Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 342 of 357 FirstFirst ... 242 292 332 340 341 342 343 344 352 ... LastLast
Results 3,411 to 3,420 of 3567

Thread: Science Disproves Evolution

  1. #3411
    Proudly humble
    is Lost in the Ozone, again.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     
    LarsMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    usually on the road to somewhere.
    Posts
    9,316
    Local Date
    09-19-2017
    Local Time
    09:42 PM
    Points
    35,387
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post

    Fossil Gaps 8


    Gould and Eldredge claimed transitional fossils are missing because relatively rapid evolutionary jumps (which they called punctuated equilibria) occurred over these gaps. They did not explain how this could happen.

    Many geneticists are shocked by the proposal of Gould and Eldredge. Why would they propose something so contradictory to genetics? Gould and Eldredge were forced to say that evolution must proceed in jumps. Never explained, in genetic and mathematical terms, is how such large jumps could occur. To some, this desperation is justified.

    “...the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record,” Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

    “Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.” David B. Kitts (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma), “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,” Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467.

    “In spite of the immense amount of the paleontological material and the existence of long series of intact stratigraphic sequences with perfect records for the lower categories, transitions between the higher categories are missing.” Goldschmidt, p. 98.

    “When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions.” Ibid., p. 97.

    “There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.” Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the Animal Kingdom,” Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    So, you have nothing new to offer?
    "The trouble with people isn't that they don't know, but that they know so much that ain't so."
    - Anonymous

  2. #3412
    Proudly humble
    is Lost in the Ozone, again.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     
    LarsMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    usually on the road to somewhere.
    Posts
    9,316
    Local Date
    09-19-2017
    Local Time
    09:42 PM
    Points
    35,387
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Perhaps I should follow your lead and just start repeating my posts.

    OK, let's start with this one:

    Again, the fossilization process is at best haphazard. It takes specific conditions to create fossils, and while there may be an expectation from some folks that all transitions might be "recorded", the fact that any fossil record exists at all is really quite miraculous.

    However there are several transitional species that have been found and recorded despite quotes your Mr Brown may have dug up to the contrary.

    Quoting 40-year-old interviews is hardly proof of anything.
    "The trouble with people isn't that they don't know, but that they know so much that ain't so."
    - Anonymous

  3. #3413
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,563
    Local Date
    09-19-2017
    Local Time
    11:42 PM
    Points
    5,856

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    Perhaps I should follow your lead and just start repeating my posts.

    OK, let's start with this one:

    Again, the fossilization process is at best haphazard. It takes specific conditions to create fossils, and while there may be an expectation from some folks that all transitions might be "recorded", the fact that any fossil record exists at all is really quite miraculous.
    How about when you consider the Flood?

    However there are several transitional species that have been found and recorded despite quotes your Mr Brown may have dug up to the contrary.
    Where are they?

    Quoting 40-year-old interviews is hardly proof of anything.
    How long does it take for truth to stop being true?
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  4. #3414
    Proudly humble
    is Lost in the Ozone, again.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     
    LarsMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    usually on the road to somewhere.
    Posts
    9,316
    Local Date
    09-19-2017
    Local Time
    09:42 PM
    Points
    35,387
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    How about when you consider the Flood?
    Even C14 dating is accurate for thousands of years before the era in which your flood is supposed to have occurred.
    And there is evidence to show multiple extinction events, with different species affected in different events. Not even Walt can account for all of those. Besides, no matter how you look at it, the fossilization process takes far longer than the ~4300 years that could be a result of your flood.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    Where are they?
    All around. Google "Transition Species"

    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    How long does it take for truth to stop being true?
    That is a very good question. First, you have to recognize the truth.
    "The trouble with people isn't that they don't know, but that they know so much that ain't so."
    - Anonymous

  5. #3415
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,563
    Local Date
    09-19-2017
    Local Time
    11:42 PM
    Points
    5,856

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    Even C14 dating is accurate for thousands of years before the era in which your flood is supposed to have occurred.
    And there is evidence to show multiple extinction events, with different species affected in different events. Not even Walt can account for all of those. Besides, no matter how you look at it, the fossilization process takes far longer than the ~4300 years that could be a result of your flood.
    Dating methods are not reliable. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

    Radiocarbon Dating Can't Prove an Old Earth

    Recently, I conversed with an educated man who maintained Earth must be millions of years old because radiocarbon dating proved it. Although this argument is common, it’s simply inaccurate. Even evolutionary scientists acknowledge that radiocarbon dating cannot prove ages of millions or billions of years. Why?

