Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Not when there is still geologic columns on the surface of even mountains. I remember reading a few months ago where scientist are starting to admit all our mountains are very young compare to their time table. So it true some mountains has upthrust that equals or surplus the erosion rate (which is higher on mountains) yet still have geologic layers on the top of these mountains. Of course they are still using milions but I've notice the mountains and the Grand Canyon are getting younger and younger.
In order for these geologic columns to still exist you got to have a lot of dirt be replaced on top of these layers not just uptrust.

Some mountains are made up of folded strata, rather than having strata "on top" of them. Rather than the model you seem to be suggesting, whereby you have mountains and valleys with strata over them like several blankets, rather you have a pile of blankets that have been squashed together to make irregularities. There are not great layers of strata "on top" of mountains as if the mountains were seperate from the strata. In other words, the strata came first, and were folded into mountains, rather than the mountains forming first and being overlaid with strata. Mountains tend to be where sediment comes from, rather than where it ends up.

I think we've always known that many mountain ranges are relatively young - the pointier ones tend to be, for obvious reasons. So the Alps and the Himalaya, formed from plate collisions, are young, as are the volcanic Icelandic mountains and the Hawaiian islands. On the other hand, the relatively eroded and gentler Cumbrian (England) and Grampian (Scotland) mountains are far older.

I'd be interested if you could actually provide some examples of actual dates for given mountain ranges being revised in recent years.

 

[Smidlee]

Are you really going to make this arguement from 1 Kings 7:23? You are aware that they didn't use measurements such as 9.58, correct? That would have known as 10 cubits. If the did measure something that would have been 3.14... it would have been said to be 3. They didn't used decimal numbers.

Also if you take 1 Kings 7:23 at face value you realize both can be true.
"and he made a molten sea, ten cubits from one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

There is no mention of Pi here , only an assumption that the ten cubit and thirty cubits is measuring the same thing. in verse 24:
"And under the brim of it round about there were knobs compassing it..."

 

[immortalavefenix]

Ahem.

I base my views on what is, not what I believe or would like to believe.

There has not been one single sherd of evidance pointing to a world less then 3 billions years old.

If there is please post a link.

For the posters stating that they dont trust science. Stop taking medication. Now, and ever. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

 

[Smidlee]

Ahem.

I base my views on what is, not what I believe or would like to believe.

There has not been one single sherd of evidance pointing to a world less then 3 billions years old.

If there is please post a link.

For the posters stating that they dont trust science. Stop taking medication. Now, and ever. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

Since you mention it, I saw a report on ABC world news a few years ago which had doctors admitted that there are medications they give to their patients that they wouldn't dare give to their mother nor anyone else in their family. A patient has to accept by faith the medication he is taking is good for them when the doctor himself is sometimes in doubt.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Why do I dismiss evolution?

Before I start, let me define the evolution i am talking about. I am not talking about adaptation which causes some things to be taller or shorter or have sharper teeth. I am referring to the evolution a reptile to a mammal or reptile to a bird.

1. Evolution is based on natural selection and mutation however, never in recorded history has anyone ever found a positive form of mutation. Dispite millions of dollars spent in lab experiments trying to produce such a thing, it has never been found. A three hind legged frog is hindered by his 3rd leg and a 4 winged gnat cant fly due to his extra pair being in the way. It is highly unscientific to assume that a possitive mutation can happen even if ALL experiments show otherwise.

2. No fossils have been found to prove that a reptile evolved into a bird or into a mammal, again dispite millions put into archaeological digs to find such things.

3. The cambrian era is an era evolutionists like to stay away from because of what has been labeled the "cambrian explosion". Basically we have hundreds of millions of years where we find nothing but worms and slugs and other very basic forms of life and with in a span of one million years BAM, we have fossils of fully developed crabs and highly complex insects with absolutely nothing to bridge the gap. Even highly regarded evolutionists say that it is highly improbable with all of the fossils that they have that they wouldnt have found something in between.

The evolutionary theory is scientifically disprove by its insane lack of evidence. Someone said they base their views on what is, not what they believe or would like to believe. But that is exactly what the evolutionary theory is. It has not a leg to stand on in fact, so it is left to be nothing more than a faith or a belief.

 

[artybloke]

1. Evolution is based on natural selection and mutation however, never in recorded history has anyone ever found a positive form of mutation.

