Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[RickG]

If five feet of snow appeared ... (not fell -- appeared) ... overnight and sat there for ten days, would you expect to find soot from tailpipes three feet down?

No, I don't believe in magic.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I don't believe in magic.

Then why talk like it should be expected to be so?

 

[RickG]

Then why talk like it should be expected to be so?

You are the one having things magically appearing, rather than they way in which they really occurs. Snow accumulates, it doesn't just appear out of no where.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are the one having things magically appearing, rather than they way in which they really occurs. Snow accumulates, it doesn't just appear out of no where.

Fair enough.

You're the one wondering why you don't find "fossils of all life forms that existed in all layers of sedimentary strata throughout the geologic column" -- not I.

 

[RickG]

Fair enough.

You're the one wondering why you don't find "fossils of all life forms that existed in all layers of sedimentary strata throughout the geologic column" -- not I.

I don't believe in a god that implants fossils and age or rocks and strata that are millions and billions of years old, but are only 6,000 years old, has Noah building an Ark in New Jersey, and then removing all the flood water to Neptune, etc., etc., etc. I want no part of any such god.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't believe in a god that implants fossils and age or rocks and strata that are millions and billions of years old, but are only 6,000 years old, has Noah building an Ark in New Jersey, and then removing all the flood water to Neptune, etc., etc., etc. I want no part of any such god.

Does He want you?

 

[RickG]

Does He want you?

The one you describe, I could care less.

 

[AV1611VET]

The one you describe, I could care less.

What's His name, by the way?

(QV my new signature.)

What's is God the Father's name, Rick?

 

[Loudmouth]

the only thing that applies in the case of ayala is that it isn't representative of his work.

Ayala says differently. He claims he never said what was in that quote, and yet you still use it.

"Darwin surely would have been pleased by the enormous accumulation of paleontological evidence, including the discovery of fossils of organisms transitional between major groups, such as Archaeopteryx, intermediate between reptiles (dinosaurs) and birds, and Tiktaalik, intermediate between fish and tetrapods (4), and the numerous fossils and diverse species of hominins, intermediate between apes and Homo sapiens (e.g., refs. 5–,7). But there are good reasons to believe that Darwin would have been most pleased and most impressed with the overwhelming evidence for evolution provided by molecular biology, a compelling and precise source of documentation that Darwin could not have imagined."--Francisco Ayala
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/8/2475.full

 

[Loudmouth]

like i've said before, it's absolutely amazing how these scientists don't actually mean it when they say it.
eldredge didn't mean it, ayala didn't mean it, koonin didn't mean it, but they indeed said it.

i've provided the source for ALL of my material so you can take their meaning in context.
for some reason, you just do not want to accept that darwinism isn't "all that".
face the facts the cadet, there is no, as in zero, empirical evidence of evolution.

I have provided multiple quotes and multiple sources for each of those scientists showing that they support positions very different from yours. I have multiple quotes from Gould saying that there are picture perfect transitional fossils, for example. Notice how you ignored them.

 

[Loudmouth]

Unfortunately, people here talk smack and act like experts; though, none are accepting the challenge, Kent Hovind will smoke them just like he has hundreds of secular scientist; of whom, put a small box around science and turn it into religion.

I have an open invitation to a written debate. Creationists run from it like the plague.

 

[Loudmouth]

Scientists have a powerful trump card at their disposal: evidence.

Quote worthy.

 

[RickG]

Circular reasoning. You decide what strata you are in from the fossils found. That's why the Cambrian strata may be at surface level in one spot and a hundred feet down in another spot.

No, the strata is radiometrically dated. There is nothing circular about it. The Cambrian Period strata dates only between 541.0 +/- 1.0 to 485 +/- 1.9 million years, regardless of the fossils contained within it.

Also note that the Cambrian Period is also subdivided into 5 Series and 10 Stages.

Source: International Comission of Stratigraphy, last updated January 2015.
http://www.stratigraphy.org/

 

[Loudmouth]

No, the strata is radiometrically dated. There is nothing circular about it. The Cambrian Period strata dates only between 541.0 +/- 1.0 to 485 +/- 1.9 million years, regardless of the fossils contained within it.

Also note that the Cambrian Period is also subdivided into 5 Series and 10 Stages.

Source: International Comission of Stratigraphy, last updated January 2015.
http://www.stratigraphy.org/

What creationists can't explain is how we are able to predict the ratio of isotopes in igneous rocks by the fossils found above and below those rocks. In a flood, there should be zero relationship between fossils and the miniscule amounts of argon in the rocks around them, much less the ratio of argon isotopes in those same rocks.

A good case study is the K/T boundary. This interface between the Cretaceous and Tertiary was established well before the discovery of radiometric dating. Dalrymple says it much better than I do.

"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."
http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

 

[RickG]

I wonder who originated the circular reasoning fallacy, Hovind?

 

[Loudmouth]

I wonder who originated the circular reasoning fallacy, Hovind?

If I were to guess, George McCready Price. However, since there was a lack of radiometric dating in the early 1900's, it wasn't an unfair criticism. In the modern era, Morris would probably be the earliest and worst offenders.

"Creationists have long insisted that the main evidence for evolution — the fossil record — involves a serious case of circular reasoning. That is, the fossil evidence that life has evolved from simple to complex forms over the geological ages depends on the geological ages of the specific rocks in which these fossils are found. The rocks, however, are assigned geologic ages based on the fossil assemblages which they contain."
Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. 1977. Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology. Acts & Facts. 6 (6).

 

[Jan Volkes]

No it is not. Apologetics is about religious doctrine. The title of the thread is "Science says no to evolution theory". How do you get apologetics out of that?

You are right of course, my mistake.

PS. I do know what apologetics are I just made a silly mistake, sorry.

 

[RickG]

If I were to guess, George McCready Price. However, since there was a lack of radiometric dating in the early 1900's, it wasn't an unfair criticism. In the modern era, Morris would probably be the earliest and worst offenders.

"Creationists have long insisted that the main evidence for evolution — the fossil record — involves a serious case of circular reasoning. That is, the fossil evidence that life has evolved from simple to complex forms over the geological ages depends on the geological ages of the specific rocks in which these fossils are found. The rocks, however, are assigned geologic ages based on the fossil assemblages which they contain."
Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. 1977. Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology. Acts & Facts. 6 (6).

The link you provide could be renamed "quote mine city". Never mind all the other misrepresentations concerning index fossils. Wowzerrssssss!

 

[RickG]

You are right of course, my mistake.

PS. I do know what apologetics are I just made a silly mistake, sorry.

No problem, I make mistakes as well. The thing we don't see from the Creation science side is their willingness to admit to admit their mistakes.

 

[pat34lee]

Why do you think every university in the world would disagree with you, what do you think you know that they don't?

They all know it too. They just connect the dots using imagination and pixie dust.