Can you prove evolution wrong

I will focus on the fossil record, as it is the cornerstone that the entire evolutionary edifice is built upon.

To begin, I will cover a few basic concepts about the fossil record.

1) We don't have a good definition for species. Until a fully accurate, reliable definition has been provided, all else is unprovable in a systemic manner.

en.wikipedia.org... ( I don't like wikipedia as a source in general, but it's a well stated page on the problem)

2) No fossil, anywhere - proves evolution: The reasoning behind this is simple. If we find a group of creatures of similar build located in the same geological area and strata, we can conclude that there was indeed a small group of similar creatures living in that area. What we cannot prove is that those bones had children, let alone different children. We CAN assume based on their location that they COULD produce similar children, but does NOT prove that they could produce different ones.

3) Radiometric dating of rocks is inherently inaccurate.

www.cs.unc.edu...

4) Fossil ages longer than 50,000 years require radiometric dating of rocks to discover their age. Not even Fission-Track Dating is immune to this. This is dealt with in the second link.

snakefly.tripod.com... ( straight and to the point)

www.detectingdesign.com...

Please include anything else you would like me to cover in later posts, and I will attempt to get to them.

For a complete breakdown, please visit www.detectingdesign.com...

Now for how did the fossil record come about? If we can show that dating methods of rocks and fossils are problematic at best, then the question is just how did they get there. Most Evolutionists follow a principle known as Unifomitarianism. This states that the existing rock layers were laid up slowly over a vast period of time in a uniform manner. If this is not the case, and catastrophic occurences did indeed occur, then the timeline received from the rock is subject to pollution from external sources of the minerals that are being traced. So my case will be one against uniformitariansm and it's inherent flaws by pointing out alternative theories that could equally or superiorly explain the local phenomena that occurs in the real world. Much of this is covered by a gentleman named Walter Veith and I will reference him here. He is an actual research scientist and a creationist. He has made excellent video series on these very topics so there is no need for me to recreate anything, but instead reference him below and the topics he addresses.

1) Cretaceous - Chalk

en.wikipedia.org...

"At the peak of the Cretaceous transgression, one-third of Earth's present land area was submerged."

As chalk is formed under water, there is a chance, that an entire level of geographical strata was created underwater. Thus lending credence to the idea of a world wide flood. If indeed, the radiometric dating used to date rocks can be called into question, then the age of the chalk too can be called into question. Further leading to the credence of this hypothesis. The simple fact is, there is room for this interpretation whether anyone care to admit it or not. The evidence supports the possibility

2) Rock layers - The question being, how did they form and is there any evidence for this? This is too long to cover in the limited space availabe from a single post, but it is summed up quite well here.

www.creationinthecrossfire.com...

Evidence provided in video format in lecture by Walter Veith. His series is called the Genesis Conflict - The Earth in Time and Space. It will be under the playlist. He's the real deal. Check it out.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by phoenix0714

That argument implies that evolution is just a chaotic random set of mutations that happened to bring our planet to this state of highly evolved life, it implies that life is striving for the easiest possible existence, which would lead to a weaker existence in my opinion

Evolution is basically a random genetic mutation, which is then followed by non random natural selection

reply to post by Sephiroth1550

I will focus on the fossil record, as it is the cornerstone that the entire evolutionary edifice is built upon.

No, fossils are not the cornerstone of evolution at all. Genetic evidence that has been collected is more than enough. Even if we did not find a single fossil, we would still be able to confirm that the theory of evolution is true. Fossils are just an added bonus - a little visual aid, if you will

reply to post by phoenix0714

When an animal is confronted with a stressful, dangerous or different and difficult environment it goes through a process in it's lifetime of becoming tuned in to it's new home. It ceases to just exist in it's happy niche and it's brain starts to pay close attention to it's new world. In a colder environment with much snow, the hairs and foul start to bear young that have traits that will help them deal with their environment. They are born with more hair, maybe it is white, and even their young are born to grow larger bodies maybe. This does not take hundreds of thousands of years, it starts to happen in the very first generations after climate or environment change. If it didn't happen this way most species would have died off long ago or never came to be.

