Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 438 of 439 FirstFirst ... 338 388 428 436 437 438 439 LastLast
Results 4,371 to 4,380 of 4381

Thread: Science Disproves Evolution

  1. #4371
    Supporting Member spot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brigstow
    Posts
    35,758
    Local Date
    11-12-2019
    Local Time
    02:47 AM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    As to whether plesiosaurs were dinosaurs - and yes, I did read the New Scientist article and it puzzles me that we can both read the same words and come away with such different impressions - you're aware that dinosaurs were egg-layers? And that "Plesiosaurs breathed air, and bore live young"? The reason Linnaeus started categorizing life into families and groups like "The Dinosaurs" and "The Marine Reptiles" was to bring together those species which had most in common. If you go high enough up his nested categories you'll come to "Vertebrate", for example. Plesiosaurs and Dinosaurs were both in the category of vertebrate animals. Plesiosaurs were not in the category of Dinosaurs. It's just how the words work.

    What the two groups have in common is that they both lived in the same era, so their fossil bones are found in the same geological strata. You can find mammal bones in the same strata from the same era too, but that doesn't mean a mammal was a dinosaur.

    You have an agenda, I'm aware of that. You want people to believe that the Bible is inerrant fact. That's a fundamental truth you appear to believe. I regard belief of any sort as a self-imposed illness of the mind, I do not understand why anyone should abandon reality in order to voluntarily live in a fictional landscape, but I do acknowledge that some people choose to do so. From where I sit you either have a delusion or you have an engrossing hobby, it is less insulting to consider you deluded. I hope you get over it eventually.

    Out of interest, take a quick look at the downloadable article you get to if you google Geosciences 2019, 9, 35; doi:10.3390/geosciences9010035

    It's a detailed description of an archaeological site. What I want to ask you is where you think the consistency and reproducibility of the detail comes from.

    Do you think the researchers who wrote the paper are lying, for example. Have Mustoe, Viney and Mills made up a fictional story? If you were to go to the site would you discover that the evidence they describe does not in fact exist?

    If not, if the detail is really there in the ground, do you think the researchers are mis-interpretting what is there? If the site looks as though the lake dates from 58-38 million years ago, and the fine detail is consistent throughout with those dates, and every test applied fits with that interpretation, how do you think the site came to exist?

    If the answer is that God chose to mimic these archaeological ages in order to confuse people, down to the level of detail that paper demonstrates, what does that say about this notion of God you have in your mind?
    Nullius in verba|||||||||||
    Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!

    The watch of your vision has become reasonable today.

    It’s normal. You must provoke. You must insult the belief of all monotheists. You must make fun of the belief of all monotheists.
    From the upper tier of the Leppings Lane End of the Hillsborough Stadium, I watched the events of that day unfold with horror.
    When the flowers want to oxygen and nutrition, or you’re a wedding or party planner, I will help you too much.
    Write that word in the blood

  2. #4372
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,112
    Local Date
    11-11-2019
    Local Time
    09:47 PM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by spot View Post
    As to whether plesiosaurs were dinosaurs - and yes, I did read the New Scientist article and it puzzles me that we can both read the same words and come away with such different impressions - you're aware that dinosaurs were egg-layers? And that "Plesiosaurs breathed air, and bore live young"? The reason Linnaeus started categorizing life into families and groups like "The Dinosaurs" and "The Marine Reptiles" was to bring together those species which had most in common. If you go high enough up his nested categories you'll come to "Vertebrate", for example. Plesiosaurs and Dinosaurs were both in the category of vertebrate animals. Plesiosaurs were not in the category of Dinosaurs. It's just how the words work.

    What the two groups have in common is that they both lived in the same era, so their fossil bones are found in the same geological strata. You can find mammal bones in the same strata from the same era too, but that doesn't mean a mammal was a dinosaur.

    You have an agenda, I'm aware of that. You want people to believe that the Bible is inerrant fact. That's a fundamental truth you appear to believe. I regard belief of any sort as a self-imposed illness of the mind, I do not understand why anyone should abandon reality in order to voluntarily live in a fictional landscape, but I do acknowledge that some people choose to do so. From where I sit you either have a delusion or you have an engrossing hobby, it is less insulting to consider you deluded. I hope you get over it eventually.

    Out of interest, take a quick look at the downloadable article you get to if you google Geosciences 2019, 9, 35; doi:10.3390/geosciences9010035

    It's a detailed description of an archaeological site. What I want to ask you is where you think the consistency and reproducibility of the detail comes from.

