Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by 1nf1del

 

Look I'm not saying evolution theory is watertight. All I'm saying is that the god-squad are like rabid dogs trying to tear the scientific process apart because theories like evolution don't fit their belief systems. Now if you're a rational 42 year old you'll be fully aware that all the science of evolution does, in regards to this debate, is contradict a book, a book written by men in a hot place far away from where you are now and a long time ago. A sane person can see how asinine the religion vs evolution debate is.

The evolutionary model also contradicts itself, why keep using a theory that doesn't work to try to prove god doesn't exist? That is quite paradoxical!

reply to post by 1nf1del

The evolutionary model also contradicts itself, why keep using a theory that doesn't work to try to prove god doesn't exist? That is quite paradoxical!

Prove your god theory is better than evolutionary theory. Prove it answers more questions with more evidence. Prove that there is more reason to listen to god theory, and hold it as fact, than evolutionary theory.

And remember, faith is not evidence.

The issue of polystrate fossils turns evolution on it's head. Evolution needs a lot of time to work. What happens when a fossil of a tree goes through several layers of the geological time table? It means that timetable is wrong.

"A chart, called the geologic column, is found in almost all science textbooks in some form. The chart shows the different layers of rock superimposed on top of each other, each representing a period of time, and each containing the fossils of life forms that supposedly lived during that time period. It is also referred to as the geologic timescale." LINK



What happens when you have fossilized trees going right through those periods? Do you throw out the trees? Or do you have to question the idea that the geologic timetable is not correct?



How can this happen? How could the geologic evidence and polystrate tree fossils really exist?







It appears there is a problem with the geologic timetable our schools teach. What would happen if this were shown alongside that teaching? They won't allow it because obviously polystrate fossils is a religion and not a fact or at least that is what the evolution apologists will say about it because that is what they say about Intelligent Design.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by 1nf1del

 

The evolutionary model also contradicts itself, why keep using a theory that doesn't work to try to prove god doesn't exist? That is quite paradoxical!

Prove your god theory is better than evolutionary theory. Prove it answers more questions with more evidence. Prove that there is more reason to listen to god theory, and hold it as fact, than evolutionary theory.

And remember, faith is not evidence.

I believe he/she posted that he/she is NOT a creationist. I haven't seen him/her profess a belief in God.

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by Rychwebo
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

If you judged a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will think that it is stupid. That being said, tell me why you think the direction of evolution is to fly, I thought it was to adapt. If you once crawled and now your environment is being overrun with water, then it would be in your best interest to adapt to water. It's not devolving, it's still evolving, even though its expressing dormant genes.

Okay let's use your logic, evolution states that an organism gradually gets better going forward not backward, evolution doesn't go backward, are you with me still? If we are only going forward and getting "better" as a species, where did your tail go? It stands to reason that losing your tail would make you clumsy and uncoordinated, evolution doesn't do that so where is your tail that should extend from the tailbone we were all born with?

The function of man does not require a tail for it to be at its maximum utility. Man has developed, over time, the ability to run like there is no tomorrow. We don't need a tail, that is for quick maneuvering. We have excellent vision for tracking movement and can out endure very large prey for a long time.

Extensive research has gon into what man is best suited for, based on physiology, but not much research is done looking into why we don't have _________. Stop looking for what isn't there and look at what is there.

I picked a page at random for humans and running. You'll be able to find more out there than this.
www.caroltorgan.com...

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by 1nf1del

 

The evolutionary model also contradicts itself, why keep using a theory that doesn't work to try to prove god doesn't exist? That is quite paradoxical!

Prove your god theory is better than evolutionary theory. Prove it answers more questions with more evidence. Prove that there is more reason to listen to god theory, and hold it as fact, than evolutionary theory.

And remember, faith is not evidence.

Okay please understand I am not trying to prove god exists, I'm only trying to point out the fallacy of trying to prove god doesn't exist with a broken theory! Let's prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is fact, let's remove it from the theory list and prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, then we can prove or disprove any other theory including god to be false, evolution is still a broken model and cannot under any circumstances be used to prove god doesn't exist, it would get thrown out of any court for not being a credible witness!

More "scientific comments that state the Mississippi deposits 80,000 tons of sediment per hour. Think about this just a moment. If that is true, then why do we even have a Gulf of Mexico?

