| Author |
Message |
mr.x
Ardent Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 95
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:49 pm Post subject: 10 Facts why evolution if false |
 |
|
All the things below are all facts which have been proven. So don't say they are wrong. Very long post but read all of them. If you have any thing that proves evolution post it. I would like to check it out.
| Quote: |
1. Lack of Transitional Fossils.
Charles Darwin wrote, "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859). Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record. |
| Quote: | A cell being created
2. In order for evolution to be true atoms must form useful molecules such as enzymes, amino acids and proteins by random chance. It is mathematically impossible for these molecules, much less the far larger DNA molecule, to form by random action in nature. It cannot happen! continued below...
.A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 104,478,296 to the 17 power. |
| Quote: | 3. FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: The first law of thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy, states that there can be no creation or annihilation of mass or energy. Certainly, one form of energy can be converted into another, one state of matter can be converted into another, and matter/energy interconversion's can occur. But, the total amount of matter and energy combined always remains constant. This law has application to the creation sciences by verifying that the universe could not just spring into existence by accident. The Big Bang theory, proposed and repeated as an article of faith by naturalists, violates this fundamental law of physics. What do you think: could matter and energy mysteriously appear without a Prime Mover, a Creator God?
SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: The Second Law, also called the Law of Entropy, states that anything which is organized tends, with time, to become disorganized. Any physical system left to itself will decay; that is, it will lose energy and organization inside the system. Instead of remaining highly organized, as earth’s systems, everything tends to become gradually less organized. For example, over time, chemical processes will reach equilibrium and become inert. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be expressed in different ways, all of which are equivalent. Three applications include;
A. Classical Thermodynamics: The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, though the total energy remains constant.
B. Statistical Thermodynamics: The complexity or order of a structured system tends to become disorganized and random.
C. Informational Thermodynamics: The information that is conveyed by a communicating system tends to become distorted and incomplete over time.
This fundamental law of physics clearly states that the incredible increase of information required for a life form to evolve from amino acids could never happen. Does it make sense to you that evolution could repeatedly violate the Second Law by organizing more complex forms of life from “simpler” versions? |
And remember a law is proven.
| Quote: | 3. Population Statistics...
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089 to the 9 power. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies. |
| Quote: | | 4. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years. |
| Quote: | | 5. OIL AND COAL ARE YOUNG: When the carbon-14 test was first created, scientists used the process to date all sorts of things. Two examples included oil and coal. Tests of these two substances by the carbon-14 dating method reveal them to be only several thousand years old instead of millions of years old, as predicted by evolutionary theory. Once this method was shown to predict recent dates for oil and coal, scientists stopped dating these products using this method. Do you think it is intellectually sound to reject a process that fails to yield the results you so badly wanted? Is this good science? |
| Quote: | 6. BIOGENIC LAW: This law has two provable concepts to it;
A. Life can only come from life.
B. Like kinds always give rise to like kinds. (reptiles produce other reptiles, and do not magically become birds.)
More than a century after it was first proposed, scientists have never seen this law violated. |
| Quote: | | 7. ORIGIN OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION: No verifiable record of human civilization is older than 5,000 years. Civilization, like everything else, appears suddenly in the historical record. |
| Quote: | 9. ROTATION OF SPIRAL GALAXIES:
The rotation of spiral galaxies eventually makes them stretch out due to differential rotation. They lose their spiral shape given enough time. Since these galaxies obviously retain their spiral shape, they cannot possibly be billions of years old. |
| Quote: | 10.big bang theory
If this big bang theory happened. You would expect that there would be other forms of life all over the universe, yet the earth is perfect for life. If it was 1% further away from the sun, there would be no life. The moon is need to support life here on earth to. And with all of these programs looking for intelligent life out in space, we have found nothing. Like seti( Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) have found no radio signals, and we give off millions. |
| Quote: | Just for hell of it i will throw this one in
Bumble bee cannot fly
[And then there's the case of the bumblebee. According to the
greatest minds of science, it cannot fly. Its wings aren't big enough.
Aerodynamics says it is impossible. The biggest computers in the world
all come to the same conclusion, it can't fly. But what does the
bumblebee do? It ignores the great minds, the skeptics, the
computers... and it just goes ahead and flies. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Rashy
Lifeless Person
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 661
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disclaimer: I am not saying evolution happened, and I am not saying evolution didn't happen. I am just sticking to the facts.
1. There has been much disagreements in the scientific community over this. Darwin proposed that evolution happened at a constant rate throughout history. The current (most) accepted model is one where evolution fluctuates: due to natural disasters, ice ages, and other geological events that events that alter the environment, evolution happens in spurts. This would cause the lack of a complete, continuous, fossil record as Darwin had predicted. You have to remember that a lot has changed in the field of science in the last 150 years.