Not true. Eg the nylon bug, eg HIV which is always mutating for its own survival. Plus the mutated allele that protects people from malaria in Africa. Plus you have a quite frankly silly view of mutation that has more to do with Hollywood than reality. Nobody gets third legs via mutations.

2. No fossils have been found to prove that a reptile evolved into a bird

Archeopteryx, plus many others. So not true again.

I'll leave an expert on the Cambrian age to give more detail about pre-Cambrian lifeforms (of which there are many.) Though there's more in the Cambrian age because - lo-and-behold - there's more to fossilise when a lifeform has a skeleton (fleshy parts don't fossilise.)

 

[QuantumFlux]

Archeopteryx, plus many others. So not true again.

That fossil was proven to have come about several hundred thousand years after birds first appeared. Do your research. And you can say several others but...you just cant name them can you? Because they dont exist. You may find some like Archeopteryx that "look" like a logical bridge but when you check the dates and line them with other fossils, it just doesnt work. Besides, Archeopteryx is a bird, just a bird, not a reptile. The only thing it has in common with a reptile is a tale and having a tale doesnt make it a reptile. Better luck next time.

As for your deseases that mutate to survive... thats called adaptation, not evolution. Evolution would be the desease evolving into a slug. And i believe i explained that i believe in adaptation but not in evolution.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

LOL are you serious? you didnt study that fossil at all did you? That fossil was proven to have come about several hundred thousand years after birds first appeared. Do your research.

Since you've done yours, I'm sure you can name the birds that predate Archaeopteryx.

And you can say several others but... dang you just cant name them can you? Because they dont exist. You may find some like Archeopteryx that "look" like a logical bridge but when you check the dates and line them with other fossils, it just doesnt work.

There were a plethora of bird-reptile intermediates around throughout the late Jurassic and Cretaceous. That some more reptilian forms existed later than some more avian forms is no more a problem than the fact that there are lobe-finned fishes today, far later in time than Triassic frogs.

Besides,

Archeopteryx is a bird, just a bird, not a reptile. The only thing it has in common with a reptile is a tale and having a tale doesnt make it a reptile. Better luck next time.

Very cocky for someone so wrong. Reptilian features of Archaeopteryx not shared with modern birds:

Teeth
Mouth, not a beak
Gastralia
Fibula joined at both ends
Unfused tail

The only tales round here are the ones you are spinning.

Hey, why not just go here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#reptile-features and read it for yourself.

As for your deseases that mutate to survive... thats called adaptation, not evolution. Evolution would be the desease evolving into a slug.

A disease organism (notice spelling; it does nothing for your credibility if you can't spell the subjects in hand) turning into a slug would be saltation. Evolution does not predict that:

1) One organism turns into a totally different form quickly
2) One organism turns into another already existing organism (such as a slug)

Given that, I have no idea why you would want to suggest that such an event would be evolution.

Moreover, you are shifting the goal posts. Arty posted that in response to your request for examples of beneficial mutation. Not evolution per se. Since it clearly is a beneficial mutation, whether you call it evolution or not, I think you've been answered. Pwned, even.

 

[artybloke]

Evolution would be the desease evolving into a slug.

Whose definition of evolution are you using? Kent Hovind's? Ever heard of nested heirarchies?

 

[QuantumFlux]

give me till tomorrow to give you your answers in a much more formal and source siting manner. I'm not prepared today because I'm at work and neglected to bring my books.

maybe i was overly cocky, but wrong is not what i was.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I almost missed your veiled accusation that Arty was lying that there were other dinosaur/bird intermediates.

But that gave me time to research a few for you:

Protarchaeopteryx
Sinosauropteryx
Caudipteryx
Shuvuuia
Beipiaosaurus
Sinornithosaurus

Enough to be going on with? Are you going to apologise to Arty for your false allegation?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

give me till tomorrow to give you your answers in a much more formal and source siting manner. I'm not prepared today because I'm at work and neglected to bring my books.

maybe i was overly cocky, but wrong is not what i was.

I'm afraid you simply were. I listed features Archie has that modern birds don't. You were therefore simply and demonstrably wrong that its tail is the only reptilian feature.

We would have more respect for creationists if they would actually admit it when they get simple things like this factually wrong.

 

[artybloke]

Just to help you on your way, some info about nested hierarchies:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

 

[QuantumFlux]

im not gonna apologize for being wrong when im not, you havent proven anything yet and you havent seen my sources and research.... so give me 24 hrs and ill get back to you

 

[QuantumFlux]

and just to point out, i noticed that no one is willing to touch on the Cambrian Explosion.