    Do you think the researchers who wrote the paper are lying, for example. Have Mustoe, Viney and Mills made up a fictional story? If you were to go to the site would you discover that the evidence they describe does not in fact exist?

    If not, if the detail is really there in the ground, do you think the researchers are mis-interpretting what is there? If the site looks as though the lake dates from 58-38 million years ago, and the fine detail is consistent throughout with those dates, and every test applied fits with that interpretation, how do you think the site came to exist?

    If the answer is that God chose to mimic these archaeological ages in order to confuse people, down to the level of detail that paper demonstrates, what does that say about this notion of God you have in your mind?
    Whether plesiosaurs are dinosaurs or not is really not that important. According to the Article, they died out 66 million years ago at the same time as the Dinosaurs. My point is that these things have washed up on the shore many times in history, showing that they never really went totally extinct. Also, it's the same for the Dinosaurs. African tribes in remote areas claim to have them also in miniature form near them. They have been shown pictures of them and then exclaim the African name they have for it. They will tell you that they see them all of the time.

    Yes, I admit that I do have an agenda and my desire is that you and everyone else that comes here will be saved by grace through faith in Christ. You say that I am starting with an assumption and perhaps I am, however, evolutionists do the same exact thing. They start with an assumption that evolution is true and they work from there. That's why no amount of evidence that you show them that contradicts evolution will even be considered by them.

    I don't think the evidence shown by Evolutionists is fake most of the time, although, there have been times when they have been busted doing it. For the most part, I believe that both Evolutionists AND Creationists look at the very same evidence, yet they both draw different conclusions from what they see. Evolutionists seem to think that only their conclusions are what matters and that anything that contradicts evolution shouldn't even be considered. I believe that evolution is a religion because it requires faith, in fact, it requires more faith than creationism. There is a LOT of evidence that is uncovered by evolutionists and creationists alike that is censored by the secular scientific community because it makes evolution look bad. They won't put it in textbooks.

    I don't think God is mimicking anything. I think that the layers of earth happned during the flood when great oceans of water swept huge amounts of soil back and forth throughout the earth for that year. The result is different layers in the strata. I don't believe that the layers got there through millions of years. It has been observed happening on a much smaller scale before. A mini Grand Canyon was formed through flooding. The layers look just the same as the actual Grand Canyon.

    Like him or not, Kent Hovind Proved that Dinosaurs did in fact live with men and he explains why here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy970Z3xs38

  3. #4373
    Supporting Member spot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brigstow
    Posts
    35,758
    Local Date
    11-12-2019
    Local Time
    02:47 AM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Do you think you could also respond to my questions about the paper I pointed to?
    Nullius in verba|||||||||||
    Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!

    The watch of your vision has become reasonable today.

    It’s normal. You must provoke. You must insult the belief of all monotheists. You must make fun of the belief of all monotheists.
    From the upper tier of the Leppings Lane End of the Hillsborough Stadium, I watched the events of that day unfold with horror.
    When the flowers want to oxygen and nutrition, or you’re a wedding or party planner, I will help you too much.
    Write that word in the blood

  4. #4374
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,112
    Local Date
    11-11-2019
    Local Time
    09:47 PM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by spot View Post
    Do you think you could also respond to my questions about the paper I pointed to?
    This is what I found when I looked up the paper:

    "Central Wyoming, USA, was the site of ancient Lake Gosiute during the Early Eocene. Lake Gosiute was a large body of water surrounded by subtropical forest, the lake being part of a lacustrine complex that occupied the Green River Basin. Lake level rises episodically drowned the adjacent forests, causing standing trees and fallen branches to become growth sites for algae and cyanobacteria, which encased submerged wood with thick calcareous stromatolitic coatings. The subsequent regression resulted in a desiccation of the wood, causing volume reduction, radial fractures, and localized decay. The subsequent burial of the wood in silty sediment led to a silicification of the cellular tissue. Later, chalcedony was deposited in larger spaces, as well as in the interstitial areas of the calcareous coatings. The final stage of mineralization was the precipitation of crystalline calcite in spaces that had previously remained unmineralized. The result of this multi-stage mineralization is fossil wood with striking beauty and a complex geologic origin."

    I am not sure what your point is of this. I can tell you that the fossilization process doesn't really take that long. I can give examples of modern items that have been fossilized. There was even a company that would sell you a fossilized Teddy Bear for a price.