Sediments accumulate too fast

25 b tons /year in, What do you do with 4 billion years of this kind of accumulation? (sediments) They say there is plate tectonic subduction, seafloor sliding under continents at the rate of about 2cm /year Which takes about 1b tons /year out = Net 24 b ton in removal rate is too slow, Mississippi river delta 12 million years = present amount of mud, their numbers 3 billion years = miles thick mud

The process of sedimentation—the piling up of layer by layer of dust, dirt and sand that will one day become hardened rock—still goes on. As you read these words, the fossils of tomorrow are being trapped in the sediment at the bottoms of rivers, lakes, and seas of today.

For example, the Mississippi River deposits sediments at the rate of 80,000 tons an hour—day after day, year after year—at the point where the river flows into the Gulf of Mexico.(Prentice Hall General Science, 1992)

Fill up the gulf of mexico 30,000 years to accumulate the mud in the delta. (not considering flood impact)

LINK

Even if you say the river has changed it would still be depositing sediment all along. This is an interesting problem to explain for an "OLD EARTH' explanation.

reply to post by 1nf1del


But evolution still identifies a phenomena of change and adaptation that most certainly occurs in nature. I think it would be foolish to deny that. You may not like the concept of evolution as has been proposed, but the changes are still occurring and should be acknowledged in some way.

How does God account for these changes? Or how does ignoring evolution give theists more of a leg to stand on?

Ice core dating problem:

The employee ushered him into the giant freezer which stored the long cores from ice drilling. "See this core from Greenland?" said the worker. "We drilled down and brought it up from 10,000 feet. See the rings? This core takes us back 135,000 years. You'll notice the rings along its length, dark -- light -- dark -- light.

"Well, these represent annual rings, because in summer the top layer of snow melts and then re-freezes as clear ice, which shows up dark here. In winter, the snow doesn't get a chance to melt, so it packs -- and shows up as a white layer. These layers of dark -- light -- dark -- light, indicate 135,000 summers and winters."

Hovind looked him in the eye. "Aren't you assuming those are annual rings?"

Let's step back a few years, to the famous lost squadron.

THE LOST SQUADRON In 1942, during World War II, some war planes landed in Greenland. When the war ended, those planes were left there and forgotten. In 1990, an aircraft enthusiast came up with the bright idea to find them and fly them off again. He organised a group and they went searching. As it turned out, they had to use radar, because the planes were under the ice, in fact, so deep under the ice, the men had a hard job finding them. Do you know, that lost squadron had got covered by 263 feet of ice in 48 years!

Let's do some arithmetic.

* 263 feet divided by 48 years, that's an ice growth of about 5.5 feet per year. * Now divide 10,000 feet by 5.5. And you get 1,824 years for ALL of the ice to build up. We should allow longer for the fact that the deeper ice is pressed into finer layers.

Note: those planes did not sink into the ice, due to pressure on the ice. The ice had grown OVER them. ARE THESE ANCIENT AIRCRAFT IN ICE?

Okay, would you do some maths? Can you work this out? The Denver National Ice Core Laboratory said that 10,000 feet of ice had to be 135,000 years old! So the 263 feet deep of "Lost Squadron" ice - how old should that be? That's right, 3,419 years old. Does that mean those aircraft are 3,419 years old? What do you think?

LINK

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by Rychwebo
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

I started watching the video of this Christian with a phd, about 10 mins in I already would have stood up and objected him because of his presuppositions, and using the bible as a key stone of evidence.

One major issue I had was that he proposed that about 4 billion people would have died during the Stone Age, fine. He automatically assumed that they would bury their dead like we do today, where is this evidence Dr.? 100,000 years ago, I wouldn't be worried abut burying the dead, I would worry more about being dead. He also said that 80 people per square mile should be found on certain continents, ok, that's if people properly buried their dead. I would postulate that many people died above ground and left there. That being probable, he neglected to mention it, and depending on climate, bones could decompose in as little as ten years. There goes that theory, and I listened to him with an open mind, but still having sense and logic. I'll keep watching with an open ear for reason.

I appreciate you watching it all. Again, the young earth theory is tough for me. I will state right now that I do not believe Noah's flood was worldwide, but regional based on historical evidences as well as the Hebrew text does not say it covered the planet but the Eretz which can easily be translated region, country, and just plain old dirt. As this is not a theological debate topic, I won't go any further than that.

I also believe in 3 ages and that is the age before this, this age and the one to come. Genesis 1:1-2 lays the groundwork for this and the aeons are spoken of by Peter as well. The age the was the age that is and the age that is to come. The earth became without form and was made void. You can look up the Katabole and Tuhu va Buhu for further information on that. So there was order, it was destroyed and new order was created.

