Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 51 of 443 FirstFirst ... 41 49 50 51 52 53 61 101 151 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 4428

Thread: Science Disproves Evolution

  1. #501
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    12-08-2019
    Local Time
    02:19 AM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint_ View Post
    Only if you suggest an even more scientific and believable theory on the beginning of life. which, by the way, you have NOT done.
    Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through repeatable observation and experiment. It cannot experiment and observe things that have happened in the past, which includes evolution.

    If the assumption is true that everything is the result of physical causes, then there is no scientific explanation for the beginning of life.

    It's fascinating to me that you use science and scientists to disprove the science of evolution but have no other science to take it's place!
    Disproving evolution leaves creation as the only alternative.

    Instead you would have us believe that life was "magically" created.

    You can't have it both ways, pahu. Either evolutionary science is correct or all the science you quoted is correct. Either way magic doesn't exist.
    As pointed out above, science only can be used to examine the physical universe by repeatable observation and examination. That excludes both evolution and creation. However, the facts of science can be used to come to conclusions. As I have been sharing, those facts disprove evolution, which must resort to magic to support its claims.

    When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

    1. The universe exists.
    2. The universe had a beginning.
    3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
    4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
    5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
    6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
    7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
    8. Life exists.
    9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
    10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
    11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

    Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

    The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

    “Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

    Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

    Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

    The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

    If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

    [ From “Reincarnation in the Bible?”]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  2. #502
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    12-08-2019
    Local Time
    02:19 AM

    Out-of-Sequence Fossils 3


    Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock (f). Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina (g). Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed (h).

    f. Andrew Snelling, “Fossil Bluff,” Ex Nihilo, Vol. 7, March 1985, p. 8.

    Carol Armstrong, “Florida Fossils Puzzle the Experts,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 21, March 1985, pp. 198–199.

    Pat Shipman, “Dumping on Science,” Discover, December 1987, p. 64.

    g. Francis S. Holmes, Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the “Great Carolina Marl Bed” (Charleston, South Carolina: Holmes’ Book House, 1870).

    Edward J. Nolan, “Remarks on Fossils from the Ashley Phosphate Beds,” Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1876, pp. 80–81.

    John Watson did extensive library research on the relatively unknown fossil discoveries in these beds. Their vast content of bones provides the rich phosphate content. Personal communications, 1992.

    h. A. C. Noé, “A Paleozoic Angiosperm,” Journal of Geology, Vol. 31, May–June 1923, pp. 344–347.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  3. #503
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    12-08-2019
    Local Time
    02:19 AM

    Out-of-Sequence Fossils 4


    Amber, found in Illinois coal beds, contain chemical signatures showing that the amber came from flowering plants, but flowering plants supposedly evolved 170 million years after the coal formed (i). In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian (j) rocks—rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambrian (k) rocks deposited before life allegedly evolved.


    Figure 12: Insect in Amber. The best-preserved fossils are encased in amber, protected from air and water and buried in the ground. Amber, a golden resin (similar to sap or pitch) usually from conifer trees such as pines, may also contain other preservatives. No transitional forms of life have been found in amber, despite evolutionary-based ages of 1.5–300 million years. Animal behaviors, unchanged from today, are seen in three-dimensional detail. For example, ants in amber show the same social and work patterns as ants today.

    Experts bold enough to explain how these fossils formed say that hurricane-force winds must have snapped off trees at their trunks, causing huge amounts of resin to spill out and act like flypaper. Debris and small organisms were blown into the sticky resin, which was later covered by more resin and finally buried. (Part II of this book will show that such conditions arose during the flood.)

