Paladin77 Paladin77

Evolution is proven to be false by science

▼

Evolution is proven to be false by science

from JoeUser Forums

Okay now that you are reading here is how I got there. According to people that believe in the religion of evolution; over the course of billions of years animals evolved from single cell organisms to the animals we have today. The problem with this belief is that we have this thing called volcanism and plate tectonics. Every few hundred million years the surface of the earth is replaced. New York one hundred million years ago was on the equator, the planet suffered an ice age that lasted a few million years. Suddenly 65 million years ago there was a sudden explosion of life on this planet. All the species we see today started 65 million years ago. If this evolution thing takes billions of years to happen the planet has not seen billions of years of a stable climate in order for this evolution thing to work.

 

There have been at least three ages or three separate climate changes on this planet over the last four billion years.

 

The first age:

The planet was molten and had a average global temperature of five thousand degrees. That is half the temperature of the surface of the Sun. I think you will agree that in this age there would be little chance of any cellular or microbial life of import.

 

The second age:

The Earth cooled and water suddenly appeared on the planet. Here is where we have the chance for life. The issue is that the atmosphere, the air is made up mostly of Nitrogen, Sulfur dioxide, Carbon dioxide. The water had so much carbon in it that the water was mostly carbonic acid. The animals that showed up then thrived on sulfur and carbon releasing the oxygen. Volcanoes produce the sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide in huge quantities. No species that is alive today could live in this environment. The problem with the animal life that lived in this age was themselves, they polluted the air so much that it became toxic to them killing them off. Well it killed most of all animal life, this life can be found at the bottom of the sea near volcanic vents where the conditions are like that near the surface when they were dominant. These animals are just like the ones we have near the surface but they adapted or “evolved” to the new environment. Crabs, lobsters, clams and other sea life thrive in this new toxic environment.

 

The third age:

The Earths orbit changed and the wobble of the Earth in conjunction with the volcanic actions caused an ice age that lasted at least two million years. This ice age covered the entire planet to a depth of two miles. This would prohibit most life we currently see on the Earth today. The tectonic plates are still moving around but only 65 to 200 million years ago did the ice melt. The sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide that were the dominant gases in our atmosphere suddenly became trace elements and the released oxygen became the dominant gas. Allow me to be clearer, the atmosphere is roughly 80% nitrogen all other gases make up the other 20% animal life cause that 20% to change depending on the surface conditions. Trees and plants like coral feed on carbon dioxide. The animals and plants that feed on sulfur are mostly gone. The carbon is dwindling now so we are going to start losing trees and plants. The current life on this planet is running out of fuel i.e. carbon dioxide. When that happens we will run into the next age of the Earth. Since the plants feed on carbon dioxide and the animals produce carbon dioxide the plants are consuming more that animals can produce. Because of this the ratio of carbon and oxygen is changing and the atmosphere will become toxic to the plants that sustain us.

 

What is happening now on our planet is that our oceans are boiling away from the heat of the Sun, and volcanism. This is not new; scientists have proven this back in 1972 with Apollo 17, if memory serves, hydrogen and oxygen is leaving the planet by the metric ton per second. With out that element we will not have water. As the Sun expands the Earth will get hotter, and more and more gases in the atmosphere will escape as it did on the planets Venus and Mars.

 

With the different ages happening just under every one and a quarter billion years how did this evolution thing happen? Evolution could not happen in less than a billion years according to the people that believe in evolution. For evolution to happen we need a stable environment for billions of years. Science has proven that we have not billions of years of a stable environment. Now if evolutionists wish to claim that it takes millions of years, for all life to evolve into different species then they might have a chance to be correct but scientific evidence does not support this. Man did not become the dominant species till ten or fifteen thousand years ago along with all the most all the species we see today. This happened after the end of the last big ice age. So now we have to have all species evolve in less than a million years.

 

Think it through and you will see that evolution as stated by Charles Darwin and his supporters and the numbers don’t work.

