Bible, that were previously taken as absolute literal truths. Others will even deny the Scientific evidence, insisting that the Bible is still true, insisting that there is no such thing as Space Exploration, and that there really is a crystalline firmament, and that the earth is a flat disc - as specified in the Bible.

Do you still hold to these Biblical truths or do you believe in the Science that has debunked these fantasies? Once you admit that the Bible is flawed in its stories then you have to acccept that it could be right about everything else.

Furthermore, Evolution isn't necessarily entirely in conflict with Creationism, as it deals only with the changing of what already exists. Evolutionism isn't concerned with how the Primordial Slime was first formed. Although 99.9% of those who believe in Evolution would not give it any credibility, the Science of Evolution would have no evidence to suggest that it wasn't a God who created that Slime. Although, having said that, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. I can't prove that there is no God, but I have never seen any evidence to prove that one exists either.

This is where Occam's Razor comes in. If something can be explained in naturally demonstrable ways, why look for something less rational & more complicated in order to explain it?


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.
Post Reply

Return to “General Chit Chat”