Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,584 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 940,018
Pageviews Today: 1,533,886Threads Today: 521Posts Today: 10,780
04:54 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 14103869
Canada
10/03/2012 05:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
watch this, watch all of it with an open mind if you still dont understand. you will never and you will never convince any of us that you are right because your prove comes from a book written by men.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 14103869
Canada
10/03/2012 05:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
watch this, watch all of it with an open mind if you still dont understand. you will never and you will never convince any of us that you are right because your prove comes from a book written by men.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14103869


Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24860646
South Africa
10/03/2012 05:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
watch this, watch all of it with an open mind if you still dont understand. you will never and you will never convince any of us that you are right because your prove comes from a book written by men.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14103869



See there it goes, attacking the person instead of the subject at hand. Nowhere did I even state the proof comes from the BIBLE, it comes from SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH !

Why don't you lear some basic chemistry. The building blocks of LIFE on earth be it an amoeba or a Human Beings is all based on chemicals.

For a certain protein to form a process is required with the exact conditions to deliver the protein, now with all the different types of proteins which IS the CEMENT in every living CELL, it is required to to develop numerous different proteins to sustain this.

Giving the THEORY of evolution ALL of these proteins came together and formed a living CELL in an instant. But if you look at the composition of these proteins they all require diffenrent mechanisms as to form a specific CODE/DNA

To get this DNA the proteins must be formed under specific conditions as each consists of different chemicals to FORM something else, thus each protein MUST have its own SPECIFIC condition to FORM.

Evolutionists want to make ALL of thisto form in an INSTANT by CHANCE when they end up with a rediculous argument that ALL life has EVOLVED from a mysterious CELL suddenly appearing in a primordial soup of chemicals activated by a lightning bolt !!!! WHAHAHAHAHAHA

You might as well put a pile of bricks and nuke it expecting a house to be standing with ALL its plumbing and electricity READY FOR YOU TO MOVE IN, WHAHAHAHA Only a dense ignoramus would believe such a thing.

On the other hand there is SOLID SCIENTIFIC PROOF of Intelligent DESIGN.

When you decide to build a car, first you need to plan and draw the book which you will give to ENGINEERS to build. NOT PUT IT ALL IN A CONTAINER AND NAIL IT WITH A LIGHTNING BOLT. I can PROMISE you a car will not appear from the container.

Then of course to be able to BUILD this car you would need tools and machines to construct it. SO WHICH CAME FIRST THE CAR OR THE TOOLS OR THE DESIGNER ?

WAKE UP MAN YOU ARE MAKING A JOKE OF YOURSELF
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24862690
Spain
10/03/2012 06:19 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
watch this, watch all of it with an open mind if you still dont understand. you will never and you will never convince any of us that you are right because your prove comes from a book written by men.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14103869


..by god inspired men!

not from the devil instructed men.

and when you will be able to tell one from the other, there you start...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24862690
Spain
10/03/2012 06:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
watch this, watch all of it with an open mind if you still dont understand. you will never and you will never convince any of us that you are right because your prove comes from a book written by men.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14103869



See there it goes, attacking the person instead of the subject at hand. Nowhere did I even state the proof comes from the BIBLE, it comes from SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH !

Why don't you lear some basic chemistry. The building blocks of LIFE on earth be it an amoeba or a Human Beings is all based on chemicals.

For a certain protein to form a process is required with the exact conditions to deliver the protein, now with all the different types of proteins which IS the CEMENT in every living CELL, it is required to to develop numerous different proteins to sustain this.

Giving the THEORY of evolution ALL of these proteins came together and formed a living CELL in an instant. But if you look at the composition of these proteins they all require diffenrent mechanisms as to form a specific CODE/DNA

To get this DNA the proteins must be formed under specific conditions as each consists of different chemicals to FORM something else, thus each protein MUST have its own SPECIFIC condition to FORM.

Evolutionists want to make ALL of thisto form in an INSTANT by CHANCE when they end up with a rediculous argument that ALL life has EVOLVED from a mysterious CELL suddenly appearing in a primordial soup of chemicals activated by a lightning bolt !!!! WHAHAHAHAHAHA

You might as well put a pile of bricks and nuke it expecting a house to be standing with ALL its plumbing and electricity READY FOR YOU TO MOVE IN, WHAHAHAHA Only a dense ignoramus would believe such a thing.

On the other hand there is SOLID SCIENTIFIC PROOF of Intelligent DESIGN.

When you decide to build a car, first you need to plan and draw the book which you will give to ENGINEERS to build. NOT PUT IT ALL IN A CONTAINER AND NAIL IT WITH A LIGHTNING BOLT. I can PROMISE you a car will not appear from the container.

Then of course to be able to BUILD this car you would need tools and machines to construct it. SO WHICH CAME FIRST THE CAR OR THE TOOLS OR THE DESIGNER ?

WAKE UP MAN YOU ARE MAKING A JOKE OF YOURSELF
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24860646

TRUTH is the God's only tool,
for you to understand the root of matter,
and seize being a fool.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24860646
South Africa
10/03/2012 06:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
You see we Christians also have Chemists and Scientists, they are not OUTSIDE of our Religion.

For the same arguments you come up with we deliver PROOF, TRUTH IS A TWO EDGED sword, you cannot attack it from any side :)

The only way for your argument to become more accepted is to SUPRESS the TRUTH, that is was and always be your MODUS OPERANDI. Divide and Conquer.

People believe it has to do with PHYSICAL DIVISION, it is the farthest from the TRUTH.

Your MINDS are being DIVIDED, through PROGRAMMING via TV and MEDIA.