  5. #4375
    Proudly humble LarsMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    usually on the road to somewhere.
    Posts
    10,662
    Local Date
    11-11-2019
    Local Time
    08:47 PM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by xfrodobagginsx View Post
    I don't think I can agree with you that it's not a dinosaur. It's a reptilian creature that died out with the Dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were actually reptiles, NOT birds. Did you read the Article I posted above?

    Here is an exerpt from the Article above:

    "Plesiosaurs thrived during the Jurassic and Cretaceous. Some evolved into the short-necked, large-headed pliosaurs, such as the enormous Predator X. They died out 66 million years ago, along with the dinosaurs."

    Again, please read this Article if you have time.

    Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article...#ixzz64S6aDLfI

    Also, here is what Wiki says about them:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plesiosauria


    They need it to be true because that's the way they have painted their timeline of evolution. It's not just one extinction, it's all of the dinosaurs. It's a mass extinction.

    Do you want to know what the creationists believe?

    Dinosaurs are actually giant Lizards, NOT birds. Lizards never stop growing. Before the flood, men and animals lived about 10x longer than they do now because of the canopy of water above the atmosphere and the high pressure that made the earth like a giant hyperberic chamber. Anyway, if a Lizard was allowed to live 10x longer, it would grow to enormous sizes as the Dinosaurs did. That's why they were so big. However, most of the ones that didn't live 10x longer, were much smaller. If the Dinosaurs really died out 65 million years ago you wouldn't see examples of soft tissue being found in the bones like we do today because soft tissue (collagen) can't survive millions of years.

    Here is an example of a mummified dinosaur which couldn't be 65 million years old:


    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...statue/535782/
    The fossils of various creatures that were called Dinosaurs indicate two major types of creatures.
    There were some referred to as "Bird-hipped", and some "Lizard-hipped"

    Oddly enough, recent evidence seemed to suggest that both Birds and Lizards may have evolved from Dinosaur-like creatures.

    Imagine that.

    Oh, and Kent Hovind has proved nothing of the sort.
    "The trouble with people isn't that they don't know, but that they know so much that ain't so." - Will Rogers
    "Truth isn't Truth" - Rudy Giuliani

  6. #4376
    Supporting Member spot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brigstow
    Posts
    35,758
    Local Date
    11-12-2019
    Local Time
    02:47 AM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by xfrodobagginsx View Post
    I am not sure what your point is of this. I can tell you that the fossilization process doesn't really take that long. I can give examples of modern items that have been fossilized. There was even a company that would sell you a fossilized Teddy Bear for a price.
    You seem to dodge the question each time I ask it.

    Here's the puzzle:

    If the detail is really there in the ground, do you think the researchers are mis-interpretting what is there? If the site looks as though the lake dates from 58-38 million years ago, and the fine detail is consistent throughout with those dates, and every test applied fits with that interpretation, how do you think the site came to exist?

    What I want to ask you, as I wrote, is where you think the consistency and reproducibility of the detail comes from. That PDF file was 20 pages long and packed with very reproducible data, and the same form of analysis of pristine fossil-bearing sites is regularly performed all over the world.

    Anyone can go into the nearest geology department and see the evidence and repeat the analysis themselves at first hand, the research staff would be ecstatic if you were to volunteer to look, nothing is being hidden or withheld. It's not decades old stories of un-analysed marine corpses thrown back into the sea after being badly photographed.
    Nullius in verba|||||||||||
    Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!

    The watch of your vision has become reasonable today.

    It’s normal. You must provoke. You must insult the belief of all monotheists. You must make fun of the belief of all monotheists.
    From the upper tier of the Leppings Lane End of the Hillsborough Stadium, I watched the events of that day unfold with horror.
    When the flowers want to oxygen and nutrition, or you’re a wedding or party planner, I will help you too much.
    Write that word in the blood

  7. #4377
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,112
    Local Date
    11-11-2019
    Local Time
    09:47 PM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    The fossils of various creatures that were called Dinosaurs indicate two major types of creatures.
    There were some referred to as "Bird-hipped", and some "Lizard-hipped"

    Oddly enough, recent evidence seemed to suggest that both Birds and Lizards may have evolved from Dinosaur-like creatures.

    Imagine that.

    Oh, and Kent Hovind has proved nothing of the sort.
    The evidence actually shows that the Dinosaurs WERE Lizards. They weren't birds. They didn't evolve. Lizards never stop growing and at that time, creatures lived 10x longer than they do now before Noah's Flood, which would explain their huge sizes.