Change as you describe it almost never happens in the timeframe you describe, it generally takes more than a "few" generations. But that's cool, because climate change forcing them to adapt generally doesn't happen from one day to the other either...we're talking hundreds of years here. It's not as if some hairless mouse living in the desert woke up one day it there was snow, and the mouse went back in its little hole and started having freaky mouse sex with his mouse wife...and their kids then did the same, and let's add another 5 generations for good measure...and voila, that final generation suddenly had skies instead of feet and tons of hair.

i am not religious, but i still stand on the fence with this one.
i love science, but i dont rule out the potential of a greater intelligence with the power to create.
i dont believe that anything on this planet was spontaniously created though, because, let's face it, thats just stupid.
if the earth was created in 7 days, have you ever really bothered to ask, how long is an eternal beings day? it could be millions, or even billions of years to an ever decaying peon like us.
surely, a god, who knows everything that ever was, or will be, is not only intelligent, but is intelligence itself.
We know that the universe we live in is bound by rules, so why create something boundlessly within the boundaries themselves? it makes no sense to. why not populate the entire universe with humans, spontaniously, with all the trappings of technology and knowledge right off the bat? Why the need to send the "angels" to teach us the was of holiness, and, well, breed with us? Why not code it all right into us from the beginning? Well, where's the fun in that?
It has to be unlocked...evolved....
God would be able to kickstart everything into motion using what already existed in the universe by writing an ever changing infinite code into every being on the planet, our dna.
...and apparently, according to the bible, it was a daunting enough task to enlist help.
some people of religion that i know take everything literally, and forget that, if the bible was the actual word of god, it was still interpereted by men, greed, evil, deceptive and fanciful men.
The devil didnt put fossils here to trick us, and we KNOW that the earth is not 6,000 or so years old (none of this was ever in the bible, anyway, it was theorized by holy MEN), so try to combine it, and move on, because no one KNOWS the answer.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Of course you are right, and these things take thousands of years to make real complete changes most of the time I'm sure, especially on a species level, I just don't agree that it takes hundreds of thousands of years, and I also don't agree that it stems from random mutations.

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27 In the year 2245, your scientist will find out that their carbonating analogy was off by 345 million years.

In 2027,a scientist will bring proof that its no way that a ape or mans ancestor could still be living in the same time, going to see ones relatives at the zoo.

Ionized radiation causes DNA to change. That means evolution is a fact. What happens is you have mass close extinction among species when the affected genes from the ionized radiation in generations past can become dominate that favor the environment during the time of close extinction our former species had one about 63 thousand years ago when there were anywhere from 600 to just a pair of humans that emerged to populate the Earth with modern humans. You don't need carbon dating to follow the timeline of Earth's historical geological record. Carbon dating is simply a helpful tool to pin down more precisely when something lived. It can't be off 365 million years because the geological record is literally set in stone. lol And yeas apes and man can live during the same time because their DNA has been influenced under different conditions than the influences of our recent ancestors.

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27 In 3015 scientist will find out that the big bang was not even close to what the early scientist have claimed it to be.

If you take all the estimated matter in the Universe and then convert it to energy with all the energy known on the electromagnetic spectrum putting it into a large ball it will condense down into a pin dot just as the primeval atom has been describe. Under that immense pressure it will generate heat and explode escaping its own gravity producing a "big bang." How did it get there? Probably because this has all happened before. There is a theory for the end of the Universe called the big freeze. That means something has to happen after that. Partials/energy all will march slowing back together to a center of gravity. A point of the next big bang. Or a big crunch where a giant black hole ejects out everything that it has consumed, but what goes up has to come down because matter attracts matter and yes even energy attacks energy. Einstein proved light is influence by gravity and that means energy has gravitational properties. Anything that is influenced by gravity, attracted by gravity, has to produce it. So the end of the Universe no matter how you slice it will become a primeval atom once again repeating the same big bang cycle. Will it be an exact duplicate? That's a question to be answered debating randomness vs. predetermination. And if energy can't be created nor destroyed all bets should be on predetermination. Chaos theory does not hold up with no changes in the amounts of energy from one big bang cycle to the next.

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27In 2012, a man will explain what the alpha 1 and the 0 omega really meant.

Yeah, it's called calculus. You're a little late on that "one."

