Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by micmerci
I have a question for the pro evolutionist. I think that mathematically speaking, the population of the earth would be far greater than 7 billion if man has been here reproducing as long as the theory of evolution claims we have. Can someone validate/refute this mathematically?

just like i posted below. where are the billions of "man" bones that should litter the planet with each step of evolution?

You are walking on it. Earth. dirt, soil. The majority of all animals on this earth do not become fossils, their bodies rot and break apart and become a part of the earth. Bones do not last forever you know.

Even fossils are not bones. Sure there is the occasional mummified body found. But again, most bodies break down.

i think that animals evolve, slowly over millions of years
people, however are nothing more than biological computers IMPROVED about 25,000 years ago
we were placed here with a security blanket called the bible and were given 10 comandments to follow.
if a person were to follow all 10 commandments without fail their whole life then the "gods" would have completed their goal.
a perfect specimen
my main point on evolution is that..

if we were monkeys wheres the missing link? why would there only be one? wouldent there be millions upon millions of missing link fossils or bones? the evolutionary chart is missing a segment, we just kinda "jump" to modern man.
i am NOT saying god is fake and religion is bs. i just believe whats in my heart and thats it. aliens put us here. maybe we were the aliens 10000s of years ago but lost our way, and the aliens we know (or dont know lol) are really just people from 1000s of years ago coming back to see how were doing and someday we will unite again.
anyways yea my 2 cents and im not out here putting people and their religion and gods down. just stating my opinion

reply to post by Seibei


Sorry you didn't understand the link. The link was showing that the Neadrathal were the children produced when Angels and Women had children.

Here is your dinosaur in the bible. Again God is great.

Job
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he
can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

reply to post by Kicking2bears


I'm sorry, but the thought of a global flood is laughable, and the reason you believe it happened isn't because you believe in it based on rationality or objective evidence.

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...

Way before animals evolved, there was plant life. And because the climate was different back then, and changed over the course of time, you find those fossilized trees in places where trees can't grow anymore today. Like at the "Petrified forest national park" in the south western US.

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.

And you're getting this nonsense from IRC, a clearly biased source, one with DEMONSTRABLY misleading disinformation. The Grand Canyon for example couldn't have been formed quickly. We know how the Grand Canyon formed because we know how liquids behave, and how they interact with soil and stone. A canyon formed rapidly wouldn't have the same features as the GC.

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...

Of course we need to understand sediment accumulation when studying geology...it's part of it. It's also the another part debunking that global flood. Why? Simply because a global flood would leave sedimental evidence behind, something on such a massive scale would leave evidence behind...but guess what, there's no sedimental evidence of a global flood

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...

Again, how does that prove a global flood? Especially in the absence of sedimental evidence of said flood...

By the way, looking at your sources, I strongly suggest you start researching for some real science websites instead of those pseudo-science websites. I mean...DrDino? Really? Do you know that's the nickname for Kent Hovind? The crazy guy with his demonstrably wrong seminars? The one who's now in jail?

Here's an analysis of that crazy guy's "dinosaur" arguments...



He's also convinced a global flood happened, and it sounds an awful lot like stuff on the ICR website.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

You have to know I have read stuff from these sites before.

You tell me to disregard anything that is an assumption yet within a few paragraphs of the very first link I am asked to assume light may have been quicker in the past. This has not been observed or measured and by writing some people say light was quicker does not hide what the are doing is making an assumption.

The further you go the more I am asked to assume what the author says with no evidence other than attempts to refute any real science with assumptions taylor made to fit the young earth view.

Answer me this. Are fossils the work of satan put here to test us or did we once live amongst them?

Sorry for not being more clear. I am not trying to argue that anything based on assumption is fact including the links I provided. Some of the observable science in those links are fact and provide enough evidence to me that at minimum we should not teach old earth or evolution as fact. And we certainly do not have enough proof that we should be teaching to young impressionable minds. I believe that college students would be more prepared to decide for themselves based on the real facts. At that age one would be able to intelligently debate the assumptions.
I did state that I myself make no assumptions except those based on faith in God. I use those sites to show that my argument and belief is based in science as well. These sites simply show that another answer is possible. And I believe that the bible answers all of my philosophical questions and think that the book was indeed inspired by God. I have yet to ask a question that cannot be answered by God.

I believe that fossils are real. I don't have faith in the dating system. I posted the link for why I don't believe it even possible for us to date something more than 10,000 years old. Any date older than that is simply bassed on assumptions that I do not agree with. The fossil records we find tend to provide more evidence of a flood than an old earth based on the way we now know fossils are formed. But wait that would mean the bible is right again. Go God!

Originally posted by SOILDERSUNITEDFORCHRIST
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..

You should get your information from unbiased sources, because so much you posted is demonstrably wrong. There's reasons why insects were larger back then that have nothing to do with what you say. For starters, back then, those insects had almost no major predators....and of course the climate was different.

As for the flood, such an massive event would leave sedimental evidence behind...yet there's none.

We also know how continents formed, but the change was minor since humans evolved.