2. Evolution is not about the creation of life. It is simply a model for how species change over time, whether in 10,000 years or 10,000,000 years is irrelevant. Darwin's theory explains how and why finches look different on different islands in the Galapagos, not how the finches came to exist in the first place.
3. FIRST LAW: The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are two completely different, unrelated theories. I don't even know why you brought this up.
SECOND LAW: Evolution is not progressive. Evolution does not suggest in any way or form that monkeys turned into humans, or that single cell organisms turned into bumble bees or anything else. The theory of evolution is simply about how species change over time.
4. (You actually have two 3s. I will stick with sequential numerals  ) POPULATION:
The model you are using is obviously flawed. Human growth has hardly been at 1% since the beginning of time, but rather much less. It grows exponentially, and I believe current models show that if we are at 2% right now, then approximately 80 years ago we would have been at around 1%. That would mean that 1000 years ago population growth would have been minuscule. Also, last I checked, population growth usually included the death rate to give you one simple number, not "multiply population by 1.08 every year, and every 82 years multiply by .3"
7. BIOGENIC LAW Like I said, Theory of Evolution explains how populations change over time, not how species evolve into each other. Darwin's theory does not explain how geckos spontaneously turned into doves (because they most likely did not), but rather how Giraffes got such long necks.
8. That is because before then we (humans) had not learned how to write, thus no records where kept. Everything was passed down through stories, which were eventually lost to time.
11. Here you go on the Big Bang Theory again, which is completely separate, as in has nothing to do with, the Theory of Evolution. Also the universe is pretty big, and the SETI program is still very young. Likely, if there is intelligent life out there (and I am not saying there is or isn't) then it would likely be too far out for even our earliest signals to reach. If there is a sentient race that picked up our radio signals, then it would still take a long time to get back to the earth. Remember that light does have a limit on its speed, and also I believe that light energy is an inverse square relationship, which would mean that it fade over distance.
I did not respond to some because I don't know anything about it and my response would be in ignorance.
_________________
Rashy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Duck
Pinko Liberal Communist
Joined: 21 Dec 2004
Posts: 1558
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:20 am Post subject: Re: 10 Facts why evolution if false |
|
|
| Quote: |
1. Lack of Transitional Fossils.
Charles Darwin wrote, "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859). Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record. |
Because that earth moves all over the place. Not every creature falls into a pit of tar and has its bones perfectly preserved; fossils are only created under particular, rare circumstances, and as a result, there are gaps in the fossil record. The fossil record does, however, exist. I know you said "don't say these are wrong," but buddy, that last sentence is. There is plenty of evidence in the fossil record. Take, for example, the archeopteryx.
| Quote: | A cell being created
2. In order for evolution to be true atoms must form useful molecules such as enzymes, amino acids and proteins by random chance. It is mathematically impossible for these molecules, much less the far larger DNA molecule, to form by random action in nature. It cannot happen! continued below...
.A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 104,478,296 to the 17 power. |
1) 1 in 104 478 296 ^ 17 is not "mathematically impossible."
2) Nobody is saying cells formed by matter bonking together in a particular formation. Look for information on the iron sulphide theory, which posits that the first cells formed at the hydrothermal vents at the ocean floor in iron sulphide deposits, back when the ocean was actually a primordial ooze. Also, Rashy is right; this is outside the scope of evolution.
| Quote: | | 3. FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: The first law of thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy, states that there can be no creation or annihilation of mass or energy. Certainly, one form of energy can be converted into another, one state of matter can be converted into another, and matter/energy interconversion's can occur. But, the total amount of matter and energy combined always remains constant. This law has application to the creation sciences by verifying that the universe could not just spring into existence by accident. The Big Bang theory, proposed and repeated as an article of faith by naturalists, violates this fundamental law of physics. What do you think: could matter and energy mysteriously appear without a Prime Mover, a Creator God? |
Like Rashy said, this is the sort of argument you'd bring up if you were trying to disprove science, not evolution. Are you trying to disprove science?
And even if you are, that doesn't matter, because a violation of the first law of thermodynamics makes more sense to me than simplicity coming from complexity. In nature, and even in the work of man, simple things are combined with simple things to make complex things. The infantile universe would have been a simple thing. God is clearly a complex thing. Therefore for God to have preceded the universe, complexity would have needed to beget simplicity.
| Quote: | SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: The Second Law, also called the Law of Entropy, states that anything which is organized tends, with time, to become disorganized. Any physical system left to itself will decay; that is, it will lose energy and organization inside the system. Instead of remaining highly organized, as earth’s systems, everything tends to become gradually less organized. For example, over time, chemical processes will reach equilibrium and become inert. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be expressed in different ways, all of which are equivalent. Three applications include;
A. Classical Thermodynamics: The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, though the total energy remains constant.
B. Statistical Thermodynamics: The complexity or order of a structured system tends to become disorganized and random.
C. Informational Thermodynamics: The information that is conveyed by a communicating system tends to become distorted and incomplete over time.
