Einstein was right after all....

#326
#326
chatt-townVOL said:
I still don't understand what point you're trying to make here? Is it that things evolve? Or that man is the product of evolution? I don't know why that's so hard for you to answer
Click to expand...

I answered this earlier. I guess you missed it.

Yes, living things evolve.

Yes, human beings are a product of evolution.
 
#329
#329
bigorange16 said:
Like what?
Click to expand...

Time before time. Infinity/eternity and our mind's inability to comprehend it even though it cannot be denied as an actual concept. 90% of generally acknowledged dating methods pointing to the Young Earth theory as opposed to the earth being millions of year's old (granted I think carbon dating and it's friends are a joke, but it still raises some eyebrows). Why doesn't the sperm whale possess the capacity for abstract thought even though its brain is much larger and weighs 9 times as much as a human's? Why if we are so similar to monkeys to they have such major skeletal differences?

Just to name a few.

Oh and here's an example of evolution tripping over its own feet and having to create more assumptions to cover it up.

"According to evolution, our galaxy is between 4.5 and 5 billion years old. However, an interesting problem has been added to the equation since the discovery of dwarf galaxies. It is amusing that the farther technology advances, the more assumptions must be added to support evolution. Dwarf galaxies are smaller galaxies with a faster rotation. The problem with dwarf galaxies is that the faster rotation does not fit the old universe model of the Big Bang theory. The dwarf galaxy’s rotation would have caused them to disperse in 1/150th of the supposed age of the universe. To solve the problem, evolution sought for an out. Remember, the evolution model is based on the presupposition that the beginning is a fact. Anything that contradicts the starting point collapses the whole model. Updating the model is never an option. Therefore Dark Matter was invented.

Dark matter is a theoretical force that has a gravitational effect on galaxies and prevents them from dispersing. However, the invention of dark matter created a new problem. If it prevented dwarf galaxies from dispersing, it would have the same effect on larger galaxies. This would also contradict the evolution model. To solve this problem, the theory was updated to include cold dark matter and hot dark matter. Cold dark matter slows down the dispersion of stars in dwarf galaxies without slowing down their rotation. Hot dark matter travels at or near the speed of light, thus allowing larger galaxies to stay within the evolution model. Keep in mind that there is no evidence for dark matter and its only purpose is to constrain the observable science so that it fits evolution. It cannot be tested, proved or disproven. The reason scientists believe dark matter exists is that it must exist in order for the Big Bang to be true."

No no no but "evolution is a fact"
 
Last edited:
#330
#330
chatt-townVOL said:
Time before time. Infinity/eternity and our mind's inability to comprehend it even though it cannot be denied as an actual concept.
Click to expand...

I can comprehend it just fine.


chatt-townVOL said:
90% of carbon dating pointing to the Young Earth theory as opposed to the earth being millions of year's old.
Click to expand...

Hilariously false.

chatt-townVOL said:
Why doesn't the sperm whale possess the capacity for abstract thought even though its brain is much larger and weighs 9 times as much as a human's?
Click to expand...

Big brain does not necessarily equal big intelligence.

chatt-townVOL said:
Why if we are so similar to monkeys to they have such major skeletal differences?
Click to expand...

Huh?

chatt-townVOL said:
Oh and here's an example of evolution tripping over its own feet and having to create more assumptions to cover it up.

"According to evolution, our galaxy is between 4.5 and 5 billion years old. However, an interesting problem has been added to the equation since the discovery of dwarf galaxies. It is amusing that the farther technology advances, the more assumptions must be added to support evolution. Dwarf galaxies are smaller galaxies with a faster rotation. The problem with dwarf galaxies is that the faster rotation does not fit the old universe model of the Big Bang theory. The dwarf galaxy’s rotation would have caused them to disperse in 1/150th of the supposed age of the universe. To solve the problem, evolution sought for an out. Remember, the evolution model is based on the presupposition that the beginning is a fact. Anything that contradicts the starting point collapses the whole model. Updating the model is never an option. Therefore Dark Matter was invented.

Dark matter is a theoretical force that has a gravitational effect on galaxies and prevents them from dispersing. However, the invention of dark matter created a new problem. If it prevented dwarf galaxies from dispersing, it would have the same effect on larger galaxies. This would also contradict the evolution model. To solve this problem, the theory was updated to include cold dark matter and hot dark matter. Cold dark matter slows down the dispersion of stars in dwarf galaxies without slowing down their rotation. Hot dark matter travels at or near the speed of light, thus allowing larger galaxies to stay within the evolution model. Keep in mind that there is no evidence for dark matter and its only purpose is to constrain the observable science so that it fits evolution. It cannot be tested, proved or disproven. The reason scientists believe dark matter exists is that it must exist in order for the Big Bang to be true."
Click to expand...