According to you, the Mayans and Egyptians both built pyramids because Africa and South America was connected back then. But we know for a FACT that wasn't the case. The Atlantic didn't just form in under 5000 years!! What a hogwash idea...

And there's fish fossils in what's now deserts because of continental drift and tectonic plates...not because the "earth suddenly split open".

The rest of your post is pure preaching without any objective evidence or real content to support your claims. And using capslock isn't cruise control for cool, and just makes you look a bit like the crazy guy on Times Square holding an "the end is near" sign in his hands

Originally posted by futuretense
That stated, consider the following...........Humans have a genetic map that is 90% accurate to that of a flat worm (our earliest known fossil ancestor at this time) and 99.8% accurate to that of an Orangutan (our primate ancestor).......Humans show no direct genetic tree with all apes……..the chimpanzee and/or gorilla for instance branched off in different directions due to random environmental stimuli that to this day remain in their current development. Not all Orangutan’s evolved along the human route as well due to these various environmental impacts on both natural selection within the species……. and the evolution of extra species development as well.

This is the one argument that makes me laugh. I don't want to be rude to anyone but I could just as easily say that this closeness in genetic mapping proves intelligent design. We don't even know how far off this map you could go and have sustainable life.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by SN4FU

 

I point you to the lungfish. Long thought to be extinct, we have the fossils. Found to be alive and kicking. I have shown you the stones...... bones....... Fish.

Is that acceptable?

All you can prove with this argument is that a Lungfish exists. And its pretty much the same as it was. Actually now that I put it that way maybe that is more proof for creation than evolution. Go God you created some really cool animals that didn't evolve and still exist today.

reply to post by MrXYZ


There is not 1 single fact that proves dinos did not live with humans. There is science based on assumptions that you choose to believe as fact. Even if 99% of the world believe these assumptions to be fact it does not make them fact. Stop telling creations what is fact. I know what is fact, but apparently you do not. I know where science ends and faith begins. Most evolutions have no clue where science ends and assumptions begin.

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by SN4FU

 

I point you to the lungfish. Long thought to be extinct, we have the fossils. Found to be alive and kicking. I have shown you the stones...... bones....... Fish.

Is that acceptable?

All you can prove with this argument is that a Lungfish exists. And its pretty much the same as it was. Actually now that I put it that way maybe that is more proof for creation than evolution. Go God

you created some really cool animals that didn't evolve and still exist today.

So basically, you won't except any proof other than crocoduck?

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

There is not 1 single fact that proves dinos did not live with humans. There is science based on assumptions that you choose to believe as fact. Even if 99% of the world believe these assumptions to be fact it does not make them fact. Stop telling creations what is fact. I know what is fact, but apparently you do not. I know where science ends and faith begins. Most evolutions have no clue where science ends and assumptions begin.

Ever heard about radiometric dating? The margin of error is so small, and the age difference between dinosaurs and humans so large, we can say for a FACT humans weren't around at the time of the dinosaurs. So no, I don't think you know where science ends and faith begins...apparently for you, faith never ends and science never starts

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Kicking2bears

 

We also have many cave painting showing man hunting and the animals they hunted. It amazing that something so big would be missing from this record.

www.genesispark.com...

Dino Drawings. Based on your statement the Bible must be right again. All the answers in one book, and you keep reading all those assumption books, I mean science books sorry.

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Kicking2bears

 

We also have many cave painting showing man hunting and the animals they hunted. It amazing that something so big would be missing from this record.

www.genesispark.com...

Dino Drawings. Based on your statement the Bible must be right again. All the answers in one book, and you keep reading all those assumption books, I mean science books sorry.

Mixing mythology with biology isn't a clever idea...people also used to believe and paint in mermaids

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Kicking2bears

 

We also have many cave painting showing man hunting and the animals they hunted. It amazing that something so big would be missing from this record.

www.genesispark.com...

Dino Drawings. Based on your statement the Bible must be right again. All the answers in one book, and you keep reading all those assumption books, I mean science books sorry.

Mixing mythology with biology isn't a clever idea...people also used to believe and paint in mermaids

So science is assumption now... Ok than my lord, Im going to request that you take my head to the chopping block than. because this computer is obviously witchcraft.

reply to post by Sephiroth1550


Thank you for the great links. I am new to defending creationism with real facts. Evolution never seemed to be an answer that I could accept. It makes me a little angry that I was taught evolution as fact in school.

Should read

Evolution as currently presented by science is 100% wrong. Sure it exists but not like they said.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Sephiroth1550

 

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.

So scientists that assume the dating methods they use are accurate say that yes indeed their assumption must be accurate.

I say I assume the bible to be correct and everyone who assumes the bible to be accurate say that it must be accurate to 100%. Look God wins again

Honestly if you discard what I say than I must discard what you say.

reply to post by colin42

I'll give it a try.

