Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Evolution

[SkyWriting]

There are OEC and GAP creationists. Not even the majority are YEC.
The majority of Creationists do not believe what you claim they believe.

That is correct. Us 24/7's are a rare breed. Us 24/7's not Young Earth are like hens teeth but in transitional evolutionary forms.
When people tell me my views are "in the minority" they get the No-Kidding-Sherlock award.

 

[Huram Abi]

1) Yes that was easy, posting the list of possible species in the link to modern man.

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
by G.J. Sawyer, Viktor Deak
Hardcover, 256 pages
Published June 28th 2007 by Yale University Press

The truth is more like we just do not yet have a better connection than the 22 extinct species found in the book published recently to which I refer you.

2) The evidence that supports the genealogy of 22 names in Genesis is augmented by the recent discovery of our genetic link to Neanderthal inter-breeding which is also mentioned in Genesis:

Gen. 6:2 That (line in the ascent of mankind, leading to the evolution of Christ-like men), the sons of God: [Matt 5:9; Jhn 1:12 ], (Methuselahian Modern Homo erectus, derived through the line of Seth, Eurasian Homo erectus), saw the daughters of men, (the sister species of Tubal-cain, Naamahians, a late stage Neanderthal), they took them wives of all which they chose.

Your picture isn't consistent with the relational geneology laid out in genesis.

You're just throwing darts now, hoping something will stick.

 

[Huram Abi]

There is no statement regarding the process by which the Plant Kingdom preceded the Animal Kingdom.

Several people have now explained to you that biologists put the existence of animals occuring long before plants. As with most of your other claims, it has been clearly shown that science and genesis do not agree here.

 

[Split Rock]

Total information cannot be increased. It only changes form

Define "information" in this context. I will wait for the silence that will follow this post.

 

[Zaius137]

Evolution of biological information.

By Thomas D. Schnider

http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/ev.pdf



Some good stuff in this evolutionist post. I hope everyone took there time reviewing it.

I find several problems with Tom's decreased entropy. The overall challenge to prove his hypothesis is weak. Good math but bad science. My objections are as follows:

1) Information must be stored or it is reversible and does not constitute a reduction in entropy. Defiantly this is one of those cases where the reduction in entropy is not stored; according to Tom when he removed the selection criteria in the ev program the model tended back to disorder from the remaining parameters.
2) Tom postulated that R(frq)=R(seq) from the example of the human genome. In humans ( R(seq)) the entropy for locating binding sites is known (~9.4 bits). He hypothesizes that there is a relationship between binding sites and genome size. He calculates R(frq) by using the entropy of uniform distribution where the probability takes the form of 1/n. R(frq)= log(y/G), G= human genome size, y= number of genetic controls binding sites. My objection here is that Tom does not give any other known cases for the hypothetical relationship and I doubt that it holds for an organism like the Amoeba Dubia which has a genome 200 times the human genome.
3) The case of Langton’s Ant develops seemingly complex and organized structures but all from the basic rules the ant must follow. These rules are recognized to be a reduction of entropy imposed upon the ant and create the observed structures. I assert Tom’s results are of a similar nature and from his imposed rules.
4) Tom creates his own organism of 256 base pairs and 16 binding sites. This gives a value of log(16) = 4 bits to locate the binding site (way too small). The simplest bacteria today has about 160,000 base pairs (Candidatus Carsonella ruddii). So Tom is not talking about real life.
5) Tom has a mutation rate 10 times that of the retrovirus HIV-1 for his base mutation rate (not realistic). As a matter of fact Tom tweaked every value in his parameter set way above reality. I must ask if this isn’t just science fiction?
6) Tom’s results are really poor given every possible favorable assumption and only relate information concerning locating attachment sites. The real problem is the massive amount of information needed to create the life in the first place. Most favorable odds are above 1 in 10^1000th.

Dream on evolutionists…

 

[Aeneas]

Evolution of biological information.

By Thomas D. Schnider

http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/ev.pdf



Some good stuff in this evolutionist post. I hope everyone took there time reviewing it.

I find several problems with Tom's decreased entropy. The overall challenge to prove his hypothesis is weak. Good math but bad science. My objections are as follows:

1) Information must be stored or it is reversible and does not constitute a reduction in entropy. Defiantly this is one of those cases where the reduction in entropy is not stored; according to Tom when he removed the selection criteria in the ev program the model tended back to disorder from the remaining parameters.
2) Tom postulated that R(frq)=R(seq) from the example of the human genome. In humans ( R(seq)) the entropy for locating binding sites is known (~9.4 bits). He hypothesizes that there is a relationship between binding sites and genome size. He calculates R(frq) by using the entropy of uniform distribution where the probability takes the form of 1/n. R(frq)= log(y/G), G= human genome size, y= number of genetic controls binding sites. My objection here is that Tom does not give any other known cases for the hypothetical relationship and I doubt that it holds for an organism like the Amoeba Dubia which has a genome 200 times the human genome.
3) The case of Langton’s Ant develops seemingly complex and organized structures but all from the basic rules the ant must follow. These rules are recognized to be a reduction of entropy imposed upon the ant and create the observed structures. I assert Tom’s results are of a similar nature and from his imposed rules.
4) Tom creates his own organism of 256 base pairs and 16 binding sites. This gives a value of log(16) = 4 bits to locate the binding site (way too small). The simplest bacteria today has about 160,000 base pairs (Candidatus Carsonella ruddii). So Tom is not talking about real life.
5) Tom has a mutation rate 10 times that of the retrovirus HIV-1 for his base mutation rate (not realistic). As a matter of fact Tom tweaked every value in his parameter set way above reality. I must ask if this isn’t just science fiction?
6) Tom’s results are really poor given every possible favorable assumption and only relate information concerning locating attachment sites. The real problem is the massive amount of information needed to create the life in the first place. Most favorable odds are above 1 in 10^1000th.

