Hi Brad,
Now let's look at what you have provided as scientific PROOF of evolution.
So here is your chance. Please provide SCIENTIFIC evidence for the following:
Sincerely and very respectfully,
your friend, Carroll
I have debated with myself for several days now as to whether I should make this post or not. I sincerely do NOT want to offend you or ridicule what you believe. I have a great amount of respect for you. You are clearly a very intelligent person. And your mechanical skills are simply amazing. So I do mean it when I say I have a great amount of respect for you. But I feel I really need to say the following things.
No offence taken at all Carroll,and this is the reason we have threads within the forum-->to discuss things.
You keep making the claim that science proves evolution. I of course strongly disagree with that statement. I have provided several links to scientific articles that show that evolution is either not possible at all or is mathematically improbable as to be impossible.
It was also said to be highly improbable that we could send man to the moon in 1969,but !apparently! we did.
It was also said it would be highly improbable that man would build flying machines,but we did.
I first presented an article that was the latest data obtained from the study of the DNA of thousands of animals from all over the earth. The data showed that almost all animals came into existence at almost the same time. This is clearly not possible if all animals slowly evolved over time. It also showed that the animals were the same age as humans. Also not possible if we all had evolved over time. It also showed that according to the DNA mankind and the animals were between 100,000 and 200,000 years old.Your reply was that the article showed the Bible was wrong when it said the the earth was 6,000 years old. SO WHAT! That has nothing to do with scientifically proving evolution was real. That is called a straw man argument. It had nothing to do with the DNA evidence refuting evolution.
Well yes.
The bible says the earth is only 6000 years old,but you wish to use information supplied by a study that shows 90% of life here on earth is at least 100,000-200,000 years old.
The article says that !90%! of the animals were around the same age as humans,which means that !what we class! as humans have existed for at least 100,000 to 200,000 years. So if you wish to use there DNA samples as proof of anything,it would have to be proof that man has been around a lot longer than the bible states.
As we know,the earth has been through many near extinction event's,like ice ages,large volcanic activities, and meteor strikes. This is like pushing the reset button,and starting over again. But in all cases,there have been survivors (as your study clearly indicates-the 10,000 different species that were here beyond the 200,000 year limit of there study),and life continue's on from those survivors.
What i see as a common mistake here,is that creationist's think new species just pop into existence over night,when in fact it takes 10s of thousands of years for changes to take place. So between 100,000 and 200,000 years is a long time for live to evolve from those 10,000 species that survived,which your study clearly accounts for.
Now don't you find it odd that the creationist believe in micro evolution,but not macro evolution ?.
Well that is because you have no choice with micro evolution,because not only have we seen it happen with our own eyes,the bible says it happens. But when the creationist's think evolutionary changes are out of sight-macro evolution,then they say it's not possible. Fact is ,evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change.
mutation
migration
genetic drift
natural selection
You simply cannot believe in one and not the other.
You then pointed out that the article said that this accounted for 90% of the animals. So what about the other 10% you asked. Well what about them? The article didn't say if they were even tested or not. It just said the DNA accounted for 90% of the life forms on earth. Another straw man argument.
As i stated above,that 10,000 different specie of animals,over a period of there 100,000 year gap,is quite enough time for new species to evolve. As i also stated,they are not referring to an over night event here,we are talking 10s of thousands of years.
Now,if we look at what the bible says,where there were only 2 of a !kind! of each animal taken on board the ark,and in just 6000 years we have 1000's of different types of !say! dogs for example,from just a single pair of 1 type of dog(maybe a wolf),then your bible also says that big changes can happen in short periods of time.
So if micro evolution can happen in just 6000 years,on the scale we see today,then imagine the changes that can happen over 100,000 years--the gap given by the study you posted.
And the fact that we all share some DNA trait's is absolute evidence we all evolved from a single parent specie's.
I also presented a nice video explaining why creationist believe the fossil record correctly shows the results of a world wide flood and clearly showed the rock layers of the Grande Canyon and how all those layers were perfectly smooth and flat with no signs of erosion between the layers which could only have occurred if they were all laid down at the same time.
Well the grand canyon actually disproves a great flood,and conforms exactly to events over millions of years.
First up,if you take a bucket of water,and mix in a number of different materials/dirts,clays,etc,and mix them all up(as would be done in a big flood),then tip it out so as the water drains away(as it did in the flood !apparently!),then you will not get perfect layers of different sediment as we see in the grand canyon.
You will get very blurred mixings between some layer forms.
