Does "evolution" really make sense?

[Martin the Jadi]

well, scientists have found scientific---how should I say this--- "proof." But..............unfortuanately for evolutionist................some scientists mix up different fossils to make a creature that supposedly "links" two different species of animal This is why I usually don't trust articles that state "New Proof Towards Connecton of Birds and Dinosaurs," or something similar to that.

Also, the "Big Bang" does not really make any sense at all. I mean, I wouldn't believe OUR universe used to be a huge floating mass of whatever, and then just suddenly it blew up and etc., etc. Something else that hasn't really been shown to the public is....................is a fossil of a dinosaur and human print side by side. This corrupts a couple important parts of evolutionists' theory. First--- It proves wrong the statement that humans where never arouind during the dinosaurs' time. Second-- It also proves "evolution" wrong. The fossil shows a human foot, but the theory says that only our "ancestors" (monkeys, gorillas, whatever) where there during the dinosaurs' time. This clearly shows that we were NOT evolved from monkeys, etc. Third-- It shows that the evolutionists' theory of how the dinosaurs disappeared is wrong. How could humans survive a meteor strong enough to wipe out the population of dinosaurs? Fourth-- It also shows that the flood probably wiped the dinosaurs out, because a set of humans where spared and they multiplied later (had kids, kids had kids, kids' kids had kids, etc.).

This post, of course, shows that Creation was done, and that it is not just a fictional belief.

 

[Big Rob]

I volunteer to give the eulogy at the funeral of American science education.

 

[Arikay]

Well, with that understanding of evolution of course it doesn't make sense.

Quick list
•the fossil you are talking about was never accepted by the scientific community. Stick with ones that have been and it's hard to go wrong.
•Our universe wasn't a big floating mass of whatever and it didn't blow up.
•Some of the tracks are a hoax and others are misunderstandings (although I find it funny you wont accept fossils for evolution but quickly accept ones "against")
•humans weren't around during the meteor strike, the strike didn't kill the dinosaurs but finished them off, they were already dying out because of environmental change.
Edit: Forgot to add,
•The big bang is not part of evolution.

 

[caravelair]

well, scientists have found scientific---how should I say this--- "proof."

no, 'evidence' is the word you are looking for. 'proof' does not exist in science.

But..............unfortuanately for evolutionist................some scientists mix up different fossils to make a creature that supposedly "links" two different species of animal

example?

This is why I usually don't trust articles that state "New Proof Towards Connecton of Birds and Dinosaurs," or something similar to that.

well i guess you will never change your mind, if you automatically dismiss new evidence before even reading about it.

Also, the "Big Bang" does not really make any sense at all.

the big bang has nothing to do with evolution. i thought your post was supposed to be about evolution.

I mean, I wouldn't believe OUR universe used to be a huge floating mass of whatever, and then just suddenly it blew up and etc., etc.

no wonder you think it makes no sense, you don't even know what it says! the big bang theory does NOT say that is how it happened.

Something else that hasn't really been shown to the public is....................is a fossil of a dinosaur and human print side by side.

the public has been shown these. however, they have been shown to be frauds/hoaxes:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

This corrupts a couple important parts of evolutionists' theory. First--- It proves wrong the statement that humans where never arouind during the dinosaurs' time.

it would, if such tracks actually existed. however, we know that humans and dinosaurs were never around at the same time. for one, dino fossils are NEVER found above the k/t barrier, and human/hominid fossils or artifacts are NEVER found below it, or anywhere close to it for that matter.

The fossil shows a human foot, but the theory says that only our "ancestors" (monkeys, gorillas, whatever) where there during the dinosaurs' time.

no. if i remember corretly, there were no primates at all until much later.

This post, of course, shows that Creation was done, and that it is not just a fictional belief.

uh... if you say so.

 

[Sphere]

well, scientists have found scientific---how should I say this--- "proof." But..............unfortuanately for evolutionist................some scientists mix up different fossils to make a creature that supposedly "links" two different species of animal This is why I usually don't trust articles that state "New Proof Towards Connecton of Birds and Dinosaurs," or something similar to that.

So its one big conspiracy right?

Also, the "Big Bang" does not really make any sense at all. I mean, I wouldn't believe OUR universe used to be a huge floating mass of whatever, and then just suddenly it blew up and etc., etc.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION.

Something else that hasn't really been shown to the public is....................is a fossil of a dinosaur and human print side by side. This corrupts a couple important parts of evolutionists' theory.