    Radiocarbon (14C) is an unstable form of carbon that spontaneously decays into nitrogen over time.1 The best instrument for detecting radiocarbon is an accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS),2 which can typically detect one radiocarbon atom per quadrillion (1015) carbon atoms.3 Most AMS devices cannot detect radiocarbon in something older than 57,000 years because the amount of 14C will have decayed to unmeasurable levels. Therefore, no rock formations, minerals, or organic material older than 57,000 years should contain detectable 14C. Radioisotope dating with 14C decreases in reliability with increasing age and cannot be reliably used without historical or archaeological artifacts to corroborate the dates obtained.4

    Since the mid-20th century, evidence is increasing that 14C exists in measurable amounts in carbon-bearing rocks and organic matter that secular scientists believe to be tens to hundreds of millions of years old.5-8 In an effort to explain the presence of 14C in these materials, a noted old-earth biologist hypothesized that new, measureable 14C can be generated in very old material from the decay of uranium isotopes in the earth.9

    Is this a reasonable hypothesis or an unfounded rescuing device? For 14C to be regenerated in the earth, some source of neutrons is necessary to induce the proton-to-neutron reaction on 14N, which produces 14C in buried living matter, which would lead to artificially young age estimates. This neutron flux can originate either from above (cosmogenic) or from below (subsurface).

    Let’s first look at the cosmogenic neutron generation of 14C. Since neutrons do not penetrate very far into matter, cosmogenic neutron flux will be at its maximum right on the earth’s surface. Consider a 30-cm-diameter by 30-cm-long bone section sitting exposed on the ground and being bombarded by a cosmic neutron flux of approximately 6.4 × 10-3 neutrons/cm2-second. After 8,200 years, there will be approximately 1.86 × 1010 14C atoms present when equilibrium is reached between the conversion of 14N into 14C due to modern cosmogenic neutron flux and the decay of 14C in the bone sample. At that point, the 14C/12C ratio will be reduced by approximately a factor of 104—one order of magnitude below the detection limits of an AMS. Even on the earth’s surface, it is highly improbable that contamination in rocks or organic matter by cosmogenically generated 14C would result in artificially young ages.

    What about subsurface generation of neutron flux? Neutrons can only be produced by secondary nuclear reactions of alpha particles on O, Si, Al, Fe, Ca, or Na.10 Geophysicist John Baumgardner showed that this process is also highly improbable for contaminating 14C samples.11

    The old-earth biologist’s attempt to explain away the existence of measureable amounts of 14C in materials deemed to be hundreds of millions of years old is simply not a reasonable hypothesis. Carbon-14 exists in measurable amounts in even the most “ancient” rock formations, and this organic material points to a young earth that can be no more than 50,000 years old.

    Radiocarbon Dating Can't Prove an Old Earth | The Institute for Creation Research
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  6. #3416
    Proudly humble
    is Lost in the Ozone, again.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     
    LarsMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    usually on the road to somewhere.
    Posts
    9,316
    Local Date
    09-19-2017
    Local Time
    09:42 PM
    Points
    35,387
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    Dating methods are not reliable. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

    Radiocarbon Dating Can't Prove an Old Earth

    Recently, I conversed with an educated man who maintained Earth must be millions of years old because radiocarbon dating proved it. Although this argument is common, it’s simply inaccurate. Even evolutionary scientists acknowledge that radiocarbon dating cannot prove ages of millions or billions of years. Why?

    Radiocarbon (14C) is an unstable form of carbon that spontaneously decays into nitrogen over time.1 The best instrument for detecting radiocarbon is an accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS),2 which can typically detect one radiocarbon atom per quadrillion (1015) carbon atoms.3 Most AMS devices cannot detect radiocarbon in something older than 57,000 years because the amount of 14C will have decayed to unmeasurable levels. Therefore, no rock formations, minerals, or organic material older than 57,000 years should contain detectable 14C. Radioisotope dating with 14C decreases in reliability with increasing age and cannot be reliably used without historical or archaeological artifacts to corroborate the dates obtained.4

    Since the mid-20th century, evidence is increasing that 14C exists in measurable amounts in carbon-bearing rocks and organic matter that secular scientists believe to be tens to hundreds of millions of years old.5-8 In an effort to explain the presence of 14C in these materials, a noted old-earth biologist hypothesized that new, measureable 14C can be generated in very old material from the decay of uranium isotopes in the earth.9

    Is this a reasonable hypothesis or an unfounded rescuing device? For 14C to be regenerated in the earth, some source of neutrons is necessary to induce the proton-to-neutron reaction on 14N, which produces 14C in buried living matter, which would lead to artificially young age estimates. This neutron flux can originate either from above (cosmogenic) or from below (subsurface).

