Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

[TLK Valentine]

Yes.

I would hope both doctors would treat me as they would treat themselves if they had the same ailment.

Figured you'd deliberately mangle it. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[AV1611VET]

Figured you'd deliberately mangle it. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

My barber is a Christian.

So when I go into the barber shop, I ask for him specifically, over the other three.

 

[bhsmte]

If I think a doctor is a Christian, I will go to him; over going to one I think is an atheist.

I would hope both doctors would professionally treat me the same.

Understandable, if they had similar reputations and experience.

Lets say you had the choice between two doctors; one Christian and one atheist and the atheist has a clear reputation as being the best in his field, while the Christian doctor does not. Would you still choose the Christian doctor?

 

[AV1611VET]

Lets say you had the choice between two doctors; one Christian and one atheist and the atheist has a clear reputation as being the best in his field, while the Christian doctor does not. Would you still choose the Christian doctor?

I doubt it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I doubt it.

Then why is it relevant in your hair care? Or anything else for that matter?

 

[JacksBratt]

This post was a response to jd34. No worries though. I see you have some issues that others do as well.

So, lets walk through them.


Originally Posted by JacksBratt

Your post condems your argument. The universe is not a static world. This is the downfall of the TOE.

The speed of light is slowing down.
​

Your response..... "No it's not."

However, in 1677 it was measured with an error of +/- 5400 km/second at a speed of 307,600 km/sec. In 1875 at 299,921 km/sec +/- 13 km/sec, done at Harvard. Then in 1983 at 299,792 km/sec +/- 0.00003 km/sec

The advent of the atomic clock (based on cesium oscillation, as apposed to the calculations based on the orbits of planets around the sun) found another interesting fact. The orbital speed of Mars, Venus and Mercury were speeding up or the clocks were slowing down. Both cannot be right.

Galaxies and other objects in the universe show a red shift as well as a blue shift, showing while some are moving away from us, some are moving toward us.

Your response......"Not sure if this is true, but why is that a problem?"

Well, its a lot of reading by both William Tifft and Halton Arp, however The red shift means they are moving away, the blue means they are moving toward us. If there was a big bang, they should always be moving away, not in random directions.

What's even more interesting is the fact that the further away they are the more they are "red shifted". This would mean they were traveling faster. This didn't make sense so they measured the speed changes and found they were in steps. Multiples of 45 miles per second, like the energy states of an atom. Both, again cannot be true. If the red shift means moving away due to doppler affect the steps would not be incremental.

This boils down to the fact that the speed of light has slowed down, considerably, over the years. Based on the data of the red shift and the steps of the degree of red shift and its relation to the speed of light, the following would be true. You can check the statistician Allan Montgomery's sites.

The speed of light would be 10 to 30 % faster in the first century. Twice as fast in the time of Solomon. Four times as fast in the days of Abraham and millions of times faster in the years before 4000 BC. This brings a huge question into the age of the universe for which evolution needs billions of years that, by these discoveries, may not have existed.


1 million years before present (BP) atomically is actually 2826 BC with c about 70,000 times c now. 63 million atomic years BP is an actual date of 3005 BC with c about 615,000 times c now.
230 million atomic years BP is an actual date of 3301 BC with c about 1.1 million times c now.
600 million atomic years BP is an actual date of 3536 BC with c about 2.6 million times c now.
2.5 billion atomic years BP is an actual date of 4136 BC with c about 10.8 million times c now.
4.5 billion atomic years BP is an actual date of 4505 BC with c about 19.6 million times c now.
15 billion atomic years BP is an actual date near 5650 BC with c about 65.3 million times c now.
20 billion atomic years BP is an actual date near 5800 BC with c about 87 million times c now.

Some planets and moons rotate in one direction while some rotate in another. This contradicts the conservation of angular motion.

Your response was...."How is this a contradiction of angular motion?"

From what I understand, if the earth was created in an explosion, all bodies should spin in the same direction. None would be in reverse direction

These contradicts the Big bang.

Your response was..."No they don't."