This fundamental law of physics clearly states that the incredible increase of information required for a life form to evolve from amino acids could never happen. Does it make sense to you that evolution could repeatedly violate the Second Law by organizing more complex forms of life from “simpler” versions? |
Does it make more sense that simple life forms could come from complex ones? No, it doesn't, because that's going in the opposite direction, and that's stupid. By the logic in this quote, we shouldn't be alive right now, because the amino acids in our DNA should be falling apart, and that's not how entropy works.
| Quote: | 3. Population Statistics...
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089 to the 9 power. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies. |
Right, because nobody dies. Especially not before we have technology and knowledge to keep them alive.
| Quote: | | 4. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years. |
All you really need to know here is that Barnes failed to take a lot of factors into account when creating this idea, and that he used an obsolete model of the Earth's interior, but if you want a point-by-point rebuttal of everything he says, you can go here.
| Quote: | | 5. OIL AND COAL ARE YOUNG: When the carbon-14 test was first created, scientists used the process to date all sorts of things. Two examples included oil and coal. Tests of these two substances by the carbon-14 dating method reveal them to be only several thousand years old instead of millions of years old, as predicted by evolutionary theory. Once this method was shown to predict recent dates for oil and coal, scientists stopped dating these products using this method. Do you think it is intellectually sound to reject a process that fails to yield the results you so badly wanted? Is this good science? |
I don't know whether it's true or not that scientists have stopped using carbon-14 dating, but if they have, it's probably because its findings didn't match up with the many other dating techniques they have that operate on different principles yet yield congruent results. Either way, the fact remains that organic matter existed only several thousand years ago, and the fact remains that this organic matter could have been worked into oil and coal. It is not necessary to evolutionary theory that organisms existed only millions of years ago.
| Quote: | 6. BIOGENIC LAW: This law has two provable concepts to it;
A. Life can only come from life.
B. Like kinds always give rise to like kinds. (reptiles produce other reptiles, and do not magically become birds.)
More than a century after it was first proposed, scientists have never seen this law violated. |
For A, I already mentioned the iron sulphide theory. As to B, that isn't true at all, and scientists see this law violated all the time: it's called "genetic mutation." I'm guessing you don't actually know anything about evolutionary theory because if you did you would know that nobody is saying that a reptile gave birth to a fully-developed bird. I also already mentioned the archeopteryx; try looking for some pictures, and you'll see that it looks like it's halfway between dinosaur and turkey.
| Quote: | | 7. ORIGIN OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION: No verifiable record of human civilization is older than 5,000 years. Civilization, like everything else, appears suddenly in the historical record. |
What, so writing is supposed to be hard-wired into our brains? I guess that's why infants can write novels as soon as they come out of the womb.
You have got to be kidding me. It's not possible that the first image on the angelfire page is unclear. It's not possible that the others are based on imagination of the sort that concieved minotaurs and krakkens. It's not possible that that carving on the other page was drawn by people who were working from their imagination. Because, you know, it's impossible to draw something you haven't seen before.
Un-****-believable. For reference, the several dating methods that operate on different principles all say that dinosaurs were extinct 65 million years ago.
| Quote: | 9. ROTATION OF SPIRAL GALAXIES:
The rotation of spiral galaxies eventually makes them stretch out due to differential rotation. They lose their spiral shape given enough time. Since these galaxies obviously retain their spiral shape, they cannot possibly be billions of years old. |
Yeah, because things don't take time. I've never even heard of this before. Where are you getting this from? This doesn't sound to me like something that exists at all.
| Quote: | 10.big bang theory
If this big bang theory happened. You would expect that there would be other forms of life all over the universe, yet the earth is perfect for life. If it was 1% further away from the sun, there would be no life. The moon is need to support life here on earth to. And with all of these programs looking for intelligent life out in space, we have found nothing. Like seti( Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) have found no radio signals, and we give off millions. |
Actually, we've found tons of radio signals. They just haven't been broadcast by living things (to our knowledge).
The thing is, the universe is really, really big. And it is going to take light hundreds of years at the very least to travel between stars. And despite all the science fiction and space opera you've seen, there is no guaruntee that faster-than-light travel is even possible. It is entirely possible that there is life out there that we haven't found. It is also entirely possible that there is life out there that would prefer we didn't know they exist.
| Quote: | Just for hell of it i will throw this one in
Bumble bee cannot fly
[And then there's the case of the bumblebee. According to the
greatest minds of science, it cannot fly. Its wings aren't big enough.
