Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Evolution

[Split Rock]

Sure thing:

So, God used a straw broom?

 

[mpok1519]

I think that was me.

oh, good.

I was worried that someone with valuable input said it.

Luckily you don't know anything about me.

I don't worship science. Nor do I worship math, writing, reading, art, etc.

You're just exhibiting a creepy vibe when you tell people that they worship something, when they don't.

Inversely, I could say you worship ignorance, self-convolusion, delusion, misguidance; basically everything the devil stands for.

But I'm not gonna say that.

Since I'm more polite than that.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, God used a straw broom?

What's so funny? ever heard about that lad's 2-piece fish dinner?

-- You should have seen what He used to save Noah!?

 

[cupid dave]

I answered your questions in the other thread. Why you see fit to post them in multiple threads is beyond me.

You know, instead of claiming that whatever you found sould only be explained by a global flood, maybe you could actually back that up with an actual detailed explanation for any of it. Maybe you can explain things a catastrophic flood could not? Like miles of chalk deposits... or deposition of shale, which can only be formed by quiet water?

Its OK that people believe the "Flood" was like the traditional story every generation before our own has passed down.

The greatest minds that ever lived before now believed the story.

What is important though, is that the "Flood" story is very accurate in its direct analogy with the evolution of modern man, and cries out for us to tell it in just that rational a way for evermore.

 

[cupid dave]

The first animal fossils, early sponges, appear in the Trezona Formation at Trezona Bore, West Central Flinders, South Australia in 665 mya rock.

The oldest fossil spores reveal evolution of non-vascular plants by the middle to late Ordovician Period 450 mya.

665-450= animal came before plants.

?
What did they eat?

Hahahaaaaa...
But don't be foolish in thinking that fossils prove first life.

The assumption was naive for the biologists when they tried to "invent" a classification that separated the six rock layers according to those with evidence of life locked inside, (Phanerozoic Eon), and those without such evidence (Pre-Cambrian or Cryptozoic eon).

Today, we know life existed that left no fossils, and way way before those dates you listed above.

 

[Huram Abi]

what did they eat? you've had this answered. The first response you ever gave to me was in response to me answering this question elsewhere.

Fungi, bacteria, and each other.


I know, how did they breathe if no plants were there to make oxygen, right?

again, bacteria enriched the early atmosphere with oxygen.

Nice try, though.

 

[cupid dave]

what did they eat? you've had this answered. The first response you ever gave to me was in response to me answering this question elsewhere.

Fungi, bacteria, and each other.


I know, how did they breathe if no plants were there to make oxygen, right?

again, bacteria enriched the early atmosphere with oxygen.

Nice try, though.

Yes, "bacteria enriched the early atmosphere with oxygen" like the plants do now.

This enrichment took many million of years:

 

[Loudmouth]

First Information is only relevant to an intelligent agent.

No, it isn't. Information is a very important concept in physics were information is passed between one physical state to another.

I do not know what your string of base pairs does so obviously how can you interpret a change in entropy?

Then pick a gene with a known function and show what it looks like with information added to it and information taken away. Until you do this you can not make any claims with regards to information and genetics.

I do sense that you know nothing about information theory so when someone speaks about a loss or gain in entropy you are clueless.

If we are using Shannon information as our model then we could treat a DNA binding protein and a DNA sequence as the sender and receiver. Any increase in the bidning of the protein to the DNA sequence would be considered an increase in information. This is exactly what Schneider modeled in his ev computer model, and he observed that random changes filtered through selection produced an increase in information:

Evolution of biological information

So yes, the mechanisms of evolution can increase information.

 

[Loudmouth]

Only in it's entire premise. The weak should die so that the species more fortunate to be able to cope with environmental stresses will survive and prosper.

Nowhere does the theory of evolution state that the weak SHOULD die. Nowhere. You are confusing an is with an ought.

Is–ought problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might as well claim that the theory of gravity states that people ought to fall, therefore we should be pushing people off tall buildings.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dream on evolutionists…

Schneider observed information increases as a result of mutation and seleciton. No dreaming necessary.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hello, have not been to CF in many months. I was pursuing my recreational hobby during the warm summer months of gold mining.

My hobby has shown me firsthand things that directly contradict the concept of evolution, and also the dating system that is the foundation that the whole house of cards of evolution rests upon.

So what would those things be?

1.) Polystrate Trees
2.) Extremely deep gravel deposits (600 feet deep) buried within Sierra mountain tops.
3.) Reports of bones and fossils in those gravel deposits of species not common to this continent.
4.) Discovery of long extinct species in those same gravel deposits.
5.) Report of Human skull found in same deposits by the most noted geologist of the time.
6.) Probability that these gravel deposits were as a result of a worlwide flood.
7.) Direct evidence found in old mining reports that bolster the worlwide flood theory.
8.) Coarse gold and coincident lode gold veins found within well round placer gravel deposits that can not be explained as being from some massive anceint river, Quite to the contrary, there is no plausible explanation to support any alternative theory other than a rapid chaotic event such as a flood. I have studied old mining reports for decades. The reports of the early miners are well documented and plentiful that contain this information. I have found similar stories even within the geologic community and many that are even contemporary.