  8. #4378
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,112
    Local Date
    11-11-2019
    Local Time
    09:47 PM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by spot View Post
    You seem to dodge the question each time I ask it.

    Here's the puzzle:

    If the detail is really there in the ground, do you think the researchers are mis-interpretting what is there? If the site looks as though the lake dates from 58-38 million years ago, and the fine detail is consistent throughout with those dates, and every test applied fits with that interpretation, how do you think the site came to exist?

    What I want to ask you, as I wrote, is where you think the consistency and reproducibility of the detail comes from. That PDF file was 20 pages long and packed with very reproducible data, and the same form of analysis of pristine fossil-bearing sites is regularly performed all over the world.

    Anyone can go into the nearest geology department and see the evidence and repeat the analysis themselves at first hand, the research staff would be ecstatic if you were to volunteer to look, nothing is being hidden or withheld. It's not decades old stories of un-analysed marine corpses thrown back into the sea after being badly photographed.
    I am not dodging, I am trying to determine what the question is.

    I think that they are misinterpreting it many times yes. And here are 2 reasons why I believe this:

    1) I believe that they are beginning with the supposition that evolution is true and everything that they find is viewed through that lens. When confronted with evidence that grossly contradicts their theory, they won't consider that their view may be incorrect. It has become a religion for them and when they lack evidence, they come up with theories that they teach as fact. While it is true that creationists also start with a supposition, I believe that the evidence backs up their supposition, not Darwinian evolution. I do have to say that Creationists DO believe in evolution within the species, animal kinds, but not one animal kind evolving into another. Of course we see the variations within the species that the evolutionists attempt to use as examples of one creature evolving into a completely different one. These differences are within the species/animal kind. The different types of horses, cats, dogs, ect. are all examples of Lateral Adaptation/Mico Evolution within the species. What you never see are examples of one of these animal kinds transition to a completely different type of animal, such as a dog to a cat per se or a horse to a Moose.

    2)The Government gives these researchers grants and funding to make discoveries. If they don't make discoveries that are seen as significant, they lose that funding. So they have to sensationalize things in a manner that makes it look like they have discovered some breakthrough in order to keep milking the cow.

    With that said, you say that the site "Looks" like the lake dates to 58-38 million years ago. How did they arrive at that number? Every test applied doesn't fit that date. What happens is that they base the numbers on pre conceived dates based on which geological layer that they are found in. They date rocks with potassium argon dating and the dates are all over the place, usually in the millions of years. They pick a date in the middle of all of their chaotic readings and go with that one. The dating methods don't work. It's been shown creationists over and over, but they are dismissed and ridiculed. Rocks from Mt. St. Helen's were under 20 years old, but when submitted to the most advanced dating labs in the world in 1996, they came back between 1.5 and 3.5 Million years old. Another lab dated known rock that was only 50 years old as being around 7 million years old. And there are many other examples. The dating methods don't work.

    Details that make Evolution look false and Creationism look true are generally not published or put into text books in the schools. They also refuse to allow Creation view point to be taught side by side in the schools because they want to control what people believe. I do believe that the system is Anti Christian/Anti God. That's why these evolutionary scientists won't even consider the possibility that there might be a God.

  9. #4379
    Supporting Member spot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brigstow
    Posts
    35,758
    Local Date
    11-12-2019
    Local Time
    02:47 AM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by xfrodobagginsx View Post
    When confronted with evidence that grossly contradicts their theory, they won't consider that their view may be incorrect.
    This is very productive, thank you.

    Could you look again at the PDF report we're discussing and quote anything which strikes you as evidence that grossly contradicts their theory but which could be interpreted to support your view instead. If you think they've refused to put all such evidence into their report in the first place, which I would consider to be unscientific conscious bias on their part, could you describe what that deliberately suppressed evidence might have looked like.

    What you never see are examples of one of these animal kinds transition to a completely different type of animal, such as a dog to a cat per se or a horse to a Moose.
    No dog has ever descended from a cat. Nobody has ever made such a claim. No moose ever descended from a horse.

    I, personally, am quite obviously descended from a fish. Look at a succession of ultrasound scans and see the clearly visible gills of my own foetal body transform into a pair of middle ears, day by day. Every aspect of my body is demonstrably an adaptation of features from previous ancestor species. My internal ear is built from repurposed gill structures.