    Let’s first look at the cosmogenic neutron generation of 14C. Since neutrons do not penetrate very far into matter, cosmogenic neutron flux will be at its maximum right on the earth’s surface. Consider a 30-cm-diameter by 30-cm-long bone section sitting exposed on the ground and being bombarded by a cosmic neutron flux of approximately 6.4 × 10-3 neutrons/cm2-second. After 8,200 years, there will be approximately 1.86 × 1010 14C atoms present when equilibrium is reached between the conversion of 14N into 14C due to modern cosmogenic neutron flux and the decay of 14C in the bone sample. At that point, the 14C/12C ratio will be reduced by approximately a factor of 104—one order of magnitude below the detection limits of an AMS. Even on the earth’s surface, it is highly improbable that contamination in rocks or organic matter by cosmogenically generated 14C would result in artificially young ages.

    What about subsurface generation of neutron flux? Neutrons can only be produced by secondary nuclear reactions of alpha particles on O, Si, Al, Fe, Ca, or Na.10 Geophysicist John Baumgardner showed that this process is also highly improbable for contaminating 14C samples.11

    The old-earth biologist’s attempt to explain away the existence of measureable amounts of 14C in materials deemed to be hundreds of millions of years old is simply not a reasonable hypothesis. Carbon-14 exists in measurable amounts in even the most “ancient” rock formations, and this organic material points to a young earth that can be no more than 50,000 years old.

    Radiocarbon Dating Can't Prove an Old Earth | The Institute for Creation Research
    You severely limit the scope of dating methods and then spend all that time explaining what is already known.
    However, as I said, even RadioCarbon dating methods are easily accurate within the so-called Flood time line.
    Sorry. Flood did not create all those fossils
    "The trouble with people isn't that they don't know, but that they know so much that ain't so."
    - Anonymous

  7. #3417
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    FourPart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    5,795
    Local Date
    09-20-2017
    Local Time
    04:42 AM
    Points
    26,794
    Gifts Beer Cake

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Radio Carbon Dating is only one of many methods of dating. When cross referenced they all come up with approximately the same results. One method may be in error, but the more methods that are used & the more methods that corroberate each other the less likelihood there is of inaccuracies.

    So many times you have asked where the examples of transitional records are. So many times you have been provided with them. So many times you have denied the evidence. See no evidence, Hear no evidence. Speak no evidence. There's no point in repeatedly proving the same information. Unlike yourself, the more intelligent among us don't need perpetual pasting of the same outdated, inaccurate, unscientific, uninformed source of superstitious nonsense. If there is genuine independant evidence provided we give it due consideration. We do NOT have any regard for repeated pastes. Everyone else just scrolls past it all. Weve seen it all before, time & time again. It's padded wallpaper. It has no meaning. You never argue your case. You never come up with any supportive evidence that isn't listed in your favourite comic book. You are not capable of independant thought. In the past I have referred to you as an idiot. I was in error. You are not that intelligent. A moron would be a more accurate description. Prove me wrong. Stop pasting. Argue your case for yourself. If you choose to continue with your pastings then we can aswsume that you concede the fact that you are an utter moron.

  8. #3418
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,563
    Local Date
    09-19-2017
    Local Time
    11:42 PM
    Points
    5,856

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by FourPart View Post
    Radio Carbon Dating is only one of many methods of dating. When cross referenced they all come up with approximately the same results. One method may be in error, but the more methods that are used & the more methods that corroberate each other the less likelihood there is of inaccuracies.
    Dating methods are not reliable. For example:

    Radiometric Dating Flaws


    For many people, radiometric dating might be the one scientific technique that most blatantly seems to challenge the Bible’s record of recent creation. For this reason, ICR research has long focused on the science behind these dating techniques.

    Along with scores of other Bible-believing geologists, ICR scientists have made key observations that compel us to reject the millions-of-years apparent ages that these techniques yield:

    • First, rocks of known age always show vastly inflated radioisotope “ages.”
    • Second, various radioisotope methods or even various attempts using the same method yield discordant ages more often than concordant ages.
    • Third, many dating methods that don't involve radioisotopes—such as helium diffusion, erosion, magnetic field decay, and original tissue fossils—conflict with radioisotope ages by showing much younger apparent ages.

    These observations give us confidence that radiometric dating is not trustworthy. Research has even identified precisely where radioisotope dating went wrong. See the articles below for more information on the pitfalls of these dating methods.

    Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable | The Institute for Creation Research
    Questionable Dating of Bloody Mosquito Fossil | The Institute for Creation Research
    Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable | The Institute for Creation Research
    The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates | The Institute for Creation Research
    Can Radioisotope Dating Be Trusted? | The Institute for Creation Research

    So many times you have asked where the examples of transitional records are. So many times you have been provided with them. So many times you have denied the evidence. See no evidence, Hear no evidence. Speak no evidence.
    If you presented evidence of transitions, I have yet to see them.

