Science Disproves Evolution

Point taken: Scientists speculate about the big bang based upon the accumulation of evidence that evidence is as follows:
1: Large Scale Homogeneity, Discovered by the Las Campanas Red shift survey. This shows that on a large scale, if you divide the universe into circles (at least tens of millions of light years across) the standard variation of the number of galaxies from circle to circle is significantly smaller than the number of galaxies contained within in each circle.
2: Cosmological redshift, Discovered by Hubble - this is the equation that relates the redshift of a galaxy to its distance and is a result of expanding universe.. This only works with objects greater than 30 million light years away. Below this distance the wavelength shifting due to the Doppler effect can overwhelm the cosmological redshift Andromeda galaxy is a case in point. A. G. Riess, W. Press, and R. Kirshner, A Precise Distance Indicator: Type Ia Supernova Multicolor Light Curve Shapes, Astrophys. J. 473 (1996) 88
3: Abundance of light elements: For about the first three minutes of the universe - it was very hot and dense - enough so that there was free protons and neutrons. The pressure and heat was enough that primordial nucleosynthesis could occur producing He nuclei with some Deuterium, lithium and beryllium, all heavier elements being formed in stellar or supernova fusion. As deuterium has a low binding energy, that element formed in stellar fusion gets used up very quickly - so any free deuterium is most likely primordial in nature. Using the big bang theory scientists can estimate the amount of these light elements that should exist and measure them. K. A. Olive and G. Steigman, On the abundance of primordial helium, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 97 (1995) 49

I can provide further examples if required but must get back no to my real job

Why do you say evolution is anti christian when more christians accept evolution as fact than do not. Virtually all the major christian churches accept evolution - an it is only a small minority that do not.

Therefore evolution is true. Seriously, stop bringing that up, it doesn't aid your argument in any way, and it's been addressed at least a dozen times thoughout this 63 page topic.

The point I am trying to make is that evolution is not anti christian, completely different argument as to whether it is true or not. You are the one drawing that conclusion from my post.

Evolution teaches that the cause of everything is natural, unintelligent forces of nature.
Christianity teaches that the cause of everything is Intelligent Design--God.

How can a Christian reconcile these two contradictory teachings?


Theistic Evolution Won’t Save the Day

Some evolutionists might argue that they can account for uniformity just as the Christian does—by appealing to a god who upholds the universe in a law-like fashion.13 But rather than believing in Genesis creation, they believe that this god created over millions of years of evolution. However, theistic evolution will not resolve the problem. A theistic evolutionist does not believe that Genesis is literally true. But if Genesis is not literally true, then there is no reason to believe that Genesis 8:22 is literally true. This verse is where God promises that we can count on a certain degree of uniformity in the future. Without biblical creation, the rational basis for uniformity is lost.

It’s not just any god that is required in order to make sense of uniformity; it is the Christian God as revealed in the Bible. Only a God who is beyond time, consistent, faithful, all powerful, omnipresent, and who has revealed Himself to mankind can guarantee that there will be uniformity throughout space and time. Therefore, only biblical creationists can account for the uniformity in nature.

Evolution Is Irrational

In fact, if evolution were true, there wouldn’t be any rational reason to believe it! If life is the result of evolution, then it means that an evolutionist’s brain is simply the outworking of millions of years of random-chance processes. The brain would simply be a collection of chemical reactions that have been preserved because they had some sort of survival value in the past. If evolution were true, then all the evolutionist’s thoughts are merely the necessary result of chemistry acting over time. Therefore, an evolutionist must think and say that “evolution is true” not for rational reasons, but as a necessary consequence of blind chemistry.

Scholarly analysis presupposes that the human mind is not just chemistry. Rationality presupposes that we have the freedom to consciously consider the various options and choose the best. Evolutionism undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science.

Conclusions

Evolution is anti-science and anti-knowledge. If evolution were true, science would not be possible because there would be no reason to accept the uniformity of nature upon which all science and technology depend. Nor would there be any reason to think that rational analysis would be possible since the thoughts of our mind would be nothing more than the inevitable result of mindless chemical reactions. Evolutionists are able to do science and gain knowledge only because they are inconsistent; professing to believe in evolution, while accepting the principles of biblical creation.

