Facts to disprove theory of evolution

[stevil]

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

Well, not all birds in NZ became flightless, so I guess there was an advantage for some species to fly.

But it is a good inquisitive question.
Here is an article I just found on google about that topic

Why are there no flightless bats? We're closing in on an answer

A careful look at the few bats that can walk on the ground – including the common vampire bat – is helping us understand why evolution has yet to produce a flightless bat

www.newscientist.com

IN THE undergrowth of a New Zealand forest, something stirs. A small, fuzzy animal is scurrying over tree roots and through leaf litter, foraging for insects and fruit. It scuttles with an odd gait, as if on stilts. Is it a mouse? A bird? No, it’s a bat. The New Zealand lesser short-tailed bat, or pekapeka-tou-poto, to be precise.

Bats first took to the skies about 52 million years ago, and they have stayed there ever since. Among the world’s 1300 or so species, not one of them is flightless. Most can’t even walk very well, which is why many of us would be surprised by the behaviour of the pekapeka-tou-poto, a bat as comfortable on the ground as it is in the air.

But exactly why there are no flightless bats is an evolutionary mystery. The other great group of flying vertebrates, birds, have evolved to be flightless multiple times globally. They often do so on remote islands, such as those of New Zealand, where there is little danger from ground-based predation (at least until humans come along – roast dodo anyone?). In these circumstances, flightlessness is a good adaptation because flying is energetically costly.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

The artiface of the "interview" pointed to falsehood. (The random encounter with the nameless "scientist" who "proves" the falsity of the thing the writer wants falsified.) The repetition of the same interview with different names used indictates at least manipulation, exaggeration, or falsification. If the liar in question would like to sue me, he should go ahead.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

I didn't think you were speaking of paint specifically, but the Earth still hasn't been intentionally coated with anything by anyone.

 

[NxNW]

Arguing that something as complex as a single cell is a product of evolution is as impractical as finding a billion year old Rolex watch and declaring it happened through evolution

No, because nobody is arguing that a single cell assembled itself from out of the blue.

And many of us also know the Creator of life

Well, you might think you do.

But those that don't know this creator, look at life and desperately try to come up with some other explanation.

Who's desperate? The evidence overwhelmingly points towards evolution. There is zero evidence of the existence of the supernatural.

But glomming on to kinda silly hypotheses

You're confusing "hypothesis" with "theory".

and saying that is a more likely cause of the existence of life than an intelligent creator sort of exposes a bias.

It's a bias toward evidence.

And when a person knows the creator, "creation" is the Occam's razor explanation.

When you can provide evidence that you "know the creator", your argument might have substance.

 

[NxNW]

What could prove it?

A theory can never be proved; only disproved.

 

[NxNW]

Not the first time you’ve used this

It's an effective point.

 

[NxNW]

Personal experience works. Two healing miracles, four visions, one audible word from God, etc. But it's only good for the person who first hand experiences it. And much greater miracles have been claimed to be witnessed by many. e.g. the resurrection of Jesus.

Well, there are stories of first hand experiences. But nobody can tell me the date it happened. Or how tall Jesus was. Or what color his eyes were. Or produce a drawing of him made during his alleged lifetime. For something that monumental, you'd think someone would have kept a few records.

For that reason, I doubt the existence of Jesus, the witnesses, the apostles, etc. Oh, there may be humans at the center of the legends. For example, the story of Robin Hood might have originated from actual people or events, but I don't believe in Maid Marian or Little John or Friar Tuck anymore than I believe in Noah's Ark or Adam & Eve.

For me the evidence was compelling on many levels. It only got stronger over the years. Now, you could no more convince me that Jesus didn't do what is claimed than you could convince me my wife doesn't exist. Personal experience is very powerful.

I'd be curious about the nature of that evidence and experience.

And in Christianity, our relationship with our creator is VERY personal. One on one.

When I have a relationship with someone, there is two-way communication. Responses to questions and statements. I wonder if you hear God's voice or somehow feel you are receiving communication?

There is a movie call Touching the Void, a documentary of a mountain climbing accident. One climber finds himself facing what appears to be certain death. As he narrates later, he says he always wondered as an atheist if he'd suddenly develop faith in such a situation. The answer is no. Even in a situation that seemed beyond hope, he developed no such beliefs. An atheist in a foxhole.

 

[SelfSim]

There is a movie call Touching the Void, a documentary of a mountain climbing accident. One climber finds himself facing what appears to be certain death. As he narrates later, he says he always wondered as an atheist if he'd suddenly develop faith in such a situation. The answer is no. Even in a situation that seemed beyond hope, he developed no such beliefs. An atheist in a foxhole.