I disagree....even though evolutionists don't back or contradict or comment on the big bang in many cases.

 

[PsychoSarah]

-_- that whole speed of light thing, ever consider that we are getting BETTER at measuring the speed of light, so the allowable error factors in less? Measuring the speed of light in 1677 would have been exceedingly difficult, it still is, actually.

Also, the big bang thing. all matter was being flown out, but ever consider that some stuff moved faster or slower in nearly the same direction? That would definitely allow for masses to come towards us to some degree.

Additionally, that paper is almost as old as I am, and clearly Alan Montgomery is very much an apologist basing his work off of other apologists.

 

[Astrophile]

Galaxies and other objects in the universe show a red shift as well as a blue shift, showing while some are moving away from us, some are moving toward us.

The only galaxies that show blue shifts (and are therefore moving towards us) are nearby galaxies (less than 3 million light years away) that belong to our own Local Group. Except for members of the Local Group, all galaxies show red shifts and are therefore receding from us.

Some planets and moons rotate in one direction while some rotate in another. This contradicts the conservation of angular motion.

Could you explain how the second sentence follows from the first? The preferred hypothesis for planets with retrograde rotation is that they are the results of planetary collisions, or (for Venus) gravitational tidal dissipation by the Sun. Also, I think it is slightly easier for a satellite to be captured into a retrograde orbit than into a direct orbit; if so, this explains why there are both direct and retrograde satellites.

These contradict the Big bang.

The rotation and orbits of planets and satellites have nothing to do with the Big Bang. The solar system was not formed until about 9200 million years after the Big Bang.

 

[JacksBratt]

The skeletal remains of giant humanoid beings are everywhere.

Your response was......"No, they're not. Show us documentation of one."

There are more and more of these coming into light. The truth cannot be hidden for long. Just take some time to look. Some are hoaxes, I know that, but they cannot all be hoaxes....

Initial DNA analysis of Paracas elongated skull released ? with incredible results | Ancient Origins

Couple this with the super large constructed objects around the globe as well as the objects that show that previous civilizations had technology that was beyond what we have today, and your TOE is left with a lot of problems.

Your Response.....They didn't have technology beyond what we have today. However, if they did, how is that a problem for the TOE?

Check out Puma Punku, Baalbek, Gobleki Tepe, Massive 5,000-Year-Old Stone Monument Revealed in Israel,

There are many of these as well. If these ancient civilizations had this technology it throws the time line of evolution into a knot.


I will post more, but my time is out right now.

 

[PsychoSarah]

​

Your response was......"No, they're not. Show us documentation of one."

There are more and more of these coming into light. The truth cannot be hidden for long. Just take some time to look. Some are hoaxes, I know that, but they cannot all be hoaxes....

Initial DNA analysis of Paracas elongated skull released ? with incredible results | Ancient Origins

​

Your Response.....They didn't have technology beyond what we have today. However, if they did, how is that a problem for the TOE?

Check out Puma Punku, Baalbek, Gobleki Tepe, Massive 5,000-Year-Old Stone Monument Revealed in Israel,

There are many of these as well. If these ancient civilizations had this technology it throws the time line of evolution into a knot.


I will post more, but my time is out right now.

-_- yes, they could all be hoaxes. Just because there are a lot of images doesn't mean that they couldn't all be lies. This is the age of photoshop, hoaxes have never been easier to make than they are now. Heck, use actual legitimate photos and just alter them a little bit, a 10-year old could do it.

Additionally, even if the technology thing was true, human evolution would not be troubled by this seeing as it all went away eventually. Heck, there was one point in which as many as 5 reasonably intelligent bipeds roamed the earth. But then Homo sapiens were all "there can only be ONE!" and had a role to play in the extinction of Neanderthals pretty much for sure, and possibly for the others as well, through invasion of territory and potentially direct fighting.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There are more and more of these coming into light. The truth cannot be hidden for long. Just take some time to look. Some are hoaxes, I know that, but they cannot all be hoaxes....​

Yes they can.​

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The speed of light is slowing down.
[/INDENT] Your response..... "No it's not."