Aerodynamics says it is impossible. The biggest computers in the world
all come to the same conclusion, it can't fly. But what does the
bumblebee do? It ignores the great minds, the skeptics, the
computers... and it just goes ahead and flies. |
You can't post crap like this if you're going to say, "All the things below are all facts which have been proven. So don't say they are wrong." This isn't a fact. It hasn't been proven. It is wrong. A five-second visit to Wikipedia brought this about:
| Quote: | | It is believed that the calculations which purported to show that bumblebees cannot fly are based upon a simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils. The method assumes small amplitude oscillations without flow separation. This ignores the effect of dynamic stall, an airflow separation inducing a large vortex above the wing, which briefly produces several times the lift of the aerofoil in regular flight. More sophisticated aerodynamic analysis shows that the bumblebee can fly because its wings encounter dynamic stall in every oscillation cycle. |
So there we go. Eleven for eleven, all refuted. I'm going to bed.
_________________
[img:d156d322f3]http://seriousbusiness.l2p.net/img/seriousbanner.gif[/img:d156d322f3]
I've kicked the clouds, and punched lightning! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
pharmer4
Metallica Fanatic
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1872
Location: Deniliquin, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:27 am Post subject: Re: 10 Facts why evolution if false |
|
|
| Quote: |
1. Lack of Transitional Fossils.
Charles Darwin wrote, "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859). Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record. |
that's funny, because i've seen creationists show pictures of fossil fields that show transitional fossils of animals that are believed to have evolved into horses. The reason they show it is because all the fossils are from the same period, ie the transitional animals existed at the same time. their argument is that if they evolved from each other, how can they exist at the same time. The answer to that is, just because one groups of a species evolves, does not mean all the rest instantly die.
Just bought this up beause i find it interesting that one creationist claims that transitional fossils don't exist, and another showed me photos of them. It is probable, though, like much of your arguments in your posts, that it was more a case of misinterpretation of data.
| Quote: | A cell being created
2. In order for evolution to be true atoms must form useful molecules such as enzymes, amino acids and proteins by random chance. It is mathematically impossible for these molecules, much less the far larger DNA molecule, to form by random action in nature. It cannot happen! continued below...
.A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 104,478,296 to the 17 power. |
statistically improbable does not mean impossible.
| Quote: | 3. FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: The first law of thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy, states that there can be no creation or annihilation of mass or energy. Certainly, one form of energy can be converted into another, one state of matter can be converted into another, and matter/energy interconversion's can occur. But, the total amount of matter and energy combined always remains constant. This law has application to the creation sciences by verifying that the universe could not just spring into existence by accident. The Big Bang theory, proposed and repeated as an article of faith by naturalists, violates this fundamental law of physics. What do you think: could matter and energy mysteriously appear without a Prime Mover, a Creator God?
SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: The Second Law, also called the Law of Entropy, states that anything which is organized tends, with time, to become disorganized. Any physical system left to itself will decay; that is, it will lose energy and organization inside the system. Instead of remaining highly organized, as earth’s systems, everything tends to become gradually less organized. For example, over time, chemical processes will reach equilibrium and become inert. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be expressed in different ways, all of which are equivalent. Three applications include;
A. Classical Thermodynamics: The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, though the total energy remains constant.
B. Statistical Thermodynamics: The complexity or order of a structured system tends to become disorganized and random.
C. Informational Thermodynamics: The information that is conveyed by a communicating system tends to become distorted and incomplete over time. |
This fundamental law of physics clearly states that the incredible increase of information required for a life form to evolve from amino acids could never happen. Does it make sense to you that evolution could repeatedly violate the Second Law by organizing more complex forms of life from “simpler” versions? [/quote] | mr.x wrote: | | And remember a law is proven. |
the first part is law. the last part is interpretation.
Here is something for you to consider - the laws of thermodynamics relate to systems in total. Ie the law of thermodynamics states that from the beginning of a system to the end of a system, that system degrades into chaos etc. This does not mean that in the process from getting from start to finish, that there can be less chaos.
An analogy of this is chemical reactions wherein catalysts allow for reactions to occur that should not happen. this is a flawed analogy, but you get the point - there can be aspects that we don't know about that allow things to happen that normally should not.
| Quote: | 3. Population Statistics...
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089 to the 9 power. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies. |
this has been explained by others, but as stated, population growth is exponential, not linear, so it would start at a very very small, and grow slowly as well.
| Quote: | | 4. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years. |
again, explained already, but you have to see this is ridiculous, since the earth is not big enough to hold the same type of magnetic field.
geological surveys also show that the earths magnetic field shifted position and strength over time. fluctuations can occur, especially if outside phenomenon (ie from the sun or anything else), has some effect on it.
| Quote: | | 5. OIL AND COAL ARE YOUNG: When the carbon-14 test was first created, scientists used the process to date all sorts of things. Two examples included oil and coal. Tests of these two substances by the carbon-14 dating method reveal them to be only several thousand years old instead of millions of years old, as predicted by evolutionary theory. Once this method was shown to predict recent dates for oil and coal, scientists stopped dating these products using this method. Do you think it is intellectually sound to reject a process that fails to yield the results you so badly wanted? Is this good science? |
here's a time scale you should consider - the speed of light is constant. How can the light from stars millions of light years away be seen from earth if the universe is only thousands of years old? Add to that the fact that the universe is expanding, so that distance is always getting bigger, making the travel time over 1 million light years longer than 1 million years?