Second-another test i gave you to try,but no one took on that one either
How exactly did the great flood burry different types of animals in each layer-how did it separate the different types of animals in each separate layer?. If it was a great flood that formed the layer's,then all the animals that existed back then would be in every layer together--not separated as we find them today.
Third. When floods occur,they carve straight paths through the earth,not winding valley's that we see with the grand canyon. The grand canyon was carved out over millions of years by a river,not a big flood.
Your reply which you have reposted several times is that some mathematician claimed there was no place for all that water to go. You posted that, even though the evidence from geology shows there have been massive changes in the earths surface and the depths of the oceans can easily hold the flood waters after the flood when the tectonic plates shifted and opened up the deep sea trenches. And the surface if the earth is still 70% water. And again another straw man argument. Whether there was a flood or not does not prove evolution.
Once again,there is no straw man argument,but only facts.
The bible clearly states that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights,and stopped when all the !high! hills and
mountain's under the heavens were covered by 15 cubits of water. So from this,we know that the mountains and high hill already existed. We also know for fact that there is not enough water on earth to achieve this feat,nor is there anywhere for that volume of water to drain to.
tectonic plates shifted and opened up the deep sea trenches.
First- i gave you a simple experiment to try,and that was to show us how the weight of water can push up rock and sand,and then post your results here.
Second,in order for that volume of water to be dispersed,the same volume of rock and sand would have to be displaced--so where is it if all the high hills and mountain's already existed as the bible quotes ?.
I presented an article about Sir Fred Hoyle. He was a very famous mathematician and well known atheist. His calculations clearly show that the creation of life could not have ever happened by accident. Not in many many billions of years. His words said it was mathematically impossible. You response was that evolution was only about change over time and not the creation of life. HUH? The whole premise of evolution is that random chance is the means by which life was created and evolution is possible. You also pointed out he was an astronomer. I assume you meant by that that his math about evolution might be faulty. So you will take the math of some unknown guy on YouTube but reject the math of one of the most famous mathematicians of the last century.
How exactly did he calculate the chance of life beginning without knowing what processes were taking place on earth billions of years ago? Could he also calculate how much rain will fall on a given day before that day is over?.
You cannot calculate chance without knowing any of the processes taking place at that time.
Evolution is just that-how life evolves over time. It is not about how life started,nor dose science claim to know how life started. But like evolution,science will one day show how life can start from the correct mixture of chemicals under the right conditions.
It's the very same situation with magnetism. We know exactly how to use magnetism,but we do not know what it is.So we know exactly how evolution work's,but do not know as of yet how life started.
Not knowing yet how life started dose not in any way disprove evolution. Just like not knowing what magnetism is dose not mean we do not know how to use it.
You also pointed out he was an astronomer
Yes,and that brings up another question i asked you(and other believers here),that you nor anyone else has answered.
Question-->If god created the heavens and earth only 6000 odd years ago,how is it the Andromeda galaxy can be 2.5 million light years away,or Maffei 2 at 9.13 million light years,or NGC 4945 at 11.7 million light years away ?.
We know the speed of light is a constant,or are we going to change that now as well?.
I could go on but I think you see what I mean. Instead of offering scientific proof you insist on bringing up arguments that don't really have anything to do with proving evolution. Again, proving the Bible false does NOT make evolution true.
Everything i have offered is scientific proof,where what you have offered is all disproven by science.
You seem to be particularly determined to prove the Bible is false.
Well it was you who started the thread off with the title !the myth of evolution!.
Also,it is not me trying to disprove the bible. Science just happened to do that on it's journey to finding out where we came from,and how we got here.
You also seem to have a problem with the Biblical claim that God created Adam from dust. Well golly gee. If He can create the whole world from nothing then creating man from dust is a pretty small achievement don't you think. I mean that is what He does. He creates.
It is odd that creationist's keep saying that the universe could not just of popped into existence from nothing,but then claim god did exactly that
I wonder what your mathematician would have calculated those odd's at?.
Another question i asked that also remains unanswered-->If all things are created,then who created god?
How can a compound structure like the eye have evolved over time?
Because we can clearly see how different animals eyes have evolved to suit there environment.
For example,dogs see far better than us,even more so at night,as most nocturnal animals can.
There eyes evolved over time to suit the environment they reside in,that being the dark of night.
In fact,the human eye is of medeoka quality compared to most animals.If god made us in his image,perhaps he was slightly blind ?