    In a clean-room laboratory, 30–40 dormant, but living, bacteria species were removed from intestines of bees encased in amber from the Dominican Republic. When cultured, the bacteria grew! [See “Old DNA, Bacteria, and Proteins?”] This amber is claimed to be 25–40 million years old, but I suspect it formed at the time of the flood, only thousands of years ago. Is it more likely that bacteria can be kept alive thousands of years or many millions of years? Metabolism rates, even in dormant bacteria, are not zero.

    i. “A type of amber thought to have been invented by flowering plants may have been en vogue millions of years before those plants evolved...When the researchers analyzed the amber, though, they discovered a chemical signature know[n] only from the amber of flowering plants.” Rachel Ehrenberg, “Flowerless Plants Also Made Form of Fancy Amber,” Science News, Vol. 176, 24 October 2009, p. 5.

    “[The Illinois amber] has a molecular composition that has been seen only from angiosperms, which appeared much later in the Early Cretaceous.... [Amber resins] are so diverse that those from each plant species have a distinctive Py-GC-MS fingerprint that can be used to identify the plants that produced various ambers around the world.” David Grimaldi, “Pushing Back Amber Production,” Science, Vol. 326, 2 October 2009, p. 51.

    j. R. M. Stainforth, “Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana,” Nature, Vol. 210, 16 April 1966, pp. 292–294.

    A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, pp. 796–797.

    A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, “Spores and Tracheids from the Cambrian of Kashmir,” Nature, Vol. 169, 21 June 1952, pp. 1056–1057.

    J. Coates et al., pp. 266–267.

    k. George F. Howe et al., “A Pollen Analysis of Hakatai Shale and Other Grand Canyon Rocks,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 24, March 1988, pp. 173–182.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  4. #504
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    12-08-2019
    Local Time
    02:19 AM

    Out-of-Sequence Fossils 5


    Petrified trees in Arizona’s Petrified Forest National Park contain fossilized nests of bees and co****s of wasps. The petrified forests are reputedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants, which bees require) supposedly evolved almost 100 million years later (l). Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers are assumed to have evolved (m). Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale.

    l. Stephen T. Hasiotis (paleobiologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver), personal communication, 27 May 1995.

    Carl Zimmer, “A Secret History of Life on Land,” Discover, February 1998, pp. 76–83.

    m. Dong Ren, “Flower-Associated Brachycera Flies as Fossil Evidence for Jurassic Angiosperm Origins,” Science, Vol. 280, 3 April 1998, pp. 85–88.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  5. #505
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    12-08-2019
    Local Time
    02:19 AM

    Ape-Men? 1

    For over a century, studies of skulls and teeth have produced unreliable conclusions about man’s origin (a). Also, fossil evidence allegedly supporting human evolution is fragmentary and open to other interpretations. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relative to humans, is nonexistent (b).

    Stories claiming that fossils of primitive, apelike men have been found are overstated (c).

    It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown “man” was a hoax, yet Piltdown “man” was in textbooks for more than 40 years (d).

    a. “... existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution [based on skulls and teeth] are unlikely to be reliable.” Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, “How Reliable Are Human Phylogenetic Hypotheses?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97, No. 9, 25 April 2000, p. 5003.

    In 1995, nine anthropologists announced their discovery of early representatives of Homo habilis and Homo ergaster in China. [See Huang Wanpo et al., “Early Homo and Associated Artifacts from Asia,” Nature, Vol. 378, 16 November 1995, pp. 275–278.] Fourteen years later the same journal published a retraction. The discovery was of a “mystery ape.” [See Russell L. Ciochon, “The Mystery Ape of Pleistocene Asia,” Nature, Vol. 459, 18 June 2009, pp. 910–911.]

    How many more mystery apes are there, and do they explain other so-called “ape-men”?

    “We have all see [sic] the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh [tidy, but sheer nonsense]. Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates. ... almost every time someone claims to have found a new species of hominin, someone else refutes it. The species is said to be either a member of Homo sapiens, but pathological, or an ape.” Henry Gee, “Craniums with Clout,” Nature, Vol. 478, 6 October 2011, p. 34.

    b. “Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.” Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

    c. Lord Zuckerman candidly stated that if special creation did not occur, then no scientist could deny that man evolved from some apelike creature “without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation.” Solly Zuckerman (former Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government and Honorary Secretary of the Zoological Society of London), Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1970), p. 64.