Carbon dating may be faulty when used to date carbon found in high densities that have existed under high stress for some time. who know, i don't, but i can see reasons why it could be innacurate.
| Quote: | 6. BIOGENIC LAW: This law has two provable concepts to it;
A. Life can only come from life.
B. Like kinds always give rise to like kinds. (reptiles produce other reptiles, and do not magically become birds.)
More than a century after it was first proposed, scientists have never seen this law violated. |
hang on, is this a law or a theory, cause you state it was proposed a century ago - when was it proven as law?
| Quote: | | 7. ORIGIN OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION: No verifiable record of human civilization is older than 5,000 years. Civilization, like everything else, appears suddenly in the historical record. |
australian aboriginal art and midden heaps have been proven to be more than 60000 years old, possibly 80000.
well, the reverse of this statement must be true, and anything drawn by man living with creatures that have never existed should be true, such as men with halos (aboriginal art), unicorns, angels, all types of crap. you get the point.
In addition, when man ,lived hundreds of thousangs of years ago, there may have been fossils of dinosaurs that are easily identifiable as they are now (you know, full skeletons). I'm sure that the ability to create artwork from the imagination is not something new to humans. In fact, by your own argument, if creation existed, then humans then were as advanced as we were, but without technology, so they should have been able to create artwork based on their imagination, using fossils as their muses.
| Quote: | 9. ROTATION OF SPIRAL GALAXIES:
The rotation of spiral galaxies eventually makes them stretch out due to differential rotation. They lose their spiral shape given enough time. Since these galaxies obviously retain their spiral shape, they cannot possibly be billions of years old. |
Even if this is a fact, big big big things need a long time to follow the second law of thermodynamics, and end up in chaos.
| Quote: | 10.big bang theory
If this big bang theory happened. You would expect that there would be other forms of life all over the universe, yet the earth is perfect for life. If it was 1% further away from the sun, there would be no life. The moon is need to support life here on earth to. And with all of these programs looking for intelligent life out in space, we have found nothing. Like seti( Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) have found no radio signals, and we give off millions. |
to follow the laws of thermodynamics, it is possible to have a single mass with x energy, that degrades and explodes into the universe, which has an awful lot of open space with no mass. say the expansion of the universe get to a point that slows, stops, and reverses, eventually it would end up as this point again. just because we can't explain it or even understand it, does not mean it did not happen like that or many other ways.
Also, as stated, light diffuses over distance. radio waves would definately do the same, but quicker, because they are more diffuse to begin with.
| Quote: | Just for hell of it i will throw this one in
Bumble bee cannot fly
[And then there's the case of the bumblebee. According to the
greatest minds of science, it cannot fly. Its wings aren't big enough.
Aerodynamics says it is impossible. The biggest computers in the world
all come to the same conclusion, it can't fly. But what does the
bumblebee do? It ignores the great minds, the skeptics, the
computers... and it just goes ahead and flies. |
[/quote]
that last part is just moronic. your arguments are as strong as your weakest point, and this is just dumb, and disproved quite succinctly in previous posts.
_________________
For Metal and Rock interviews and reviews, go to www.heavymetalnation.com - You can Contribute too if you want!
[img:d85b591d6d]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/pharmer4/pharmer4.jpg[/img:d85b591d6d]
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
marinaroz
Grey Scaled
Joined: 04 Mar 2004
Posts: 2813
Location: Israel
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I still think that evolution makes more sense than some obscure deity who creates a thoroughly flawed world for their own amusement and likes to watch people squirm, and meddles in people's affairs and punishes them and demands obedience.
If any such deities did exist - the monotheistic god is not the one who makes most sense anyway. At least when people believe in multitude of gods, they can blame misfortune on one and praise another for good fortune. With the one god, you don't even have anyone to blame, the god is supposed to be always right (though he's not - not even in the bible).
_________________
Tarakana NET |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
clpo13
Zarkin' frood
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Posts: 1210
Location: Washington
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Most anti-evolutionists tend to pick apart Darwin's theory, which is very much unlike current evolution theory. I mean, the man was talking mostly about how animals in the Galapagos Islands were very much like similar animals on the mainland (convergent evolution, I think it's called). Clearly he didn't know all that we know now.
_________________
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." --Thomas Jefferson
[img:cd1c8454aa]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/clpo13/anothersig1.jpg[/img:cd1c8454aa] |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
mr.x
Ardent Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 95
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
posted by duck
| Quote: | | Actually, we've found tons of radio signals. They just haven't been broadcast by living things (to our knowledge). |
see this is why i dont post that much people think they are smart, so they post stuff like this, but if you look at the search of the seti website
http://www.google.com/custom?q.....h=seti.org
all the pages even say that they have found no signals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
clpo13
Zarkin' frood
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Posts: 1210
Location: Washington
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Galaxies often emit radio signals which are picked up by terrestrial telescopes. No doubt that is what Duck was referring to. SETI, on the other hand, is searching for non-natural radio signals, the likes of which they have yet to find.