I can't even make sense of this whole quote because they are equating statements about the universe with evolution...which to anyone with even a Wikipedia understanding of evolution (or the universe) would make no sense because those two things are unrelated.
 
#332
#332
bigorange16 said:
I can't even make sense of this whole quote because they are equating statements about the universe with evolution...which to anyone with even a Wikipedia understanding of evolution (or the universe) would make no sense because those two things are unrelated.
Click to expand...

Generally the understanding that "people evolved over millions of years"? Hence the earth is millions of years old. The earth is in what's called a "universe". Why did I need to spell that out for you?

We're going to ignore time before time I guess.

Please, elaborate on why man does possess the capacity for reasoning and abstract thought and nothing else does.

No, you don't comprehend infinity/eternity. It's literally impossible for the mind not to consider a beginning and an end to everything.

Do I need to provide examples if for where most dating methods point more to a young earth theory? (even though just to reiterate, I believe they are a joke anyways)

Monkeys' feet are more like the human hands than the human feet.
 
Last edited:
#333
#333
chatt-townVOL said:
Generally the understanding that "people evolved over millions of years"? Hence the earth is millions of years old. The earth is in what's called a "universe". Why did I need to spell that out for you?
Click to expand...

The earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old. Unsure of what else you are saying here.

chatt-townVOL said:
We're going to ignore time before time?
Click to expand...

Have no idea what you're talking about.

chatt-townVOL said:
Please, elaborate on why man does possess the capacity for reasoning and abstract thought and nothing else does.
Click to expand...

There are other mammals that are clearly intelligent and self aware. Obviously, not as intelligent as humans, but we can't know how capable of abstract thought they are.

chatt-townVOL said:
No, you don't comprehend infinity/eternity. It's literally impossible for the mind not to consider a beginning and an end to everything.
Click to expand...

Again, yes I can. Its pretty simple.


chatt-townVOL said:
I can provide examples if you need for where carbon dating points to young earth.
Click to expand...

This should be good.

chatt-townVOL said:
Monkeys' feet are more like the human hand than the human feet.
Click to expand...

Cool?
 
#334
#334
Sorry you lost me after:

"no idea what you're saying"

"no idea what you're taking about"

and

"I don't know how capable animals are".

Nice array of white flags.

Dating:

"In one year, 21,000 carbon14 specimens were submitted and 19,000 were rejected. Only 2,000 were considered accurate by evolutionist. Why?

It is not just Carbon14 dating that has this problem, but all dating methods are screened through the evolutionary crosscheck. Dating is measured by circular logic. A fossil is dated by the geological layer in which it is found. The geological layer is dated by the fossils found within it. This produces a fail-proof system of crosschecking dates. The system is designed to hide inaccuracies. The geological layer is a theoretical layer modeled in the mid-1800s. Many fatal blows have been dealt to this process, but evolution has not let go of it. Polystrate trees pose a serious threat to this dating method. Polystrate trees are fossilized trees that are standing erect through many layers of the geological column.

It is impossible for these trees to have stood for the hundreds of thousand and often millions of years that these layers supposedly represent. Consider how a layer of strata is formed. Even evolutionary science agrees that layers of strata are formed by catastrophic events such as floods and volcanic eruptions. If each layer of strata represents an event, these dead trees would have survived through hundreds or thousands of events without falling, decaying or being destroyed. Somehow today it is rare to find a dead tree that has survived 5 years – and these trees are well down the road to decay. Believing that polystrate trees found all over the globe buried deep within the strata occurred by slow layering is quite a leap of faith.

One rebuttal that is often used as ‘evidence’ for the creation of polystrate trees are tidal marshes. The forests bordering these marshlands are slowly being buried by sediment and it is therefore argued that these could one day become polystrate trees. There are two major flaws with this example. 1. These trees are still alive. When they die, they will decay and become part of the marshland soil. Evolutionists point to the living trees to show they are being slowly covered, but there are know dead trees that have any hope of being fossilized. They die and disappear just as all the trees before them have done. 2. Polystrate trees often have fossils in the layers surrounding them. In the marshlands, there are no fossils. When a creature dies, it decays and is lost forever. How will slowly covering a living tree create a fossilized tree and how will it create fossilized fish, birds and other animals? It can’t. However, with a crafty argument and a lot of imagination people can be convinced that this is evidence. Unfortunately for evolution, fictionary scenarios – not science – is the only evidence available.