How about we consider the WHOLE, as an emination from an ABSOLUTE (Godhead) within the framework of a non-local, holographic universe, generating/creating a morphogenesis of phylos (forms) via an acausal connecting principal which begins with the end in mind ie: a unity in diversity arising through a creative, intelligent subtraction FROM the Absolute, as an object of infinite complexity at the end of time (Omegapoint), for whom, what we think of as a causal evolution via random mutation within closed subsystems, is but a creative tool employed for a much much larger or DEEPER process as an INVOLUTION via impressioned or felt experience or God seeking to experience himself and his nature THROUGH each and every form, from mineral, to plant, to animal and then finally to human or to sentient, self aware, forms.
Furthermore, we might consider the substrate for this entire creative process, to be intelligent light, whereby the emmission or absorption of a single photon of light is at the heart of every chemical reaction in the universe and "intelligent" in the sense that everything is recorded as information (in formation) within the Zero Point Field or the Akashic Record as the "mind of God" or the Godhead. In this way, if the human being sits atop this causal and acausal process, at the apex of a cosmic hiearchy of forms, and if INvolution is the end game of an apparent (illusory) evolutionary process (beginning with the end in mind), then it is within the domain of our own INTERNAL spiritual experience (qualia) that resides, potentially, a holographic representation of the entire invisible cosmic mountain, including the same Spirit of God who is at cause as the animating principal, in the whole of creation, and yet being the Absolute, is transcendant, as much as innerant, but who, in seeking to experience his own nature through creation, neverhtheless seeks to know himself and experience himself through us, in an intimate, co-creative, participatory relationship.
What this notion implies is that the outer, subjective impressioned experience of life, and the apparent separateness of particular things, is but the very smallest, outer surface layer of something infinitely deeper, and yet, although "there is more going on than meets the eye" is not inaccessible to us in terms of the qualia of our own spiritual experience (as the God within).

I'll come back to post some supporting scientific evidence and conjecture to support this view.

At the very least, it explains, in part, how continually emerging complexity within the entire universe, is flowing opposite to the expected arrow of entropy.

"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249274834&sr=8-1

Haisch is an astrophysicist whose professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Deputy Director for the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Visiting Fellow at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. His work has led to close involvement with NASA; he is the author of over 130 scientific papers; and was the Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal for nine years, as well as the editor in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

an excerpt

If you think of whitte light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...
If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound.

If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.

Next, by Ervin Laszlo

Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything, 2004
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-1

And, his other seminal work
Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-6

Ervin Laszlo is considered one of the foremost thinkers and scientists of our age, perhaps the greatest mind since Einstein. His principal focus of research involves the Zero Point Field. He is the author of around seventy five books (his works having been translated into at least seventeen languages), and he has contributed to over 400 papers. Widely considered the father of systems philosophy and general evolution theory, he has worked as an advisor to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2004 and 2005. A multidisciplinarian, Laszlo has straddled numerous fields, having worked at universities as a professor of philosophy, music, futures studies, systems science, peace studies, and evolutionary studies. He was a sucessful concert pianist until he was thirty eight.

In his view, the zero-point field (or the Akashic Field, as he calls it) is quite literally the "mind of God".

Naming Hal Puthoff, Roger Penrose, Fritz-Albert Popp, and a handful of others as "front line investigators", Laszlo quotes Puthoff who says of the new scientific paradigm:

[What] would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall interpenetrating and interdependant field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and "metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/informational cosmological unity."

an excert from Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything

Akasha (a . ka . sha) is a Sanskrit word meaning "ether": all-pervasive space. Originally signifying "radiation" or "brilliance", in Indian philosophy akasha was considered the first and most fundamental of the five elements - the others being vata (air), agni (fire), ap (water), and prithivi (earth). Akasha embraces the properties of all five elements: it is the womb from which everything we percieve with our senses has emerged and into which everything will ultimately re-descend. The Akashic Record (also called The Akashic Chronicle) is the enduring record of all that happens, and has ever happened, in space and time."

Laszlo's view of the history of the universe is of a series of universes that rise and fall, but are each "in-formed" by the existence of the previous one. In Laszlo's mind, the universe is becoming more and more in-formed, and within the physical universe, matter (which is the crystallization of intersecting pressure waves or an interference pattern moving through the zero-point field) is becoming increasing in-formed and evolving toward higher forms of consciousness and realization.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

reply to post by Kicking2bears


In regards to the story of Noah’s ark……It is worthy to consider marsupials of Australia and other geospecific regional species. For instance, let's take a Duckbill platypus, Kiwi bird and/or the Koala bear........they are only found in one place on Earth.......the continent of Australia.

Regardless of where Noah and his family lived, once they gathered each species on the ark and then landed after the flood seceded, all those animals would appear in areas of the Earth at least within the continent he landed on……..unless the ark landed on the continant of Australia.

But then how would you explain species only found on……. say the islands of Hawaii?

There is little evidence to assume anyone could have loaded all the species for reproduction after the flood and then have them dispersed in such a geospecific region to the exclusions of all others by using an ark.

But I'm open to alternative suggestions if you have any.

Ultimately, those who buy into evolution, are forced to admit that their furthest ancestor was a rock.
In their scenario, Earth started off as a giant piece of rock. Think about it. To believe evolution, you, and every living creature on the planet, have to have been created from a rock. Before primordial soup there was only rock. If you believe the Big Bang theory and ultimately, evolution that is.
Personally, I find this far more ridiculous a theory than that of creationists.