TRY THIS and answer the questions below for yourself post it on here if you like.

1.) Find a quiet spot
2.) Close your eyes and concentrate on ONE thing, can be anything natural, your child, the tree, a rose in your garden whatever.
3.) Hold your concentration for as long as you can on just that.

NOW

How long could you keep this concentration without your mind wondering even ONCE to another thought.

When you realised you are thinking about something else did you quickly revert back to the original thought ?

How long did the interruption last ?

About What ?

Was it worth a thought ?

SEE SIMPLE DEVIDE AND CONQUER, the battle is for your minds to keep your thoughts and your mind occupied with random SHIT makes us ALL vulnerable.

The only WAY for them to deny this is to simply SUPRESS it with LOUD NOISE and PROGRAMMING.

Evolution is like the SHEEPLE following the MEDIA, wherever their minds can be distracted and not THINK and QUESTION what they are told.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
10/03/2012 09:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
Information is

1 : the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence

Mutations do not communicate or posess knowledge or intelligence.

2 a (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction

Mutations are random, and to not convey knowledge, which is specific, they do not investigate, study, or instruct. The changews they cause are not instruction because instruction is the communication of specific knowledge. Mutations do not posess or communicate knowledge. Changes to color or pattern caused by mutation are side effects of the corruption of information. Corrupting the code which determines color so that the code produces a different color is not the conveyance or production of information. It's merely a side effect.

(3) : facts, data b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects

Mutations do not produce facts or data. Facts and data are specific and produced only by intelligence.
Mutations cannot communicate because communication is a process of intelligence. The change to the arrangement of nucleotides caused by mutation is not the communication of facts or data. It is merely corruption, modification of existing information.

c (1) : a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data

Mutations do not produce signals or characters which represent data. Data is a product of investigation and study which are activities of intelligence. Being random, mutations do not represent anything at all.

(2) : something (as a message, experimental data, or a picture) which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct

Mutations do not communicate messages or data. Constructs are products of intelligence.


d : a quantitative measure of the content of information; specifically : a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment to be performed

Mutations are random mistakes. They do not measure anything, nor do they convey knowledge. They cause entropy to the genetic code and are the single most important reason that all life on Earth is moving towards extinction. This is the opposite of theantiquated claims of evolutionists that mutation is the base mechanism for evolution and has produced the varieties of life.

Evolutionism is an antiquated concept born in a time when people rode horses and used candles and oil lamps to light thier homes. Modern science has discredited evolutionism in every imaginable way, and all new claims of evolutionists are discredited by what is already known in science.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
10/03/2012 09:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
The Fossil Evidence.

Evolution is supposed to be a process of change. If some ancient species of worm or other creature without a backbone slowly changed into a vertebrate fish with a backbone, there should be a series of intermediate fossil species which document that actual process of change. These intermediate fossil forms are totally absent from the fossil record. Prof. Alfred Romer at Harvard University wrote that this evolution from invertebrate to vertebrate must have required 100 million years for which we do not have the fossil evidence. Prof. Stephen Stanley of Johns Hopkins University wrote in 1979 that the known fossil record provides not a single example of a series of fossils which prove that a process of evolution really took place to produce a new kind of creature.

[link to www.parentcompany.com]
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
10/03/2012 09:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
SCIENTISTS WHO ARE SKEPTICAL OF EVOLUTION


[link to www.youtube.com]


[link to www.youtube.com]


[link to www.youtube.com]


[link to www.youtube.com]
Edge Rider

User ID: 1377922
United States
10/03/2012 10:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
The Fossil Evidence.

Evolution is supposed to be a process of change. If some ancient species of worm or other creature without a backbone slowly changed into a vertebrate fish with a backbone, there should be a series of intermediate fossil species which document that actual process of change. These intermediate fossil forms are totally absent from the fossil record. Prof. Alfred Romer at Harvard University wrote that this evolution from invertebrate to vertebrate must have required 100 million years for which we do not have the fossil evidence. Prof. Stephen Stanley of Johns Hopkins University wrote in 1979 that the known fossil record provides not a single example of a series of fossils which prove that a process of evolution really took place to produce a new kind of creature.

[link to www.parentcompany.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


we should also be able to find the grail, the ark of the covenant, moses tablets, noahs ark. these items are only several thousand years old.

i bet god destroyed all the fossil evidence to test my faith in science...
Row, row, row your boat...gently down the stream...merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily...life is but a dream...
[link to en.wikipedia.org] / [link to www.youtube.com]
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
10/03/2012 11:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
OH Please !

You still defend evolution even though the PROOF is there that makes you THEORY/RLIGION a complete farce !
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24860646


I believe my post was more about responding to your straw-dog characterization.

The weatherman may be wrong about whether it is going to rain, but you are attacking him because you claim he says the sky is green.

Attack the real science of evolution, not your made-up version.


As you correctly stated with the numbers in my first post a DNA strand MUST be formed AT ONCE in a single instance. Great CHANCE made this happen, now you have the DNA, how will it EVER develop/evolve into a living being without the precise conditions necesarry ?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24860646


I did not say that. Nor does anyone in the field. You hardly need 48 chromosomes to make a single cell! And bacterial genomes are...surprise, surprise!...not the complex double helix you are familiar with. And viruses carry their genetic information in an even simpler form.

This is really just one more retread of the "half an eye" argument. You haven't the imagination to think of what a simpler eye might look like, (or, rather, a simpler version of the animal double helix) so you assume that such a thing can't possibly exist.