No.

First--- It proves wrong the statement that humans where never arouind during the dinosaurs' time.

Wrong. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html

Second-- It also proves "evolution" wrong. The fossil shows a human foot, but the theory says that only our "ancestors" (monkeys, gorillas, whatever) where there during the dinosaurs' time. This clearly shows that we were NOT evolved from monkeys, etc.

Wrong. Our ancestors were not monkeys and gorillas. Evolution does not say we evolved from monkeys.

Third-- It shows that the evolutionists' theory of how the dinosaurs disappeared is wrong. How could humans survive a meteor strong enough to wipe out the population of dinosaurs?

Again, see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html.

Fourth-- It also shows that the flood probably wiped the dinosaurs out, because a set of humans where spared and they multiplied later (had kids, kids had kids, kids' kids had kids, etc.).

There was never a global flood. Perhaps if you research the subject thoroughly you will see the overwheming amount of evidence against this.

This post, of course, shows that Creation was done, and that it is not just a fictional belief.

No, this post is actually quite ridiculous. Please at least research the subject you are attemping to "disprove" rather than just throw out regurgitated and refuted claims.

 

[JohnR7]

I volunteer to give the eulogy at the funeral of American science education.

If you put evolution in the trash can were it belongs education and science would do just fine without it. In fact they would be better off for having taken the trash out and gotten rid of the clutter.

 

[JohnR7]

There was never a global flood.

There WAS a global flood. Only it was closer to 400 feet deep. It was not the 5000 feet deep needed to get Noahs boat up in the mountains. Noah's flood would have had to be local flood.

 

[Hydra009]

If you put evolution in the trash can were it belongs education and science would do just fine without it. In fact they would be better off for having taken the trash out and gotten rid of the clutter.

Great idea. But why stop there?

Let's get rid of the Big Bang theory from astronomy, too, because some people don't like it. And old galaxies. Let's just close our eyes and pretend they don't exist.
With geology, let's just remove references to everything older than 6,000 years, throw in a couple human+dino footprints, and we're all set.
And we should axe quantum mechanics altogether, because we all know Einstein was soooo unChristian.

Hopefully, after we butcher science enough, the creationists will finally be satisfied.

 

[Arikay]

I should point out that John has stated earlier (and I think he was serious) that there really is no use for scientific education beyond Highschool level (for the entire population or just for the average man I dont know).

 

[Valkhorn]

There WAS a global flood. Only it was closer to 400 feet deep. It was not the 5000 feet deep needed to get Noahs boat up in the mountains. Noah's flood would have had to be local flood.

John, I've completely rebutted your claim in this new thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1370974-out-with-the-old-in-with-the-new.html&page=3

I'd love for you to respond.

 

[Th3 M3553ng3r]

Well here's a few things to help lighten up this article...evolution does kinda make a lot of sense lol...if that sounds right. But lots of people are like "where did bacteria come from?" and "why doesn't the big bang make sense?" Well the big bang doesn't make sense is pretty simply answered...the theory itself was disproved a few years ago, now as for where did bacteria come from? Well they were created by organic molecules mostly composed of carbon compounds fusing with eachother...{gasps for breath!} Those organic compounds came from lightning and gases in the earth's early atmosphere, the lightning simply aroused those gases and then they fused together...and so evolution began from there...ummm i dont remember the two scientist who figured the whole lightning and earth's gases thing but they do exist!! look them up!

 

[random_guy]

If you put evolution in the trash can were it belongs education and science would do just fine without it. In fact they would be better off for having taken the trash out and gotten rid of the clutter.

John, perhaps you would like to comment on the topic,

http://www.christianforums.com/t1415524-the-possible-effects-of-anti-evolutionism.html?

 

[caravelair]

"why doesn't the big bang make sense?" Well the big bang doesn't make sense is pretty simply answered...the theory itself was disproved a few years ago,

it was? this is news to me. what was the evidence that falsified it?

 

[Th3 M3553ng3r]

I don't remember it exactly, I read that text book like 3 years ago lol...but it said that the scientist were monitoring the patterns that all the galaxies were moving in, and said that judging by the way all of the galaxies were moving {which is basically in many different directions as in criss crossing eachother's paths, that it was impossible for the big bang to have ever happened.