Thus the Earth could very well be billions of years old and this age things were done quickly by God is very plausible.

edit on 15-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: corrected a word

I think we are closer to an understanding. There are more unknowns than knowns, and there is even more out there we don't even know we don't know. Given that, I believe there is some truth in everything, in religion and in evolution. The only problem with religion is that it is all hearsay, that's the worst part about "bibles", none of those people are alive anymore, and the language is dead and long forgotten. I almost see no point in trying to prove the almost unprovable. At least the theory of evolution can be studied today, the theory of what lies in ancient texts can't be studied as well without time travel.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by 1nf1del

 

But evolution still identifies a phenomena of change and adaptation that most certainly occurs in nature. I think it would be foolish to deny that. You may not like the concept of evolution as has been proposed, but the changes are still occurring and should be acknowledged in some way.

How does God account for these changes? Or how does ignoring evolution give theists more of a leg to stand on?

I have yet to see anyone who does not believe in evolution deny adaptation. That is not where Darwin stopped and it is not where evolutionists stop. They want us to believe that we all come from common ancestors of which there are only a few, and that over millions of years we went from one species to the next, and they have not proven it. I have just posted several posts dealing with the evolutionists problem with time and their tables.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


No it isn't.

www.Talkorigins.org has decimated these ignorant religious based arguments that originated from the king idiot himself, Kent (the banana man) Hovind.

Maybe you should educate yourself instead of using this never ending barrage of appeal to ignorance fallacies.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Well it seems you've been doing research into your belief system, so for that I must give your credit.

I haven't gone through this entire thread, so maybe you've already addressed the fact of life arising out of DNA, then branching out into other forms of life?

Or does DNA not fit into your view?

Originally posted by Rychwebo

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by Rychwebo
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

If you judged a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will think that it is stupid. That being said, tell me why you think the direction of evolution is to fly, I thought it was to adapt. If you once crawled and now your environment is being overrun with water, then it would be in your best interest to adapt to water. It's not devolving, it's still evolving, even though its expressing dormant genes.

Okay let's use your logic, evolution states that an organism gradually gets better going forward not backward, evolution doesn't go backward, are you with me still? If we are only going forward and getting "better" as a species, where did your tail go? It stands to reason that losing your tail would make you clumsy and uncoordinated, evolution doesn't do that so where is your tail that should extend from the tailbone we were all born with?

The function of man does not require a tail for it to be at its maximum utility. Man has developed, over time, the ability to run like there is no tomorrow. We don't need a tail, that is for quick maneuvering. We have excellent vision for tracking movement and can out endure very large prey for a long time.

Extensive research has gon into what man is best suited for, based on physiology, but not much research is done looking into why we don't have _________. Stop looking for what isn't there and look at what is there.

I picked a page at random for humans and running. You'll be able to find more out there than this.
www.caroltorgan.com...

edit on 15-8-2013 by Rychwebo because: (no reason given)

It is theorized that the evolutionary process is to better a species and make them more suited to their environment, so let's examine and come to some conclusion why we lost our tail, was it for a survival purpose and if so what? How did not having a tail make us better suited to our environment?

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by 1nf1del

 

But evolution still identifies a phenomena of change and adaptation that most certainly occurs in nature. I think it would be foolish to deny that. You may not like the concept of evolution as has been proposed, but the changes are still occurring and should be acknowledged in some way.

How does God account for these changes? Or how does ignoring evolution give theists more of a leg to stand on?

I have yet to see anyone who does not believe in evolution deny adaptation. That is not where Darwin stopped and it is not where evolutionists stop. They want us to believe that we all come from common ancestors of which there are only a few, and that over millions of years we went from one species to the next, and they have not proven it. I have just posted several posts dealing with the evolutionists problem with time and their tables.

If you do not believe we have a common ancestor... Then all the 8.7 million known and identified species must have come into existence at the same time, because all the species as a whole are in symbiosis, we all live off of each other.

The oldest of our ancestors used the elements and photosynthesis for energy, that's a good reason for not needing to eat other organisms. Over time we utilized more of our surroundings for energy, and we have adapted to do so.