The only thing that has changed over decades of Creationists trying to argue (mostly they don't bother with the apologetics, and instead turn to politics to get their views force-fed regardless of whether they make logical sense), is the nature of the thing you think can't possibly be simplified.

Usually done, I might add, without even bothering to look at the panoply of Creation itself, wherein are living organisms that have just that structure you claim can't exist.



The evolution THEORY suggests that due to the combination of chemicals in the atmosphere this building block/DNA came to life because of an electrical surge and formed a CELL. OK so now this CELL is formed but the atmosphere is still full of these chemicals WHICH WOULD KILL THE CELL INSTANTLY !
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24860646


No. No, and no. A cell is a very specific, (and rather advanced) life structure. It is defined by having a membrane. Although the membrane is to my mind one of the greatest advances of life -- surpassing even DNA -- it was not the first step and it wasn't in anything like current form.

Nor were the same conditions in which precursor amino acids formed the same conditions in which lipids and simple proteins formed. This has been recognized for decades.

But this is more-or-less a variation of the above, plus the contention that biologists who daily autoclave their glassware have failed to realize that they were killing off the life-forms by imposing those conditions!

(Seriously...do Creationists think scientists are, like, two years old?)




Carbon Dating has been PROVEN to be a farce, the argument is very often used that a fossil is specific age due to the carbon dating of the rocks or earth around it and the age of the dirt is based on the carbon dating of the fossil ?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24860646


That would be called dating from the matrix. Not that you do that for fossils, mostly. Or do you not know what the term "fossil" means?

And, no. The definition is only circular in your limited understanding. There are multiple dating methods, radiometric, geological, and biological. Tree rings. Varves. Ice cores. The formation of shale and chalk beds. The record of catastrophic events (such as, volcanoes). They are used to check each other...and they all converge.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
10/03/2012 01:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
I did not say that. Nor does anyone in the field. You hardly need 48 chromosomes to make a single cell! And bacterial genomes are...surprise, surprise!...not the complex double helix you are familiar with. And viruses carry their genetic information in an even simpler form.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


And a single helix structure is not complex? Please walk us through its theoretical original formation.

Why don't you explain how the first protein synthesis process originated? Tell us how purposeless unguided proteins and nucleotides figured out how to manifest into a factory to synthesize more proteins from instructions found in other nucleotides.

And while your at it, tell us how a virus might have gotten hold of the cellular manufacturing, maintenance, and reproduction blueprints to a structure that did not even exist yet. (if your suggesting, by your comment of it being simpler, that life sprung out of some form of virus)




And, no. The definition is only circular in your limited understanding. There are multiple dating methods, radiometric, geological, and biological. Tree rings. Varves. Ice cores. The formation of shale and chalk beds. The record of catastrophic events (such as, volcanoes). They are used to check each other...and they all converge.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Radiometric assumes a constant decay rate and lack of contamination. Just because something is consistent, does not mean it isn't consistently wrong.

Contamination is blamed when radiometric errors are apparent. (dating live specimens at ten-thousands of years old) We don't have the luxury of fact-checking claims into the millions of years. There may be other contamination factors producing a consistent error.

And how exactly do you check a million year date against the thousands of years dates of trees and ice?
Edge Rider

User ID: 1377922
United States
10/03/2012 01:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
if we all came from adam and eve, how do we reconcile the existence of neanderthal?

Last Edited by Edge Rider on 10/03/2012 01:31 PM
Row, row, row your boat...gently down the stream...merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily...life is but a dream...
[link to en.wikipedia.org] / [link to www.youtube.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 13039567
United States
10/03/2012 01:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24576777


Dont you find it odd that Neil is the "TV scientist" that the American public has come to know? It's fishy to me.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1606469
United States
10/03/2012 01:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
So, where did this Designer, who is so powerful and complex that he can create millions of complex and symbiotic relationships, come from?

The Designer must have been designed, right?
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
10/03/2012 01:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
if we came all came from adam and eve, how do we reconcile the existence of neanderthal?
 Quoting: Edge Rider


They were humans.

What do you think they were? Mutating chimps?
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
10/03/2012 01:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24576777


Dont you find it odd that Neil is the "TV scientist" that the American public has come to know? It's fishy to me.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 13039567


You mean you don't trust the guy that the Jesuits and Freemasons want to shove down your throat 24/7 ?

He condemns people for not believing in Anthropogenic Global Warming, too. Your typical dirt-worshiping globalist.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
10/03/2012 01:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
The Fossil Evidence.

Evolution is supposed to be a process of change. If some ancient species of worm or other creature without a backbone slowly changed into a vertebrate fish with a backbone, there should be a series of intermediate fossil species which document that actual process of change. These intermediate fossil forms are totally absent from the fossil record. Prof. Alfred Romer at Harvard University wrote that this evolution from invertebrate to vertebrate must have required 100 million years for which we do not have the fossil evidence.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Nice.

That's about as honest as those movie posters that take Ebert saying, "Amazing what kind of crap they make these days!" and putting "'Amazing..!" -- Roger Ebert" on the poster.

Romer was a practicing paleontologist and a strong supporter of evolution. He did pioneering work in vertebrate fish.

He did first characterize the gap which now bears his name. A gap which is still valid; there are now specimens found in it, but the low number of specimens is still surprising (the major extinction event shortly before the gap may have much to do with it, however.)

So you have taken the words of a man who did the work and who honestly pointed at an area where more work needed to be done, and presented him as if he is saying he has found a major flaw in evolutionary theory.

Nice.

Oh, and by the way, so what?

Are you arguing for continual creation? Because the only way your god fits in this particular gap is if he was operating shortly after the Devonian, and just on a whim decided to create a whole bunch MORE fish.