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27 Everything evolved…everything, ‘Even sound’

No, sound does not evolve.

Sound or even electromagnetic detection translated into sound does not evolve because it entirely involves constants. That's why they are called constants because they don't change.

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27 In addition, in 2167, a scientist will discover a way to reprogram eyesight, and with that being, he will discover that there are other realms inside the very realm we live.

That's backwards. Outside not inside. You must be listening to Doctor Michio Koo koo. We are flat relatively speaking to the other dimensions OUT there.

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27 Evolution is good for this period of learning but its more to it then meets the ‘EYE’

Evolving techniques to engineer evolution. Sounds like gene therapy and other forms of genetic engineering. You should write a book called "Hybrid This." Or "Evolution Creates it's Own Evolution."

reply to post by Griffo


Really, Genetic Evidence huh. Like we have never heard of that one. Try the Genes of Genesis video.

www.youtube.com.../c/01BE21B220D6082C/23/wCOm4gjJf28

reply to post by toltecnightmare


Just a thought seeing as though you called the creative force a being that knows everything that was is and is going to be. How boring would that be.

Never to be suprised, challenged. Never discover and whatever you do you already know the outcome. Why would an intelligent being even bother. You cannot even enjoy a joke as you know the punch line.

An eternity of that would truely be hell.

reply to post by Sephiroth1550

1) We don't have a good definition for species. Until a fully accurate, reliable definition has been provided, all else is unprovable in a systemic manner.

Which doesn't disprove every living thing around you evolved. You could call it "applecrackers" instead of "species", it still wouldn't invalidate the fact that we evolved from an ancestor we have in common with today's monkeys. How do we know even though they're not tied down 100% on the definition of species? DNA, migratory trends, bone structure...

2) No fossil, anywhere - proves evolution: The reasoning behind this is simple. If we find a group of creatures of similar build located in the same geological area and strata, we can conclude that there was indeed a small group of similar creatures living in that area. What we cannot prove is that those bones had children, let alone different children. We CAN assume based on their location that they COULD produce similar children, but does NOT prove that they could produce different ones.

Sooooooooo...let's be hypothetical for a moment. Let's assume you're wandering around Alberta in Canada, dinosaur country with tonds of skeletons like the T-Rex. And you end up finding a giant female T-Rex skeleton, and next to it, an identical one but just smaller. You conclude that this smaller one is 100% not the T-Rex's offspring? Really? Same identical bone structure and dimensions, same location...hell, throw in some egg shells as they've found those too. But still not offspring? Makes total sense

And just so you know, if scientists find a baby chimp skeleton in the woods, they can know for sure it's belonged to a baby chimp. They don't need blood for that, or living tissue. So what on earth makes you think we can't do it with dinosaurs???

3) Radiometric dating of rocks is inherently inaccurate.

Oh really?

Accuracy levels of less than twenty million years in two-and-a-half billion years are achievable.

LINK

Now, when it comes to the age of the earth, the margin of error (or inaccuracy as you call it) is less than 1%. Most scientists would loooove to have a 99% certainty of being right, hell, investors would probably kill for it.

LINK

By the way, I'm not sure as to why you dislike wikipedia, you can always check the original source if you're suspicious about claims. Your "detectingdesign" source on the other hand is incredibly disingenuous. First of all, pretty much every source listed is old or outdatd. And then they show a lack of knowledge when claim the platipus being 120m years old proves dinosaurs roamed with mammals, when this has been known for quite some time now. And like every good creationist website they of course bring up the Cambrian "Explosion" and act as if this was a sudden event...when in reality the period lasted 70-80 million years!

In short, you might wanna get your information from non-biased sources

Originally posted by phoenix0714
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Of course you are right, and these things take thousands of years to make real complete changes most of the time I'm sure, especially on a species level, I just don't agree that it takes hundreds of thousands of years, and I also don't agree that it stems from random mutations.