361,490 views 227 replies
Reply #126 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm curious where would that put Adam and Eve and the subsequent Fall on your time scale?
End of quote

I don't know. Bible scollars suggest Adam and Eve were here 4004 years before Christ based on the book of Numbers conting back the generations, but that is only a best guess. the flaws with that is we have documented writtings that go back 10 thousand years ago and the scollars only go back 6000 years.

Reply #127 from JoeUser Forums Top

double post

Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #128 from JoeUser Forums Top

Thus far as far as I can tell, man's bodily "evolution" is incompatible with science. Darwin's evolution, that man evolved from lower forms of life, has always been a guess, pure conjecture, without any real evidence in its favor. intermediate forms are missing and strict proof is entirely wanting. All attempts to justify Darwin's theory has been discredited.
End of quote

This is why I put evolution in the class of religion.

Reply #129 from JoeUser Forums Top
Quoting SlyDrivel, reply 25


But evolution does occur as changes in allele frequency in a population. This has been observed. Google it. And if a species can't even really be defined, then that's pretty much all evolution is. To say that because evoltionary biologists are no smarter than normal people and can't figure out the timeline means the whole theory of evolution is wrong, however, does not make sense.

End of SlyDrivel's quote

Evolution is a fact, evolutionary theory (or Darwinism) isn't. Animals can adapt to their surroundings, however they can't seem to make them become other animals which is the basis of evolutionary theory.

Reply #130 from JoeUser Forums Top

Evolution is a fact, evolutionary theory (or Darwinism) isn't. Animals can adapt to their surroundings, however they can't seem to make them become other animals which is the basis of evolutionary theory.
End of quote

True...however this distinction sometimes is clear as mud and where much confusion lies in discussion.

That's why we've seen Evolution, small changes within kind over time (e.g. race formation) called micro-evolution and Evolution Theory (Darwinism) called macro-Evolution.

 

 

 

Reply #131 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm curious where would that put Adam and Eve and the subsequent Fall on your time scale?

PALADIN77 POSTS:

I don't know. Bible scollars suggest Adam and Eve were here 4004 years before Christ based on the book of Numbers conting back the generations, but that is only a best guess. the flaws with that is we have documented writtings that go back 10 thousand years ago and the scollars only go back 6000 years.

End of quote

Paladin writes

All the species we see today started 65 million years ago.
End of quote

This statement of yours is what my question referred to...

I mentioned the Fall becasue that's when death entered the world.  

Reply #132 from JoeUser Forums Top

the flaws with that is we have documented writtings that go back 10 thousand years ago and the scollars only go back 6000 years.
End of quote

what writings? 

 

Reply #133 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 5

Evolution is a fact, evolutionary theory (or Darwinism) isn't. Animals can adapt to their surroundings, however they can't seem to make them become other animals which is the basis of evolutionary theory.

True...however this distinction sometimes is clear as mud and where much confusion lies in discussion.

That's why we've seen Evolution, small changes within kind over time (e.g. race formation) called micro-evolution and Evolution Theory (Darwinism) called macro-Evolution.

 

 

 
End of lulapilgrim's quote

The distiction is clear as mud. For example, lets say you define a species as what can interbreed and produce viable offspring. (The Endangered Species Act uses this.) Suddenly . domestic cats and taiwanese leopards are the same species. If you define a species by how things look, many domestic cats are different species. We actually made these things look different ourselves, and this is technically evolution by artifical selection (artifical evolution).

Looking at DNA is probably the surest bet, but it is costly, and it often shows that things looking the exact same and capable of interbreeding are actually different in cryptic ways. Maybe they prefer different pheromones or something. Who cares?

So realistically, the only thing that separates you from a domestic cat is your DNA, and if you were somehow able to reproduce with a cat (don't try this at home) and produce a viable hybrid, then your descendents and cats would merge into one "species". The point is that if allele frequencies change, this changes DNA, and the whole organism becomes something different. Whether it is "speciation", where species is an abstract concept, or not, is up for debate, given what a species actually is is up for debate.