So what would I cast into this discussion?

Within a historic mining tunnel of a good friend of is an enigma. His mine starts through solid rock (quartz) for hundreds of feet horizontally. At some poit the nature of the tunnel turns into being a cemented type of rounded gravels that was what the old miners were finding gold mixed within. But at the end of this mine deep inside a mountain (maybe 800 to 1000 feet from the surface).....there are huge rounded river boulders and massive deposits of gravel. Water freely circulates through this placer gold bearing gravel layer. Even within the solid rock portions of the mine water seeps through the cracks and fissures. At the end of the tunnel one sees a 50 foot deep shaft going down that clearly shows the boulders I mentioned. But at the top of the 50 foot deep shaft the enigma I mentioned lies exposed slapping you in the face. There is a portion of the tunnel wall of which appears to be a hard rock deposit of some sort. Look closely and you see angular fragments well mixed throughout this apparent type of hard rock. Within this "rock" are pieces of sinuous or stringy blackened tree bark sticking out in various places. The appearance of the bark is quite obviously redwood, and in remarkably good condition. You can pull this material free and feel the intact fibers in your fingers. This material sits on top of those huge rounded river boulders keep in mind. That hard rock deposit has very distinct sharply angular fragments. Miners noticed and puzzled about these anomolies when they encountered them. I have questioned many miners up in that region and they all have stories to tell like this one, and the sort of odd occurences they saw with their own eyes. Many believe in the flood because of what they have witnessed in their time of mining. This is not somebody sitting around daydreaming about mind fantasies. These guys were within the bowels of the earth witnessing in situ things that test the sensibilty of those that witness them. The old mining reports contain the exact same things I have talked to modern day lifetime miners about. Reality....real people....real things....things that throw serious doubt on evolution and the flawed assumption of time dating that it rests upon.

How can modern geology explain away this anomaly? Those tree bark pieces sticking out of hard rock are billions of years old with water percolating through them?

Come on put on your thinking caps now.

Common sense has to be used for this to be explained away.

Tree bark that is billions of years old? I can't wait to hear this one.........

Angular formed rock on top of huge rounded river boulders buried a 1000 feet inside a Sierra mountain top.....

Come on I want to hear about that ancient river that left 600 deep gravel deposits in its wake....

Come on let's engage some common sense now....

That worldwide flood doesn't seem to be that impossible now eh?

Let's cut the chase, shall we? What type of geologic formation, if observed, would falsify a recent global flood? Please be specific.

 

[Huram Abi]

Yes, "bacteria enriched the early atmosphere with oxygen" like the plants do now.

This enrichment took many million of years:

Do you have a point?

 

[razeontherock]

This is exactly what Schneider modeled in his ev computer model, and he observed that random changes filtered through selection produced an increase in information:

Evolution of biological information

So yes, the mechanisms of evolution can increase information.

This is what you would call a horribly flawed conclusion. Correction; a loud and horrible conclusion

 

[Skaloop]

This is what you would call a horribly flawed conclusion. Correction; a loud and horrible conclusion

If you're going to refute the findings of a published article, you need to show how it is flawed rather than just saying that it is. Not necessarily in the same detail, but some specifics would be nice.

 

[mpok1519]

This is what you would call a horribly flawed conclusion. Correction; a loud and horrible conclusion

how is it flawed?

You can't just say it is without making a rational conclusion as to how and why it is flawed.

 

[SkyWriting]

Show us all then how The Flood produced miles of chalk, as we see in England. ....

The major features of the Chalk (purity, thickness,
wide geographical occurrence, clear evidences of deposition
in thick beds rather than laminae, erosive horizons,
sedimentary structures of mounds and slumping, uneven
distribution of fossils) are not adequately explained by
uniformitarian models. Chalk

 

[Belk]

This is what you would call a horribly flawed conclusion. Correction; a loud and horrible conclusion

And this would be what we call an assertion without any backing. Seems to be a specialty of yours.

 

[SkyWriting]

Nowhere does the theory of evolution state that the weak SHOULD die. Nowhere. You are confusing an is with an ought.

Is–ought problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might as well claim that the theory of gravity states that people ought to fall, therefore we should be pushing people off tall buildings.

OK. Millions MUST DIE so beneficial changes can occur. Is that better? I'm not sure K-8 is ready for these "truths."

 

[mpok1519]

OK. Millions MUST DIE so beneficial changes can occur. Is that better? I'm not sure K-8 is ready for these "truths."

Yknow whats strange? Every living organism, must die, period.

Thats how life works.

 

[SkyWriting]

Let's cut the chase, shall we? What type of geologic formation, if observed, would falsify a recent global flood? Please be specific.

We don't know enough details on the Flood.
Science does very poor with historical facts.
Any that are suggested are often disputed later.