Quote:
The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch. The eye is not that complex.
What i mean is,we can make cameras that see better than we do.
We can transmit electromagnetic waves through the air,and then use electronics(the TV) to convert those electromagnetic waves into very high definition motion pictures.
Why have no missing link fossils ever been found?
That is an incorrect statement used only by creationist's.
Also,what do you refer to as a !missing link!,as there are no !missing links! as you call them.
How could all those rock layers have been laid down perfectly flat with no erosion between layers if they supposedly took millions of years to form?
They are a classic example of how the environment has change over those millions of years.
Example,if the environment was a lush green rainforest environment,and over the next 20,000 years it turned into a dry hot environment,we would see two distinctive different layers.
We would also find two very different types of animals in each layer-which we do.
We would not see erosion as you expect us to see,due to the winds keeping most everything level over those millions of years. What we would see is hills and valleys over long distances,which we do.
Once again,you are trying to cram all these events into a time scale that you can comprehend,and not the millions of years it actually happened over.
Now,if they were formed by a great flood,we would not find different species of animals in each layer,we would find them all mixed together in all layers--which we do not find.
Also erosion would be very apparent if a great flood formed those layers. The sheer volume of water running over the landscape when the flood waters were reciedding would have carved huge straight valleys into the sediment layers,but we don't see that.
There is also the fact that raging flood waters do not create definitive layers as we see.
How could those same rock layers have been bent perfectly smoothly like we see in some mountains without them breaking if they weren't pliable when they were pushed up into the mountain shapes.
Once again,you are trying to visualise these events taking place in a time scale you can conceive,and not the millions of years it actually took. Rock is formed over millions of years from sands and particulates-it dose not just become rock once it is formed in a layer. Damp rock can be bent over time in the right conditions,just as a glass panel standing vertical over years will become thicker on the bottom,and thinner up top.
If you take a piece of copper pipe,and you bend it,it will kink at the bend. If you fill that copper pipe with water or sand,seal the ends,and then bend it,it will not kink at the bend. Can you imagine the pressures on top and below each rock layer,and the heat generated when that rock is being deformed?. When you heat rock up hot enough,it becomes a liquid,and solid rock can then be bent.
Lets say that the bend in the rock layer is a 2 meter high deformation/bend over a distance of say 5 meters.
To achieve that over a million years,the rock layer would have to deform just 2 microns (.oo2 of a mm) each year over that 5 meters.Not looking that hard now,is it.
From my point of view Brad, you don't have a real strong bias for evolution. But you do have a very strong bias against the Bible because that is what you keep going back to. But again I have to say that trying to prove the Bible wrong does not prove evolution right.
We must keep in mind here Carroll,that it was you that opened this thread with the title name-the myth of evolution. So it would seem that your bias against evolution was apparent before anyone else made a post.
You have also stated that no matter what evidence anyone provides for evolution,your mind will not be swayed.
So i responded in kind,and gave the evidence required by science to prove that evolution is not a myth,but a fact.
It just so happens that along the way,we also showed the bible and the stories within it to be the myth,and not evolution as the original thread title insinuated. In fact,you yourself helped prove the bible wrong when you posted that paper showing man and animals to be much much older than 6000 years.
So now that i have answered your questions,and provided the requested proofs of evolution,perhaps you can do the same.Your answers must be provable by known science.
1-How did the water push up enough rock and sand,so as the flood waters receded,when it cannot even raise the soft beach sand on the ocean floor ?
2-How is it that the receding flood waters carved out a winding chanel through the grand canyon,when all other floods have shown straight channels carved from the earths surface?.
3- How did the flood result in different species of animals being placed in the different layers of rock,and not all being mixed up together in all the layers of rock?.
4-If God created the heavens and earth some 6000 years ago,how is it that we have galaxies that are millions of light years away?.
5-how can you believe in micro evolution,but not macro evolution,when the only difference between the two is time?.
6-Where have all the dinosaurs gone if Noah had them on the ark ?.
If he had them on the ark,then that means they existed after the flood waters receded.
That being the case,and they died out shortly after,we should find the skeletons on the top layer of the earths surface--which we do not.
If the dinosaurs were not taken upon the ark,but existed with man,why do we not find mans fossil remains with those of the dinosaurs?.
7-If everything was created,who created God?.
I mean,if god created everything,did he exist in nothing before everything was created?.
I have many more,but will leave it at that for now.
Respectfully
Brad
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
Author
Topic: The Reality of Evolution? (Read 19726 times)