Sometimes it takes hundreds of thousands of years. For example, take the crocodile. It looks pretty much like the crocodile you would have come across during the time of the dinosaurs. But today's croc couldn't mate with old dinosaur croc...because it still evolved

reply to post by KingJames1337


Neither of the other two theories have evidence either.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Kicking2bears

 

Can you point me to the info on the, according to most geologist there was a 'global event' at least four thousand of years ago and do they also agree it was a global flood.

sigh... and here we go again. Those of us that aren't attacking anyone always get 'demanded' to provide evidence. Ahwell, No problem I can do a google search. (5 to 1 the evolutionist can do searches and find contradictory evidence of their own... isn't science fun! it can prove anything you want it to... even 1+1=3)

Once again you may call it whatever you want, I think it was a flood with erupting guysers, volcanoes, earthquakes and likely a rapid shifting of the tectonic plates if not a complete pancake flipping of many areas. (I also think it unlikely that Noah and his family were the only survivors. The God I prefer to believe in is one who would have been perfectly capable of suggesting other groups around the world seek safety. This would explain why so many religions and cultures around the world indicate a massive catastrophic event of some sort occured. see native american mythology, Asian and Indian stories, poems and art from the time period, African tribal traditions, Some of the egyptian hyroglyphs etc...) I don't have anymore time today so please do your own searches for those. They are out there. (Or maybe they are all descended from the same group of survivors. I don't know.)

Okay here are some web links that provide geologic evidence which seems to (possibly, perhaps, maybe, etc...) suggest a rapid global event could have occured.

Here is a post that has many links showing something called polystrate fossils (fossilized trees) deposited around the same time on most of the continents and many of which have never been known to grow on those continents... This post has many other links but I want to provide a scattering of different sites.
www.earthage.org...

Here is one that seems to indicate that large formations like the grand canyon happened rapidly instead of taking aeons. (according to them if it took aeons the landscape would be rolling instead of steep.)
It shows (seems to indicate) that "Sediment Accumulation" is not a reliable method of determining anything since it can happen quickly.
www.icr.org...

Here is one paper seems to indicate that the concept of sediment accumulation is neccasary to identify geologic events. (This one is actually beyond my scientific vocabular although I kind of grasped it from context.)
ir.library.oregonstate.edu...

All the evidence from mount st. helens showed that it was possible for stratification to occur quickly in a short time period. (Something that is still argued to take aeons.)
pubs.usgs.gov...

and a half dozen other links... but they are from biased sources which you can ignore if you want.

www.icr.org...

www.nwcreation.net...

www.icr.org...

www.thebibleistheotherside.org...

www.drdino.com...

www.drdino.com...

reply to post by Griffo
If you look at our species now, we breed according to money, shelter and things that don't necessarily reflect anything but luck and circumstance, if you look hard enough I think you'll find this also occurs everywhere in nature. The combination of natural selection and random mutation leaves a lot to be desired in the state of evolution we are in. I think that you cannot deny that there is some sort of intelligent process no matter how small it is, is involved in these changes that we call evolution. Most of the changes that take place in species evolution are so subtle that natural selection cannot be what seals the deal. A lot of these changes are novel tricks that help males attract females, where they may not have had problems before. Animals' niches are in a state of constant flux and one species may politely move over a bit for that another has room to play, or so that they don't get themselves confused. It's not a life or death matter that is always the cause of our changes.

reply to post by colin42


I'm simply going to ask you to read a book called "A Case for a Creator".

It's written by an individual whom was an atheist at one time.

The book gave me some insight because it deals a lot with science.

reply to post by colin42


thats a pretty good point.
All the more reason, i think, to create a multiverse or dimension bound by specific rules, with a free will of its own, the ability to shape itself by chance, and multiple outcomes for all possible actions.
if there is a god, we very well may be a tool of amusement, and, lets face it, humanity is pretty amusing at times.

