Evidence Disproving Evolution

myself | 10/11/02 | gore3000

[DWPittelli]

By definition the Sun is losing its mass and with it, its size at a measureable rate, and if the rate observed today is the same as the rate that has been, the Earth would be uninhabitable at a fixed point in the past due to the size of solar mass as yet unconsumed. Fusion does not change classical principles of mass-balance. You, like balrog666 might want to write to Starfleet Academy and ask for a refund.

Congatulation for proving that all astronomers are in on Darwin's "old Earth" scam, and that only by ignoring e=mc2 can the Sun really be billions of years old.

[gore3000]

Not all evolutionists are materialists,

Nope. However, all evolutionists have to believe that random changes, not miracles are the source of new species, new life. That is what the theory of evolution is about - replacing God as the Creator for some nonsensical deux ex machina called 'natural selection' to which all the attributes of an intelligent being are given even though it does not have any form, substance or can even be said to have any sort of being. This 'natural selection' is proposed by evolutionists as some sort of natural law to which all life is subservient to. Problem is twofold - no one has ever found how this 'natural law' called selection operates and it is quite evident that it cannot create anything new. It can only destroy things. Evolution is therefore a very poor materialist attempt at replacing God and the miracles he performs with a totally materialistic explanation which as I and Francis Crick believe just plain does not work.

[DWPittelli]

You wrote: Where "flat Earth" history is concerned, those who promoted it (e.g., Lactantius c. 245-325 A.D. and Cosmas Indicopleustes in the 6th century) were identified as heretics by early Church fathers... Your knowledge of the intellectual history of the church ignores Judeo-Christian scripturual references to the round Earth (Isaiah 40:22... It is you whose pretense to knowledge alludes to "history" as imagined in a novelist's "fantasy," not I.

In fact, I said, "What's next in your fantasy universe, a flat Earth?" I did not imply that the early Christians were so ignorant, merely that you are.

[gore3000]

I never said bones alone make a relationship; indeed, bones are simply another clue to the relationships between organisms.

Hmm, guess the above is the reason why evolutionists do not like to discuss the scientific basis of their theory. Each time they do they stick their foot deeply in their mouths. If evolution is based on the fossil record and bones are only a clue to relationships, then clearly the fossil record cannot substantiate the truth of evolution.

Thanks for finally, after some two years, agreeing with my point, often made, that bones do not prove evolution.

[Heartlander]

Interesting post.
First off, I admit that I am throwing an obvious straw man out here (to some at least).
The statement, “only what can be known by science or quantified and empirically tested is rational and true”.

What is wrong with this statement?

[DWPittelli]

Well DNA evidence backs up the Bible.

I agree that the Bible is a great book of history, and not just of literature. And I am frequently amazed that educated people -- people who think themselves intellectuals -- ask me why I or anyone sensible would read the Bible, when it would never occur to them to ask why I might read, say, Herodotus. (I do have a degree in History.)

And I am also amazed that ignoramuses express extreme skpeticism about any claim in the Bible, even if it should be obvious that at the time of the writing both the author and the audience would have been knowledgeable about the then-recent history or theology.

So no, I am not surprised that the Old Testament contains accurate history about the Hebrews and their neighbors. And for passages covering major theogical, military and political affairs, I'd say the burden of proof is generally on anyone who claims that the Bible is false.

[gore3000]

bones are simply another clue to the relationships between organisms.
468 posted on 10/14/02 4:22 PM Pacific by Junior

Bones are strong evidence that evolution has occured.
473 posted on 10/14/02 4:39 PM Pacific by Junior

Gee Junior, can't you make up your mind? Can't you stop contradicting yourself?

[DWPittelli]

Since you keep evading responding to the evidence I have given you my guess is that I am correct and this post is a somewhat ungletemanly concession.

Forsooth.

I'll leave it to the rest of the audience to decide for themselves who is providing evidence and questions, and who is evading evidence and questions.

[Heartlander]

Data is data. What we want to direct data to show may be something entirely different.

Monkey or man?