Reply #134 from JoeUser Forums Top

The point is that if allele frequencies change, this changes DNA, and the whole organism becomes something different.
End of quote

"becomes something different"....entirely different or just a variey within kind?

The big word in your statement is "IF"...and that boils down to the crux of the matter and what disproves macro-Evolution....which requires dramatic new DNA change that would have had to occur gazillion of times for an entirely new "kind", new "type", new "species" to occur. There is no evidence that a true new species with different DNA has formed from other species.  

Modern science has delivered knoweldge of the ever wonderful, irreducibly complex DNA. It's the DNA code within each living type (plant, animal and people) that is the natural barrier wall which cannot be crossed.

There is a cartoon that features a cat-dog that drives me nuts...becasue I think it's a subtle form of indoctrinating children on marco-evolution.  And then again, maybe I'm just too darn serious! :hrmph:

 

Reply #135 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting SlyDrivel, reply 8

The distiction is clear as mud. For example, lets say you define a species as what can interbreed and produce viable offspring. (The Endangered Species Act uses this.) Suddenly . domestic cats and taiwanese leopards are the same species. If you define a species by how things look, many domestic cats are different species. We actually made these things look different ourselves, and this is technically evolution by artifical selection (artifical evolution).

Looking at DNA is probably the surest bet, but it is costly, and it often shows that things looking the exact same and capable of interbreeding are actually different in cryptic ways. Maybe they prefer different pheromones or something. Who cares?

So realistically, the only thing that separates you from a domestic cat is your DNA, and if you were somehow able to reproduce with a cat (don't try this at home) and produce a viable hybrid, then your descendents and cats would merge into one "species". The point is that if allele frequencies change, this changes DNA, and the whole organism becomes something different. Whether it is "speciation", where species is an abstract concept, or not, is up for debate, given what a species actually is is up for debate.
End of SlyDrivel's quote

The problem is like I said earlier on in this thread, DNA is self correctiong for the most part. Meaning that the dominant traits will always be prevelent. So, even if you had a hybrid human who had the tail of a cat, the human dna would be prevelent and the tail trait would weed itself out of the genes. It's basic DNA facts that make evolution hard to handle. The only way it might even possibly work is if you had mass mutations, but that's not very likely even with the earth making an abrupt change. Also, the current speices of the world have a set of DNA that is the same for almost all of them. They think that these were the dominant genes that have weeded everything else out over time. Which means there was more species in earth's earlier history than there is now, they died out. Evolutionary theory goes the opposite way that genetics does, which makes Darwin's theory not make much sense in light of modern day knowledge.

Reply #136 from JoeUser Forums Top

mommie4life posts #129

Evolution is a fact, evolutionary theory (or Darwinism) isn't. Animals can adapt to their surroundings, however they can't seem to make them become other animals which is the basis of evolutionary theory.
End of quote

It's basic DNA facts that make evolution hard to handle.
End of quote

Just having a little fun...but given your post 129, don't you mean that it's basic DNA facts that make evolutionary theory hard to handle? B)

Reply #137 from JoeUser Forums Top

Which means there was more species in earth's earlier history than there is now, they died out.
End of quote

more species in earth's "earlier history"..... is that before Adam and Eve and their subequent Fall from grace?

Reply #138 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting mommie4life, reply 10

...
The problem is like I said earlier on in this thread, DNA is self correctiong for the most part. Meaning that the dominant traits will always be prevelent. So, even if you had a hybrid human who had the tail of a cat, the human dna would be prevelent and the tail trait would weed itself out of the genes.

It's basic DNA facts that make evolution hard to handle.

...

Which means there was more species in earth's earlier history than there is now, they died out. Evolutionary theory goes the opposite way that genetics does, which makes Darwin's theory not make much sense in light of modern day knowledge.