No, really, I am asking. First, because Creationists all seem to believe something different, and it is hard talking with them when they assume you know what they meant to argue.

And second, because I don't think you've thought this out yourself. I'd like you to give it a try. How DO your religious beliefs inform the Romer Gap? Is it in a way that is consistent with Young Earth Cosmology? With the Cambrian Radiation? With the Garden of Eden or Noah? With Special Creation (aka humanity?)

Prof. Stephen Stanley of Johns Hopkins University wrote in 1979 that the known fossil record provides not a single example of a series of fossils which prove that a process of evolution really took place to produce a new kind of creature.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


The Steven (sic) Stanley who wrote:

"An Ecological Theory for the Sudden Origin of Multicellular Life in the Late Precambrian." Stanley, S. M. (1973).

"A theory of evolution above the species level." Stanley, S. M. (1975)?

Yes; as one of the leaders in Punctuated Equilibrium, he most certainly wrote about long periods of very little change (Stanley, S. M. and Xiangning Yang (1987) "Approximate evolutionary stasis for bivalve morphology over millions of years." Paleobiology 13: 113-139.)

He also wrote about periods of rapid change; he specialized in the Cambrian Epoch.

But this writing only makes sense in a context of an existing fossil record for other evolutionary sequences. For him to single out his areas of interest as needing explanation, he is effectively arguing that the rest of the fossil record does not require this explanation!

So you have, again, taken a man out of context, making him appear to say something he would not.

Want to challenge him on that? Ask him if he believes your interpretation of his words is valid? He is still at the university and there is a contact form on their page.

Go to it.
Edge Rider

User ID: 1377922
United States
10/03/2012 02:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
if we came all came from adam and eve, how do we reconcile the existence of neanderthal?
 Quoting: Edge Rider


They were humans.

What do you think they were? Mutating chimps?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


i think they were subspecies of humans that were evolving in a different way to modern man.
Row, row, row your boat...gently down the stream...merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily...life is but a dream...
[link to en.wikipedia.org] / [link to www.youtube.com]
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
10/03/2012 02:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
And while your at it, tell us how a virus might have gotten hold of the cellular manufacturing, maintenance, and reproduction blueprints to a structure that did not even exist yet. (if your suggesting, by your comment of it being simpler, that life sprung out of some form of virus)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


At least you know that much.

No, I wasn't suggesting that. I was merely pointing out that you are assuming that the only possible cell is the one we observe today -- in multicellular life, to boot.

Almost certainly, the line between life and not-life was much subtler, and quite a lot of time was spent in barely differentiated proteins replicating in a haphazard way under an ad-hoc skin.

Heck, bacteria barely have identity (they are that genetically promiscuous). And bacteria are vastly more complex than the minimum necessary to self-replicate (even virii carry a lot of weird extra baggage around, as efficient as they are -- and, as you rightly pointed out, as they use existing replicating machinery. Except this isn't quite right. Anyhow, a better low-end replicator would be, say, a prion.)

I am not picking one. I am not a scientist in the field. I haven't even kept up on the literature. All I am pointing out is it is WAY premature to say "It can't possibly be any simpler!" That only reveals a lack of imagination.



Radiometric assumes a constant decay rate and lack of contamination. Just because something is consistent, does not mean it isn't consistently wrong.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Sorry, no.

First off, some methods -- C14 -- does require the assumption that you know the starting ratio. As well as know if there is anything that might have a preferential uptake. Or later contamination of the sample (a well-known problem in, say, fresh lava, and marine bivalves.) Isocron methods do not require this.

The point about consistency is not that C14 is consistent with ITSELF. It is that it is consistent (or, rather, that it has been corrected -- C14 is one of the most fluid if you want accurate dating, because of fluctuations of production in the upper atmosphere, but also the best method for short-term dating...stuff...organics rather...in the 10-50 KYA range) sorry, that it is consistent with other methods.

Including historical.

But even without that. Assume there is some kind of error in C14. Assume some sort of error in deposition rates, in crystal growth rates, in tree rings, in K-AR dating, in U/pb dating, in magnetic reversals, in molecular clocks, etc.

You creationists love math. What's the chance that every one of these quite different processes shows an error of the same magnitude in the same vector?

Oh, and for an extra math bonus. Say there is a significant yet carefully proportional error in contamination, original isotope ratio, and one or two other things for K-Ar. Add them all together. What's the total percentage? 90 percent error? 300% error? 10,000% error? How far off do you need to be to shrink the age of the Earth into your cute little 6,000 year time table?


And how exactly do you check a million year date against the thousands of years dates of trees and ice?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Trees and ice go back further than a few thousand years. For tree rings, fossilized trees are compared to living trees, and the same events recorded (volcanic eruptions, etc) are compared.

It isn't flawless. There is room for error and discussion. But it has been done multiple times with consistent results.

But don't ask me. Go read some of the papers if you want to quibble with their assumptions, accuracy of observation, and statistical methods. That's what peer-review literature is for, after all!
Evil Cretin

User ID: 1217128
United States
10/03/2012 02:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
Come on, OP, there is a very simple explanation for this. First, consider that sharks and cleaner fish have been swimming about together for billions of years. That's a really long time. For most of those billions of years sharks have been devouring cleaner fish the way I devour potato chips. But one day a shark with something lodged painfully between its teeth had a juicy little cleaner fish in its mouth, but before he could get it down, the cleaner fish attempting to get one last meal removed the debris from the shark's teeth. The shark was so excited to be pain free it opened its mouth in a joyful yell of happiness wherein the cleaner fish escaped.

