Facts to disprove theory of evolution

[BCP1928]

Then i am not wrong to state that evolutionists believe we all came from pond scum, or a mudskipper fish, or something.

Thanks for some of you in this thread having the honesty to accept what you believe in.

You think you've "forced" us to be honest about something we've been trying to explain to you all along?

 

[stevil]

My question in this thread to Estrid has been: Where did the bonobos come from? Where did those ancestors come from? Where did those ancestors come from, etc. until we reach the point where we get to an animal that is the primordial ancestor of all mammals.

An interesting, somewhat related factoid, is that New Zealand had no native land based mammals. The only mammals we had were some bats.
So this means that New Zealand broke off from Gondwana before mammals evolved.

As a result of not having land based mammals, we evolved many flightless birds. The Kiwi, the Moa, the Kakapo

 

[stevil]

Then i am not wrong to state that evolutionists believe we all came from pond scum, or a mudskipper fish, or something.

Thanks for some of you in this thread having the honesty to accept what you believe in.

There was a point in Earth history that life only existed in the water.
So yeah, land based animals evolved from a form of fish

We're more like primitive fishes than once believed, new research shows

Lungs and limbs have been thought of as key innovations that came with the vertebrate transition from water to land. But in fact, the genetic basis of air-breathing and limb movement was already established in our fish ancestor 50 million years earlier, according to a recent genome mapping of...

www.sciencedaily.com

There is nothing new about humans and all other vertebrates having evolved from fish. The conventional understanding has been that certain fish shimmied landwards roughly 370 million years ago as primitive, lizard-like animals known as tetrapods. According to this understanding, our fish ancestors came out from water to land by converting their fins to limbs and breathing under water to air-breathing.

However, limbs and lungs are not innovations that appeared as recent as once believed. Our common fish ancestor that lived 50 million years before the tetrapod first came ashore already carried the genetic codes for limb-like forms and air breathing needed for landing. These genetic codes are still present in humans and a group of primitive fishes.

Here are some fish today that have limbs

 

[friend of]

So yeah, land based animals evolved from a form of fish

That's literally all I'm saying yet some people were accusing me of being wrong or strawmanning ITT. Clearly I have not.

Anyway I'm done here. So long.

 

[stevil]

That's literally all I'm saying yet some people were accusing me of being wrong or strawmanning ITT. Clearly I have not.

Anyway I'm done here. So long.

It's just the way you come across, like tried and tested anti-evolution tropes.
"Just pond scum"

Humans are much more than our ancestor origins and why only go back to "fish" or back to "pond scum" whatever that is?
We can go back to single celled organisms and probably even before that, just a bunch of organic materials.

When you said this "a mudskipper fish beached itself and eventually made bonobos."
That's silly. An individual organism doesn't evolve. A mudskipper fish, let's call him Fred, doesn't get beached and then grow into a bonobos and swing from the trees.

 

[friend of]

A mudskipper fish, let's call him Fred, doesn't get beached and then grow into a bonobos and swing from the trees

Not immediately at least. It takes trillions of years. I get it.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Honest question here.

When you (as a self proclaimed skeptic) hear an audible word from "God", what steps did you take to discount other possibilities. e.g. Radio or TV was on, someone nearby was speaking, you heard a noise and interpreted it as a word, you imagined hearing a word, aliens with advanced technology sent a word into your brain, a ghost spoke to you, a demon spoke to you, the devil spoke to you, one of the greek gods spoke to you, one of the Indian gods spoke to you, one of the Maori gods spoke to you, the Muslim god spoke to you, a god that humans haven't named spoke to you, etc, etc...

My wife heard the audible voice. I never did. However, let me share a non-audible ones that DID happen to me. First one, about 20 years ago. My wife had had a fairly serious back problem her whole adult life. And one night she was in serious pain in bed. Suddenly I felt an absolute uncontrollable urge to pray for her. It was like it wasn't even me. But I was "forced" to put my hands on her back and pray for her. The next day her back pain was gone, never to return.

The problem is this: All of the miracles that happened in my family are second hand stories for you and others - Just like the story of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus are to every person alive today. And it is far more dramatic.

The miracles that happen to people are, IMO, for them only. Once you've experienced it, nobody can take it away from you. And their "logical explanations" only demonstrate that they don't fully understand what happened at a personal level, or they wouldn't offer those explanations. That's why I no longer question NDE's. I'm not saying I believe any or all of them, or that I don't. I'm saying they are not really for me. The life they change is the life they happened to. And we have a very personal God. He very much works with each one of us at a personal level.

BTW, all those explanations were the types of things I used to suggest to people when I was in my early 20's. I grew up. And that was BEFORE I accepted Christ and his promise.

 

[Astrid]

@Estrid explained that a mudskipper fish beached itself and eventually made bonobos.

