Science Proves Evolution

[Crucifiction]

Wrong question,you have to start with the question how are they figuring the age of the fossils? If the method that they use is flawed to begin with then you can NOT accept the results as being true. The biggest problem is they have to start with assumptions on how much radioactive material was present,first which no one alive can no for sure because it was never tested in the place to know how much material was in the sample they started with.

Two no one has yet even begun to deal with the fact that all of the samples themselves are flawed. None of them have been protected from the environment they have been in. All the results are based on a constant that the samples themselves were never under. So that bodes the questions How does weather affect the rate of decay? How does solar radiation affect the rate of decay? How does time itself affect the rate of decay? Not one of these questions have been answered. Change any one those parameters and the tests are NO GOOD they are flawed.

Three prove that those bones are actually from an animal they say they are from. They have been wrong so many times before it's not funny. How many times so far they have found that the bones they have put together are not even from the same type of animal? As for how the flesh is on the bones all we have is artists renderings of what the animals MAY have looked like,AND MOST are from a few bones and not the complete skeleton. It is very rare to find a skeleton with more then 50% of the bones,so even the skeletons on display are composites of more then one animal.

Four How many people realize how close Einstein really was to the answer he was looking for? How many people actually put it together? And the sad part is it is HIGH SCHOOL physics. Einstein MISSED the practical applications of his equation.
It fits in with Genesis 1:3

[SUP]3[/SUP]And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.[SUP]4 [/SUP]God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.[SUP]5 [/SUP]God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

In high school physics one should learn that sound waves are a form of energy. What happens when one speaks? It creates sound waves.

So what happened in creation God spoke,creating sound waves which became matter and light.
Does that sound a lot like this e=mc2? Should make one wonder.

So you want me to believe that the best science we have today is really 125 million years off the mark?
Are the dating methods really that inaccurate? Get outta here!

 

[Undertaker]

Francis Collins is a Christian and also headed the human genome project. He has no problem
reconciling his faith with evolution and neither do I. This thread is in response to Pahu's thread
http://christianchat.com/miscellaneous/27991-science-disproves-evolution.html which is, at this
time, about 20 pages of misinformation.

Anyway, here is some more actual evidence:
If you look at chromosome 2 in chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans there are two telomeres. Humans have the same two telomeres except that ours are noticeably and obviously fused together. That is the smoking gun evidence to shows that humans evolved from common descent.
View attachment 48842

This is called deception,
Telomere sequence is not unique to the telomere. the existence of telomeric repeats in internal sites is not unusual or unexpected. We know that ITS (interstitial telomeric sequences) present in Chromosomes 1,4,5,9,12,16, and 17 (http://www.ncbi.nlm....4?dopt=Abstract)

Alpha-satellite DNA or alphoid DNA, although found in centromeric areas, is not unique to centromeres and is also highly variable. Because highly variable alphoid DNA is also commonly found in non-centromeric regions of human chromosomes, their presence does not indicate the remnants of a degenerate centromere. Based on the reasoning of Fairbanks and others promoting the human chromosome 2 fusion model, one could conclude that human chromosomes contain literally hundreds of degenerate centromeres.

Evolution: Fact or Myth ?!: chromosome 2 fusion model

 

[Ariel82]

I'm posting what the experts say. You can disagree with what the experts say but it would be
more convincing if you provided counter evidence.

other people have posted it and you haven't even bother to read or address them, so why should I waste my time?

you can't even have an intelligent conversation about what you claim to believe, why do you think you would be able to understand when someone else articulates their disagreement with you and the points when you don't even know the basic points of references?

sorry it just looks like a waste of time and I've got other things I'd rather do.

I'm quite willing to discuss with some who actually knows what the word DISCUSS means, among other basic words that still has not been defined that must be defined before any discussion of evolution can even begin.

 

[Ariel82]

1. natural selection,

2. genetic drift,

3. sexual selection,

4. neutral evolution, and

5. theories of speciation.

if we are going to discuss evolution we should define the above words...

think you can do it without cutting and pasting an article or video?

cuz at this point all i see is a bunch of parroting.

still waiting to see if you actually listened to the things you posted and are able to articulate the concepts,

or if you are just parroting back things you "believe" but aren't able to even define or discuss.

5 terms, shouldn't be hard to define.

I could post a bunch of websites but there is already a thread with someone else doing that.

I'd rather see if you are able to defend your position in a respectful intelligent manner.

so far, not so much.

 

[SarahM777]

So you want me to believe that the best science we have today is really 125 million years off the mark?
Are the dating methods really that inaccurate? Get outta here!

You are free to believe it or not. But you won't hear of from those who believe evolution to even begin to question the methods,if they were honest they would at least discuss the fact that the methods themselves have serious flaws.
Try shooting a rocket with just a 1% degree of error and see what happens the longer the distance from the launch. At one mile it would not seem to be too great but see how far off it is when the distance is 100,a thousand or one millions miles.
Same principle.

