The Reality of Evolution?

[CITFTA]

This is the place to continue the discussion of Evolution vs Creation to stop cluttering up the interesting reading thread.  Please feel free to share your opinions or beliefs.  However I would ask that you keep your replies respectful with NO personal attacks.  WE CAN DISAGREE WITHOUT BEING DISAGREEABLE.  Thanks for your cooperation in that goal.

Respectfully,
Carroll

[Centraflow]

I thought I would post this here as well, it sort of belongs to both threads

Does this explain why we have water on our planet Earth dating back some 4.5billion years?

Regards

Mike

[Grumage]

Hi Carroll.

From my point of view the thread title shows " bias " shouldn't there be a question mark at the end?

Cheers Graham.

[TinMan]

Hi Carroll.

From my point of view the thread title shows " bias " shouldn't there be a question mark at the end?

Cheers Graham.

Yes,well i guess we now have to prove that science trumps belief,so as we can get our mythical evolution shifted to the realm of reality.

In spite of !my! beliefs,i always love watching movies such as Noah's ark,Star trek,Stargate--all those sci-fi movies 


Brad

[Grumage]

I've always felt that " evolution " as suggested by Mr Darwin had some pretty major flaws. Survival of the fittest does make sense however.

I would have thought that after several million years of " evolution "  all the species here on earth would be very different by now ?

I have more to write but time is tight, the Beef Madras won't make itself!

Cheers Graham.

The onions are browning nicely.... There's one species that's a little different however, us!! We ARE evolving.

[TinMan]

I would first like to look at the story of Noah and the great flood,and all that which took place directly after- up until present day.

First i would like to present the mathematics(as math is a very accurate science) on the volume of water needed to cover all the hills and mountains as stated in Genesis 7:19-20
Quote: 19- And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20- Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

As i recall,Carroll said the earth was mostly flat,and the hills and mountains were formed due to the waters pressure. But as you can read in the bible it self,the hills and mountains already existed-as we know they did,and the 40 days and 40 nights of rain supplied enough water to cover them by 15 cubits-->22.5 feet, according to the bible.

Here is probably the most accurate calculation of the amount of water needed to achieve this feat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QJ7yZ9L1po&t=3s

And another quicker calculation ,that is also very close to the first,and also shows how fast the animals would have to have been loaded into the ark,along with the amount of room allocated to each animal,going on the sizes of the ark provided by the bible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5svTzxVa-xQ

So as you can see,mathematically the flood could never have happened,and the ark was just not big enough to house 2 of each kind of animal. We must also take into account that the flood lasted for 1 year and 10 days,and so enough food and water for all the animals,Noah and his family also had to be stored on the ark.

But lets say for a moment that the flood did happen,where did all that extra water go?
I mean,we are talking about over 3x that which is on earth today. 


Brad

[TinMan]

I've always felt that " evolution " as suggested by Mr Darwin had some pretty major flaws. Survival of the fittest does make sense however.

I would have thought that after several million years of " evolution "  all the species here on earth would be very different by now ?

I have more to write but time is tight, the Beef Madras won't make itself!

Cheers Graham.

The onions are browning nicely.... There's one species that's a little different however, us!! We ARE evolving.

Well when you consider that all life started from a single celled organism,i would say that there is a very large difference between species now--wouldnt you?.

[CITFTA]

Hi Carroll.

From my point of view the thread title shows " bias " shouldn't there be a question mark at the end?

Cheers Graham.

Hi Graham,

Yes you are correct.  The title is biased.  I will admit I am strongly bias about this subject.  I first became aware of the problems with the theory of evolution back in the mid 1970s.  I accidentally stumbled upon a book in the library that claimed there were a lot of problems with the theory of evolution and a lot of false information being presented to support the theory.  I have been looking at the scientific data for and against evolution for over 40 years now.  And I am convinced the real scientific evidence suggests that evolution could not have happened.

In the other thread there were some attempts to throw a lot of other things in with the discussion about evolution.  Whether we believe in the Judeo-Christian God or not doesn't change the scientific facts and evidence.  So let's set the religious part of the discussion aside and concentrate on whether or not evolution could be the way we and the rest of living things on this planet got to be here.