Yet another falsehood. It's very undignified.
Plz leave.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Multitude?Miracle of the Sun - Wikipedia

Or all the ones who swore before God they
" heated " Joseph smith's good books.

" why believe anything" is for you to study.

Two things. First, people lie all the time. Second, the event to which you refer was something people were looking for at the time and really wanted to believe.

What about when my wife's kid sister was about 5 and had been put to bed in their house in Chicago. The rest of the family was in the kitchen talking, as some families will do. A little while later the sister casually walked into the kitchen and said, "I want to say goodbye to grandpa. I didn't get to say goodbye." They asked her what she meant. She said "grandpa came into my bedroom and said goodbye, but I didn't get to say goodbye." They explained to her that grandpa was at his home in California. But she was so insistent that they called him. His brother answered the phone and said he was about to call to let them know he had just passed away.

Make of it what you will. We all do.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

" only because"? No. It's repeatable, it's.there for anyine a ytime. Available through more than eyes, verifiable.

Unless it's not...

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Except those eye witnesses contradict each other as to what they saw, unless they are able to discuss it among themselves in which case a consensus develops, the character of which is determined largely by the eye witnesses with the most persuasive personalities. (Or when the witnessess are conspiring to conceal the truth.)

On the details, yes. After all, did the rooster crow once, or twice. As Josh McDowell said in his book, one of the reasons he believed the gospels is because they were NOT in lockstep agreement. Being a trial attorney he said that one way you can tell witnesses conspired to lie is when the testimony is identical from all of them. Real witnesses to an event never agree on everything. That's how you know the event really happened. But disagreement on details doesn't mean the event itself didn't happen.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Are you saying that forensic evidence is without value unless there are eye-witnesses to the event?

I'm saying all evidence is of value, but in different ways. And forensic evidence is no more perfect than eyewitness evidence sometimes. A simple example An atmospheric temperature measuring station can give a nice, solid and consistent temperature reading. That is forensic evidence. But if one digs deeper, they discover that it was also way too close to an HVAC heat exchanger. That is also forensic evidence, but if that evidence is not gathered, the picture is both incomplete - and wrong.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I believe it probably did. As I say to my friends in church. I don't believe the earth is only six thousand years old. But I believe the age that it is talking about IS about that old.

The age that *what* is talking about? The age the rocks talks about for the Earth is 4.5 billion yeras

I see the earth as a canvas that has had many paintings applied to it. Each whitewashed with a new painting over it. And if we peal back the current painting, we find signs of the previous paintings. Neanderthal man, dinosaurs, etc.

Nothing has been "applied" to the Earth, paint or otherwise. The weathering of rocks, depositing of sediments and lavas are not "painting, nor are they uniform around the Earth. Neaderthals lived at the same time as our ancestors (and a few of them are among our ancestors) and ate feathered dinosaurs just as we still do today.

But that is outside the scope of the function of the bible as much as grammar is outside the function of an algebra book.

Was the "bible" the "it" that is "talking" in the opening quote?

One does not reach for a bible when discussing science. That's not in its swim lane.

Agreed.

It discusses something for those seeking a much more important answer, to the question, "why?".

If you say so.

 

[stevil]

My wife heard the audible voice. I never did. However, let me share a non-audible ones that DID happen to me. First one, about 20 years ago. My wife had had a fairly serious back problem her whole adult life. And one night she was in serious pain in bed. Suddenly I felt an absolute uncontrollable urge to pray for her. It was like it wasn't even me. But I was "forced" to put my hands on her back and pray for her. The next day her back pain was gone, never to return.

The problem is this: All of the miracles that happened in my family are second hand stories for you and others - Just like the story of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus are to every person alive today. And it is far more dramatic.

The miracles that happen to people are, IMO, for them only. Once you've experienced it, nobody can take it away from you. And their "logical explanations" only demonstrate that they don't fully understand what happened at a personal level, or they wouldn't offer those explanations. That's why I no longer question NDE's. I'm not saying I believe any or all of them, or that I don't. I'm saying they are not really for me. The life they change is the life they happened to. And we have a very personal God. He very much works with each one of us at a personal level.

BTW, all those explanations were the types of things I used to suggest to people when I was in my early 20's. I grew up. And that was BEFORE I accepted Christ and his promise.

Thanks for sharing

 

[stevil]

Not immediately at least. It takes trillions of years. I get it.

A mudskipper doesn't get beached, it can freely move on the mud. That is an environment it can thrive in, it is well adapted to.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not that any pro evolutionist will accept. Evolution is not based on facts, so how can facts prove or disprove it?

The Elephant in the Living Room

Writer George V. Caylor interviewed Sam, a molecular biologist. George asked Sam about his work. Sam said he and his team were scientific detectives, working with DNA and tracking down the cause of disease. Here is their published conversation.