Dream on evolutionists…

So the odds are 1 out of 10^1000th. What is your point?

 

[driewerf]

I want to appologise for my late respons. But I think this deserves an answer. As you were triomphantly announcing you think that the fact that there still are apes (though you mean monkeys) disproves evolution.

Judging by you answer you missed my point entirely. So I ask you to answer my question as good as you can:

Brinny?

BRINNY?


BRIIIIINNNNNYYYYYYY

 

[cupid dave]

Brinny?

BRINNY?


BRIIIIINNNNNYYYYYYY

We're all apes, still,... aren't we?

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
by G.J. Sawyer, Viktor Deak
Hardcover, 256 pages
Published June 28th 2007 by Yale University Press

 

[Test All Things2]

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?

 

[Belk]

Oh goody, now your going to spam the forums with the same post over and over. That will show the scientific community.

 

[Test All Things2]

How about taking a stab at it?

Beat me down with science....facts

Common sense....

Some explaination......

Not protcol or grammer, but refutation of what I presented

Forget the nit-picking for a minute and give it a go

I posted the same in a pro and the same in a con debate......

You define 2 posts as being voluminous enough to qualify as as spam?

Okay.....

Forget about me and any human shortcomings I have in presenting the challenge...

I can be so totally human

What about what the challenge I posed?

The tree barking sticking out of the hard rock deposit can you give a good explanation for that?

 

[Test All Things2]

This might be a tough one to explain away I realize.....

Take your time.....

Do your research carefully

 

[Test All Things2]

Where are Hespera and Orogeny? Or Split Rock?

Orogeny is good about stuff like this....

 

[Belk]

A yes, "explain this thing I don't understand to me otherwise evolution is wrong!". No thanks. Played that game enough to know the inevitable outcome. How about this. How about you explain why all of the biologists, cosmologists, mineral companies, oil companies, natural gas companies, biochemical companies, drug companies, and many more use long timeline and evolutionary paradigms?

So far the answers from creationists fall into one of two camps.

1) They are all so stupid/fooled that they don't know whats going on
2) It is a vast world wide conspiracy

Extra points if your answer creates a third category.

 

[Jazer]

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

Do you think that the flood made a 600 foot deep layer of gravel? Did the flood also make the sand on the beach and all the other conglomerate we find all over the earth.

 

[cupid dave]

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?

Yeah...
But even of evolution WAS right, it does NOT contradict Genesis which only says that the Plant Kingdom came before the Animal Kingdom.

That is the same as science says too.

 

[cupid dave]

How about taking a stab at it?

Beat me down with science....facts

Common sense....

Some explaination......

Hmmm...
No.

People who believe Genesis is right are ok whether they believe in Evolution or not.

My point is that read closely, Genesis compares favorably with Science facts.

 

[Test All Things2]

Yes I do think those gravel deposits 600 feet thick, and polystrate trees found in various parts of the world are the result of Noah's flood. Did all the sand come from that?...no, but some of it probably did. A worldwide flood would have done the same thing as millions of years of natural erosion would have in a year. The conglomerate? Yes, probably not all of it...there are localized flooding events in various regions that produce similar results on a much smaller scale for sure.

River gravels on mountain peaks in very many places...Even 14,000 foot high Mount Whitney in California? My Phd college professor told me about that. How do you explain that one?

 

[cupid dave]

Yes I do think those gravel deposits 600 feet thick, and polystrate trees found in various parts of the world are the result of Noah's flood. Did all the sand come from that?...no, but some of it probably did. A worldwide flood would have done the same thing as millions of years of natural erosion would have in a year. The conglomerate? Yes, probably not all of it...there are localized flooding events in various regions that produce similar results on a much smaller scale for sure.

River gravels on mountain peaks in very many places...Even 14,000 foot high Mount Whitney in California? My Phd college professor told me about that. How do you explain that one?

Doesn't it make more sense to see that the "flood" refers to people in what actually was a Out-of-Africa population explosion of Modern Homo sapiens exactly forty (40) thousand years ago?

 

[Test All Things2]

No....my common sense says there is no reason to believe in that at all....

Explain why you think that way.....

I believe the bible, and the physical things that coincide with biblical truth such as the worldwide flood.

I have been in the bowels of the earth seen and touched with my own hands....dug in the dirt and uncovered these mysteries myself.