Evolution: The Anti-science - Answers in Genesis

Evolution is neither "anti-science" nor "anti-knowledge." From a secular worldview, the basis for accepting the consistency and uniformity of the universe is because it's what we observe. Observation and experience are properly basic, and our observation and experience show a consistency in the natural world. This doesn't have to be assumed; it can be observed and tested. That's what science does.

Did anyone hear about the Dinosaur someone found with blood vessels? Yeah. Soft tissue survived 68 million years.(I didn't pull that number out of a hat- that's what they're trying to say.) Hurray for science. Now if only I could get canned food to survive that long.... (Can you wrap your head around how much time that is? That is a LOT of time.)

Here's a snippet from an article:
"Scientists modelling Titan’s[Saturn's Moon] atmosphere have calculated that it should contain no methane but should have been used up in tens of millions of years That’s because many chemical reactions use up methane in Titan’s atmosphere. Although there is some replenishment with methane evaporating off Titan’s surface this is not enough to solve the problem. In fact, there is probably also methane escaping Titan’s atmosphere into space,which would mean that Titan’s calculated upper limit ‘age’ could be even younger than 10 million years. Clearly this is contrary to the billions-of-years age for the solar system. On the other hand, such evidences of youth are expected for a solar system of biblical age."
Young solar system
(The link will show more "mysteries" that scientists who believe the billion years stick can't explain- but creationism to it's core((The earth being thousands of years old)) does explain. Just scroll down from the video- the video is only explaining what the site is about.)

I took a Botany class in college- where the teacher tried to prove to us how macroevolution was true. She showed us many things, and each time she showed us something, instead of doubting in our Lord I praised him. 'Cause this is a seriously cool planet.


But what really gets me is- well before I dig in you should know these two things: #1- Bees see ultraviolet light. #2 Humans do not.(Though we have awesome technology that shows us things)

I was shown how evolution was so very precise that a particular flower has developed arrows pointing to its pollen. These arrows can only be seen in ultraviolet light. She was telling me how evolution did that so that the bees know where to go.

An arrow is a triangle. Three lines that come together at a point. A human being might look at an electrical outlet and see a face- but is it actually a face? No. We just saw a pattern that reminded us of something. That triangle, arrow, means something to us. It means, THIS WAY. What if we had chosen a square to mean the same thing? Then that triangle would be just a shape among others with no meaning other than what we give it.

A bee doesn't have symbols. A bee doesn't draw things. He doesn't read signs or feel all fuzzy when he sees a less than sign besides the number three.

Those arrows weren't for the bee. Those arrows were for us. Standing as proof of God's creation.

I'm sure that a lot of people defending evolution on this website do believe in God- which is at least one thing. But don't try putting the guy in a box and say he can't do something- when you yourself cannot will your own heart to beat. And if this helps at all, I do believe what the Bible says is true- including the fact that the world was created in 6 days- and on the 7th we rested. I'm surprised that there are so many people here who are saying that it 'just happens' AND 'it was created.' Logic...... loogiiiic you people *said in playful dramatics*

When you kiss a frog and he immediately turns into a prince, that is a fairy tale. But if a frog turns into a prince slowly over millions of years, that is science!

If you can walk a mile can you walk 10 miles? Sure you can,
it just takes longer.

Did you actually research that claim to find out whether or not it was true?

Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex

Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms

PLOS ONE: Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival

PLOS ONE: Influence of Microbial Biofilms on the Preservation of Primary Soft Tissue in Fossil and Extant Archosaurs

Nope. Frogs have been evolving as long as we have. Our last common ancestor was a tetropod; frogs didn't exist until much later.

Also, someone has already posted the 29+ evidences of macroevolution and
the evidence of common descent. It seems that evidence just gets
ignored here. Why do creationists ask for evidence just to deny it whenever it's
presented?

