Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Evolution

[Astridhere]

<edit>
Would you like to explain how 212myo modern bird footprints align with your current evolutionary theory. Oh Yeah..the footprints happen to belong to a dinosaur that just happened to have fully modern bird feet. Rather this is evidence of birds being created closer to the Devonian than previously found.
Ancient bird-like footprints found - 26 June 2002 - New Scientist
Figure[bless and do not curse]1 : Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic : Nature

Perhaps you would like to defend 3.7myo fully human footprints, Laetolli, that are meant to belong to a 3.5ft curved fingered ape that has been dethroned from the human lineage, while 700,000 years earlier Ardi still had ape feet. Rather, this is evidence of mankind being here before any supposed ancestors confirming the creationist prediction that there are no intermediates between man and ape.

Perhaps you would like to refute shock wave theory that places the earth at the centre of the universe and has no need for invented mysterious dark matter your scientists know nothing about and unworkable singularities as insertion values to sticky tape it together and keep big bang alive. Rather this is evidence of earth being far from an ordinary and unremarkable planet.
Mathematicians&#8217; theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route
Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, &lsquo;quantized&rsquo; redshifts show
Spaceflight Now | Breaking News | New cosmic look may cast doubts on big bang theory

Or perhaps youd like to speak to misrepresentaions such as Indohyus the deer, being called an 'early whale', coelecanth the walking fish that didn't, or hyracotherium (eohippus) the presumed five toed horse, or the treasure trove of irrefuteable evidence for evolution that now resides in the garbage bin, like LUCA.

Or perhaps you'd like to face off other maybe's, likely, probably and possibly, all the assumptions and probabilities in your algorithms and 150 years of changed thinking and instability that make up your evolutionary science against what I can produce.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - index.html
ACCURATE PREDICTIONS BASED ON THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION MODEL | TASC

Or you can just accept that as far as theoretical science goes, any of the various creationist assertions are just as robust, if not more so, than anything you can produce as evidence for evolution.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

There is no "just' about it. I can do much more than cite names of credentialed researchers.

Would you like to explain how 212myo modern bird footprints align with your current evolutionary theory. Oh Yeah..the footprints happen to belong to a dinosaur that just happened to have fully modern bird feet. Rather this is evidence of birds being created closer to the Devonian than previously found.
Ancient bird-like footprints found - 26 June 2002 - New Scientist
Figure[bless and do not curse]1 : Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic : Nature

Perhaps you would like to defend 3.7myo fully human footprints, Laetolli, that are meant to belong to a 3.5ft curved fingered ape that has been dethroned from the human lineage, while 700,000 years earlier Ardi still had ape feet. Rather, this is evidence of mankind being here before any supposed ancestors confirming the creationist prediction that there are no intermediates between man and ape.

Perhaps you would like to defend shock wave theory that places the earth at the centre of the universe and has no need for invented mysterious dark matter your scientists know nothing about and unworkable singularities as insertion values to sticky tape it together and keep big bang alive. Rather this is evidence of earth being far from an ordinary and unremarkable planet.
Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route
Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, &lsquo;quantized&rsquo; redshifts show
Spaceflight Now | Breaking News | New cosmic look may cast doubts on big bang theory

Or perhaps youd like to speak to misrepresentaions such as Indohyus the deer, being called an 'early whale', coelecanth the walking fish that didn't, or hyracotherium (eohippus) the presumed five toed horse, or the treasure trove of irrefuteable evidence for evolution that now resides in the garbage bin, like LUCA.

Or perhaps you'd like to face off other maybe's, likely, probably and possibly, all the assumptions and probabilities in your algorithms and 150 years of changed thinking and instability that make up your evolutionary science against what I can produce.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - index.html
ACCURATE PREDICTIONS BASED ON THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION MODEL | TASC

Or you can just accept that as far a theoretical science goes, any of the various creationist assertions are just as robust, if not more so, than anything you can produce as evidence for evolution.

I might also suggest you stop using cdesign proponentsists web sites for your information. They horribly get is wrong - everytime. Getting relevant science information from creo sites is like asking a 5 year old how to perform a heart transplant.

 

[Nostromo]

However some very well credentialled scientists with outstanding achievements are creationists.