One example I remember from that first book that really took me by surprise was to learn that there are fossils that extend from one layer of rock to another layer of rock.  I remember a picture of a long leaf of a plant that was fossilized in two different types of rock.  How could that possibly be if it takes millions of years for fossils and rock layers to form.  There had to be another explanation.  The only logical explanation is that the first part of the fossil was surrounded by some form of sediment and then almost immediately another type of soil or sediment buried the upper part of the leaf.  You will never see any of these fossils presented in a book or article promoting evolution because they can't explain it and have it agree with their theory.

Take care,
Carroll

PS: I see Brad has posted while I was typing this.  I will answer his post in a bit.

[TinMan]

Hi Graham,

Yes you are correct.  The title is biased.  I will admit I am strongly bias about this subject.  I first became aware of the problems with the theory of evolution back in the mid 1970s.  I accidentally stumbled upon a book in the library that claimed there were a lot of problems with the theory of evolution and a lot of false information being presented to support the theory.  I have been looking at the scientific data for and against evolution for over 40 years now.  And I am convinced the real scientific evidence suggests that evolution could not have happened.

In the other thread there were some attempts to throw a lot of other things in with the discussion about evolution.  Whether we believe in the Judeo-Christian God or not doesn't change the scientific facts and evidence.  So let's set the religious part of the discussion aside and concentrate on whether or not evolution could be the way we and the rest of living things on this planet got to be here.

One example I remember from that first book that really took me by surprise was to learn that there are fossils that extend from one layer of rock to another layer of rock.  I remember a picture of a long leaf of a plant that was fossilized in two different types of rock.  How could that possibly be if it takes millions of years for fossils and rock layers to form.  There had to be another explanation.  The only logical explanation is that the first part of the fossil was surrounded by some form of sediment and then almost immediately another type of soil or sediment buried the upper part of the leaf.  You will never see any of these fossils presented in a book or article promoting evolution because they can't explain it and have it agree with their theory.

Take care,
Carroll

PS: I see Brad has posted while I was typing this.  I will answer his post in a bit.

I fail to see why you think this is so impossible,or has anything to do with evolution.
There is simply no relation to the same fossil being found in two different layers of sediment,and two different type fossils being found in two different layers of rock.

It is quite common and explainable to find a fossil spanning two different types of sediment layers.
But what has that got to do with finding an animal fossil that exists in one layer of rock,and in all the layers that follow, there is no trace of that animals fossil,but only to find we have different types of animal fossils that follow.

If the great flood were true,and all animals existed together at that time,then there fossil remains would all share the one layer left from the great flood. But that is not what we fine. We find instead that different types of animal fossils exist in different layers.


Brad

[CITFTA]

Hi Brad,

As we both know you can use math to try and prove almost anything.  It all depends on how you want to apply the math and whether or not you have accurate assumptions to start with.

Here is a video that pretty much explains most of the reasons why I do NOT believe in the myth of evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1940&v=O-tySAmdASk

This video is a little over 30 minute long so you will need some free time to watch it.  I know you are pretty busy with your engine and fuel research so I don't want to pull you away from that.  I have been amazed at your efforts and successes with that project.  You are doing a great job there!   

After you have had time to watch the video I would be glad to continue this discussion with you and any others that would like to join in.

Respectfully,
Carroll

PS: I see Brad posted again while I was typing.  The video explains why a single fossil in two layers of rock is important.

[Grumpy]

there be giants!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_of_Castelnau

https://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/skeletons-of-chinese-giants-found-in-5000yearold-ruins/

[Grumage]

Well when you consider that all life started from a single celled organism,i would say that there is a very large difference between species now--wouldnt you?.

Perhaps the word " allegedly " should have been used? But I'm not disputing your statement, the early fossil record clearly shows an     " evolution " of Flora and Fauna over millennia.

But.... At some point in time this process stopped, otherwise we'd be talking to our animal friends by now. That's what I was trying to convey.

Cheers Graham.

[F6FLT]

We must face the facts, evolutionism is a myth. God created the world. 
But there were some failures. You have to excuse him, it was his first time!

[CITFTA]

For those that may have missed it in the other thread, here again is a link from a SCIENTIFIC website that contains some SCIENTIFIC facts that prove evolution did not happen.

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html


Respectfully,
Carroll

[TinMan]

Perhaps the word " allegedly " should have been used? But I'm not disputing your statement, the early fossil record clearly shows an     " evolution " of Flora and Fauna over millennia.

But.... At some point in time this process stopped, otherwise we'd be talking to our animal friends by now. That's what I was trying to convey.

Cheers Graham.