However, in 1677 it was measured with an error of +/- 5400 km/second at a speed of 307,600 km/sec. In 1875 at 299,921 km/sec +/- 13 km/sec, done at Harvard. Then in 1983 at 299,792 km/sec +/- 0.00003 km/sec

Better measurements, not actual speed of light changes. Simple, direct measurements of light coming from distant galaxies shows there has been no substantial changes in the speed of light since the light left them. Because motion from light that left at one speed and arrived here at a slower speed would be seen as slower. The rotation rate of galaxies is easily measure and is consistently about the same across the universe, therefore light has been consistently about the same speed for millions and billions of years.

The advent of the atomic clock (based on cesium oscillation, as apposed to the calculations based on the orbits of planets around the sun) found another interesting fact. The orbital speed of Mars, Venus and Mercury were speeding up or the clocks were slowing down. Both cannot be right.

You should stop making stuff up.

Well, its a lot of reading by both William Tifft and Halton Arp, however The red shift means they are moving away, the blue means they are moving toward us. If there was a big bang, they should always be moving away, not in random directions.

If two bodies collide, one or both could be set into a new, retrograde rotation state. The overall angular momentum of the solar system would not be affected.

What's even more interesting is the fact that the further away they are the more they are "red shifted". This would mean they were traveling faster. This didn't make sense so they measured the speed changes and found they were in steps. Multiples of 45 miles per second, like the energy states of an atom. Both, again cannot be true. If the red shift means moving away due to doppler affect the steps would not be incremental.

The local random motions of the galaxies in the clusters is often faster than that so this signal would be swamped by the random local motions of the galaxies and has to be spurious.

The speed of light would be 10 to 30 % faster in the first century. Twice as fast in the time of Solomon. Four times as fast in the days of Abraham and millions of times faster in the years before 4000 BC. This brings a huge question into the age of the universe for which evolution needs billions of years that, by these discoveries, may not have existed.

Speed of light has been constant. Observations prove it. Logic proves it.

Here's a simple proof.

Just think about a rock that existed in Adam's day and has a crystal in it. That crystal has never been seen, has been locked up in the rock, and never will be seen until Jesus comes. You know such a crystal exists, somewhere.

Now consider e=mc^2. It shows the relationships between energy, mass, and speed of light. We could rewrite the equation to solve for c (the speed of light). In that case, we get c = square root of (e/m)

THe crystal has a certain amount of energy "e". It has a certain mass "m".

The energy has not changed since Adam's day - its all locked up in that rock and energy cannot flow in or out. The mass has not changed since Adam's day - its all locked up in that rock and mass cannot flow in or out. Therefore the speed of light has not changed since Adam's day. Simple math!

 

[Astrophile]

Well, its a lot of reading by both William Tifft and Halton Arp, however The red shift means they are moving away, the blue means they are moving toward us. If there was a big bang, they should always be moving away, not in random directions.

As I have already explained, the only galaxies that show blue shifts are members of the Local Group; all other galaxies (and there are literally billions of billions of galaxies) show red shifts. Also, if you do the calculations, you will find that if our galaxy and the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) are revolving around each other, their orbital speed is about 120 km/sec, about twice the recession speed due to the expansion of the universe (about 56 km/s). Perhaps this will help you to understand how condensations can form in the expanding material and then collapse to form clusters of galaxies.

What's even more interesting is the fact that the further away they are the more they are "red shifted". This would mean they were traveling faster. This didn't make sense so they measured the speed changes and found they were in steps. Multiples of 45 miles per second, like the energy states of an atom. Both, again cannot be true. If the red shift means moving away due to the Doppler effect the steps would not be incremental.

This makes perfect sense in a model of an expanding universe. The usual picture is of spots on the surface of an expanding balloon, where the distance between the spots increases as the balloon expands, and the rate at which the distance increases is proportional to the original distance between the spots.