Various Indian drawings on rock walls tell us the Indians actually saw living dinosaurs. They drew on rock walls what they saw with their eyes. The Anasazi Indians of the American southwest
made pictures on rocks showing dinosaurs and men. A thick coat of “desert varnish” on these images proves that these pictures were created many hundreds of years ago. Desert varnish (windblown pollen and dust) slowly accumulates on rocks in the desert; the varnish on the Anasazi pictures is so thick that they must have been drawn many hundreds of years ago. Therefore,
these art works are not frauds perpetrated by mischievous European newcomers (who had no motive for such a fraud), but were made by natives long ago, showing men and dinosaurs living together. In the ancient city of Angkor in Cambodia, we can see a stegosaurus carved in one of the temple walls. In Mexico, many hundreds ancient dinosaur figurines have been unearthed, some even with men riding them! (see below)​

Footprints in the sand

​

There are many dinosaur footprints being found worldwide. Some have been found with human footprints. Evolutionists do everything they can to discredit these finds. You - the reader - must decide for yourself. We try to gather as much archaeological information as possible to help you know how much evidence is being kept from you in the school textbooks - information the evolutionists don't want you to know about.

​

​

The Alvis Delk Track

​

This spectacular fossil footprint was found in July of 2000 by amateur archaeologist, Alvis Delk of Stephenville, Texas and is now on display at the Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, TX. Mr. Delk found the loose slab against the bank of the Paluxy River, about one mile north of Dinosaur Valley State Park. He flipped over the rock and saw an excellent dinosaur track, so he took it home where it sat in his living room for years, with hundreds of other fossils.
Early in 2008 he had a devastating accident. He fell off of a roof incurring damage that required months of hospitalization. He still has a dangerous blood clot in his brain. When he returned to his home, he decided he would sell the dinosaur track, thinking Dr. Carl Baugh of the nearby Creation Evidence Museum would pay a few hundred dollars for it. He began to clean the rock, and that was when he discovered the fossil human footprint underneath the dried clay! The human footprint had been made first, and shortly thereafter (before the mud turned to stone), a dinosaur stepped in the mud with its middle toe stepping on top of the human track. You can actually see the displaced mud from the dinosaur's middle toe inside the human footprint. Spiral CT scans are used to generate images of the inside of an object from a large series of two-dimensional X-ray images taken around a single axis of rotation. This technology provides an effective means of analyzing fossil footprints without physically destroying them. It allows us to see inside the rock, specifically, under the footprint.

​

​

The slab was taken to the Glen Rose medical center where spiral CT scans were performed on the rock. Over 800 X-ray images document density changes within the rock that correspond precisely with the fossil footprints. Of course, carvings would show no corresponding structures beneath them. The existence of following contours beneath the fossil footprints dramatically demonstrate the authenticity of both tracks.
According to evolutionary theory, the dinosaur tracks at Glen Rose, TX were made at least 100 million years before humans were supposed to have evolved. Of course dinosaurs and humans cannot be stepping in each other's footprint if they are millions of years apart. These footprints provide profound evidence refuting the evolutionary myth. Of course, evolutionists do everything they can to refute findings like these, I guess simply because it doesn't agree with their religion. How much better would their time be spent seriously looking into all of the archaeological finds around them, instead of discounting them!​

Precambrian Trilobites are supposed to be separated from man by millions of years, yet fossils appear in "recent" strata and even within a fossil sandal print. There are thousands of fossils that are "out of order" and even sophisticated man-made artifacts in "ancient" rock. There are fossil clams on the highest mountains and human tracks in supposed ancient layers of volcanic ash.

​

[TABLE="width: 50%"]
[TR]
[TD]

A fossil footprint was discovered in June 1968 by William J. Meister on an expedition to Antelope Spring, 43 miles west of Delta, Utah. The sandal that seems to have crushed a living trilobite was 10 1/4 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide; the heel is indented slightly more than the sole, as a human shoe print would be.[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]

​

This photo was taken by the late Dr. Cecil Daugherty, in the 1970's. It shows a human footprint within a trail of dinosaur tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

Dinosaurs Died Out About 65 Million Years Ago?