The evolutionary process has not stopped Graham.
Also,why would you think that we should be able to talk to animals by now,when we (most of us)cant even talk to-or understand people that speak a different language to us-and there the same species.

We know there have been exstinction level events throughout time,which resulted in an !almost! complete restart of life on earth,otherwise we'd be walking along side Trex.

The creationist group them self clearly quote that they also believe in evolution,but there evolution is some sort of super evolution that happened over a few thousand years,and not millions of years as it really did.


Brad

[muDped]

...But there were some failures. You have to excuse him, it was his first time!

It would require some Scientific Evaluation but I'd say that the
young man's emaciated condition is the result of man's mischievous
folly and that he is otherwise genetically and physically sound.

There are, however, many humans with organic congenital defects
probably due to altered genes.  I myself have a slightly asymmetrical
body and only a single kidney.

We don't know yet the full story on how developmental ailments
came into existence, or why we suffer them, but one day we shall.

[Magluvin]

Well when you consider that all life started from a single celled organism,i would say that there is a very large difference between species now--wouldnt you?.

Well since it is just a theory, it is not necessarily a fact that all life started from a single celled organism, as you seem to claim it is.

Mags

[Magluvin]

We must face the facts, evolutionism is a myth. God created the world. 
But there were some failures. You have to excuse him, it was his first time!

Its funny how atheists play these guilt cards on believers. Milehigh used to write to me in PM at OU.com with these sorts of messages.

If you really understood why we were put here on earth, you wouldnt dare to post such things. But, it is people like yourselves that have their parts in His plan.

That child in your comic depiction will have his place in heaven. He or she would not think the use of that pic, by the comic writer or you, was funny in the least. Shameful.

Mags

[Magluvin]

"First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution."

https://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/


" Life Cannot Evolve from Non-Living Matter
It would seem that the biggest leap of faith for the evolutionist is the origination of life itself from non-living matter.  Such has never been demonstrated in the laboratory or observed in nature.  All living things have come about from other living things.  The argument is that it had to have happened because life abounds.  This is the logical flaw of begging the question; that conclusion has to be based on the assumption that God does not exist, and thus, He could not have created life.  No one can argue that if you assume God out of the argument from the outset that evolution is not the next-best theory; but we are not willing to be that close-minded.  Why exclude the possibility of a Creator?

But for a moment let us stipulate that some weird combination of circumstances did occur that created life.  There is still a problem for the evolutionist.  The characteristic of consciousness does not exist in the lowest forms of life (e.g., mold).  At some point this crud would have to acquire a sufficient degree of intelligence to be able to perceive that it existed, a characteristic that we call consciousness.  How could such evolve from nothing other than natural selection?  There is a major scientific/medical lack of understanding of consciousness and the connection between brain waves and our self-awareness.  Again the only explanation for the evolutionists is that it had to have evolved because it currently exists.  This circular argument begs the question once again, and again the existence of a Creator whose knowledge of such things is infinitely above ours is much a more reasonable explanation."

https://www.biblethought.net/arguments-against-evolution.html


"Complex Interdependent Components Cannot Evolve Incrementally
Darwin confessed that stating that natural selection could account for the evolution of the eye with all of its interdependent parts had to be considered "absurd in the highest degree."  There are many components of higher level living organisms that are much more complex than the most sophisticated automobile.  We can all understand that a car can hardly be considered as functional unless all of its essential components function to some rudimentary degree.  If we were to remove the spark plugs, for example it would become totally disabled.  Similarly with the carburetor.  There are many human organs that have dozens of interdependent components such as this, and they will not function at all unless every component is present and totally operational.  Natural selection could not possibly take advantage of the development of some of these components unless they were all perfectly in place and functional.  The presence of some and not others could even cause the organism to deteriorate.

Since there is no way that such components can evolve one at a time, the evolutionist has to claim that all of these components came about simultaneously through a process of mutation (if such can be called a process).  If ten components are essential to the functioning of a given organ, for example, it would do no good, natural-selection-wise, for nine of them to somehow evolve, since the only advantage the organism could possibly have would be for all ten of them to function simultaneously.

"A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular ... an immune system" ... and many others.  If a baby should be unlucky enough to be born without one of these, s/he will not likely survive.  Yet we are expected to believe that such an organism did exists on the way to getting everything working together perfectly.  While this is considering the entire organism, we must realize that there are any number of internal organs with such components that are all-or-nothing in their functionality.  The protein motors that enable human movement are examples of organs that have a large number of interacting components the absence of any one of which will prevent the organ from being functional.   Their coming into existence without their partial composition serving any function defies natural selection as being the cause for their evolution.

