• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Is Evolution A Lie?

Discussion in 'UK and Ireland' started by Celtic D, Jul 30, 2011.

  1. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member

    Nababolis says

    Do explain, you have lost me.

    It appears you could not comprehend the example I already gave you to save the obvious circular reasoning that goes on around this. Real science and the basic equations that support it get men to the moon using gravitational theories that work. This is because you can observe the reality of how gravity works in this part of the universe. However, the singularity is a theoretical assertion that uses gravitational theory that does not even work theoretically and is not observed and therefore is not real science...it is theoretical.....

    Evolution is supported by theoretical science and assertions eg Yiu find fossils and then have to do things like put human foot arches on a chimp to explain a 3.6myo fully human metatarsel fossil found. It does matter to evos if Erectus was a waddler and contradicts Lucy being more bipedal that the Gona pelvis has made Erectus out to be..

    Creation is supported by observation which is the basis of real science. eg chimps, bonobos, gorillas or any other apes do not have human foot arches and metatarsels and this observed and factual. Therefore the metatarsel found demonstrates mankind predates their supposed ancestors like Lucy and Ardi (chimp and gorilla) and even Erectus the waddler. Erectus and her waddle is not a problem for me because a bipedal ape with a human gait as apes apparently had in Lucy (if it is not all woffle) would have gone into a waddle as they were adapting back to the trees and on to becoming a chimp, bonobo, orang, gorilla etc reflecting the gracile and robust apes we see today.

    Now this above is based on the reasonings of researchers I believe have no idea what they are talking about.

    Understanding evolution doesn't mean we have all the answers and if biologists are right now about to reorder the history of human evolution then so be it, I don't see it as such a problem. Personally, I'm not a biologist and lack any knowledge on the details of human evolution.

    i just find it interesting, that you assume that any problem in a theory is a massive deal and is grounds to dismiss it.

    This would be fair enough if it was just one little change or so. However you have 150 years of them. You do not have a theory at all. What you have is a theory in evolution itself. If you had a theory you would see the data continue to support the status quo not change it virtually with every new find.

    You see you lot will never recover from asserting Lucy with all her humanity is now a chimp or bonobo. It is testimony to stupidity and a bunch of researchers that have no idea really what they are talking about.

    Indeed these ancient apes could be the ancestors of some modern apes but they could also just as easily not be. These ancient apes could have been bipeds or no more bipedal than apes are at times today.

    However what the data is... is what it is and I believe I have successfully demonstrated 2 things.

    One is that evolutionary researchers have no idea what they are talking about.eg Lucy

    Secondly I have demonstrated that even biased and ridiculous evolutionary scenarios and interpretations, make a better case for creation than they do evolution.

    This above is also using your own evolutionary assertions to demonstrate the nonsense and inconsistent straw grabbing behind all evolutionary support for human ancestry...

    Last edited: Dec 27, 2011
  2. Nabobalis

    Nabobalis Guest

    The singuarlyary is not just theoretical, it is observed indirectly at the centre of our own galaxay as well AGNs (Active galactic nucleus). Black holes are the best explanation for these objects.

    What part of evolution is theoretical? Natural selection is not theoretical and it is the main driver of evolution.

    Creationism is not supported, there was no global flood, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, the universe is at least 14 billion years old.

    You seem very caught up in the path of human evolution and using gaps in that to justify creationism.
  3. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member


    You have replied to my post and said absolutely nothing of substance.
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2011
  4. SithDoughnut

    SithDoughnut The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist

    You first, considering how painfully wrong you are. It is evident that you don't know how scientific investigation works, if you think the other dimensions were "invented". Some theories conclude that other dimensions are necessary. They were not invented, it was realised that they had to exist for the models of the universe to work. Gravity was not invented by Newton, and the dimensions required to fit certain models were not invented either.

    You've yet to come up with an actual point here. The Theory of Evolution does not reside upon Lucy being an ancestor of humanity.

    That depends on which creation you're talking about. Your particular version of Creation came about when scientists discovered that the universe was older than previously thought. The Biblical interpretations then had to be re-defined in order to fit this in.

    Incorrect. Homo Habilis is an ancestor of Homo Sapiens, and came long after the ape called Lucy.

    This, of course, is your biggest fallacy. Not only do you base this claim upon demonstrably false assertions, you appear to be under the delusion that any issue with evolution is instantly evidence for creationism. That is not the case; if evolution is completely disproved then we end up back at square one. For Creationism to be true, you have to present your own solid argument - something that has never happened (and, judging by the desperate attempts at "logical" arguments popular among creationists now, never will happen).

    If you really want a more detailed explanation of evolution and the evidence for it, you should head over to the Creation & Evolution Sub-Forum, where there are people who know far more than the likes of us here.
  5. Nabobalis

    Nabobalis Guest

    You are the one making the assertion, you can give me a link. The singularity ( the black hole) has been observed indirectly at the centre of our galaxy.