    There's no point in repeatedly proving the same information. Unlike yourself, the more intelligent among us don't need perpetual pasting of the same outdated, inaccurate, unscientific, uninformed source of superstitious nonsense. If there is genuine independant evidence provided we give it due consideration. We do NOT have any regard for repeated pastes. Everyone else just scrolls past it all. Weve seen it all before, time & time again. It's padded wallpaper. It has no meaning. You never argue your case. You never come up with any supportive evidence that isn't listed in your favourite comic book. You are not capable of independant thought. In the past I have referred to you as an idiot. I was in error. You are not that intelligent. A moron would be a more accurate description. Prove me wrong. Stop pasting. Argue your case for yourself. If you choose to continue with your pastings then we can aswsume that you concede the fact that you are an utter moron.
    aswsume? The last ditch resource of those who cannot intelligently respond to facts is name calling. It also helps to make false accusations. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

    Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms


    The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.

    According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:

    1. wholesale change of organisms through time
    2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms
    3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.

    However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.

    Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

    Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.

    Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.

    Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.

    In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.

    The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.

    Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms | The Institute for Creation Research
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  9. #3419
    Proudly humble
    is Lost in the Ozone, again.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     
    LarsMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    usually on the road to somewhere.
    Posts
    9,316
    Local Date
    09-19-2017
    Local Time
    09:42 PM
    Points
    35,387
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    What is the point? You never recognize any evidence ever offered, here, and have yet to actually offer any evidence of your claims, either.
    "The trouble with people isn't that they don't know, but that they know so much that ain't so."
    - Anonymous

  10. #3420
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,563
    Local Date
    09-19-2017
    Local Time
    11:42 PM
    Points
    5,856

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Register to remove this ad.
    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    What is the point? You never recognize any evidence ever offered, here, and have yet to actually offer any evidence of your claims, either.
    You have yet to produce any evidence. My claims are full of evidence. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



    Dinosaur Moth: An Evolutionary Enigma


    Scientists discovered a tiny moth on Australia's Kangaroo Island and gave it the name Enigmatinea glatzella. The name is quite descriptive, as Enigmatinea means "enigma moth" in Latin.1,2 But why is this moth an enigma to evolutionary scientists?

    Today's living representatives of this moth have "basically the same features" as their ancestors, which evolutionists claim lived forty to fifty million years ago.3 Hence, virtually no evolution has occurred in all that supposed time! Ted Edwards, one of the scientists tasked with describing the new moth family said, "It's really quite remarkable because it means that the ancestral line has continued right through without changing a lot of its basic structures."1

    For this reason, scientists are calling Enigmatinea glatzella a "dinosaur moth." Since, in evolutionary thinking, dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, the discovery of living representatives of a creature that is at least forty million years old is as remarkable as discovering a living dinosaur.

    The lack of evolution is even more surprising when one realizes that the moth has an extremely short lifespan: These dinosaur moths emerge from their co****s, mate, lay eggs, and die within a single day. Although the total lifespan (egg to adult) of the dinosaur moth is apparently not well-known, other short-lived moths have total lifespans of about a month.4 This means that hundreds of millions of generations of dinosaur moths could easily have lived and died in this supposed forty-million-year interval. Even though death is the engine that supposedly drives evolution, essentially no evolution has occurred in all that alleged time.

    Furthermore, this discovery calls into question previous secular beliefs about moth evolution. Constructing a new moth phylogeny (evolutionary lineage) that takes into account the existence of this newly-discovered moth requires, in the words of the paper's authors, "an additional number of ad hoc assumptions."2

    This moth is just one more example of a "living fossil," a creature whose living representatives are not significantly different from their fossilized ancestors, despite the alleged passage of millions of years.5,6,7,8 Of course, this lack of evolution is exactly what one would expect to find in nature since God created all flying creatures—including moths—to reproduce "according to its kind" (Genesis 1:21).

    Dinosaur Moth: An Evolutionary Enigma | The Institute for Creation Research
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 342 of 357 FirstFirst ... 242 292 332 340 341 342 343 344 352 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution
    By spot in forum Science
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-11-2008, 05:12 PM
  2. Normal Science is Lamp-Post Science
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-12-2008, 01:43 PM
  3. Evolution
    By SnoozeControl in forum People
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-14-2006, 03:48 PM
  4. Evolution
    By SnoozeControl in forum Just For The Fun Of It
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-26-2006, 09:39 PM
  5. Did you know that evolution....
    By metalstorm in forum Did You Know?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-28-2004, 06:28 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.5.2