 

[Grey]

You are free to believe it or not. But you won't hear of from those who believe evolution to even begin to question the methods,if they were honest they would at least discuss the fact that the methods themselves have serious flaws.
Try shooting a rocket with just a 1% degree of error and see what happens the longer the distance from the launch. At one mile it would not seem to be too great but see how far off it is when the distance is 100,a thousand or one millions miles.
Same principle.

And thats why they use a variety of dating methods to cross confirm results.

 

[SarahM777]

And thats why they use a variety of dating methods to cross confirm results.

But again the main basis that they use is based on a best guess. NO ONE KNOWS how much radioactive material was in the sample to begin with. That is where is where the fallacy with the tests are to begin with. They are only measuring what is there at the moment and without knowing what the sample started with will give you flawed results. There is no way around it. Did the sample start out with X,Y or Z amount? Did someone actually measure how much it started with or is it at best a guess? And if it is a guess that how do you know that the answer is correct?

 

[SarahM777]

Another fallacy is that when God created the earth it would show no age,yet Adam would have had the appearance of age to our eyes even though if we saw him minutes after God formed Him he would have been an infant in certain respects. A fully mature Joshua tree would have had the appearance of beings hundreds of years old. If that is the case why wouldn't the very earth itself have had the appearance of age as all the plants and animals were able to grow and thrive right after being created.

 

[HollyLoree]

And thats why they use a variety of dating methods to cross confirm results.

They can't even begin to cover all the variables that come into play. A little is not enough. A lot is not enough. One teensy tiny variable missing in any formula will produce a faulty result. Ask any physicist.

 

[HollyLoree]

So you want me to believe that the best science we have today is really 125 million years off the mark?
Are the dating methods really that inaccurate? Get outta here!

I think that's one of the many logical errors we hear about in school. Because something can't be disproven-- because in this case, we know of nothing (for sure) that's 125 million years old, that does not prove the assertion right.

 

[HollyLoree]

It's enough evidence to consider rationally
that it is most likely true. Talk to a molecular
geneticist, they have the proof.

Nope. It's not nearly enough evidence. You're speaking of what you consider rational. Even these scientists say this theory hasn't been proven to be fact. I've watched countless videos in college science classes listening to various scientists that pursue this theory. And they all call it theory. I've never heard a one of them claim it to be fact. I realized then that it's the educaters, students, and people who study bits and pieces of this type of thing that interpret these things as proven fact. As I said in my other post, you have one missing piece of any formula, and you'll have a faulty result. But it's clear you want to believe this; so I'm sure nothing in this world can dissuade you from what you've already made your up mind to believe. It's ridiculous for you to accuse people in here of doing that with their faith, because you're doing the exact same thing: you're just putting your faith in man. And in this case? These scientists aren't even claiming what you're claiming is true here.

 

[Christabel]

Well you have got a completely distorted form of the second law of thermodynamics for one. The second law highlights that within a closed system things tend to disorder. The earth is not a closed system, the univere is, but the earth is not, therefore the theory of evolution doe not interfer with any of the second laws in a way which is contradictory.

My Physics instructor told me the second law of thermodynamics basically boils down to what Georgiana says. "Things tend to disorder" is the same thing as "things tend to fall apart, not put themselves together." Yeah, my college Physics instructor told me the exact same thing. So I guess he's got a distorted view of this theory too. Poor guy, and him with a doctorate in physics.

Hey, I'll respond to your post like crucifiction does. You don't believe me? Well talk to him then.

 

[Crucifiction]

But again the main basis that they use is based on a best guess. NO ONE KNOWS how much radioactive material was in the sample to begin with. That is where is where the fallacy with the tests are to begin with. They are only measuring what is there at the moment and without knowing what the sample started with will give you flawed results. There is no way around it. Did the sample start out with X,Y or Z amount? Did someone actually measure how much it started with or is it at best a guess? And if it is a guess that how do you know that the answer is correct?

It's funny how they say the dating methods are flawed but when they think
they've found Noah's Ark the dating results are perfectly acceptable.

Noah's Ark Found in Turkey?

"The team says radiocarbon-dated wood taken from the discovery site—whose location they're keeping secret for now—shows the purported ark is about 4,800 years old, which coincides roughly with the time of Noah's flood implied by the Bible."

 

[Crucifiction]

Nope. It's not nearly enough evidence. You're speaking of what you consider rational. Even these scientists say this theory hasn't been proven to be fact. I've watched countless videos in college science classes listening to various scientists that pursue this theory. And they all call it theory. I've never heard a one of them claim it to be fact. I realized then that it's the educaters, students, and people who study bits and pieces of this type of thing that interpret these things as proven fact. As I said in my other post, you have one missing piece of any formula, and you'll have a faulty result. But it's clear you want to believe this; so I'm sure nothing in this world can dissuade you from what you've already made your up mind to believe. It's ridiculous for you to accuse people in here of doing that with their faith, because you're doing the exact same thing: you're just putting your faith in man. And in this case? These scientists aren't even claiming what you're claiming is true here.

And the evidence keeps piling on...

 

[Christabel]

View attachment 49293
And the evidence keeps piling on...