How would you explain the plethora of species if we didn't have a common ancestor? What do you suppose the magic was that happened to create the grass for the rabbit to eat, create the rabbit for the fox to eat, and create whatever else might eat a fox, all at the same time? It seems mathematically impossible for this seemingly impossible symbiotic relationship to occur by chance in a short period of time without genetic mutation.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Well it seems you've been doing research into your belief system, so for that I must give your credit.

I haven't gone through this entire thread, so maybe you've already addressed the fact of life arising out of DNA, then branching out into other forms of life?

Or does DNA not fit into your view?

I have a completely different thread started as I didn't want to muddy this one up on that topic. You can go here:

LINK

Originally posted by Rychwebo


How would you explain the plethora of species if we didn't have a common ancestor? What do you suppose the magic was that happened to create the grass for the rabbit to eat, create the rabbit for the fox to eat, and create whatever else might eat a fox, all at the same time? It seems mathematically impossible for this seemingly impossible symbiotic relationship to occur by chance in a short period of time without genetic mutation.

I would say that is a very intelligent system. I see no reason that a divine creator made it as desired. I also see much playing out just as prophesied, but as this thread is not about theology, but the use of hoaxes to back up evolution, I suggest this not be debated here. I give you my answer to satisfy how it could logically be explained.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

No it isn't.

www.Talkorigins.org has decimated these ignorant religious based arguments that originated from the king idiot himself, Kent (the banana man) Hovind.

Maybe you should educate yourself instead of using this never ending barrage of appeal to ignorance fallacies.

So, you like every other atheist and evolutionist is not going to deal with the dating problems found in the geologic record and ice core. You just want to demean anyone who will look at evidence that does not support evolution. You offer nothing to this thread by doing so.

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by Rychwebo

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by Rychwebo
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

If you judged a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will think that it is stupid. That being said, tell me why you think the direction of evolution is to fly, I thought it was to adapt. If you once crawled and now your environment is being overrun with water, then it would be in your best interest to adapt to water. It's not devolving, it's still evolving, even though its expressing dormant genes.

Okay let's use your logic, evolution states that an organism gradually gets better going forward not backward, evolution doesn't go backward, are you with me still? If we are only going forward and getting "better" as a species, where did your tail go? It stands to reason that losing your tail would make you clumsy and uncoordinated, evolution doesn't do that so where is your tail that should extend from the tailbone we were all born with?

The function of man does not require a tail for it to be at its maximum utility. Man has developed, over time, the ability to run like there is no tomorrow. We don't need a tail, that is for quick maneuvering. We have excellent vision for tracking movement and can out endure very large prey for a long time.

Extensive research has gon into what man is best suited for, based on physiology, but not much research is done looking into why we don't have _________. Stop looking for what isn't there and look at what is there.

I picked a page at random for humans and running. You'll be able to find more out there than this.
www.caroltorgan.com...

edit on 15-8-2013 by Rychwebo because: (no reason given)

It is theorized that the evolutionary process is to better a species and make them more suited to their environment, so let's examine and come to some conclusion why we lost our tail, was it for a survival purpose and if so what? How did not having a tail make us better suited to our environment?

Your asking me to show you evidence for why something isn't there. What is it you that you know about humans and the need for tails? How would it aid in our life?

I know that tails work for animals that use it. Obviously humans didn't use it for a long enough period, so it isn't expressed in our genes anymore. I encourage you to look into vestigial traits if you want answers to questions relating to traits we don't have, or sometimes have in rarer cases. I take it you do not have a background in biology, I don't have a background in music, therefore I have much to learn about it.
en.wikipedia.org...

You do know that some humans are born with tails, and also six fingers on each hand right? It's known as a vestigial trait, a trait that is in our genome, however, for some reason, probably adaptation, that trait is no longer expressed or just expressed less.

Originally posted by Rychwebo


I think we are closer to an understanding. There are more unknowns than knowns, and there is even more out there we don't even know we don't know. Given that, I believe there is some truth in everything, in religion and in evolution. The only problem with religion is that it is all hearsay, that's the worst part about "bibles", none of those people are alive anymore, and the language is dead and long forgotten. I almost see no point in trying to prove the almost unprovable. At least the theory of evolution can be studied today, the theory of what lies in ancient texts can't be studied as well without time travel.

There is archeological evidence to support the bible. Many have become theists because of this fact. The biblical texts are certainly NOT dead languages which you cannot translate. I have been doing so for nearly 30 years.

Some who became believer because they tried to prove the bible was wrong:



What was that evidence that gave these skeptics and yes some were athiests to prove the bible is true?