End of mommie4life's quote

Dominant traits are NOT always prevalent. For instance, Huntington's disease is caused by a dominant trait. Also, having 6 fingers is dominant. But you are right in that it is doubtful a cat/human hybrid would be well-suited to the environment. The point was hypothetical. It was intended only to show that what separates species is nothing concrete. It's really just not having genes passed between two populations.

There were more species in Earth's earlier history. In the estimated 4.3 billion years of life on this planet, 99% of all species have gone extinct.

 

 

 

Reply #139 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 11

Just having a little fun...but given your post 129, don't you mean that it's basic DNA facts that make evolutionary theory hard to handle?

End of lulapilgrim's quote

Hehe, yes, sorry for the slip.

Quoting SlyDrivel, reply 13

Dominant traits are NOT always prevalent. For instance, Huntington's disease is caused by a dominant trait. Also, having 6 fingers is dominant. But you are right in that it is doubtful a cat/human hybrid would be well-suited to the environment. The point was hypothetical. It was intended only to show that what separates species is nothing concrete. It's really just not having genes passed between two populations.

There were more species in Earth's earlier history. In the estimated 4.3 billion years of life on this planet, 99% of all species have gone extinct.
 

End of SlyDrivel's quote

Okay, the quesiton is why haven't we re-developed these lost species. I mean they're saying that one single cell organism became all life on earth so why in those billions of years have we lost so many more species than we've gained? Dominant traits aren't always prevalent, however the healthy traits are usually passed down. Either because of problems caused with reproduction or shorter lifespans of those who have unhealthy parts of the dna. I mean that after all is part of the "survival of the fittest".

Reply #140 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting mommie4life, reply 14

Okay, the quesiton is why haven't we re-developed these lost species. I mean they're saying that one single cell organism became all life on earth so why in those billions of years have we lost so many more species than we've gained? Dominant traits aren't always prevalent, however the healthy traits are usually passed down. Either because of problems caused with reproduction or shorter lifespans of those who have unhealthy parts of the dna. I mean that after all is part of the "survival of the fittest".
End of mommie4life's quote

 

No, we have not lost more than gained. We have gained more than lost. This can be proven since life still exists. It just seems that we have lost more, I think, because humans are currently responsible for a modern mass extinction.

Reply #141 from JoeUser Forums Top

because humans are currently responsible for a modern mass extinction.
End of quote

Only of themselves....haven't you heard the population of most if not all of Europe and Canada is in serious decline below fertility replacement. Why's that do you suppose?

 

Reply #142 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think, because humans are currently responsible for a modern mass extinction.
End of quote

You think incorrectly. Please name ten soecies that man has killed off to prove your point. There are species that go extinct every day, maybe they evolved into the new species that man keeps finding. I have not heard of any mass extinctions which is why I asked for you to name or list them. Thank you

Reply #143 from JoeUser Forums Top

Only of themselves....haven't you heard the population of most if not all of Europe and Canada is in serious decline below fertility replacement. Why's that do you suppose?
End of quote

That is not completely true. Back in the 70's there was a big push for ZPG, it was all the rage in Europe but not so much in America. Since the population in Europe is dropping and services still need to be done the Africans are moving in to fill the gap. So yes there are fewer Europeans but they are being replaced by Africans that were not enlightened enough to kill off thier children in the womb. Another fifty or sixty years and there won't be a European majority in Europe. The same is happening much slowly here in America with the South Americans and Africans. Can't wait to see who wins, Us, the South Americans, or the Africans. Time will tell but Liberals are an engangered species no matter which way it goes becaue they are the largest group that kill thier children.

Reply #144 from JoeUser Forums Top

but Liberals are an engangered species no matter which way it goes becaue they are the largest group that kill thier children.
End of quote

:)

Actually it's Muslims who are now populating the world in huge numbers.  In just a few short years the whole world will be predominately Muslim.  Their 8 children per family to the Europeans 1.8 or something to that effect is the culprit. 

The Catholics are NOT doing their job anymore. 