Proof? Of what?? This is proof of intelligent design if I ever saw it! You think because they all (basically) have arms and (basically) hands, this proves your theory of evolution? Boy you're reaching. But I guess we all have our Gods.

 

[Crucifiction]

Proof? Of what?? This is proof of intelligent design if I ever saw it! You think because they all (basically) have arms and (basically) hands, this proves your theory of evolution? Boy you're reaching. But I guess we all have our Gods.

And what do you think of the embryonic tail, vestigial gill slits, the human yolk sac, etc. Why all the
anomalies?

 

[Undertaker]

View attachment 49293
And the evidence keeps piling on...

Round 2:

Evolutionary biologist William Fix describes the collapse of the evolutionist thesis regarding pentadactylism in this way: Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down.


We expect the supposed ancestors of a pentadactyl tetrapod to be pentadactyl themselves. This is not what we find in the fossil record. The earliest tetrapods were not pentadactyl but rather were "polydactylous," that is, of multi-digit structure. They had six, seven, or eight digits.
"NEW specimens of the earliest known tetrapod limbs shows them to be polydactylous. The forelimb of Acanthostega has eight digits and the hindlimb of Ichthyostega has seven. Both of these come from the Upper Devonian of East Greenland, complementing the only other known Devonian tetrapod limb, that of Tulerpeton from Russia[SUP]1[/SUP], which has six digits. The morphology of the specimens suggests that limbs with digits may have been adaptations to an aquatic rather than a
terrestrial environment. The pattern of digits corresponds to a recently proposed model for limb development[SUP]2[/SUP] in which digit number is unspecified, rather than earlier models[SUP]3–10[/SUP] which are rejected because they postulate a fixed number of elements in the ancestral limb."(M.I. Coates and J.A. Clack in "Polydactyly in the Earliest Known Tetrapod Limbs," in Nature, 347 (1990)

 

[Crucifiction]

My Physics instructor told me the second law of thermodynamics basically boils down to what Georgiana says. "Things tend to disorder" is the same thing as "things tend to fall apart, not put themselves together." Yeah, my college Physics instructor told me the exact same thing. So I guess he's got a distorted view of this theory too. Poor guy, and him with a doctorate in physics.

Hey, I'll respond to your post like crucifiction does. You don't believe me? Well talk to him then.

No offense but when did you take physics? 30 years ago? A lot in physics has
changed since then and we know much more now.

 

[Vestarena]

Round 2:

Evolutionary biologist William Fix describes the collapse of the evolutionist thesis regarding pentadactylism in this way: Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down.


We expect the supposed ancestors of a pentadactyl tetrapod to be pentadactyl themselves. This is not what we find in the fossil record. The earliest tetrapods were not pentadactyl but rather were "polydactylous," that is, of multi-digit structure. They had six, seven, or eight digits.
"NEW specimens of the earliest known tetrapod limbs shows them to be polydactylous. The forelimb of Acanthostega has eight digits and the hindlimb of Ichthyostega has seven. Both of these come from the Upper Devonian of East Greenland, complementing the only other known Devonian tetrapod limb, that of Tulerpeton from Russia[SUP]1[/SUP], which has six digits. The morphology of the specimens suggests that limbs with digits may have been adaptations to an aquatic rather than a
terrestrial environment. The pattern of digits corresponds to a recently proposed model for limb development[SUP]2[/SUP] in which digit number is unspecified, rather than earlier models[SUP]3–10[/SUP] which are rejected because they postulate a fixed number of elements in the ancestral limb."(M.I. Coates and J.A. Clack in "Polydactyly in the Earliest Known Tetrapod Limbs," in Nature, 347 (1990)

Adaptation. The operative word.

 

[Crucifiction]

Round 2:

Evolutionary biologist William Fix describes the collapse of the evolutionist thesis regarding pentadactylism in this way: Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down.


We expect the supposed ancestors of a pentadactyl tetrapod to be pentadactyl themselves. This is not what we find in the fossil record. The earliest tetrapods were not pentadactyl but rather were "polydactylous," that is, of multi-digit structure. They had six, seven, or eight digits.
"NEW specimens of the earliest known tetrapod limbs shows them to be polydactylous. The forelimb of Acanthostega has eight digits and the hindlimb of Ichthyostega has seven. Both of these come from the Upper Devonian of East Greenland, complementing the only other known Devonian tetrapod limb, that of Tulerpeton from Russia[SUP]1[/SUP], which has six digits. The morphology of the specimens suggests that limbs with digits may have been adaptations to an aquatic rather than a
terrestrial environment. The pattern of digits corresponds to a recently proposed model for limb development[SUP]2[/SUP] in which digit number is unspecified, rather than earlier models[SUP]3–10[/SUP] which are rejected because they postulate a fixed number of elements in the ancestral limb."(M.I. Coates and J.A. Clack in "Polydactyly in the Earliest Known Tetrapod Limbs," in Nature, 347 (1990)

William Fix is a crackpot. William Fix - RationalWiki
See the trend?

As soon as any of your info is published in peer reviewed journals
and actually accepted by the scientific community let me know.

Peer review is much more important in the science field than
in English. I really can't stress that enough.