The shark mated. The cleaner fish mated. The rest as they say is history.

beared
Evil Cretin
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1447032
United States
10/03/2012 02:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
if we all came from adam and eve, how do we reconcile the existence of neanderthal?
 Quoting: Edge Rider


Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?
Chapter 7

“Ape-Men”—What Were They?
FOR many years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists’ renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions between beast and man? Are “ape-men” our ancestors? Evolutionary scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions such as this article title in a science magazine: “How Ape Became Man.”

True, some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man should rightly be called “apes.” Even so, some of their colleagues are not so exacting.2 Stephen Jay Gould says: “People . . . evolved from apelike ancestors.”3 And George Gaylord Simpson stated: “The common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys.”

Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because today’s living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As shown in Chapter 6, there is an enormous gulf between humans and any animals existing today, including the ape family. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link between man and ape, it was hoped that the fossil record would.

From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?

How Much Fossil Evidence?
From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures. Is this really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in Darwin’s day? Was it such evidence that encouraged him to formulate his theory?

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: “The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists.” This scientific publication shows why: “People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work.”5

After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.”6 New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”7

Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.”8 Science magazine adds: “The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man’s evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages.”9

Just how sparse is the fossil record regarding “ape-men”? Note the following. Newsweek: “‘You could put all the fossils on the top of a single desk,’ said Elwyn Simons of Duke University.”10 The New York Times: “The known fossil remains of man’s ancestors would fit on a billiard table. That makes a poor platform from which to peer into the mists of the last few million years.”11 Science Digest: “The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! . . . Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.”12

Modern-type humans, with the capacity to reason, plan, invent, build on previous knowledge and use complex languages, appear suddenly in the fossil record. Gould, in his book The Mismeasure of Man, notes: “We have no evidence for biological change in brain size or structure since Homo sapiens appeared in the fossil record some fifty thousand years ago.”13 Thus, the book The Universe Within asks: “What caused evolution . . . to produce, as if overnight, modern humankind with its highly special brain?”14 Evolution is unable to answer. But could the answer lie in the creation of a very complex, different creature?

Where Are the “Links”?
However, have not scientists found the necessary “links” between apelike animals and man? Not according to the evidence. Science Digest speaks of “the lack of a missing link to explain the relatively sudden appearance of modern man.”15 Newsweek observed: “The missing link between man and the apes . . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule.”16

Because there are no links, “phantom creatures” have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they had really existed. That explains why the following contradiction could occur, as reported by a science magazine: “Humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contend, in sudden jumps from one form to another. . . . But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion.”17

Thus we can better understand the observation of respected anatomist Solly Zuckerman who wrote in the Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh: “The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily to-day as they did 50 years ago and more.”18 He noted that, all too often, facts were ignored, and instead, what was currently popular was championed in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Man’s “Family Tree”
As a result, the “family tree” often drawn of man’s claimed evolution from lower animals changes constantly. For example, Richard Leakey stated that a more recent fossil discovery “leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.”19 And a newspaper report regarding that discovery declared: “Every single book on anthropology, every article on the evolution of man, every drawing of man’s family tree will have to be junked. They are apparently wrong.”20

he theoretical family tree of human evolution is littered with the castoffs of previously accepted “links.” An editorial in The New York Times observed that evolutionary science “includes so much room for conjecture that theories of how man came to be tend to tell more about their author than their subject. . . . The finder of a new skull often seems to redraw the family tree of man, with his discovery on the center line that leads to man and everyone else’s skulls on side lines leading nowhere.”21

In a book review of The Myths of Human Evolution written by evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine observed that the authors eliminated any evolutionary family tree. Why? After noting that “the links that make up the ancestry of the human species can only be guessed at,” this publication stated: “Eldredge and Tattersall insist that man searches for his ancestry in vain. . . . If the evidence were there, they contend, ‘one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas, if anything, the opposite has occurred.’”

Discover concluded: “The human species, and all species, will remain orphans of a sort, the identities of their parents lost to the past.”22 Perhaps “lost” from the standpoint of evolutionary theory. But has not the Genesis alternative “found” our parents as they actually are in the fossil record—fully human, just as we are?

The fossil record reveals a distinct, separate origin for apes and for humans. That is why fossil evidence of man’s link to apelike beasts is nonexistent. The links really have never been there.

What Did They Look Like?
However, if man’s ancestors were not apelike, why do so many pictures and replicas of “ape-men” flood scientific publications and museums around the world? On what are these based? The book The Biology of Race answers: “The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination.” It adds: “Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.”23

Science Digest also commented: “The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.”24 Fossil hunter Donald Johanson acknowledged: “No one can be sure just what any
extinct hominid looked like.”25

Indeed, New Scientist reported that there is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.”26 So the depictions of “ape-men” are, as one evolutionist admitted, “pure fiction in most respects . . . sheer invention.”27 Thus in Man, God and Magic Ivar Lissner commented: “Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.”28

In their desire to find evidence of “ape-men,” some scientists have been taken in by outright fraud, for example, the Piltdown man in 1912. For about 40 years it was accepted as genuine by most of the evolutionary community. Finally, in 1953, the hoax was uncovered when modern techniques revealed that human and ape bones had been put together and artificially aged. In another instance, an apelike “missing link” was drawn up and presented in the press. But it was later acknowledged that the “evidence” consisted of only one tooth that belonged to an extinct form of pig.29

What Were They?
If “ape-man” reconstructions are not valid, then what were those ancient creatures whose fossil bones have been found? One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a small, rodentlike animal said to have lived about 70 million years ago. In their book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey wrote: “They were insect-eating quadrupeds about the size and shape of squirrels.”30 Richard Leakey called the mammal a “rat-like primate.”31 But is there any solid evidence that these tiny animals were the ancestors of humans? No, instead only wishful speculation. No transitional stages have ever linked them with anything except what they were: small, rodentlike mammals.