Unlike species cannot mate because the DNA in the male sperm must be comparable to that of the female egg for the necessary match to take place.  The chromosomes and genes from the sperm have to combine with the mother's contribution. For these to join together they have to be the same number of chromosomes and contain the same number of genes.  There are exceptional examples, but they are exceptions.  Let us suppose that a new species is formed in a particular male by some mutation event.  This could explain the evolution of a new species if it were not for the fact that the identical mutation would have to occur in the female in order for them to mate and have offspring, which is essential to the propagation of the new species.  Timing and co-location is crucial – if this should happen to a male and female separated in either time or distance, successful mating could not occur.

"There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of such [interdependent - dbb] systems. More than that, not even any hypothetical process can be thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive system could have evolved bit by bit over time!" "


https://www.biblethought.net/arguments-against-evolution.html



Mags

[JimBoot]

Whilst I strongly reject my Catholic upbringing and everything it stands for I do wonder 1. WHy do I have nipples 2. Why did our early ancestors wear animal skins 3. Why do we still have other primates. 4. Denisovians have been around for 150k years.....

[muDped]

1. WHy do I have nipples?

Now, that is an easy one! 

Because our species don't lay eggs.

But, this raises a related question:  Do transgenders
(M to F) develop breasts which produce milk as a
consequence of their hormone treatments?

[TinMan]

For those that may have missed it in the other thread, here again is a link from a SCIENTIFIC website that contains some SCIENTIFIC facts that prove evolution did not happen.

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html


Respectfully,
Carroll

Um Carroll
Perhaps you did not read the entire paper,which clearly explains evolution,and disproves the bibles story of creation.

Maybe you posted the wrong link ?.


Brad

[Magluvin]

I would first like to look at the story of Noah and the great flood,and all that which took place directly after- up until present day.

First i would like to present the mathematics(as math is a very accurate science) on the volume of water needed to cover all the hills and mountains as stated in Genesis 7:19-20
Quote: 19- And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20- Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

As i recall,Carroll said the earth was mostly flat,and the hills and mountains were formed due to the waters pressure. But as you can read in the bible it self,the hills and mountains already existed-as we know they did,and the 40 days and 40 nights of rain supplied enough water to cover them by 15 cubits-->22.5 feet, according to the bible.

Here is probably the most accurate calculation of the amount of water needed to achieve this feat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QJ7yZ9L1po&t=3s

And another quicker calculation ,that is also very close to the first,and also shows how fast the animals would have to have been loaded into the ark,along with the amount of room allocated to each animal,going on the sizes of the ark provided by the bible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5svTzxVa-xQ

So as you can see,mathematically the flood could never have happened,and the ark was just not big enough to house 2 of each kind of animal. We must also take into account that the flood lasted for 1 year and 10 days,and so enough food and water for all the animals,Noah and his family also had to be stored on the ark.

But lets say for a moment that the flood did happen,where did all that extra water go?
I mean,we are talking about over 3x that which is on earth today. 


Brad

It rained for 40 days and fourty nights!!!! I live in florida and I have seen what just 1 day of rain can do...


GEN 7:11   In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

'And the windows of heaven were opened up'   There was a rainbow which was to be a symbol that the earth would never flood like that again.  So if this was the first rainbow, then there must have been always cloudy days before this and or just a full haze, considering enough water to have the ability to rain continuously for 40 days and 40 nights straight. 

'the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up'   Is it that hard to believe that there may have been enough water 'in' the earth in combination with the nearly month and a half of straight rain to flood the earth? 

If the fountains of the earth were broken up. that would suggest many great earthquakes at the time and yes possibilities of say mount Everest being pushed into the great heights that it is. So it is possible that the biggest mountains did not exist before that time. Would or could there have been some gasses like sulfer or otherwise from volcanos that could have caused the massive rain to occur? Is it easier to believe that some freak accident produced a first cell of life, that was capable of replication and have the intelligence to evolve into better and better circumstances for itself.  What a crappy world to be born into in terms of survival. No trees, grass, nada.  Water and rocks, dust and possibly other dangerous liquids. Maybe one should think we are genetically related to grass or a black berry plant? Oh, was there more than one event that 'created magically' other life that were plants that evolved on their own terms???   I wonder if evolutionists believe that the atmosphere was the same as we have now when it all began.  In the creationists view, the atmosphere was 'designed' just right. 