_________________
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." --Thomas Jefferson
[img:cd1c8454aa]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/clpo13/anothersig1.jpg[/img:cd1c8454aa] |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
fissionfox
Novice Poster
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 15
Location: Adelaide, Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:24 am Post subject: Re: 10 Facts why evolution if false |
|
|
| Quote: | A cell being created
2. In order for evolution to be true atoms must form useful molecules such as enzymes, amino acids and proteins by random chance. It is mathematically impossible for these molecules, much less the far larger DNA molecule, to form by random action in nature. It cannot happen! continued below...
.A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 104,478,296 to the 17 power. |
Before anything was ever, ever created, there would have been all the time in the world. You'd be amazed how many 1 in 1,000,000 chances actually come through. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
pharmer4
Metallica Fanatic
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1872
Location: Deniliquin, Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mr.x wrote: | posted by duck
| Quote: | | Actually, we've found tons of radio signals. They just haven't been broadcast by living things (to our knowledge). |
see this is why i dont post that much people think they are smart, so they post stuff like this, but if you look at the search of the seti website
http://www.google.com/custom?q.....h=seti.org
all the pages even say that they have found no signals. |
many things emit radio signals, such as atoms (ie radiation - radio-active means it emuts radio signals), pulsars, quasars, black holes if they are unstable, galaxies, aliens (oops on that one)
you get the point
_________________
For Metal and Rock interviews and reviews, go to www.heavymetalnation.com - You can Contribute too if you want!
[img:d85b591d6d]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/pharmer4/pharmer4.jpg[/img:d85b591d6d]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
drath
D
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 1696
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well already with a title like "10 Facts why evolution if false", with the typo, I knew this was going to be a quality post.
| mr.x wrote: | | All the things below are all facts which have been proven. So don't say they are wrong. Very long post but read all of them. If you have any thing that proves evolution post it. I would like to check it out. |
I haven't read any of them yet, but I already know it's probably full of bias, inconsistencies, irrelevance and illogic. Well here we go...
| Quote: |
1. Lack of Transitional Fossils.
Charles Darwin wrote, "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859). Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record. |
Oh my! A creationist trying to poke holes in a 150 year old quote from Darwin? I never seen that coming! (sarcasm). You may of just as well used the term "Missing Link" since you guys do that so much. I guess you just wanted to try and at least look halfway intelligent. It's too bad for the fact that there has been transitional fossils found. It's just that you're an idiot and don't know how to read or something. There has been mass link findings through the 19th century onward. Here's just the popular ones:
Austrolopithecus Africanus (Taung Child), Java Man, homo erectus, Australopithecus Afarensis (Lucy) (the most popular), Sinanthropus pekinensis (Peking Man).
Looks like my initial thought was pretty dead-on so far.
| Quote: | A cell being created
2. In order for evolution to be true atoms must form useful molecules such as enzymes, amino acids and proteins by random chance. It is mathematically impossible for these molecules, much less the far larger DNA molecule, to form by random action in nature. It cannot happen! continued below...
.A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 104,478,296 to the 17 power. |
Hmmm only the second point in and you're already NOT talking about evolution. Evolution doesn't actually deal with the creation of life. It deals with how life has changed over an amount of time. You state that it cannot happen, even though you list the "chance". It is not impossibly, but merely improbable. I won't even go into detail with this one considering I think these numbers are just random and not actually from any kind of science.
| Quote: | 3. FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: The first law of thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy, states that there can be no creation or annihilation of mass or energy. Certainly, one form of energy can be converted into another, one state of matter can be converted into another, and matter/energy interconversion's can occur. But, the total amount of matter and energy combined always remains constant. This law has application to the creation sciences by verifying that the universe could not just spring into existence by accident. The Big Bang theory, proposed and repeated as an article of faith by naturalists, violates this fundamental law of physics. What do you think: could matter and energy mysteriously appear without a Prime Mover, a Creator God?
SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: The Second Law, also called the Law of Entropy, states that anything which is organized tends, with time, to become disorganized. Any physical system left to itself will decay; that is, it will lose energy and organization inside the system. Instead of remaining highly organized, as earth’s systems, everything tends to become gradually less organized. For example, over time, chemical processes will reach equilibrium and become inert. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be expressed in different ways, all of which are equivalent. Three applications include;
A. Classical Thermodynamics: The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, though the total energy remains constant.
B. Statistical Thermodynamics: The complexity or order of a structured system tends to become disorganized and random.
C. Informational Thermodynamics: The information that is conveyed by a communicating system tends to become distorted and incomplete over time.