Next on the generally accepted list, with an admitted gap of about 40 million years, are fossils found in Egypt and named Aegyptopithecus—Egypt ape. This creature is said to have lived about 30 million years ago. Magazines, newspapers and books have displayed pictures of this small creature with headings such as: “Monkey-like creature was our ancestor.” (Time)32 “Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes.” (The New York Times)33 “Aegyptopithecus is an ancestor which we share with living apes.” (Origins)34 But where are the links between it and the rodent before it? Where are the links to what is placed after it in the evolutionary lineup? None have been found.

The Rise and Fall of “Ape-Men”
Following another admittedly gigantic gap in the fossil record, another fossil creature had been presented as the first humanlike ape. It was said to have lived about 14 million years ago and was called Ramapithecus—Rama’s ape (Rama was a mythical prince of India). Fossils of it were found in India about half a century ago. From these fossils was constructed an apelike creature, upright, on two limbs. Of it Origins stated: “As far as one can say at the moment, it is the first representative of the human family.”35

What was the fossil evidence for this conclusion? The same publication remarked: “The evidence concerning Ramapithecus is considerable—though in absolute terms it remains tantalizingly small: fragments of upper and lower jaws, plus a collection of teeth.”36 Do you think that this was “considerable” enough “evidence” to reconstruct an upright “ape-man” ancestor of humans? Yet, this mostly hypothetical creature was drawn by artists as an “ape-man,” and pictures of it flooded evolutionary literature—all on the basis of jawbone fragments and teeth! Still, as The New York Times reported, for decades Ramapithecus “sat as securely as anything can at the base of the human evolutionary tree.”37

However, that is no longer the case. Recent and more complete fossil finds revealed that Ramapithecus closely resembled the present-day ape family. So New Scientist now declares: “Ramapithecus cannot have been the first member of the human line.”38 Such new information provoked the following question in Natural History magazine: “How did Ramapithecus, . . . reconstructed only from teeth and jaws—without a known pelvis, limb bones, or skull—sneak into this manward-marching procession?”39 Obviously, a great deal of wishful thinking must have gone into such an effort
to make the evidence say what it does not say.

Another gap of vast proportions lies between that creature and the next one that had been listed as an “ape-man” ancestor. This is called Australopithecus—southern ape. Fossils of it were first found in southern Africa in the 1920’s. It had a small apelike braincase, heavy jawbone and was pictured as walking on two limbs, stooped over, hairy and apish looking. It was said to have lived beginning about three or four million years ago. In time it came to be accepted by nearly all evolutionists as man’s ancestor.

For instance, the book The Social Contract noted: “With one or two exceptions all competent investigators in this field now agree that the australopithecines . . . are actual human ancestors.”40 The New York Times declared: “It was Australopithecus . . . that eventually evolved into Homo sapiens, or modern man.”41 And in Man, Time, and Fossils Ruth Moore said: “By all the evidence men at last had met their long unknown, early ancestors.” Emphatically she declared: “The evidence was overwhelming . . . the missing link had at long last been found.”42

But when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed “ape-men.”

So, too, with Australopithecus. More research has disclosed that its skull “differed from that of humans in more ways than its smaller brain capacity.”43 Anatomist Zuckerman wrote: “When compared with human and simian [ape] skulls, the Australopithecine skull is in appearance overwhelmingly simian—not human. The contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.”44 He also said: “Our findings leave little doubt that . . . Australopithecus resembles not Homo sapiens but the living monkeys and apes.”45 Donald Johanson also said: “Australopithecines . . . were not men.”46 Similarly Richard Leakey called it “unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary descendants of the australopithecines.”47

If any australopithecines were found alive today, they would be put in zoos with other apes. No one would call them “ape-men.” The same is true of other fossil “cousins” that resemble it, such as a smaller type of australopithecine called “Lucy.” Of it Robert Jastrow says: “This brain was not large in absolute size; it was a third the size of a human brain.”48 Obviously, it too was simply an “ape.” In fact, New Scientist said that “Lucy” had a skull “very like a chimpanzee’s.”49

Another fossil type is called Homo erectus—upright man. Its brain size and shape do fall into the lower range of modern man’s. Also, the Encyclopædia Britannica observed that “the limb bones thus far discovered have been indistinguishable from those of H[omo] sapiens.”50 However, it is unclear whether it was human or not. If so, then it was merely a branch of the human family and died off.

The Human Family
Neanderthal man (named after the Neander district in Germany where the first fossil was found) was undoubtedly human. At first he was pictured as bent over, stupid looking, hairy and apelike. Now it is known that this mistaken reconstruction was based on a fossil skeleton badly deformed by disease. Since then, many Neanderthal fossils have been found, confirming that he was not much different from modern humans. In his book Ice, Fred Hoyle stated: “There is no evidence that Neanderthal man was in any way inferior to ourselves.”51 As a result, recent drawings of Neanderthals have taken on a more modern look.