I hate an argument ad populum as much as the next rational guy, but that list has 6 (six) names on it, only 1 of whom is a biologist.

I see your 6, and raise you 285.

Membership Register

 

[Astridhere]

FrencyBearpaw, Nostromo & Split Rock since when was any opinion better than the evidence I produced.

Feel free to refute my evidence any time, particularly the shockwave theory that places earth at the centre of the universe. Big Bang requires the use of dark matter and energy that scientists have no clue about but is required to explain the presumed increasing rate of expansion. You have a singularity that evokes the requirement of multiple dimensions..and you reckon creationists can spin good yarns.

I have produced a theory that does not require the use of the unknown. As far as science goes the production of a theory that does not rest on the unknown and does not require myths like multiple dimensions appears to be more credible than big bang with its contradictions.

Creation=Science
Evolution=Myth and non plausible scenarios

The best you 3 have refuted me with is your opinion and 'that's not true because evos say so'. .

AV if you are around please note the credibility of the replies. It appears these 3 evolutionists have no more than rhetoric when it comes to defending their science on specifics, let alone knowing what amounts to credible evidence and what doesn't.

Let's see these substantiate their big bang theory that is based on the ridiculous as opposed to one that doesn't require mysteries but places the earth at the centre of the universe. Let's watch them demand more robust and substantiated evidence then they themselves are able to provide.

 

[Belk]

FrencyBearpaw, Nostromo & Split Rock since when was any opinion better than the evidence I produced.

Feel free to refute my evidence any time, particularly the shockwave theory that places earth at the centre of the universe. Big Bang requires the use of dark matter and energy that scientists have no clue about but is required to explain the presumed increasing rate of expansion. You have a singularity that evokes the requirement of multiple dimensions..and you reckon creationists can spin good yarns.

I have produced a theory that does not require the use of the unknown. As far as science goes the production of a theory that does not rest on the unknown and does not require myths like multiple dimensions appears to be more credible than big bang with its contradictions.

Creation=Science
Evolution=Myth and non plausible scenarios

The best you 3 have refuted me with is your opinion and 'that's not true because evos say so'. .

AV if you are around please note the credibility of the replies. It appears these 3 evolutionists have no more than rhetoric when it comes to defending their science on specifics, let alone knowing what amounts to credible evidence and what doesn't.

Let's see these substantiate their big bang theory that is based on the ridiculous as opposed to one that doesn't require mysteries but places the earth at the centre of the universe. Let's watch them demand more robust and substantiated evidence then they themselves are able to provide.

And yet, oddly enough, Evolution and Universal expansion are still scientific theories being used every day to increase human knowledge around the world. Maybe it's a giant global conspiracy!

 

[AV1611VET]

AV if you are around please note the credibility of the replies.

So noted, sis.

I've been listening to their credibility for five and a half years now.

Give'em a bone, and they'll turn it into a whole civilization of missing links.

 

[Split Rock]

So noted, sis.

I've been listening to their credibility for five and a half years now.

Give'em a bone, and they'll turn it into a whole civilization of missing links.

We have much more than "a bone," though... don't we AVET?

 

[razeontherock]

But it's still just a few. A whopping four people in a field hundreds of thousands strong. A staggering few compared to those who aren't Creationists.


But there are a good many more, every bit as well credentialed (or moreso), who clearly see that the evidence not only supports evolution but is contrary to Creationism.

Within the scientific community, Creationism has a drop of support. Evolution has oceans of it.

First of all, this is not a fair comparison. the amount of resources devoted to either side of the aisle is nowhere near equal.


Second of all, you're off on a red herring. The point of raising this issue was in response to the tired old ditty about "you just don't believe Ev because you're ..." (insert some term for an uneducated dolt.)

The fact remains some people who are not uneducated dolts and have appropriate credentials for the typical internet scoffer to recognize it, still find problems with ToE, as is. Apparently there must be something to it, that the majority are overlooking ... (truth doesn't usually pay well)

 

[sk8Joyful]

If you live in a 6000 year old box (#1),
I can see how you cannot make sense of the other points.

As always, the 'operative' word in that phrase was IF

Meaning many us Christians & scientists know
that God had created other creatures, before us, right here on planet earth. -
We don't have a problem with any of that. Why do you?