IN THE BEGINNING WAS GOD AND NONE BEFORE HIM GOD CREATED THE ANGELS,(ANOTHER DIMENSION) THAN HE CREATED THE HEAVENS(COSMOS) AND THE EARTH THE WHOLE EARTH WAS ONE CONTINENT AND THE REST WATER THIS IS BEFORE THE FLOOD,OR AS SOME PAGANS CALL IT ATLANTIS.(IF YOU TAKE SOUTH AMERICA IT FITS PERFECT WITH AFRICA SIDE BY SIDE. AND SO ON...THIS EXPLAINS WHY ALL CIVILIZATION AROUND THE GLOVE BUILT PYRAMIDS AND HAD MANNY SIMILARITIES) IN GENESIS 6 THE NEPHILIM OR FALLEN ANGELS(AFTER EVE ATE THE APPLE A THIRD OF THE ANGELS FELL WITH SATAN) THIS IS THERE THE 33 DEGREES OF FREEMASONRY ORIGINATE. SO THE FALLEN ANGELS CROSS BREADED WITH HUMAN WOMAN AND BEGOT THE OLD MEN OF RENOWN(HERCULES ,MEDUSA,AND EVERY MYTHOLOGICAL BEINGS FROM DIFFERENT CULTURES. THEY REALLY EXISTED.THIS IS THE REASON GOD CREATED THE FLOOD TO WIPE THE HALF BREEDS OF THE FACE OF THE EARTH.SATANS PLAN WAS TO CORRUPT THE HUMAN RACE IN ORDER FOR A PERFECT MESSIAH(JESUS) TO BE GENETICALLY IMPOSSIBLE,THIS IS IN THE TIME OF THE DINOSAURS. AND OTHER MYTHOLOGICAL CREATURES LIKE LEVITHA AND MAYBE DRAGONS(THE GODS OF MANY ANCIENT CULTURES)..BACK THEN MEN WOULD LIVE VERY LONG DUE TO THE GREAT CREATION THAT GOD HAD GAVE US,...THE FOSSIL RECORD SHOWS THAT IN JURASSIC TIMES A DRAGON FLIES WINGSPAN WAS 5FT LONG, NOW THEIR ABOUT 2-3 INCHES SO DURING THE FLOOD WAS A MAJOR ATMOSPHERIC AND BIOLOGICAL CHANGE,THE CONTINENTS SPLIT AND HUMAN LIFE WAS SHORTENED TO WHAT WE COMMONLY EXPERIENCE NOW(AROUND 120 YEARS IF BLESSED)THIS EXPLAINS WHY THERE ARE PYRAMIDS UNDER WATER AND WHALES AND OTHER FISH FOSSILS IN EXTREME DESERTS THE DINOSAURS DIED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE REPTILIANS THAT NOAH BROUGHT IN THE ARK..THAN WE START WORLD HISTORY THE SUMERIANS,BABYLONIANS,ASSYRIANS,PERSIANS,GREEKS,ROMANS....I COULD GO ON BUT THE PROBLEM FOR UNBELIEVERS IS NOT EVIDENCE, IT IS IN YOUR HEART TO HATE AND FEAR WHAT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND, AND THAT IS THE GOD OF THE ISRAELITES ..YHVH.. THE UNPRONOUNCEABLE NAME OF GOD..