Another fossil type frequently encountered in scientific literature is Cro-Magnon man. It was named for the locality in southern France where his bones were first unearthed. These specimens “were so virtually indistinguishable from those of today that even the most skeptical had to concede that they were humans,” said the book Lucy.52

Thus, the evidence is clear that belief in “ape-men” is unfounded. Instead, humans have all the earmarks of being created—separate and distinct from any animal. Humans reproduce only after their own kind. They do so today and have always done so in the past. Any apelike creatures that lived in the past were just that—apes, or monkeys—not humans. And fossils of ancient humans that differ slightly from humans of today simply demonstrate variety within the human family, just as today we have many varieties living side by side. There are seven-foot humans and there are pygmies, with varying sizes and shapes of skeletons. But all belong to the same human “kind,” not animal “kind.”

What About the Dates?
Biblical chronology indicates that a period of about 6,000 years has passed since the creation of humans. Why, then, does one often read about far longer periods of time since acknowledged human types of fossils appeared?

Before concluding that Bible chronology is in error, consider that radioactive dating methods have come under sharp criticism by some scientists. A scientific journal reported on studies showing that “dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” It said: “Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.”53

For example, the radiocarbon “clock.” This method of radiocarbon dating was developed over a period of two decades by scientists all over the world. It was widely acclaimed for accurate dating of artifacts from man’s ancient history. But then a conference of the world’s experts, including radiochemists, archaeologists and geologists, was held in Uppsala, Sweden, to compare notes. The report of their conference showed that the fundamental assumptions on which the measurements were based had been found untrustworthy to a greater or lesser degree. For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is not reliable in dating objects from about 2,000 B.C.E. or before.54

Keep in mind that truly reliable evidence of man’s activity on earth is given, not in millions of years, but in thousands. For example, in The Fate of the Earth we read: “Only six or seven thousand years ago . . . civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world.”55 The Last Two Million Years states: “In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 10,000 and 5000 BC.” It also says: “Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records.”56 The fact that the fossil record shows modern man suddenly appearing on earth, and that reliable historical records are admittedly recent, harmonizes with the Bible’s chronology for human life on earth.

In this regard, note what Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist W. F. Libby, one of the pioneers in radiocarbon dating, stated in Science: “The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years. . . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately.”57

When reviewing a book on evolution, English author Malcolm Muggeridge commented on the lack of evidence for evolution. He noted that wild speculations flourished nevertheless. Then he said: “The Genesis account seems, by comparison, sober enough and at least has the merit of being validly related to what we know about human beings and their behavior.” He said that the unfounded claims of millions of years for man’s evolution “and wild leaps from skull to skull, cannot but strike anyone not caught up in the [evolutionary] myth as pure fantasy.” Muggeridge concluded: “Posterity will surely be amazed, and I hope vastly amused, that such slipshod and unconvincing theorizing should have so easily captivated twentieth-century minds and been so widely and recklessly applied.”58
Strossus

User ID: 1669835
Canada
10/03/2012 02:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
The Cleaner Fish

Let's first start with the cleaner fish. This fish will swim into a shark's mouth and eat remnant food particles from the shark's teeth. The cleaner fish departs with a satisfied appetite, and the shark is happy because his teeth are cleaned in the process. The shark does not allow any other kinds of fish into its mouth without chomping down for a good lunch. Indeed, what other fish would dare attempt to swim into a shark's mouth! This type of relationship is called a symbiotic relationship. Creationists point out that these relationships clearly represent a design that could not have occurred by chance. Evolutionists have a very difficult time explaining how these types of relationships could evolve with time.

Nevertheless, an evolutionist will somehow have us believe that the cleaner fish eventually figured out he could go in the shark's mouth, and the shark eventually figured out that he should let him so as to maintain proper dental hygiene. The following illustrations portray the likely repercussions of this ill-advised bravery.

Nobel Prize winner and evolutionist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi acknowledged that time, chance, and random mutations could never produce the numerous symbiotic relationships we see all around us (He went on to postulate an impersonal creative force, an "innate drive in living matter" in an attempt to make peace with his faith in evolution)1.

Let's face it, symbiosis clearly points to a Designer. The lengths an evolutionist must go to explain away this one is beyond fairy tale!

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." - Charles Darwin


[link to www.evolutionfairytale.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Evolution isn't a fairy tale. Your life is.

If you don't believe in evolution it pretty much sums up your intelligence and thinking capabilities, period.
"We're not scaremongering, this is really happening."
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
10/03/2012 03:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
And while your at it, tell us how a virus might have gotten hold of the cellular manufacturing, maintenance, and reproduction blueprints to a structure that did not even exist yet. (if your suggesting, by your comment of it being simpler, that life sprung out of some form of virus)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


At least you know that much.

No, I wasn't suggesting that. I was merely pointing out that you are assuming that the only possible cell is the one we observe today -- in multicellular life, to boot.

Almost certainly, the line between life and not-life was much subtler, and quite a lot of time was spent in barely differentiated proteins replicating in a haphazard way under an ad-hoc skin.

Heck, bacteria barely have identity (they are that genetically promiscuous). And bacteria are vastly more complex than the minimum necessary to self-replicate (even virii carry a lot of weird extra baggage around, as efficient as they are -- and, as you rightly pointed out, as they use existing replicating machinery. Except this isn't quite right. Anyhow, a better low-end replicator would be, say, a prion.)
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Lipids, Proteins, even DNA itself (disregarding the obvious data embedded inside) are just chains of molecules. You can speculate all day about an incredible coincidence mashing this stuff together.

The problem is function. Proteins and Nucleic Acids have complex production, reproduction, transportation, and maintenance tasks. They communicate and coordinate intricate operations. They store and share data. These aren't chemical bonds, they are advanced computing and manufacturing operations.

I'm assuming you are well aware of this, so I wonder why you're painting a different picture for other readers.. suggesting that it's just a matter of the right chemical reactions in the right places.