 

[caravelair]

I don't remember it exactly, I read that text book like 3 years ago lol...but it said that the scientist were monitoring the patterns that all the galaxies were moving in, and said that judging by the way all of the galaxies were moving {which is basically in many different directions as in criss crossing eachother's paths, that it was impossible for the big bang to have ever happened.

hmm, well there are issues to do with the distribution of galaxies too, but i don't think this necessarily falsifies the theory. it does mean there are some questions that need to be answered, but the simple fact is, the universe is expanding. reverse time, and it's contracting. eventually all that matter is going to be concentrated together. also, the CMB radiation seems to support this.

 

[Th3 M3553ng3r]

nothing says that CMB radiation was radiated from one point, it is just said to be the oldest form of radiation and that it fills the universe, there's no proof that the universe itself is expanding, only that the galaxies are gradually moving furthur away, there's no proof that everything will eventually contract. And time itself is only a theory, you can't say it exists simply because you have a clock in your bedroom...you must remember that we originally used time to measure what time of the day it is and how distant we were from recorded events in history...einstien stated that the 4th dimension is time, in which he basically says that the three dimensions {length, width and height, (better known as volume} moves along this imaginary line we call time...he even hints that time itself runs in particles...which all of us science geeks out there know sounds ridiculous...einstien also said some giberesh about time intervals between lightning strikes, so in the end, it is VERY unlikely that time itself exists, you most PROBABLY cannot travel back in time through any means {such as the speed of light, or opposing revolutions to the earth} the only TRUE evidence of the big bang is that most galaxies are just giant black holes from large stars...but you have to understand that there's many of them, and only one star makes one black hole. So there's no evidence of a super star creating many black holes, or else one regular star would give off many tiny black holes

 

[Hortysir]

"Approximately 15 billion years ago, life began..."
"No, it was more like 7 billion years ago..."
"Uh, well, the earth probably began about..."
"The strata may show..."
"Well, we evolutionists don't exactly agree about when, why or how the world began, but...




evolution is a fact and you are unscientific if you don't believe it!"




It is extremely interesting to me how educated fools have tricked the masses into believing in evolution. Evolution is not:

• repeatable,
• testable; or,
• observable.

In other words, it doesn't even qualify as real science. And I'm unscientific for believing what God has clearly told me about creation? Mmmm....You'll never get me to believe a monkey is my uncle, a rat is my cousin, and that lice are my near kinsmen.
{old post of mine from another forum, forgot link}

 

[notto]

Hortysir, can you provide any scientific sources that make the statements that you are attributing to it? You do know what a strawman is, don't you? You might want to get rid of that post and not recycle it further. It only shows that you really haven't even tried to understand the topic you attack and instead choose to use logically poor arguments and emotional appeal. That won't carry much weight here. You might try the teen forum.

 

[Arikay]

Horty: If you can show me one scientific paper that says life began 15 billion years ago, I will give you all of my blessings.

On a side note, I was under the impression false witness was a sin. Or is genesis really the only valid part of the bible anymore.

 

[The Eye]

I don't remember it exactly, I read that text book like 3 years ago lol...but it said that the scientist were monitoring the patterns that all the galaxies were moving in, and said that judging by the way all of the galaxies were moving {which is basically in many different directions as in criss crossing eachother's paths, that it was impossible for the big bang to have ever happened.

This is both the problem and the strength of science. Science is always being tested. Just because one guy says "This can't happen" doesn't mean "This can't happen". It's just one guy's view which itself is open to argument.

The problem with the whole creation issue (and some creationists realise this) is that there is no evidence. There can't be, creationism is simply a belief, nothing more. You have nothing other than the book. Nothing. It says here this, therefore it must be true. Nothing else.

And herein lies the big problem. Every time there is a pop at evolution, the scientist will pull out some evidence and say "here's the answer". Creationists will then either move on to the next argument or just plain ignore him.

I actually have a lot of time for creationists, having such a strong belief in something for which this is no evidence takes a lot of stamina.

From a science point of view I think evolution can probably be explained a little better. For example, the fallacy that we are evolved from monkeys or that evolution and the origin of man are the same thing. Both of these are used as arguments against evolution.

Evolution is a scientific fact, it can be proven extremely easily and is proven every day. From this scientists are able to infer an origin of species, but as no-one was around to see it, it will never be proven. However, this doesn't mean the creationists are right.

I think it does a disservice to the church to simply use the bible to patch up gaps in knowledge.