'In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, '
I like this part. It simply shows that when it says 600yrs, it was really 600yrs.

Mags

[TinMan]

"First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution."

https://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/


" Life Cannot Evolve from Non-Living Matter
It would seem that the biggest leap of faith for the evolutionist is the origination of life itself from non-living matter.  Such has never been demonstrated in the laboratory or observed in nature.  All living things have come about from other living things.  The argument is that it had to have happened because life abounds.  This is the logical flaw of begging the question; that conclusion has to be based on the assumption that God does not exist, and thus, He could not have created life.  No one can argue that if you assume God out of the argument from the outset that evolution is not the next-best theory; but we are not willing to be that close-minded.  Why exclude the possibility of a Creator?

But for a moment let us stipulate that some weird combination of circumstances did occur that created life.  There is still a problem for the evolutionist.  The characteristic of consciousness does not exist in the lowest forms of life (e.g., mold).  At some point this crud would have to acquire a sufficient degree of intelligence to be able to perceive that it existed, a characteristic that we call consciousness.  How could such evolve from nothing other than natural selection?  There is a major scientific/medical lack of understanding of consciousness and the connection between brain waves and our self-awareness.  Again the only explanation for the evolutionists is that it had to have evolved because it currently exists.  This circular argument begs the question once again, and again the existence of a Creator whose knowledge of such things is infinitely above ours is much a more reasonable explanation."

https://www.biblethought.net/arguments-against-evolution.html


"Complex Interdependent Components Cannot Evolve Incrementally
Darwin confessed that stating that natural selection could account for the evolution of the eye with all of its interdependent parts had to be considered "absurd in the highest degree."  There are many components of higher level living organisms that are much more complex than the most sophisticated automobile.  We can all understand that a car can hardly be considered as functional unless all of its essential components function to some rudimentary degree.  If we were to remove the spark plugs, for example it would become totally disabled.  Similarly with the carburetor.  There are many human organs that have dozens of interdependent components such as this, and they will not function at all unless every component is present and totally operational.  Natural selection could not possibly take advantage of the development of some of these components unless they were all perfectly in place and functional.  The presence of some and not others could even cause the organism to deteriorate.

Since there is no way that such components can evolve one at a time, the evolutionist has to claim that all of these components came about simultaneously through a process of mutation (if such can be called a process).  If ten components are essential to the functioning of a given organ, for example, it would do no good, natural-selection-wise, for nine of them to somehow evolve, since the only advantage the organism could possibly have would be for all ten of them to function simultaneously.

"A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular ... an immune system" ... and many others.  If a baby should be unlucky enough to be born without one of these, s/he will not likely survive.  Yet we are expected to believe that such an organism did exists on the way to getting everything working together perfectly.  While this is considering the entire organism, we must realize that there are any number of internal organs with such components that are all-or-nothing in their functionality.  The protein motors that enable human movement are examples of organs that have a large number of interacting components the absence of any one of which will prevent the organ from being functional.   Their coming into existence without their partial composition serving any function defies natural selection as being the cause for their evolution.

Unlike species cannot mate because the DNA in the male sperm must be comparable to that of the female egg for the necessary match to take place.  The chromosomes and genes from the sperm have to combine with the mother's contribution. For these to join together they have to be the same number of chromosomes and contain the same number of genes.  There are exceptional examples, but they are exceptions.  Let us suppose that a new species is formed in a particular male by some mutation event.  This could explain the evolution of a new species if it were not for the fact that the identical mutation would have to occur in the female in order for them to mate and have offspring, which is essential to the propagation of the new species.  Timing and co-location is crucial – if this should happen to a male and female separated in either time or distance, successful mating could not occur.

"There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of such [interdependent - dbb] systems. More than that, not even any hypothetical process can be thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive system could have evolved bit by bit over time!" "


https://www.biblethought.net/arguments-against-evolution.html



Mags

Much easier to believe some sort of magic man in the sky created every living thing that exists today, in under a week,out of nothing--hey Mags

[Magluvin]

Now, that is an easy one! 

Because our species don't lay eggs.

But, this raises a related question:  Do transgenders
(M to F) develop breasts which produce milk as a
consequence of their hormone treatments?

Lol.  I laughed at Jims nipples comment.  Most all of plant species that are male and female have similar structures, shapes and features, just like humans and animals. So maybe we have evolved from grass. 

Mags