Another fatal blow was dealt in 1979 when the ‘extinct’ Coelacanth was found alive and well living off the coast of Madagascar. This fish was once an index fossil. Index fossils are extinct animals that are ‘known’ to have only lived during certain periods of time. Therefore, since the dates of their existence are supposedly known, they are then used to determine the age of the other fossils found within their same layer. The Coelacanth supposedly died out hundreds of millions of years ago. When its fossils are found in a layer of strata, the date of extinction is used to determine the minimum age of the other fossils within the same layer. If this creature that was once used as evidence for evolution is still alive, what does this tell us about the accuracy of dating layers by index fossils?"
 
#335
#335
The guy I keep quoting is Eddie Snipes of Exchange Life Outreach for the record.

A very intelligent and spiritually strong guy from what I'm reading.

He makes some really good points so I'm assuming it won't be long before one of our athiest or evolutionist friends here on VN comes in with "he has no credibility"
 
#336
#336
chatt-townVOL said:
Sorry you lost me after:

"no idea what you're saying"

"no idea what you're taking about"

and

"I don't know how capable animals are".

Nice array of white flags.

Dating:

"In one year, 21,000 carbon14 specimens were submitted and 19,000 were rejected. Only 2,000 were considered accurate by evolutionist. Why?

It is not just Carbon14 dating that has this problem, but all dating methods are screened through the evolutionary crosscheck. Dating is measured by circular logic. A fossil is dated by the geological layer in which it is found. The geological layer is dated by the fossils found within it. This produces a fail-proof system of crosschecking dates. The system is designed to hide inaccuracies. The geological layer is a theoretical layer modeled in the mid-1800s. Many fatal blows have been dealt to this process, but evolution has not let go of it. Polystrate trees pose a serious threat to this dating method. Polystrate trees are fossilized trees that are standing erect through many layers of the geological column.

It is impossible for these trees to have stood for the hundreds of thousand and often millions of years that these layers supposedly represent. Consider how a layer of strata is formed. Even evolutionary science agrees that layers of strata are formed by catastrophic events such as floods and volcanic eruptions. If each layer of strata represents an event, these dead trees would have survived through hundreds or thousands of events without falling, decaying or being destroyed. Somehow today it is rare to find a dead tree that has survived 5 years – and these trees are well down the road to decay. Believing that polystrate trees found all over the globe buried deep within the strata occurred by slow layering is quite a leap of faith.

One rebuttal that is often used as ‘evidence’ for the creation of polystrate trees are tidal marshes. The forests bordering these marshlands are slowly being buried by sediment and it is therefore argued that these could one day become polystrate trees. There are two major flaws with this example. 1. These trees are still alive. When they die, they will decay and become part of the marshland soil. Evolutionists point to the living trees to show they are being slowly covered, but there are know dead trees that have any hope of being fossilized. They die and disappear just as all the trees before them have done. 2. Polystrate trees often have fossils in the layers surrounding them. In the marshlands, there are no fossils. When a creature dies, it decays and is lost forever. How will slowly covering a living tree create a fossilized tree and how will it create fossilized fish, birds and other animals? It can’t. However, with a crafty argument and a lot of imagination people can be convinced that this is evidence. Unfortunately for evolution, fictionary scenarios – not science – is the only evidence available.

Another fatal blow was dealt in 1979 when the ‘extinct’ Coelacanth was found alive and well living off the coast of Madagascar. This fish was once an index fossil. Index fossils are extinct animals that are ‘known’ to have only lived during certain periods of time. Therefore, since the dates of their existence are supposedly known, they are then used to determine the age of the other fossils found within their same layer. The Coelacanth supposedly died out hundreds of millions of years ago. When its fossils are found in a layer of strata, the date of extinction is used to determine the minimum age of the other fossils within the same layer. If this creature that was once used as evidence for evolution is still alive, what does this tell us about the accuracy of dating layers by index fossils?"
Click to expand...

I don't know what a polystrate tree is, but I do know that this statement ( Even evolutionary science agrees that layers of strata are formed by catastrophic events such as floods and volcanic eruptions.) is 100% false.

Not sure what you are trying to get at with the fish thing.

By the way...What is the source?
 
#337
#337
chatt-townVOL said:
The guy I keep quoting is Eddie Snipes of Exchange Life Outreach for the record.

A very intelligent and spiritually strong guy from what I'm reading.

He makes some really good points so I'm assuming it won't be long before one of our athiest or evolutionist friends here on VN comes in with "he has no credibility"
Click to expand...

Alright, thanks for the source.
 
#338
#338
bigorange16 said:
.