If you accept this premise, there should be no known human contact with dinosaurs in history. You judge if there has been recent interaction between humans and “dinosaurs.” The word “dinosaur” was not used until 1841, when a British scientist, Sir Richard Owen, while studying the fossils of large reptiles, decided they were a new order of animal, and named them dinosaurs (which means terrible lizards). Throughout history, these “terrible lizards” have encountered humans, and many of the encounters took place in Sir Owens’ own British Isles.
From The History of the British Kings, translated from a now unknown ancient Welsh language by Geoffry of Monmouth, we learn that King Morvidus (who ruled around 330 B.C.) was devoured by a large reptilian monster. The account states that the creature “gulped down the body of Morvidus as a big fish swallows a little one.” The animal was called a belua.1 A monster at Buries in Suffolk, England is reported in a chronicle from 1405 A.D.:

“Close to the town of Buries, near Sudbury, there has lately appeared, to the great hurt of the countryside, a dragon, vast in body, with a crested head, teeth like a saw, and a tail extending to an enormous length. Having slaughtered the shepherd of a flock, it devoured many sheep.” After failed attempts by local archers to kill the beast, due to its tough hide: . . . “in order to destroy him, all the country people around were summoned. When the dragon saw that he was again to be assailed by arrows, he fled into a marsh or mere and there hid himself among the long reeds, and was no more seen.”
​

British government officials apparently were unaware that flying reptiles had been extinct for millions of years when they reported in 1793 A.D.:

“In the end of November and beginning of December last, many of the country people observed…dragons, appearing in the north and flying rapidly towards the east, from which they concluded, and their conjectures were right, that . . . boisterous weather would follow.”
​

The lore and literature of Great Britain are peppered with other accounts of reptilian giants. Hundreds of sightings of the “Loch Ness Monster” have made news; but over forty sightings on Loch Morar, and other sightings on Lochs Lomond, Awe, and Rannoch have not made the news.
Over 100 townships of Britain have reported dragons throughout their histories; yet, they went extinct 65 million years ago? Apollonius of Tyana, traveler and historian from 2,000 years ago, noted that “. . . the whole of India is girt with enormous dragons, in marshes and mountains.” He said that the marsh dragons were 30 cubits (about 60 feet) long, sluggish, with black skin, and fewer scales than the mountain dragons. Apollonius chronicled these mountain dragons as being golden in color, of great length, fast as a river, and killers of elephants.
The Roman historian, Pliny the Elder, said that in India the elephants are constantly at war with the dragons. He noted that the dragons would leap from trees onto passing elephants, bite their trunks and eyes, and coil about them. The elephants tried to scrape the dragons off on the trees, but the dragons’ coiling constriction and venom killed the elephants, which then fell dead upon the dragons and fatally crushed them. Likewise, the dragons would hide in waterholes and ambush the elephants, with the same ensuing struggles and results.
Herodotus, a Greek historian from around 400 B.C., wrote that serpents soared in the skies of Arabia.9 (This winged serpent, called by the natives “Kongamato,” apparently still flies in southern Africa.)
The Sioux Indians of America tell of a 20-foot 5 wingspan flying creature being hit by lightning, and made pictures of this creature; this may be is the infamous “Thunderbird” which has been in American Indian lore for centuries. Two Arizona cowboys, as reported in the “Tombstone Epitaph” newspaper, killed a large flying reptile in 1890. The creature reportedly had an eight foot alligator-like head with a mouth full of teeth. The cowboys cut of its wing tip (which was a tough membrane, like a bat’s) for a trophy.
Nerluc, France was renamed in honor of a dragon killing. The animal reportedly was larger than an ox with long, sharp horns. The well-known old European science book, “Historia Animalium,” says that dragons were not extinct in the 1500’s A.D., but were very rare and relatively small. In the Bible, the book of Job 40:15 (probably from about 2000 B.C.) describes in great detail the Behemoth. Huge, lumbering and living in swamps, it had a tail “like a cedar tree.” Evolutionists claim this creature was an elephant or hippopotamus; but with a tail like a cedar tree? I think not.
The Anasazi Indans of the American southwest made pictures on rocks showing dinosaurs and men.15 A thick coat of “desert varnish” on these images proves that these pictures were created many hundreds of years ago. Desert varnish (windblown pollen and dust) slowly accumulates on rocks in the desert; the varnish on the Anasazi pictures is so thick that they must have been drawn many hundreds of years ago. Therefore, these art works are not frauds perpetrated by mischievous European newcomers (who had no motive for such a fraud), but were made by natives long ago, showing men and dragons living together.
In South America, burial stones from the Ica Stones reveal creatures that look like triceratops, pterosaurs, and tyrannosaurus rexes coexisting with humans. On Dec.11, 1999 villagers near Boboa, New Guinea saw a huge swimming lizard, as reported in “The Independent” newspaper of Papua, New Guinea. The newspaper also declared that the following day, a pastor and church elder saw the animal not far from the first sighting. The creature was described as having a body “as long as a dump truck and nearly two meters wide, with a long neck and long slender tail.” It was walking on hind legs as thick “as thick as a coconut palms’ tree trunk,” and had two smaller forelegs. The head was similar in shape to a cow’s, with large eyes and “sharp teeth as long as fingers.” The skin was like a crocodile, and it had “largish scoops on its back.”
The Roman historian, Dio (also known as Cassius), wrote that one day, when Regulus, a Roman consul (third century B.C.), was fighting against Carthage (North Africa), a dragon suddenly crept up and settled behind the wall of the Roman army. The Romans killed it by order of Regulus, skinned it, and sent the hide to the Roman Senate. When the dragon was measured by order of the Senate, it turned to be an amazing 120 feet long, and the thickness was fitting to the length. Were the thousands of people who have seen gigantic reptiles all lying or hallucinating? This is highly unlikely. The evidence is overwhelming that dinosaurs did not go extinct 65 million years ago. To ignore the plethora of dinosaur sightings and detailed descriptions is akin to the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand.