G: “Sounds like pretty complicated work.”

S: “You can’t imagine how complicated!”

G: “Try me.”

S: “I’m a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. Seventy volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of small print words.”

G: “With the computer power, you can just use ‘spell check’!”

S: “There is no ‘spell check’ because we don’t know yet how the words are supposed to be spelled. We don’t even know for sure which language. And it’s not just the ‘spelling error’ we’re looking for. If any of the punctuation is out of place, or a space out of place, or a grammatical error, we have a mutation that will cause a disease.”

G: “So how do you do it?”

S: “We are learning as we go. We have already ‘read’ over two articles in that encyclopedia, and located some typos. It should get easier as time goes by.”

G: “How did all that information happen to get there?”

S: “Do you mean, did it just happen? Did it evolve?”

G: “Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved?”

S: “George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius,’ and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong believing the moon is made of green cheese. He’s been there!”

(Of course, we have an issue right there. Many refuse to accept that man has walked on the moon. So it's hardly surprising if many reject the idea that evolution is untrue. "Facts" become irrelevant to people who are unable or unwilling to face truth. - AP)

G: “Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?”

S: “No. It all just evolved.”

G: “What? You just told me —?”

S: “Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don’t believe in evolution. All government work, search grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn’t earn a decent living.” [emphasis added]

G: “I hate to say it, Sam, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.”

S: “The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind’s worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the ‘elephant in the living room’.”

G: “What elephant?”

S: “Design. It’s like the elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn’t there!”

An "interview" with "Sam" the "Molecular biologist". I thought it was "Jeff":

One of the best aspects of my wife JoAnne's Bed and Breakfast is the chance for a great conversation with an interesting guest. People fascinate me, and the laid-back atmosphere of the bed and breakfast allows me to get to know our guests well. I was with a congressman the moment the Monica Lewinsky story broke, and discussed the possible impeachment. I enjoyed visiting with a Russian attorney who wrote the post-communism Russian Constitution. But all our guests have good stories, and I like to hear them all. I 'replay' them later, and I have the ability to remember conversations nearly word for word. That memory skill comes from either thirty years as a financial planner, or six years as a touring musician.

One of the most interesting, and disturbing conversations, was with a molecular biologist working in genetic research. Jeff and his wife were in from New York to celebrate the 2000 New Year. I think they just wanted out of New York City, and Lynchburg is about as "out" as he could get! Jeff described himself as a "secular Jew," which meant that he was not into practicing his religion. (There seems to be a lot of secular Jews and secular Christians around these days.) I asked Jeff about his profession and he told me that he was a molecular biologist, specializing in genetic research. He and his team were scientific "detectives" tracking down the cause of disease.

The "interview" seemed obviously fraudulent from the moment I read it. I hold to that position:

Articulated Fossils: Proof that fossilization is rapid and that the earth is young.

 

[Astrid]

A mudskipper doesn't get beached, it can freely move on the mud. That is an environment it can thrive in, it is well adapted to.

The POINT of mentioning mudskipper was in response is to those saying hat a fish moving from water to land is impossible since various species are movong sbout on land, today.

Developing lungs before going ashore is not so
far fetched- there are lungfish, today. FISH, with lungs.
Not gills

The fish that developed into amphibians already
had the basic quadrupled skeleton, with fins used for
locomotion, before going ashore. One member of
that family ( coelacanth) is alive today.

 

[Aussie Pete]

An "interview" with "Sam" the "Molecular biologist". I thought it was "Jeff":



The "interview" seemed obviously fraudulent from the moment I read it. I hold to that position:

Articulated Fossils: Proof that fossilization is rapid and that the earth is young.

Calling people liars without evidence is slanderous. The story was originally published in "The Ledger", as "The Biologists".

An interesting, somewhat related factoid, is that New Zealand had no native land based mammals. The only mammals we had were some bats.

So this means that New Zealand broke off from Gondwana before mammals evolved.

As a result of not having land based mammals, we evolved many flightless birds. The Kiwi, the Moa, the Kakapo

How come bats did not evolve into something else? No mammalian predators to attack them either.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

The age that *what* is talking about? The age the rocks talks about for the Earth is 4.5 billion yeras

The age the bible is talking about.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Nothing has been "applied" to the Earth, paint or otherwise. The weathering of rocks, depositing of sediments and lavas are not "painting, nor are they uniform around the Earth. Neaderthals lived at the same time as our ancestors (and a few of them are among our ancestors) and ate feathered dinosaurs just as we still do today.

You are missing the point of the analogy. That's fine, but we're just not all on the same wavelength. To clarify, I'm not saying the earth is changed via paint, nor that it happens rapidly. God's ways are not our ways.