For the most part, what the OP said, is right on.

 

[sk8Joyful]

They "lament" how poor science in general is taught. Incoming freshman in most cases need to be remediated in basic biology and math.
American students rank way down on the list in science and math.

Sad to say all of that is true! - When I arrived in the USA, at 13 in grade 7,
the American-born kids were still speaking in one-syllable words,
they couldn't spell CONSTITUTION tho their life depends on it.
(Yet, English was my 3rd. language at age 13.)

Further, they were still learning Kindergarten math, while we had studied Algebra & geometry.

And science? oy vey! - They had trouble telling what all the bones are in the human body,
while I was asking: "Where's my microscope , the slides, & the rest of micro-biology"

And less than a year later, I stood them up in a Spelling Bee, they born & raised in the USA.
And unfortunately in the 40 years since, US-education is even further down the toilet.

The BEST thing that could happen in this country, is to abolish "public"-education
for the abysmal FAILURE the rest of the world knows the US by.

off soapbox now.

Save to say: THANK GOD, for us Christian Homeschooling parents whose children continue graduating College, with Honors, while yet in their teens.

 

[Davian]

If you live in a 6000 year old box (#1), I can see how you cannot make sense of the other points.

As always, the 'operative' word in that phrase was IF

AV admits to living in a 6000-year-old 'box'. In his case it applies. I only put the "If" in there to be polite.

Meaning many us Christians & scientists know
that God had created other creatures, before us, right here on planet earth.

Outside of some bible stories, how could scientists know this?

- We don't have a problem with any of that.

Who is this "We" that you speak of and for?

Why do you?

Lack of evidence. The inability of anyone to demonstrate that "God creating creatures" is, in any way, more parsimonious than the scientific theory of evolution. The inability of anyone to demonstrate the existence of any deity.

For the most part, what the OP said, is right on.

Which parts? That you live in a 6000-year-old box or that you concur with the admittedly weak pokes at the scientific theory of evolution?

 

[Cabal]

The fact remains some people who are not uneducated dolts and have appropriate credentials for the typical internet scoffer to recognize it, still find problems with ToE, as is. Apparently there must be something to it, that the majority are overlooking ... (truth doesn't usually pay well)

Or "apparently", they're just wrong.

Which they are.

 

[Hentenza]

Meaning many us Christians & scientists know
that God had created other creatures, before us, right here on planet earth. -

Where is that teaching in scripture?

BTW- What field of science are you a scientist in? Just curious.

 

[Doveaman]

Give'em a bone, and they'll turn it into a whole civilization of missing links.

But yet they have a problem with a bone being turned into a woman.

 

[AV1611VET]

But yet they have a problem with a bone being turned into a woman.

ZING!
​

 

[cupid dave]

What's that you have there, an evolution bible?

Yes, I guess thats the sum of it.

The Theistic Evolution Bible Interpretation is what I call it.
It essentially explains the Bible from modern science/academic perspectives.

It starts at Gen 1:1
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id19.html

... and each page has links to various sources and supporting scrioture.

 

[cupid dave]

ZING!
​

The Theistic Bible explains that, in the Hebrew, the English word "bone" doesn't exactly mean that.
And "tesla," the word for "rib" really means "door."

This has psychological implications that suggest Gen 2 amd 3 are about the feminine side of man, or the evolution of our Anima.

 

[Self Improvement]

But yet they have a problem with a bone being turned into a woman.

Yes bones do not actually magically transform into women.

 

[AV1611VET]

And "tesla," the word for "rib" really means "door."

I don't need a door, I've got The Door:

John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

And Hebrew isn't my thing, so I stay away from it as much as I can.

One can get some pretty weird ideas going back to the Hebrew.

Using a Wrong's Concordance is like using the dictionary -- one word can have seven different meanings.

You want Moses crossing a natural land bridge? pull out Wrong's Concordance and tell'em the Hebrew says "Sea of Reeds" -- not "Red Sea".

You want the Tabernacle made of dolphin skin? Wrong's Concordance.

You want deep time? Wrong's Concordance.

You want a hippopotamus in Job 40? Wrong's Concordance.

See where I'm going with this?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes bones do not actually magically transform into women.

That's true --