 

[Smidlee]

That fossil was proven to have come about several hundred thousand years after birds first appeared. Do your research. And you can say several others but...you just cant name them can you? Because they dont exist. You may find some like Archeopteryx that "look" like a logical bridge but when you check the dates and line them with other fossils, it just doesnt work. Besides, Archeopteryx is a bird, just a bird, not a reptile. The only thing it has in common with a reptile is a tale and having a tale doesnt make it a reptile. Better luck next time.

The fact is evolutionists themselves heavily debate over the Archeopteryx fossil. This is because all these fossils are interpreted by someone opinion and bias. This is why one fossil is in yesterday, out today, and back in tomorrow.
All fossil are judge by appearances while a platypus is a good example that appearance can be deceiving. I have no fault with using appearance as evidence for ones views as long as it's fair to both sides. What I've notice is evolutionists love to uses thier opinions over appearance as evidence to support their views yet reject ID when they uses appearance as evidence to support theirs. Yet they call their views as science and tried to claims ID views as religion. This is clearly a double standard in biology.

 

[QuantumFlux]

thats why i dont put much faith in "Science" because it is ever changing and ever proven wrong.

A big example comes from a court case in which a mother set out to prove who her babies father was, for well fare purposes they did blood tests on both parents and it came back 96% positive on the father but DNA "evidence" showed a 3% chance that the mother was the actual mother.

She was in a panic because the courts then tried to take her kids away from her. Luckily she was pregnant with another child in which the courts decision would be postponed until she had her baby. when she did a witness was there and the baby was immediately given a DNA test and it "proved" that the baby she just had was not hers.

So as convicting as scientific evidence can be, sometimes it can be 100% wrong. Science is nothing more than stereotypes and prejudices.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

thats why i dont put much faith in "Science" because it is ever changing and ever proven wrong.

A big example comes from a court case in which a mother set out to prove who her babies father was, for well fare purposes they did blood tests on both parents and it came back 96% positive on the father but DNA "evidence" showed a 3% chance that the mother was the actual mother.



She was in a panic because the courts then tried to take her kids away from her. Luckily she was pregnant with another child in which the courts decision would be postponed until she had her baby. when she did a witness was there and the baby was immediately given a DNA test and it "proved" that the baby she just had was not hers.



So as convicting as scientific evidence can be, sometimes it can be 100% wrong. Science is nothing more than stereotypes and prejudices.

I remember hearing about that case, but science wasn’t proven wrong, an ignorant justice system that refused to listen to scientists when they said the case was not child stealing, but chimeraism, was proven wrong. It was the judges and child protective services that was wrong, not science. The scientists solved the case when the others were prepared to take the children away because of their ignorance.



I'll agree that science is not a place to put faith into, science is based on testable ideas, faith is about the untestable. Faith should never be a part of science.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

thats why i dont put much faith in "Science" because it is ever changing and ever proven wrong.

A big example comes from a court case in which a mother set out to prove who her babies father was, for well fare purposes they did blood tests on both parents and it came back 96% positive on the father but DNA "evidence" showed a 3% chance that the mother was the actual mother.

She was in a panic because the courts then tried to take her kids away from her. Luckily she was pregnant with another child in which the courts decision would be postponed until she had her baby. when she did a witness was there and the baby was immediately given a DNA test and it "proved" that the baby she just had was not hers.

So as convicting as scientific evidence can be, sometimes it can be 100% wrong. Science is nothing more than stereotypes and prejudices.

this was a complex case of chimera(ism) where her ovaries produced eggs with one DNA profile and her cheek swab produced another, presumably because she was a blending of two baby's in the womb. it is an interesting phenomena and only has been documented less than a dozen times (AFAIK).

but you are misplacing the blame, it belongs not on the science but on those who are misusing it(CPS)

 

[QuantumFlux]

yeah, exactly. In this case, DNA was rock solid evidence that she was not the mother, then science had to be upgraded because of chimerism. so now DNA evidence has been proven to not be 100% accurate as it was once thought. Some day another scenario will be found to show it is even more wrong.

Its constatantly changing and proving itself wrong. If you remember in the case, when the case worker sent out the info to 10 different top scientists only one even accepted the idea that the child could possibly be the mothers that was claimed. Which means that 9 out of ten top scientists weren't even willing to consider the possibility that the child actually was born from that woman.