Now I'm gonna have ta challenge that one.
Joe Simpson heard continuous music towards what he thought was gonna be his final curtain call ..
'Twas Boney M's: 'Brown Girl in the Ring', over and over again, IIRC .. and he then believed he absolutely hated Boney M music!

 

[NxNW]

Now I'm gonna have ta challenge that one.
Joe Simpson heard continuous music towards what he thought was gonna be his final curtain call ..
'Twas Boney M's: 'Brown Girl in the Ring', over and over again, IIRC .. and he then believed he absolutely hated Boney M music!

I don't follow you. Who is Joe Simpson? Who is Boney M? Are you agreeing are disagreeing?

 

[SelfSim]

I don't follow you. Who is Joe Simpson? Who is Boney M? Are you agreeing are disagreeing?

Oh I agree with your point.
Joe Simpson wrote 'Touching the Void' and he was the one who had the climbing accident. Boney M is the pop group whose music he heard as he was probably close to death.

 

[Aussie Pete]

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

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.

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

Agreed.

If you say so.

The moon says that the earth is nowhere near 4.5 billion years. So does the ocean floor and erosion of the shoreline. If only rocks really could talk.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The artiface of the "interview" pointed to falsehood. (The random encounter with the nameless "scientist" who "proves" the falsity of the thing the writer wants falsified.) The repetition of the same interview with different names used indictates at least manipulation, exaggeration, or falsification. If the liar in question would like to sue me, he should go ahead.

I should expect that response from an evolutionist. It's the same basis as the theory of evolution, speculation and interpretation to suit your own agenda.

 

[Ophiolite]

I should expect that response from an evolutionist. It's the same basis as the theory of evolution, speculation and interpretation to suit your own agenda

Since you are so knowledgeable on the matter, what is my agenda?

 

[Astrid]

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.

When a metaphor ( which is what
you used) or analogy is so contrived,
so ambiguous and such a poor fit, its
worse than useless to author and reade

 

[Astrid]

A theory can never be proved; only disproved.

As mentioned for the 10 001at time.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I didn't think you were speaking of paint specifically, but the Earth still hasn't been intentionally coated with anything by anyone.

I'm not talking about coating stuff. That's not the point. I'm talking about change. That lots and lots of change could have happened before the age the bible IS talking about. I use the painting example for one reason: we can find evidence of the time before that. It can't be ignored.

I have to admit I find it almost comical that YEC's accept science and the change to beliefs it brought about regarding the sun, planets, galaxies, etc. But they refuse to acknowledge geological evidence of an old planet. In a way, I compare them to flat earthers, at least on this subject. And that doesn't mean I think they are stupid. Nor does she:

 

[Reasonably Sane]

No, because nobody is arguing that a single cell assembled itself from out of the blue.

Well, you might think you do.

Who's desperate? The evidence overwhelmingly points towards evolution. There is zero evidence of the existence of the supernatural.

You're confusing "hypothesis" with "theory".

It's a bias toward evidence.

When you can provide evidence that you "know the creator", your argument might have substance.

Obviously opinions vary.

I just had an amazing flashback. Back around the turn of the century, when internet forums were a new thing, I got involved in all sorts of discussions, but the most comical was the evolution discussions. This was at a time when we naively thought we could carefully explain our position and everyone would come around to our way of thinking. But those threads got thousands of posts long. I learned from that, but seem to have forgotten as I got wound up in this thread.

So this is my final post in this thread. You guys have fun.

And like I said, opinions vary. But at this particular time in history, I have a lot more compelling things to spend my time thinking about. Especially the last line in my tag line.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The moon says that the earth is nowhere near 4.5 billion years.

We have actual Moon rocks. They also agree that the age of the Moon is close to, but not quite 4.5 billion years.

So does the ocean floor and erosion of the shoreline.

Given that the ocean crust is the newest part of the crust and that is a well known fact, should I assume that you have chosen it deliberately to deceive?

If only rocks really could talk.

They can. Either you are not listening or...

 

[Hans Blaster]

I should expect that response from an evolutionist. It's the same basis as the theory of evolution, speculation and interpretation to suit your own agenda.

I'm not an evolutionist, I am a physicist. It's an entirely different area of science. My agenda is understanding how everything works.

 

[partinobodycular]

I'm not talking about coating stuff. That's not the point. I'm talking about change. That lots and lots of change could have happened before the age the bible IS talking about. I use the painting example for one reason: we can find evidence of the time before that. It can't be ignored.

Just an FYI, I got your point from the get go. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me. This just goes to show that sometimes, through no fault of either party, we don't pick up what the other person is putting down. Hence the loss of a perfectly good teachable moment. That's all that I wanted to say... please continue.