Maybe because most Catholics have gone Liberal?  What do you think Lula? 

 

Reply #145 from JoeUser Forums Top

Another fifty or sixty years and there won't be a European majority in Europe.
End of quote

Might not take that long.  The birth rate among residents of non-European ancestry is already nearly double the rate of native Europeans.  The effect of immigration plus post-immigration births is impressive.  If the immigrant populations were being integrated into the larger society in the way that US immigrants chose to in the Ellis Island days, it would be a non-issue.  Unfortunately, there is a high probability that once they reach a significant majority, their inclination to respect, support & maintain western values, traditions and legal principles will be low, even among those who've identified themselves as less concerned with religious rigor in the just-released Gallup poll which was commissioned in an attempt to re-assure us.

I'd like to think that they'd want to preserve the aspects of European culture that attracted them to immigrate in the first place, but I've seen no evidence of any inclination, on the part of either Islamic immigrants or native Europeans, to oppose the extremist immigrants among them who wish to impose Islamist culture, not to mention Sharia Law, upon their new homelands.

Reply #146 from JoeUser Forums Top

but Liberals are an engangered species no matter which way it goes becaue they are the largest group that kill thier children.
End of quote

 

Excuse me? That's unfounded.

Reply #147 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting SlyDrivel, reply 15
No, we have not lost more than gained. We have gained more than lost. This can be proven since life still exists. It just seems that we have lost more, I think, because humans are currently responsible for a modern mass extinction.
End of SlyDrivel's quote

So, because life exists we've gained more than we've lost? o_O

Reply #148 from JoeUser Forums Top

 

This statement of yours is what my question referred to...

I mentioned the Fall becasue that's when death entered the world.
End of quote

Death of humans, How long they were on the planet without death is not clear. Also there were more people on the Earth other than Adam and Eve, they were just the first and placed in the garden to maintain it. After original sin Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden and had to mingle with gentiles.

Sorry for taking so long to get back here but I was busy.

what writings?
End of quote

KFC, There are documents in China that date back 10.000 years. That is what I was writtting about.

"becomes something different"....entirely different or just a variey within kind?
End of quote

It would not matter unless the offspring could reproduce and that offspring would be the new species "IF" it could reproduce.

Okay, the quesiton is why haven't we re-developed these lost species. I mean they're saying that one single cell organism became all life on earth so why in those billions of years have we lost so many more species than we've gained?
End of quote

Great question, wish I had the answer, it would prove evolution.

Actually it's Muslims who are now populating the world in huge numbers. In just a few short years the whole world will be predominately Muslim.
End of quote

Yes, those are the Africans I wrote about.

Excuse me? That's unfounded.
End of quote

That is founded and documented. Black Americans are not abortion happy they are just used as an exuse of federal funding. The poor don't kill thier kids in the numbers that rich liberals kill off thier young. The last study I read was some years ago, it broke down the groups that had abortions and less than one percent were actually poor or black, the people that were taking advantage of this were rich white liberals. This study was quickly squashed and no one did another independent study again.

So, because life exists we've gained more than we've lost?
End of quote

Yes, I too am confused :S o_O :waaaa:

Happy Mother's day to one and all!

Reply #149 from JoeUser Forums Top

Okay, the quesiton is why haven't we re-developed these lost species. I mean they're saying that one single cell organism became all life on earth so why in those billions of years have we lost so many more species than we've gained?

Great question, wish I had the answer, it would prove evolution.
End of quote

The fact someone asks this question is stunning, as in stunningly stupid.  Mind boggling.

Reply #150 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Daiwa, reply 24

Okay, the quesiton is why haven't we re-developed these lost species. I mean they're saying that one single cell organism became all life on earth so why in those billions of years have we lost so many more species than we've gained?

Great question, wish I had the answer, it would prove evolution.
The fact someone asks this question is stunning, as in stunningly stupid.  Mind boggling.
End of Daiwa's quote

Why is it stupid? Or is it just stupid because you can't answer it?