    My own personal DNA is blatantly related to all of my ancestral species' still-living descendant species, right out as far as bananas, mushrooms and bacteria.

    There is a vast tree of decoded common descendancy published and freely available for every human on the planet to explore. None of this evidence is secret or hidden or private. The evidence is reproducible, consistent and open to any interpretation anyone cares to apply to it. I have yet to see any creationist interpret this public data in support of their claims.
    Nullius in verba|||||||||||
    Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!

    The watch of your vision has become reasonable today.

    It’s normal. You must provoke. You must insult the belief of all monotheists. You must make fun of the belief of all monotheists.
    From the upper tier of the Leppings Lane End of the Hillsborough Stadium, I watched the events of that day unfold with horror.
    When the flowers want to oxygen and nutrition, or you’re a wedding or party planner, I will help you too much.
    Write that word in the blood

  10. #4380
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,112
    Local Date
    11-11-2019
    Local Time
    09:47 PM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Register to remove this ad.
    Quote Originally Posted by spot View Post
    This is very productive, thank you.

    Could you look again at the PDF report we're discussing and quote anything which strikes you as evidence that grossly contradicts their theory but which could be interpreted to support your view instead. If you think they've refused to put all such evidence into their report in the first place, which I would consider to be unscientific conscious bias on their part, could you describe what that deliberately suppressed evidence might have looked like.



    No dog has ever descended from a cat. Nobody has ever made such a claim. No moose ever descended from a horse.

    I, personally, am quite obviously descended from a fish. Look at a succession of ultrasound scans and see the clearly visible gills of my own foetal body transform into a pair of middle ears, day by day. Every aspect of my body is demonstrably an adaptation of features from previous ancestor species. My internal ear is built from repurposed gill structures.

    My own personal DNA is blatantly related to all of my ancestral species' still-living descendant species, right out as far as bananas, mushrooms and bacteria.

    There is a vast tree of decoded common descendancy published and freely available for every human on the planet to explore. None of this evidence is secret or hidden or private. The evidence is reproducible, consistent and open to any interpretation anyone cares to apply to it. I have yet to see any creationist interpret this public data in support of their claims.
    That might take a while. What I can say about evolution is that they will tend to take a few bones or even fragments of bones and then they will try to extrapolate a whole new common ancestor from them. Recently they just did that with the monkey that they say was transitioning to human. They actually found 6 different monkeys. Of the 6 total monkeys all they found was 2 leg bones, 1 1/2 vertebrae and a few other bones. The very small piece of tail bone that they found, which again was only 1.5 vertebrae had an ark or curvature that they say, if it continued throughout the entire spine (which they don't have) would have allowed this monkey to walk upright like a human. Every other bone that they found was 100% consistent with an ordinary monkey. So they claim that this monkey is somehow transitioning to a human. The problem is that variations happen even today. There are monkeys TODAY alive and in recent history that are KNOWN to walk upright like a human. They have no other differences with other monkeys. This monkey that they found is nothing more than just a monkey, yet they are pushing it as a transition. This type of thing happens ALL of the time.

    Many times they will take a few bone fragments and extrapolate an entirely new species of animal, which is imaginary since they only have a few bones. What they will do is have an artist, make a drawing of what this imaginary new species MAY have looked like. Then they have the artist draw some half human, half ape like creature, when they have zero proof of this. It's all smoke and mirrors.

    I understand that a dog has never decended from a cat and no moose has decended from a horse. I am giving you examples of what evolutionists are doing. They claim that one animal kind evolved into another kind and that has never been shown to happen. They can give examples of evolution within the species and then they claim that it's evolving into another animal kind. The Galapagos island finches and they LOVE to reference is a great example. No one is denying that these finches evolved different types of beaks over time. What we do NOT see is these finches evolving into a completely different type of creature as evolutionists claim. They all stay finches and birds.

    The reason that one animal kind, such as Canine and Feline cannot have evolved from each other per se, is precisely because in order for that to happen, there MUST be an increase in genetic DNA with the mutation. The Finches merely represent a reshuffling of the same DNA or the EXCLUSION of DNA, but there is never an increase of DNA. You NEVER see an increase in DNA in any mutation except for in the case of down syndrome which results in a bad outcome, not a new species.

    Even Richard Dawkins admitted that this has never been observed to happen. He was stumped by the question because he KNOWS that it means that Darwinian Evolution is impossible. Watch here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAzndMmnZJk

+ Reply to Thread

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