    Bowden, pp. 56–246.

    Duane T. Gish, Battle for Creation, Vol. 2, editor Henry M. Morris (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976), pp. 193–200, 298–305.

    d. Speaking of Piltdown man, Lewin admits a common human problem even scientists have:

    “How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones—the cranial fragments—and “see” a clear simian signature in them; and “see” in an ape’s jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists’ expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data.” Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 61.”

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  6. #506
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    9,962
    Local Date
    12-08-2019
    Local Time
    01:19 AM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown “man” was a hoax, yet Piltdown “man” was in textbooks for more than 40 years
    God has been in the culture a lot longer and he's a hoax too.
    “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”
    Voltaire

    I have only one thing to do and that's
    Be the wave that I am and then
    Sink back into the ocean

    Fiona Apple

  7. #507
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    12-08-2019
    Local Time
    02:19 AM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahso! View Post
    God has been in the culture a lot longer and he's a hoax too.
    Unlike atheism and evolution that have no supporting evidence, the existence of God does:

    When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

    1. The universe exists.
    2. The universe had a beginning.
    3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
    4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
    5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
    6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
    7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
    8. Life exists.
    9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
    10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
    11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

    Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

    The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

    “Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

    Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

    Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

    The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

    If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

    [ From “Reincarnation in the Bible?”]
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  8. #508
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    9,962
    Local Date
    12-08-2019
    Local Time
    01:19 AM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    But your own bible says there is no evidence, it's all about faith.
    “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”
    Voltaire

    I have only one thing to do and that's
    Be the wave that I am and then
    Sink back into the ocean

    Fiona Apple

  9. #509
    Senior Member Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,796
    Local Date
    12-08-2019
    Local Time
    02:19 AM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahso! View Post
    But your own bible says there is no evidence, it's all about faith.
    Where does the Bible say that? 1 Thessalonians 5:21 tells us to "Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good."
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  10. #510
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    9,962
    Local Date
    12-08-2019
    Local Time
    01:19 AM

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Register to remove this ad.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    Where does the Bible say that? 1 Thessalonians 5:21 tells us to "Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good."
    This is a common problem when talking to Christians about the contents of the bible. Christians think there is hidden, cryptic meaning in extracting and quoting lines out of context. First Thessalonians is a letter and should be read as such. @5:21 Paul tells these obviously troubled church members not to simply dismiss prophecy (which was apparently going on during fellowshipping and most likely members were using the "gift" of prophecy to accuse others of sinning), but test each one as it is brought forward, he then goes on to encourage these people to hold onto that which is good and reject evil. Those are two separate instructions, not one as you've misrepresented by inserting a comma where a semicolon belongs (I went ahead and highlighted it above in red for you).

    Read the entire letter. Nowhere does Paul offer any proof of God or Jesus other than his word and the example he set for this while he spent time with them. Paul speaks often of 'hope', 'faith' and 'love' that the members need to share in order to remain vigilant in their belief. This church was obviously having a difficult time maintaining belief.

    How about the metaphor of 'doubting' Thomas? In the bible story, Jesus is supposed to have said in Matthew 24 that if anyone claims to know where Christ is (proof) not to believe it. So after Jesus dies Thomas does exactly that (he's actually the faithful one), he says: "nope, not gonna believe it unless I see it" and what does Jesus then supposedly say? "Blessed are those who have not seen and believe."

    There's plenty more!

    Faith, my misguided friend, it's all about faith.
    “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”
    Voltaire

    I have only one thing to do and that's
    Be the wave that I am and then
    Sink back into the ocean

    Fiona Apple

+ Reply to Thread
Page 51 of 443 FirstFirst ... 41 49 50 51 52 53 61 101 151 ... 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