This fundamental law of physics clearly states that the incredible increase of information required for a life form to evolve from amino acids could never happen. Does it make sense to you that evolution could repeatedly violate the Second Law by organizing more complex forms of life from “simpler” versions? |
Again, not really dealing with evolution at all. First of all the "laws" of thermodynamics is actually a theory, just like the Big Bang is a theory. Lots of theories contradict one another, but may eventually just become an "exception" of the laws themselves. The Big Bang didn't just happen either, it DID NOT just "mysteriously appear". If you read anything about the Big Bang you will know there was immense heat and energy for it to begin the process of expansion (that is now heavily supported through the Robertson-Walker model and the cosmological principle). Theories and "laws" change when new evidence is brought forth.
| Quote: | 3. Population Statistics...
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089 to the 9 power. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies. |
Too bad there's no reasonable (non-bias) scientific or geological data that supports this world flood that seems to have existed. Oh wait... you were attacking science and theories, not me attacking your faith, my apologies. Again, these numbers don't actually even make sense. Where is half of this **** coming from? Your system is fundamentally flawed on several points. Population grows exponentially, and the growth rate is definitely is lower than 2%, it's over less than half of that number actually. I don't even know what you are talking about in the last sentence, it really MAKES NO SENSE.
| Quote: | | 4. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years. |
All of his findings are now debunked by almost any scientist, except those pesky creationist ones that usually aren't actually scientists or have any sort of degree. His research is as old and obsolete as the obsolete models he used when forming his studies. He also neglected to take several important factors in to account.
| Quote: | | 5. OIL AND COAL ARE YOUNG: When the carbon-14 test was first created, scientists used the process to date all sorts of things. Two examples included oil and coal. Tests of these two substances by the carbon-14 dating method reveal them to be only several thousand years old instead of millions of years old, as predicted by evolutionary theory. Once this method was shown to predict recent dates for oil and coal, scientists stopped dating these products using this method. Do you think it is intellectually sound to reject a process that fails to yield the results you so badly wanted? Is this good science? |
Why is this the biggest thing since pre-packaged hosts to creationists? I wonder if you do any research at all to come up with this stuff. Carbon-14 testing is not the only dating method used. There's tons of different methods that scientists use in conjunction to get the most accurate measurements. Even so, even using pure Carbon-14 testing on oil and coal is fundamentally flawed. Carbon-14 has long since decayed in petroleum and coal. So why would these tests work on them?
| Quote: | 6. BIOGENIC LAW: This law has two provable concepts to it;
A. Life can only come from life.
B. Like kinds always give rise to like kinds. (reptiles produce other reptiles, and do not magically become birds.)
More than a century after it was first proposed, scientists have never seen this law violated. |
Now your using words like "magic" to describe scientific methods. Nothing "magically" became anything else. It happened over long periods of time; thus is evolution. There is several species we have found where they have been seemingly a cross between things like a reptile-bird or a fish-reptile. Google it, or maybe read a book for once in your life, whichever is fine.
| Quote: | | 7. ORIGIN OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION: No verifiable record of human civilization is older than 5,000 years. Civilization, like everything else, appears suddenly in the historical record. |
Ummmm no? You are just plain stupid it seems. There's thousands of records of human civilization older than 5,000 years. Ever hear of stonehenge? It's been linked as far back as 8000 BC. If you want even older. Just look up the paleolithic period. There's almost 100 different paleolithic archaeological sites found. The very first paleolithic subdivision starts 2,500,000 years ago. It wasn't until 40,000 years ago in the upper paleolithic division that we start seeing sculptures, paintings, crude writings and tools. I don't know how religious people can just ignore all this evidence and history. Just because they didn't know how to sign there art and remains with a date doesn't mean they just are automatically all 5000 years old.
There is so MANY images and stories of dinosaurs and man living together because you're a presumptuous idiot. First of all, your first link is an angelfire page. How am I supposed to take you seriously? There was dinosaur bones back then, maybe even less covered and better preserved than they are today. Hell, there might have even mean creatures alive back then that had some sort of dinosaur ancestry like today as well. Ever notice the resemblance of lots of our reptiles to dinosaurs? Or, they could have just made them up and got lucky. Lots of cultures all did representations of Dragons, does that mean they really did exist? Did Zeus really exist for the greeks? Did the giant bird-head Ra really exist for the egyptians? Under your logic: THEY HAD TO OF! Also, I want to know the passage where the bible says dinosaurs and men lived together.
| Quote: | 9. ROTATION OF SPIRAL GALAXIES:
The rotation of spiral galaxies eventually makes them stretch out due to differential rotation. They lose their spiral shape given enough time. Since these galaxies obviously retain their spiral shape, they cannot possibly be billions of years old. |
Seriously... what the hell is this? Where did you get this from? It doesn't even prove or disprove anything, except for proving your incompetence.