To suggest these relationships self-assembled themselves, you are removing yourself completely from the realm of observed science. All of the natural data we have today says, resoundingly, that this does *not* happen and can not happen by purely naturalistic mechanisms.

Science is directly showing you the limits of nature. It could not be anymore clear. The answer is being handed to you on a silver platter.

Aliens from Dimension X, or God. Pick one.
Edge Rider

User ID: 1377922
United States
10/03/2012 04:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
To suggest these relationships self-assembled themselves, you are removing yourself completely from the realm of observed science. All of the natural data we have today says, resoundingly, that this does *not* happen and can not happen by purely naturalistic mechanisms.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


dont forget that things happen a lot differently in the quantum realm at planck scale. we just might learn a few things about the true nature of god. emergence...
Row, row, row your boat...gently down the stream...merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily...life is but a dream...
[link to en.wikipedia.org] / [link to www.youtube.com]
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
10/03/2012 05:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
Lipids, Proteins, even DNA itself (disregarding the obvious data embedded inside) are just chains of molecules. You can speculate all day about an incredible coincidence mashing this stuff together.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


I'm not. I'm speculating about the bootstrap; what it looks like that just barely works, well enough for the well-understood processes of natural selection to start refining it.





The problem is function. Proteins and Nucleic Acids have complex production, reproduction, transportation, and maintenance tasks. They communicate and coordinate intricate operations. They store and share data. These aren't chemical bonds, they are advanced computing and manufacturing operations.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


We're going around and around. You are looking at a 1950's self-winding watch and deciding that no possible time piece can be simpler. Which is idiotic.

Also, although the point is arguable, DNA is a cypher, not a code. There is a little bit of grammatical material in there but it is hardly a high-order computer language. There is a fair amount of processing power embedded in the various layers of transcription. After all, the body doesn't just copy off every protein in the sequence in every cell of the body, all the time!

But that sophistication isn't necessary to achieve a basic self-replicator.







I'm assuming you are well aware of this, so I wonder why you're painting a different picture for other readers.. suggesting that it's just a matter of the right chemical reactions in the right places.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


"Just the right?" No-one is saying it is trivial. If it was, then every body on the solar system capable of sustaining complex chemical reactions would have life.

Life did not arise on the Earth until at least a billion years post formation (although a lot of that time was spent in cooling down some!) That's enough time for some pretty rare events.




To suggest these relationships self-assembled themselves, you are removing yourself completely from the realm of observed science. All of the natural data we have today says, resoundingly, that this does *not* happen and can not happen by purely naturalistic mechanisms.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Are you seriously claiming there is no self-replicating processes in chemistry? Are you seriously claiming that nothing more complex than a water molecule ever formed without external aid? Now who is painting a seriously slanted picture!

Come on. You've read some of the same literature I have. It is seriously bogus of you to pretend you didn't see what you saw, and to make an argument you know is untrue.

But that's why "Cdesign Proponentist" is a synonym for "bald-faced liar."
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
10/03/2012 10:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
Bombardier Beetle Defies Evolution



[link to www.youtube.com]
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
10/04/2012 12:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
Bombardier Beetle Defies Evolution



[link to www.youtube.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Gish Gallop.

That one didn't even make it as far as Dover.

But Creationists never let a good (bad) argument die. They just carefully refrain from using it anywhere they might get caught at it.

Two words: Metrius contractus.

Learn what those mean, and you will begin to see the utter failure of research on the part of the Creationists.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
10/04/2012 08:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
Insect Fossil Flies in the Face of Gradual Evolution

Never before had the fossil of a flying insect been discovered in Carboniferous rocks, which are said to be over 300 million years old. But now, amazing impressions have been found in "sandstone with thin mudstone drapes," according to a technical report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.1 This fossil shows that fully developed flight features appeared suddenly in the fossil record, with no trace of gradual evolution.

The report's authors made an impressive case for this being a mayfly cast and mold (called a "concretion pair"), even though its wings were not evident—only body and leg impressions. The researchers reasoned that the best scenario for fossilization was that the creature landed in wet sandy mud that was deposited as a result of a flood. Then, the water "was able to drain rapidly after flooding."1

If evolution were true, the complicated suite of features required for flight—including balance sensors, landing strategies, wind speed detectors, and coordinated muscular action, as well as a gradually growing wing size over many generations—must have taken eons to evolve. But this "oldest trace fossil"1 of a flying insect shows no indication of gradual evolution, no transitional or half-developed or "proto" features.

Since many different insects can fly, evolutionists are forced to insist that insect flight evolved half a dozen times. Where are all the fossilized evolutionary experiments that show this? Not one exists.

In 2004, authoritative paleontologist Donald Prothero tacitly acknowledged the lack of evidence from fossils or elsewhere for the evolution of flight. He wrote:

Apparently, insect wings evolved in the Mississippian, but so far there are no insect localities of Devonian or Mississippian age (primarily because of the widespread high sea levels and marine conditions that restricted the number of terrestrial deposits) to document how wings first developed.2

This mayfly was found in rock designated as Pennsylvanian, which is situated just above Mississippian strata in some locations. It is therefore much closer to Mississippian than other fossil flying insects discovered so far, and it still totally fails to "document how wings first developed.
"

But what is documented by this and other insect fossils coincides with what is documented in Scripture. The creation model holds that in the beginning, God created certain creatures to fly. Both the written and the fossil records agree that insect flight did not evolve, but suddenly appeared as a fully developed and completely functional ability.


[link to www.icr.org]
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 23223519
United States
10/04/2012 05:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale
bump

News