[Junior]

Those statements are not contradictory. What a strange world you live in ...

[PatrickHenry]

I brought up the star of Bethlehem because I thought it might interest you in strict scientific terms. I say this because even if someone thinks the three wise men are a myth, something occurred in the heavens coinciding with the birth of Christ and His death. Anyway, I hope you due a ‘search’ on this as well.

I recall reading about a triple conjunction of the planets, probably Jupiter, Venus, and I don't recall the third, which coincided with the approximate time of Jesus' birth. Is this what you're hinting at? I don't doubt it, as the calculations have been reportedly done by reputable astronomers. (I don't doubt the existence of Jesus either, just in case you've absorbed some of the rants which appear regularly in these threads. I've been accused of everything, but I generally don't respond to such material.)

[DWPittelli]

I think history shows it to be true... Look at the actions of Communist governments, at the actions of Nazism, at the actions ot the French revolutionaries, at the actions of the savage hordes from Asia, at the actions of the followers of the evil prophet Mohammed. Look at the total disregard for life shown by all the above and you will have your proof.

Ironically, when you make this particular pseudo-argument, you sound like you've been reading too many French Communist philosophers, believing as you do that truth is a subjective concept defined by who believes in it and who benefits from it.

I'll reiterate: Once again, you have at best shown that the Christian religion is useful for keeping people from committing mass murder. You have not shown it to be true. And you are even further from showing that its most fundamentalist interpretations, including Creationism, are true.

[AndrewC]

And for passages covering major theogical, military and political affairs, I'd say the burden of proof is generally on anyone who claims that the Bible is false.

You drive a hard bargain, so I won't disagree with you. ;^)

[DWPittelli]

If you cannot defend your theory scientifically, it is not science.

Indeed.

[gore3000]

Ah... What is the truth? Don't beat around the bush, don't obfuscate. Lay your cards on the table. How do you explain the fossil record (attacking the evolutionist view of the fossil record does not constitute an explanation)? How do you explain the DNA evidence (once more, attacking evolution is not an option here)? Do you have anything other than a plaintive wailing that evolution just cannot be true because you can't possibly ever come to accept it?

The fossil record does not need to be explained by me, it needs to be explained by evolutionists. There are no intermediate species in all the important places. The Cambrian shows that there is no way all those species could have evolved in a mere 5 million years from what existed before. So it is evolutionists that need to explain it. And indeed 150 years after Darwin they are still trying to explain it away by saying 'the fossils will be found someday'.

The DNA evidence contradicts evolution. The evolutionists pick and choose what genes will prove their theory in different circumstances as the article Kangaroo, Platypus Are Not Related After All shows. The articles on the fugu fish here and here also show that DNA disproves evolution. If evolution were true all genetic methods of tracing descent would be true, all the 'molecular clocks' would tell the same time. Evolution is not true so they do not.

The above are scientific facts which disprove your theory. Intelligent design explains them perfectly.

[DWPittelli]

no one has ever found how this 'natural law' called selection operates and it is quite evident that [natural selection] cannot create anything new. It can only destroy things.

Indeed. Mutations create new things, and natural selection eliminates the vast bulk of mutations, those which are harmful to the creature or hinder its ability to reproduce.

Anyone can see how natural selection operates: if creatures leave offspring, and some creatures leave more than others, then those "winners" will leave more of their genes. It has even happened to human beings in historical periods (e.g., sickle-cell anemia recessives becoming common after at least 3 separate mutations in different populations, in response to the rise of malaria).

[AndrewC]

For the most part it means letter for letter translation.

For the most part it means letter for letter translation.

[gore3000]

Those statements are not contradictory.

No? Now a 'clue' is 'absolute proof'? What a strange dictionary you evolutionists use.

[Junior]

The actual words used were "clue" and "evidence." How that morphed, in your twisted little mind, into "absolute proof" is obscure to everyone but you.

[Heartlander]

Interesting debate – (but admittedly, a Christian site).
Star of Bethlehem
Just in case you are interested…