| Quote: | 10.big bang theory
If this big bang theory happened. You would expect that there would be other forms of life all over the universe, yet the earth is perfect for life. If it was 1% further away from the sun, there would be no life. The moon is need to support life here on earth to. And with all of these programs looking for intelligent life out in space, we have found nothing. Like seti( Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) have found no radio signals, and we give off millions. |
There is 200-500+ billion galaxies out there. That means there is trillions of planets as well. How do you know all lifeforms need the same things as we do? It's recently been proposed and accepted that there may still be organisms living on mars. Any life on earth would not be be able to live there, but that doesn't stop those organisms does it? How do you know these other lifeforms give off radio signals? How do you know we just haven't been able to pick them up because of the limited time we've been trying to hear them? How do you know that we haven't been able to get them yet because the signals take time to travel? How do you know thousands of other variables? You don't.
| Quote: | Just for hell of it i will throw this one in
Bumble bee cannot fly
[And then there's the case of the bumblebee. According to the
greatest minds of science, it cannot fly. Its wings aren't big enough.
Aerodynamics says it is impossible. The biggest computers in the world
all come to the same conclusion, it can't fly. But what does the
bumblebee do? It ignores the great minds, the skeptics, the
computers... and it just goes ahead and flies. |
[/quote]
Despite from what grade six science teacher (greatest minds of science to you) may have told you this actually isn't true. I wish I could just state unproven "facts" like you and try to sound intelligent, fortunately I pride myself on real knowledge instead of just made-up-stuff.
_________________
The Gamer's Journal | Online Portfolio | Half-Life Library | UNDATA |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Duck
Pinko Liberal Communist
Joined: 21 Dec 2004
Posts: 1558
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mr.x wrote: | posted by duck
| Quote: | | Actually, we've found tons of radio signals. They just haven't been broadcast by living things (to our knowledge). |
see this is why i dont post that much people think they are smart, so they post stuff like this, but if you look at the search of the seti website
http://www.google.com/custom?q.....h=seti.org
all the pages even say that they have found no signals. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
So take a look at the first sentence of the actual article and post what pulsars emit. I'll give you a hint: it's radio waves.
BLFFLFFLFFBFLFLFBLFLFLFF
Clearly I'm not the moron here. Do you have anything at all to say about any of the refutations of the other points?
_________________
[img:d156d322f3]http://seriousbusiness.l2p.net/img/seriousbanner.gif[/img:d156d322f3]
I've kicked the clouds, and punched lightning! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
dylan2xs
Forum Regular
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 367
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well as i know Charles Darwin was a Christian but then he was baptised as an Anglican. I am sure He may not have been the most devout follower of the Christian faith but I also think there is no reason to doubt that he believed in God. His theory of evolution was formed around 1859, (im not totally sure)but im sure of something, this was before the theory of Spontaneous Generation was proven false. so now we all know that frogs do not grow from stagnant water and maggots do not just appear in rotted food, but Darwin probably did not know this when his theory was first formed.like that lot of mistakes are being clarified so i think to be more updated you may watch the Discovery Channel, they have some good shows about the evolution of species. there are a couple about human, but there is one called "the rise of man" (or something like that). I believe in god and i also believe in evolution but almost evey thing in life dosen't have solid proof, in fact theres not enugh proof to prove any thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Rashy
Lifeless Person
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 661
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think its funny that many people just repeat what I have said, way to rack up that PBPP guys
Anyways, we also have transitional fossil records for trilobytes and horses. We can see how horses have changed from a four footed-five fingered animal to the four hooved-single fingered animal that it is now. (more or less, the other 4 fingers receded into the foot and the fingernail of the 5th digit is the horses hoof).
| Quote: | | Population grows exponentially, and the growth rate is definitely is lower than 2%, it's over less than half of that number actually. I don't even know what you are talking about in the last sentence, it really MAKES NO SENSE. |
According to census.gov, the growth is at 1.17% right now. A lot more than half (especially when you are dealing with populations of 6.6 billion).
I would also like to say that in science, a theory is more than just a hunch or a guess. It is a well thought out idea that is supported by substantial evidence. A law is a fact that is proved by excessive, irrefutable evidence. The theory of evolution is more than just some crack pot's idea, it is fairly well backed up by evidence. I can dig out my notes and get it to you later tonight.
_________________
Rashy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Vipralion
Lifeless Person
Joined: 04 Feb 2005
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow.
Thank you duck, drath, and pharmer4 for easily refuting 11 points in a row. I'm surprised that I knew little to nothing about the points made in the original post.
_________________
[img:bd4240ba2d]http://gethalo3gear.com/signature/images/halo_signature_1.jpg[/img:bd4240ba2d] |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
Forum FAQs 
Knowledge Base 
Memberlist 
Usergroups 
Hosting
Register
Donate 
Profile 
Log in 