Not sure what you are trying to get at with the fish thing.
Click to expand...

That it was considered extinct because they "dated it's fosssils back to millions of years ago" then in 1938 was found alive. So either the dating concept is flawed enough to make that bad of an error, or this animal was around both millions of years ago and is still the exact same animal today. Which would completely contradict evolution of course.
 
Last edited:
#339
#339
Carbon dating only works to aprox 50k years. The process wasn't perfected until the 70's. So being wrong about something in 1938 is not surprising. This is widely acknowledged by scientist around the world. There are other testing methods using isotopes such as:

Potassium-40 found in your body at all times; half-life = 1.3 billion years
Uranium-235; half-life = 704 million years
Uranium-238; half-life = 4.5 billion years
Thorium-232; half-life = 14 billion years
Rubidium-87; half-life = 49 billion years

Now please explain how all of these methods are wrong as well.
 
#340
#340
chatt-townVOL said:
So either the dating concept is flawed enough to make that bad of an error, or this animal was around both millions of years ago and is still the exact same animal today. Which would completely contradict evolution of course.
Click to expand...

It would not, in the least, contradict the theory of natural selection.
 
#341
#341
There are numerous articles stating there are flaws in carbon dating, it really depends on which side you choose to believe.
 
#342
#342
GmanTN said:
There are numerous articles stating there are flaws in carbon dating, it really depends on which side you choose to believe.
Click to expand...

My questions are:

1) Why are supposed flaws in carbon-dating relevant to the theory of natural selection? Carbon-dating could certainly be used to verify claims made by the TNS; however, a "flaw" in carbon-dating does not undermine the TNS.

2) Why would the current existence of a species that existed millions of years ago "completely contradict [the theory of natural selection]"? Again, this could only be a claim made by someone who has only read criticisms of the theory.
 
#343
#343
One more thing about carbon dating: you point out how it is cross checked like that is a bad thing. You're saying the theory is flawed because it is cross checked buti would argue that makes it more valid. When evidence is provided it is not accepted at face value but tested repeatedly until a general consensus is reached.

Take the the discovery of particles that travel faster than light for example. It was tested over and over until they came to the conclusion that it was wrong.

And for the record, Einstein theorized dark matter and it was generally dismissed at first. It was much later that it started to become accepted. As of right now science is looking for was to confirm it. They don't just "make it up." as you said.
 
#344
#344
The alligator has not evolved and has been around for a very long time, the same can be said of the cockroach. I am sure people will say not all living things evolve, really gets down to once again what you choose to believe.
 
#345
#345
GmanTN said:
The alligator has not evolved and has been around for a very long time, the same can be said of the cockroach. I am sure people will say not all living things evolve, really gets down to once again what you choose to believe.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you are relying on the word "evolve" as if there is somehow some better/higher state that alligators, crocodiles, and cock roaches must be on the path of approaching if the theory of natural selection is to be correct. Of course, this is categorically false, according to the theory.
 
#346
#346
therealUT said:
The problem is that you are relying on the word "evolve" as if there is somehow some better/higher state that alligators, crocodiles, and cock roaches must be on the path of approaching if the theory of natural selection is to be correct. Of course, this is categorically false, according to the theory.
Click to expand...

I am not relying on anything trut, just pointing out there is an equal opposite side to big bang, evolution and carbon dating that some seem to stand on.

All of the above started out as an opinion by man and man trying to prove it. How many times does science have to retract statements as new findings come to light. Once again it comes down to which side one chooses to believe.
 
#349
#349
The 2 links above is nothing more than a theory created by man, it does absolutely nothing to prove anything.

Why did these animals stop evolving for thousands of years, answer... it's just a theory
 
#350
#350
GmanTN said:
I am not relying on anything trut, just pointing out there is an equal opposite side to big bang, evolution and carbon dating that some seem to stand on.

All of the above started out as an opinion by man and man trying to prove it. How many times does science have to retract statements as new findings come to light. Once again it comes down to which side one chooses to believe.
Click to expand...

GmanTN said:
The 2 links above is nothing more than a theory created by man, it does absolutely nothing to prove anything.

Why did these animals stop evolving for thousands of years, answer... it's just a theory
Click to expand...

Nobody in the scientific community is claiming proof of the theory of natural selection (just as nobody in the scientific community is claiming proof of gravity). That does not make the theory any less solid or less valid; moreover, it does not necessarily open the door to ID (ID has its own problems: e.g., why would an intelligent designer make the nerve for the voice box go twelve feet out of its way? It might be intentionally engineered in that manner but it would be a stretch to call that intention "intelligent").
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top