According to Wikipedia, 'Recent redshift surveys of quasars have produced no evidence of [redshift] quantization in excess of what is expected due to galaxy clustering, and consequently most cosmologists dispute the existence of redshift quantization beyond a minimal trace due to the distribution of galaxies across voids and filaments.'

Where do you get all this stuff? Have you actually read the papers of Halton Arp and William Tifft? Also, why do you accept the results of Arp and Tifft but not the results obtained by other scientists?

From what I understand, if the earth was created in an explosion, all bodies should spin in the same direction. None would be in reverse direction

The earth was not created in an explosion. The retrograde rotations of Uranus and Pluto are probably the result of planetary collisions, and it is actually easier to capture satellites into retrograde orbits than direct orbits.

 

[Astrophile]

There are more and more of these coming into light. The truth cannot be hidden for long. Just take some time to look. Some are hoaxes, I know that, but they cannot all be hoaxes....​

Like Piltdown Man, I suppose.​

 

[lasthero]

​

Your response was......"No, they're not. Show us documentation of one."

There are more and more of these coming into light. The truth cannot be hidden for long. Just take some time to look. Some are hoaxes, I know that, but they cannot all be hoaxes....

Initial DNA analysis of Paracas elongated skull released ? with incredible results | Ancient Origins

Why do you keep referencing the Paracas skulls? Even if they weren't giant hoaxes (they are) the being they belonged to wouldn't be giants. Do you understand the different between 'elongated' and 'giant'?

Check out Puma Punku, Baalbek, Gobleki Tepe, [/COLOR] Massive 5,000-Year-Old Stone Monument Revealed in Israel,

How do you know it's 5,000 years old?

There are many of these as well. If these ancient civilizations had this technology it throws the time line of evolution into a knot.

Not really. Like I told you last time, evolution makes no statements on how technologically advanced a civilization is. If we found ancient Egyptians with iPods in their tombs, it would be weird, but it wouldn't make a differene to evolution. I don't know why you think it does.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This post was a response to jd34. No worries though. I see you have some issues that others do as well.

So, lets walk through them.


Originally Posted by JacksBratt

Your post condems your argument. The universe is not a static world. This is the downfall of the TOE.

The speed of light is slowing down.
​

Your response..... "No it's not."

However, in 1677 it was measured with an error of +/- 5400 km/second at a speed of 307,600 km/sec. In 1875 at 299,921 km/sec +/- 13 km/sec, done at Harvard. Then in 1983 at 299,792 km/sec +/- 0.00003 km/sec

The advent of the atomic clock (based on cesium oscillation, as apposed to the calculations based on the orbits of planets around the sun) found another interesting fact. The orbital speed of Mars, Venus and Mercury were speeding up or the clocks were slowing down. Both cannot be right.

​

Your response......"Not sure if this is true, but why is that a problem?"

Well, its a lot of reading by both William Tifft and Halton Arp, however The red shift means they are moving away, the blue means they are moving toward us. If there was a big bang, they should always be moving away, not in random directions.

What's even more interesting is the fact that the further away they are the more they are "red shifted". This would mean they were traveling faster. This didn't make sense so they measured the speed changes and found they were in steps. Multiples of 45 miles per second, like the energy states of an atom. Both, again cannot be true. If the red shift means moving away due to doppler affect the steps would not be incremental.

This boils down to the fact that the speed of light has slowed down, considerably, over the years. Based on the data of the red shift and the steps of the degree of red shift and its relation to the speed of light, the following would be true. You can check the statistician Allan Montgomery's sites.

The speed of light would be 10 to 30 % faster in the first century. Twice as fast in the time of Solomon. Four times as fast in the days of Abraham and millions of times faster in the years before 4000 BC. This brings a huge question into the age of the universe for which evolution needs billions of years that, by these discoveries, may not have existed.


