Evidences *Against* Evolution

[larry lunchpail]

btw, what is a pratt list exactly?

 

[Ishmael Borg]

btw, what is a pratt list exactly?

A list of Points Refuted A Thousand Times. Some use 'Trillion' in place of 'Thousand'.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

What would this flood do to black holes? Or would they be what dry up the universe once flooded?

Precisely. Multiversal Wet-Vacs, if you will, so to speak.

 

[Risen Tree]

Precisely. Multiversal Wet-Vacs, if you will, so to speak.

* imagines these deafening suction sounds raging through the cosmic waters

 

[Logic]

What would this flood do to black holes? Or would they be what dry up the universe once flooded?

Well, to the first question, think about water draining out of a bath tub, you know how it makes that little vortex? These are BIG vorticies. After, they'd be like giant floating, hmm, *searches for a word* , "sky puddles."



Don't ask me to back up this claim, if you can't see the truth through your brick wall of pride, I can't help you.

 

[Risen Tree]

Well, to the first question, think about water draining out of a bath tub, you know how it makes that little vortex? These are BIG vorticies. After, they'd be like giant floating, hmm, *searches for a word* , "sky puddles."



Don't ask me to back up this claim, if you can't see the truth through your brick wall of pride, I can't help you.

But can't you see? The evidence for giant cosmic whirlpools is everywhere! Just look around! Look at all the vortices--the tornadoes, the whirlpools, the whirlwinds--we have here on Earth! And can you imagine, if we have that many here on Earth, how many are in Outer Space!

 

[Deamiter]

MY question is which way does the water spiral into these black holes? I mean, it'd be neat to pretend that the universe is static and all, but I'd like to think(for the sake of my sanity) that by measuring the spin of the vortexes of the universal flood, we can learn many things about God... like if S/He/It is right-handed or left-handed. Or if S/He/It prefers white bread or wheat.

Maybe once we figure THAT out, we can figure out what white bread's ACTUALLY made out of if it's opposite is called 'wheat'.... but I digress. Though without another post from the OP, perhaps off topic isn't the END of the univers(al flood?).

 

[Aggie]

I've added "Pratt lists" to my LiveJournal interests lists.

http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=agahnim

Sure, there are plenty of debating tactics that are more effective, and there are plenty that are more interesting. But I'd be hard-pressed to find one that I thought was more funny.

It seems like not many people feel the same way, though. The interest would be a link if there were anyone else at LiveJournal who also had it.

 

[mrversatile48]

Hi

You can tell when it's raining in UK by what us natives get up to..

I posted this post in a thread called something like "10 falsifications of YEC"

A mod asked me to edit & reference my post, so I had to do a "Confessions of a Novice Nerd" there, & PM the mod asking how to do a link to individual posts

I also put a great 1 there from the start of "Jillions of proofs for creation"

I guess this means both threads are back to the top of page 1

Do you think evolutionists will object to such..
er..
creativity??

Enjoy!

Ian

Evidences AGAINST Evolution.


Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Evidence #5
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.

Evidence #6
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Evidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

Evidence #9
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

Yep. Natural selection only removes genetic data, it doesn't generate new genetic data.

Natural selection preserves genetic data. NS is a method of preservation of good designs.

 

[lucaspa]

Do you think evolutionists will object to such..
er..
creativity??

We just object to the continued attempt to deceive people.

1. Transitional fossils: http://www.christianforums.com/t43227

2. Natural selection has been shown to make new species:
7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. 2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950.

3. Life from non-life:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htm
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t155621

4. transitional hominid fossils: this claim is simply denial. He presents no evidence for the supposed lack.
In chapter 13, Humans in Time and Space, by C. Loring Brace in Scientists Confront Creationism edited by Laurie Godfrey, 1983 you will find that there is a complete set of transitional fossils linking H. sapiens to H. heidelbergensis (archaic H. sapiens) to H. ergastor (H. erectus) to H. habilis to Australopithecus afarensis. By transitionals I mean fossils so in-between each of the species that it is arbitrary which of the adjacent species you assign them to. A. Afarensis is so different it is not even in the genus Homo. You can go to the American Museum of Natural History and look at the skeleton of Lucy (A. afarensis) and decide for yourself whether it is "human".

5. No backing or listing of what the 5 of 9 is.

6. Neandertals are not human because both fossil and DNA evidence shows that they are a separate species. H. erectus has many differences with H. sapiens and transitional fossils show the transformation of H. erectus to H. sapiens.

7. The so-called social implications of natural selection are the naturalistic fallacy of some humans applied to NS. As to "practical inconsistencies", humans now generally use NS when the design problem is too tough for them. NS is so practical that the inventions it generates are getting patents!

8. Logical inconsistencies of NS. Well, here is how Darwin summarized NS. Notice that it is a syllogism. Please show the logical inconsistency

"If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each beings welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occured useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 6th ed.]

9. The Flood as a cause for geology was falsified by 1831. By Christians, many of whom were ministers!
"By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the interpretation of the geological strata had changed radically. Virtually no established geologist thought that the thick sequences of stratified sedimentary rocks so evident in quarries, cliffs, and mountains had anything to do with the flood. Neptunists attributed stratification to deposition of sediments from a shrinking primeval ocean. Others suspected that rock strata represented deposits laid down in successive interchanges of land and sea, possibly over long periods of time before the advent of human beings." Davis A. Young, The Biblical Flood: A Case History of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence, pg 98.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Natural selection preserves genetic data. NS is a method of preservation of good designs.

Mutations create genetic data which results in new designs, natural selection preserves the designs that work.

It's kind of a tag-team thing.

 

[Jet Black]

Mutations create genetic data which results in new designs, natural selection preserves the designs that work.

It's kind of a tag-team thing.

exactly, mutations add a load of data, NS destroys some of that data (but not all the new data, in most cases). when discussing evolution, one always needs to keep in mind that it consists of multiple parts.