Dinosaur Fossils Are Millions Of Years Old?


Since dinosaurs have been with us throughout history, one wonders if the dinosaur fossils are as old as advertised (65-150 million years old). Fossils formed when sand and clay covered dead or dying organisms at the bottom of a body of water. Subsequently, the water receded from these sedimentary deposits, allowing them to dry out and harden into rock, and thus, encased the organisms. If these creatures did die and fossilize millions of years ago, no organic material should be present in the fossils, as this material would have disintegrated or been mineralized millions of years ago. But lo and behold, fossils have been discovered containing residual organic material, thus indicating the fossils are in the thousands, not millions, of years of age. This should not surprise us, as dinosaurs are inextricably linked to human history.
Organic osteocalcyn was found in dinosaurs’ bones, as reported by Gerhard Muyzer. This bone protein should have long ago randomly decomposed, or turned into rock (mineralized) by mineral-rich waters percolating through the entombed creature and its surrounding rock, presuming the bones are millions of years old. In Mongolia, a mother dinosaur fossil was excavated which was brooding upon 22 eggs. The presence of protein in buried dinosaur eggs is highly surprising considering the chemical instability of protein. Faculty and staff at Montana State University were shocked to discover that a tyrannosaurus rex bone contained red blood cells. These old earth, evolutionist researchers ran six different tests, attempting to prove they were not red blood cells. But all the tests came back positive, causing panic for mainstream earth scientists; though predictably, the test results were not front-page news, as the other revelations of allegedly anomalous organic presence were not.
Dinosaur bones have been discovered in Alberta, Canada that are encased within ironstone nodules. “The nodules prevented water from invading the bones which, for all intents and purposes, cannot be distinguished from modern bones.”
Bones have been found in northern Alaska for decades which until recently were assumed to be of buffalos because they are so fresh looking and un-fossilized. When scientists arrived and analyzed the bones, they determined the bones were of duck-billed dinosaurs. Fresh, unmineralized dinosaur bones totally defy the notion that they are millions of years old. Most dinosaur bones discovered contained the original bone that should have randomly decomposed over the hypothesized millions of years of their burial within the sedimentary strata. The presence of organic material in the specimen described in this chapter defies the hypothesis of dinosaur extinctions 65 millions years ago, as do the hundreds of “dragon” encounters with humans noted in the previous chapter. These contradictions shall be resolved as we look further into the available evidence.

Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True
​

So instead of saying, "no, I had not researched the T-rex soft tissue claim," you copied and pasted a bunch more text and links.

Have you researched ANY of the claims that you repeat?

Do you have any evidence disproving any of the text and links?

I already presented evidence against your LAST long cut-and-paste, and you responded with another one. I can provide evidence against the claims in this one, too, but I'd also like an answer to my question, please - have you actually done any research to confirm any of the claims?

Therefore, micro automatically leads to macro, you just have to have faith and believe it, despite any sort of scientific evidence. Just use conjecture and assumptions, and therefore it's true.