1 million years before present (BP) atomically is actually 2826 BC with c about 70,000 times c now. 63 million atomic years BP is an actual date of 3005 BC with c about 615,000 times c now.
230 million atomic years BP is an actual date of 3301 BC with c about 1.1 million times c now.
600 million atomic years BP is an actual date of 3536 BC with c about 2.6 million times c now.
2.5 billion atomic years BP is an actual date of 4136 BC with c about 10.8 million times c now.
4.5 billion atomic years BP is an actual date of 4505 BC with c about 19.6 million times c now.
15 billion atomic years BP is an actual date near 5650 BC with c about 65.3 million times c now.
20 billion atomic years BP is an actual date near 5800 BC with c about 87 million times c now.

​

Your response was...."How is this a contradiction of angular motion?"

From what I understand, if the earth was created in an explosion, all bodies should spin in the same direction. None would be in reverse direction

​

Your response was..."No they don't."

I disagree....even though evolutionists don't back or contradict or comment on the big bang in many cases.

It never stops to amaze me to see to what lengths some people will go to try and stick to their bronze age ideas...

Why put in all that energy to come up with these crackpot theories?
It would be much better spend reading an actual decent science book.

FYI jack, the post I quoted is post nr 666

 

[SkyWriting]

So if you believe in evolution tell us why.

Survival of the fit only takes one afternoon to see it in progress.
Just watch newborn ducks in the water the first day.
It only takes an hour to see the family size shrink.

Of course, you may wonder why they don't evolve into a more
turtle resistant species. Good question.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Understandable, if they had similar reputations and experience.

Lets say you had the choice between two doctors; one Christian and one atheist and the atheist has a clear reputation as being the best in his field, while the Christian doctor does not. Would you still choose the Christian doctor?

Okay, so AV says, "I doubt it" and chooses reputation over his initial preference for choosing a Christian doctor, barber etc. (i.e. the brotherhood of believers)

I can certainly relate to his prior thinking, especially when I was a baby Christian. I was actually afraid of people who were not Christians, because for the first time in my life I could see what I had been lifted out of.

At first I only saw things in a very dualistic fashion. "Us (Christians) and Them (non-Christians)" However, I soon became aware that not everyone who goes to Church, or calls themselves a Christian -- is one. Some just seem to be there because Mom and Dad were, or they don't know what else to do on a Saturday evening, or they are infatuated by someone. I'm NOT saying they were criminals, or did evil - they just seemed to be more interested in the membership for what they could get, and most of what they wanted had very little to do with anything spiritual. It was superficial. They could stand up and sing, sit down and clap, quote Bible verses but when it came to time of sharing -- it became glaringly obvious that they were not yet activated. (made alive in Christ)
That being said, I've met some pretty stunning people in my life -- who are neither Christian superficial or activated, but seem to have been activated by the same God whom I worship. (some not even aware of it -- or having apparently shut the door on it, for one reason or another.)
In that sense, I guess what I am saying is that for me (as an activated Christian) I don't care what my doctor is, as long this person is giving me proper medical care. *

~~~
*Hippocratic Oath

 

[MissRowy]

If AV wants to choose a Christian doctor that's his choice. I don't choose my doctor on basis of religion. I choose because of his resume and how much experience hes had. The specialist who is performing my endoscopy and possibly taking my gallbladder out isnt Christian but hes got excellent bedside manner and is to the point.

I worship the same God as AV, except his beliefs are different from mine. I do believe in evolution for the most part. However where AV and I differ in our faith of God is that he will not read any other bible. That's not a problem for me. It becomes a problem if he starts saying my word doesn't mean anything because of it but somehow I don't think hes that harsh.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

If AV wants to choose a Christian doctor that's his choice. I don't choose my doctor on basis of religion. I choose because of his resume and how much experience hes had. The specialist who is performing my endoscopy and possibly taking my gallbladder out isnt Christian but hes got excellent bedside manner and is to the point.

I worship the same God as AV, except his beliefs are different from mine. I do believe in evolution for the most part. However where AV and I differ in our faith of God is that he will not read any other bible. That's not a problem for me. It becomes a problem if he starts saying my word doesn't mean anything because of it but somehow I don't think hes that harsh.

Does for the most part, exclude the most part -- my thread: The Scientific Method & MACROEVOLUTION ?