reply to post by Kicking2bears


IN THE BEGINNING WAS GOD AND NONE BEFORE HIM GOD CREATED THE ANGELS,(ANOTHER DIMENSION) THAN HE CREATED THE HEAVENS(COSMOS) AND THE EARTH THE WHOLE EARTH WAS ONE CONTINENT AND THE REST WATER THIS IS BEFORE THE FLOOD,OR AS SOME PAGANS CALL IT ATLANTIS.(IF YOU TAKE SOUTH AMERICA IT FITS PERFECT WITH AFRICA SIDE BY SIDE. AND SO ON...THIS EXPLAINS WHY ALL CIVILIZATION AROUND THE GLOVE BUILT PYRAMIDS AND HAD MANNY SIMILARITIES) IN GENESIS 6 THE NEPHILIM OR FALLEN ANGELS(AFTER EVE ATE THE APPLE A THIRD OF THE ANGELS FELL WITH SATAN) THIS IS THERE THE 33 DEGREES OF FREEMASONRY ORIGINATE. SO THE FALLEN ANGELS CROSS BREADED WITH HUMAN WOMAN AND BEGOT THE OLD MEN OF RENOWN(HERCULES ,MEDUSA,AND EVERY MYTHOLOGICAL BEINGS FROM DIFFERENT CULTURES. THEY REALLY EXISTED.THIS IS THE REASON GOD CREATED THE FLOOD TO WIPE THE HALF BREEDS OF THE FACE OF THE EARTH.SATANS PLAN WAS TO CORRUPT THE HUMAN RACE IN ORDER FOR A PERFECT MESSIAH(JESUS) TO BE GENETICALLY IMPOSSIBLE,THIS IS IN THE TIME OF THE DINOSAURS. AND OTHER MYTHOLOGICAL CREATURES LIKE LEVITHA AND MAYBE DRAGONS(THE GODS OF MANY ANCIENT CULTURES)..BACK THEN MEN WOULD LIVE VERY LONG DUE TO THE GREAT CREATION THAT GOD HAD GAVE US,...THE FOSSIL RECORD SHOWS THAT IN JURASSIC TIMES A DRAGON FLIES WINGSPAN WAS 5FT LONG, NOW THEIR ABOUT 2-3 INCHES SO DURING THE FLOOD WAS A MAJOR ATMOSPHERIC AND BIOLOGICAL CHANGE,THE CONTINENTS SPLIT AND HUMAN LIFE WAS SHORTENED TO WHAT WE COMMONLY EXPERIENCE NOW(AROUND 120 YEARS IF BLESSED)THIS EXPLAINS WHY THERE ARE PYRAMIDS UNDER WATER AND WHALES AND OTHER FISH FOSSILS IN EXTREME DESERTS THE DINOSAURS DIED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE REPTILIANS THAT NOAH BROUGHT IN THE ARK..THAN WE START WORLD HISTORY THE SUMERIANS,BABYLONIANS,ASSYRIANS,PERSIANS,GREEKS,ROMANS....I COULD GO ON BUT THE PROBLEM FOR UNBELIEVERS IS NOT EVIDENCE, IT IS IN YOUR HEART TO HATE AND FEAR WHAT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND, AND THAT IS THE GOD OF THE ISRAELITES ..YHVH.. THE UNPRONOUNCEABLE NAME OF GOD..

reply to post by MrXYZ


"Which doesn't disprove every living thing around you evolved. You could call it "applecrackers" instead of "species", it still wouldn't invalidate the fact that we evolved from an ancestor we have in common with today's monkeys. How do we know even though they're not tied down 100% on the definition of species? DNA, migratory trends, bone structure... "

The point is that you can't prove that something is a new species if you can't define what a species is. That's not scientific, it's religious.

"Sooooooooo...let's be hypothetical for a moment. Let's assume you're wandering around Alberta in Canada, dinosaur country with tonds of skeletons like the T-Rex. And you end up finding a giant female T-Rex skeleton, and next to it, an identical one but just smaller. You conclude that this smaller one is 100% not the T-Rex's offspring? Really? Same identical bone structure and dimensions, same location...hell, throw in some egg shells as they've found those too. But still not offspring? Makes total sense "

No, you can't know 100% (which is knowing). It may be the offspring of some other T-Rex and the larger T-Rex has instincts that allowed it to raise the foreign one.

"Now, when it comes to the age of the earth, the margin of error (or inaccuracy as you call it) is less than 1%. Most scientists would loooove to have a 99% certainty of being right, hell, investors would probably kill for it. "

This margin of error exists if you accept all of the assumptions about the testing methods themselves. If you take the assumptions away, you are left with a method of dating that isn't even valid.

As for wikipedia, it is open to being edited at any point. That is why I don't like it.

As for non-biased sources, good luck. By non-biased, you mean something with an evolutionary slant. The fact of the matter is that you don't have much of an argument here. What I am most interested in on all these pages is the concept and numbers. I can leave ideological slants out in my own brain no problem, sorry you can't.

As someone who has coded an artificial life simulation, which imho, has achieved productive behaviour through evolution, I feel compelled to give some insights.
When your environment and inhabitants are complex enough, when energy in the system is limited, and when limited change is involved, I have found it impossible to NOT have get evolution.

This does exclude the existance of god, for sure. One could argue me to be a god to these entities that my system evolved, but true omnipotence, I have to agree with colin42, is extremely unimaginable.

demo of evolved behaviour (critters will *see*, and move muscles so they move towards the green food cubes, which is food, then they have to eat to gain energy, and they can procreate when they have enough energy)

why does your title say 100% proof when there is no proof...just opinions.
your title is very misleading