Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory

Mary Schweitzer didn't lose her job at all, and she's repeatedly told you Creationists to stop using her to support your position. She accepts evolution.

Oh, sry I did not realize that. either way we don't need her to support our point of view, the scientific evidence speaks for itself.... T rex and all other dinosaurs are not trillions of years old, in fact they were most likely around before the flood approx. twelve thousand years ago..









Last Edited by musashi777 on 11/24/2018 07:22 PM

This is merely dinosaurs that were brought back to life using dna and artificial womb technology by the highly advanced pre-flood Atlantean civilization. Thats why theres still soft tissue its only a few tens of thousands of years old and was frozen!

you also have to consider that curious aliens could have studied our planet some time in the last 100k years and collected dinosaur dna using their far more advanced and effective methods, and bought them back "jurassic park style" to study them whilst they were waiting for their mothership to come back around to pick them up a few years later and then abandoned the earth to go study other planets.

Last Edited by Agent Smith 2014 on 11/24/2018 07:33 PM

No scientist has ever said that dinosaurs are trillions of years old. The KT extinction event is estimated to have happened 65 million years ago.

What evidence do you have that all dinosaurs are no more than 12 000 years old? We should be able to find DNA in remains that fresh.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 11/24/2018 07:33 PM

I agree.

[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

Last Edited by musashi777 on 11/24/2018 07:34 PM

A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.

In the case of evolution, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.

At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.

Once again for anybody who may have missed this earlier:





The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)

The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)

The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

The question of irreducible complexity.

The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).

The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...

The question of genetic entropy.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.


Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been dysfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?


Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal.

There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.

You're still posting this garbage? It's wrong from the first sentence. I've refuted every argument in it multiple times and you just ignore me.

OP, please watch this video about the soft tissue, don't just see what Creationists have to say.



Last Edited by Spur-Man on 11/24/2018 07:42 PM

This should get Kent Hovindt all excited.

Lol, evolutionists still trying to argue?!

Why wouldn't they? All the evidence is on their side. 99% of scientists accept it.

the trillion year comment was sarcastic. All I'm saying is dinosaurs could be a lot younger than we have been led to believe. As for the dna, I am not certain that they haven't procured dinosaur dna..

Anything 'could' be the case, what matters is evidence. There is no documented, publicly available instance of Dinosaur DNA being procured.

Did you watch the video I posted? It covers the soft tissue discovered by Schweiter. She even found that dinosaurs had traits more in common with birds than reptiles, which supports the idea that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs.

I believe in adaptational evolution i.e: an ordinary red fox vs a white fox whom adapted the color of its fur to blend in with the arctic landscape. That being said I see no proof for transitional evolution i.e a fish evolving legs and becoming an amphibian or a reptile.. nor is there proof for spontaneous genesis..

with the universe and natures precision mechanisms to me indicates the work of a designer. that being said I will watch the vid you posted and take it in for consideration.

Do you accept that all canines share a common ancestor? Foxes, wolves, coyotes, jackals etc?

We can test the idea that land dwelling vertebrates come from fish. When we look at the fossil record, the first vertebrates we find (according to radiometric dating) are fish. Amphibians and reptiles don't appear until millions of years later. Scientists concluded that if fish evolved into amphibians, then we should find transitional fossils somewhere in the time range between the first fish and the first amphibians. They went and looked in rock layers from that period, and they found Tiktaalik. An animal with the traits of fish and amphibians. Evolution theory predicted we'd find the fossil there, and we did.

The ability to make accurate predictions is the best indicator that a scientific theory is accurate.

Spontaneous genesis isn't part of evolution theory.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 11/24/2018 08:59 PM

Hey look! Actual solid proof that was accurately predicted by the most scientifically accepted theory! That should be all the evidence needed to blow a hole right through the creationist theory... Unfortunately creationism being innately tied to biblical religion means these idiots have no grasp of logic and reasoning, so unfortunately your clear proof will fall on deaf ears. It amazes me that people will believe what some pedophile yelled at them in some church over actual common sense. Its even more amazing that these bibletard creationists can tie their own shoes without reading scripture first for instructions...

I wouldn't even call this proof personally, but it's evidence. Evolution is the best model available and it's the only observable natural phenomena that can bring about a new species.

no
it hasn't

Thanks for link. Will watch.

Evolution was always a joke.

The earth is right around 7400 years old.

That's all. Man was always contemporary with dinosaurs.

That's why there are dinosaur depictions on South American pottery in Peru.

Fair enough, but I would consider it at least proof that there were transitional species, which in itself is proof of transitional evolution... Which is one of the main points creationists use to "discredit" evolution.

Watch Dr Dennis Swift present his research on the ICA stones (depicting all kinds of dinosaurs contemporary with man).

They are quite real, and evolution is quite false. Not only is it false, it is laughably easy to prove just how false it is.

Laughably easy, eh? Go ahead then, you'll get a nobel prize.

I could make those ica stones in my garage. There's no evidence that they're ancient. Use some critical thinking please.



Last Edited by Spur-Man on 11/24/2018 10:05 PM

At 30 min the video addresses the iron preserving tissue theory. I Would still stipulate that we live in a creation owned by God, and that we do require a saviour in order to free us from the grave i.e Jesus Christ The Messiah..

Not entirely true...

She was give a "Dressing-Down" by NWO, BQMTJ "authorities" and was ordered to come-up with a cover story.

Which is what she did.

A science defying, blathering discourse on how blood cells and tissue can survive 65 million years through some sort of rediculous chemical process that can't be reproduced or proven.

65 million years? ... mmmm sure pal...
.

Plenty of Christians accept evolution. An omnipotent god could -with a single action- create a universe where planets and life are automatically produced by natural processes.

Engineers and computer programmers actually use genetic algorithms to improve their designs. These are based on evolutionary principles. Basically, the algorithm applies random changes, discards the negative change, keeps the positive and repeats. This has been shown to automatically produce functional aerodynamic structures.

You're triggered by the ICA stones. They give evolutionists convulsions because they're real.

I understand how you would feel.

And now watch Dr Swift's presentation in its entirety to understand why we know for a fact that they are real.

Nice conspiracy theory, but what are you basing that on? Watch the video I posted. There were no red blood cells, there was collagen that only became soft after being exposed to acid. We have complete mosquitoes in amber that are believed to be from the cretaceous and these aren't considered to be a problem for evolution.

There's no part of evolution theory that even suggests dinosaurs couldn't have survived into modern times.

Triggered? Come on. At least some of them are admitted forgeries made to con money out of tourists. I've already spent hours researching both sides of this subject, Creationists are notoriously dishonest. Can you give me a summary please?

Initially that is what I believed. Now though, I fully believe in the biblical account. God designed life forms to have a vast potential for diversity within their genome and its displayed in nature. i am all for debate however i don't think its the schools job to teach kids there is no God.