    You keep going on about Lucy, you do know that evolution is more than just about humans? You still didn't tell me what part of evoultion is theoretical.

    You talk about creation and I assume a YEC/OEC creationist, either way there is no global flood and the age of the universe and of this planet are wrong. You have no justification other than biblical for creationism.

    Fair enough.
  6. ianb321red

    ianb321red Well-Known Member

    United Kingdom
    It's still theoretical - it's part of the general theory of relativity. The indirect observations serve to support hypotheses, and this is simply because none of the affects can be detected directly from earth.

    There's nothing wrong with theories though! Theory is good under the circumstances....you just have to be slightly cautious what conclusions you can draw from them...
  7. Nabobalis

    Nabobalis Guest

    I think that most astronomers would say that they are not theoretical, having indirectly measured the mass in the centre of our galaxy and now with this gas cloud moving towards it, it will be an interesting couple of years of observations.
  8. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member

    How can anyone know anything in relation to this mess. Now you lot have bipeds dated to 8mya and apes were bipedal before mankind...apes had reduced pelvis eg Lucy and now they have human feet..Good one!

    Here are some problems with big bang physics....

    List of unsolved problems in physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Here is one theory around earth centred universe..that does not need crazy dark matter and energy you lot know stuff all about...

    Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route

    Evolution is such a mess it is a great field to work in. After all evo researchers are one of the few proffessions when one can be consistently wrong and not get fired......
  9. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member

    The point being,, before it gets lost in the mire is....All the humanity attributed to Lucy is delusional and evo researchers have no idea what they are talking about.

    Any scenario invented does not provide evidence of any thing more than an over active imagination.

    Evolutionary researchers will not let science and observation get in the way of a good story. eg human metatarsal dated to 3.6mya.
  10. Nabobalis

    Nabobalis Guest

    I don't see anything in the previous post talking about multiple dimensions, they might exist, they might not. Right now there is no evidence for them.

    You link has this quote:

    So taking 50,000 years worth of C14, with a half life of 5730, means that after that time there is roughly 0.2% C14 of the original amount left. This happens to be near the limit of using carbon dating to date anything. Now, where did this come from? Either it is contamination since the sample was taken or was part of the local environment, such as coal beds where:

    It is why when geologists use carbon dating, you have to be careful and make sure it is young enough to make an accurate date

    Once again, problems with the chain of human evoultion does not mean that the whole theory is wrong. You can't make that leap since the path of human evoultion has no effect on the mechanisms of evoultion. In your previous post, you link a Wikipedia page with problems related to physics, like you can use those problems to dismiss any scientific theory you don't like. It doesn't work like that, no theory in science is ever complete and almost all have problems.

    Regarding that link about the mathematics alternative model of the universe, it is a very fascinating page, once you get back to the original article. Also, it isn't the first time something along these lines has been proposed to explain dark matter and dark energy. However, right now it will need to be fleshed out but it will be interesting to see how it evolves.
  11. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member


    I think the main point I would like to make on an "Is evolution a Lie" thread is simply evolutionists have no idea what they are talking about. The only difference is intent. I believe your researchers actually have been so inculcated into evolutionary conundrum that they have lost the human traits of common sense and ability to discern what they observe.

    Is a fossil with chimp traits a chimp ancestor? Of course not. It must be human.

    Is a fossil with gorilla traits a gorilla ancestor? Of course not. It must be human.

    This is just one of the nonsenses behind evolutionary science. There in underlies the reason why you have no fossil evidence for chimps or gorillas. They are hidden in the human line.eg Ardi, Lucy.

    Evo researchers agree that "It all evolved". However they do not agree on how, when, where or why. More importantly what it all boils down to is they have no idea what they are talking about.

    The very human traits used to identify humanity have been proven to be false with these so called human traits apparent in non humans. It appears apes had many of them first eg bipedalism, reduced pelvis. The article below speaks to this.

    The African primate known as Ardi and a couple of other fossil creatures widely regarded as early members of the human evolutionary family — or hominids, for short — may really be apes hiding in plain sight, two anthropologists say.

    “Researchers have to stop publishing papers that say, essentially, ‘This fossil is an early hominid, so suck it up and accept it,’” Wood says. “Nature and Science could change this practice overnight if they wanted to.”

    Human Ancestors Have Identity Crisis - Science News

    What's more...it appears that there are evolutionary researchers that agree with me....
  12. artybloke

    artybloke Well-Known Member

    Christian Seeker
    Why is that creationists always come up with the same bunkum every time? See above for example. So full of strawmen it's a fire hazard.
  13. Assyrian

    Assyrian Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

    If there were any real arguments against evolution, organisations who teach creationism would use them instead, but there aren't. So, since creationists all know evolution is wrong, they love any argument that seems to contradict it, even if it is a strawman. The alternative is unthinkable, that there really aren't any decent arguments against evolution.