JimF Posted April 15, 2002 Share Posted April 15, 2002 Read this interesting article: The Scientific Case Against Evolution http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/columnist...cke08-20-01.htm You can also download Creation vs Evolution movies here This is good stuff. I learned so much from them. http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=real_video Note: These 7 movies are about 100 MB each all in RealVideo format. I recommend that you use GetRight or Gozilla to download them and burn them on a CD. The only "evidence" evolutionists have for their theory is examples like: 1. bacteria becomming resistant to certian drugs That's not evolution, but adaptation. It is still a bacteria. It didn't become a fish or a tomato. Show me scientifically how this proves that bacteria changed into a human ? 2. We have variety of dogs. They are still dogs. You can crossbreed dogs as long as you want but you will never get a fish or a tomato or whale. It will always be a dog. This is called variation within the kind. This variation has limits and that's why you will always get a dog. I give you a pair of dogs and I challenge anyone of you to produce a horse or a cow. Can't do it ? You need billions of years ? Well then I'm sorry, but this is not demonstratable. This is something YOU believe may happen and therefore can't be considered a science. True science can be repeated, tested and demonstrated. Do you know that "scientists" throughout the history were mostly wrong ? Here is a short list: They used to teach Earth was flat They used to teach Earth was in the center of the Universe They used to teach that heavier objects fall faster then the lighter They used to teach that if a person was sick they needed to drain his blood, they did this for almost hundred years. This is how George Washington died. And now they teach we evolved from a bacteria. In light of all of this why should I even listen to this buffoons anymore ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted April 15, 2002 Share Posted April 15, 2002 that link doesnt work mate, ive tried it thrice now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glowstick Posted April 15, 2002 Share Posted April 15, 2002 The article is pure creationist propaganda and based on a lot of false facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted April 15, 2002 Share Posted April 15, 2002 Ahh well the link doesnt work for me and thankgod I read tis thread wrong becase im agaisnt the creationist theory. Evolution all the way. Join The Evolution today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digistil Posted April 15, 2002 Share Posted April 15, 2002 I checked out the rest of this web site...pure ****e. I really hope people are intelligent enough to dismiss such ridiculous propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted April 15, 2002 Share Posted April 15, 2002 A person is smart, people on the other hand tend to go with the propaganda, lets hope unlike Nazi Germany the neowin community doesnt welcome in propaganda so easily. Remember its good to have opinons and your own idea, but be ready to back them up with facts. Because thats something propaganda lacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF Posted April 15, 2002 Author Share Posted April 15, 2002 I just checked it and it works fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digistil Posted April 15, 2002 Share Posted April 15, 2002 Originally posted by Osiris A person is smart, people on the other hand tend to go with the propaganda, lets hope unlike Nazi Germany the neowin community doesnt welcome in propaganda so easily. Remember its good to have opinons and your own idea, but be ready to back them up with facts. Because thats something propaganda lacks. So true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blitzkrg Posted April 15, 2002 Share Posted April 15, 2002 it seems as though most of you are smart enough to realize the truth about this article, that it is crap.. creationsit always argue against darwin's theory.. darwins theory is old news.. modern science has discovered alot more than darwin did.. they need to argue against modern facts, not something hundreds of years old. and they seems to site alot of "there is no proof of this and no proof of that" well to the clueless, just because there isnt proof doesnt mean it isnt so.. it just means we may not have found the proof yet.. look at the extinction of dinosours.. in school we were taught it was the ice age that killed them off.. now we know it was an asteroid.. we are constantly finding stuff like that out. people need to get a life me thinks.. /edit : this is just me babbleing.. it's not directed twords anyone. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted April 15, 2002 Share Posted April 15, 2002 Every living thing has an error rate for DNA replication that allows for mutations. Now only a small % of these mutations can be benifitial to the organisms fitness, but it DOES happen. Every college teaches this, its the basis for all living things and a part of how everything dries to be divergent and find its own niche in the world to live within. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF Posted April 15, 2002 Author Share Posted April 15, 2002 Nobody ever observed a benefitial mutation. And even if they did it still wouldn't explain how the first living cell came to be. Evolution is a junk science, there is no proof for it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john smith 1924 Veteran Posted April 15, 2002 Veteran Share Posted April 15, 2002 ever heard of the monkey trials??????? if not- i recommend you look them up. if your american and dont know about it - its curtains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modem Posted April 15, 2002 Share Posted April 15, 2002 ".Evolutionary theory claims that there once existed a whole series of successive forms of the various organisms alive today. These supposedly changed by infinitesimal amounts with each generation as they evolved into the present varieties, so the fossil record should show these gradual changes. But it doesn?t. Instead, it shows the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time. It is almost entirely devoid of forms that can plausibly be identified as intermediates between older and newer ones. This is popularly known as the "missing link" problem, and it is massively systematic across different species and time periods. Worse, this problem is getting worse, not better, as more fossils are discovered, as the new fossils just resemble those already found and don?t fill in the gaps. In Darwin's day, it was easy to claim that the fossils were there but had not been discovered. Problem is, we now have hundreds of thousands of well-catalogued fossils, from all continents and geologic eras, and we still haven't found these intermediate forms." Without me having any doctorate or masters in paleontology and archeology, common sense tells everyone, I want to see an Evolutionist walk around that one and make bigger fools of themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted April 15, 2002 Share Posted April 15, 2002 JimF, why did you post this, to see if you could start a big thread.... seems to be the trent at this site lately. Nobody knows how the first cell became, maybe it was created, who knows. Its all about DNA, the one selfish melecule thats only goal it to replicate itself over and over again and we are its carriers. I read that 90% of our DNA has no functional meaning to us, who knows what it is for. I suggest you take a class like Zoology and find out how closely related EVERYTHING is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted April 15, 2002 Share Posted April 15, 2002 Whislt I reserve the right not to argue agaisnt one minded individuals, can you even contemplate the number of fossils still possibly unfound. And you actually think that theres going to be a fossil for every single organism and its mutational variant? Do you realise how fossils are made, not like there common day things. Also what did these "new species" just pop up out of thin air did they? Really whats creationisms answer for that one. I honestly dont understand how anyone with intelligence can argue for creationism. The day will come when science will find that one piece of evidence to tie it all together and when they do I cant wait to see the facet of religion and those beliefs crumble to the ground with the faiths of the millions who brought into those centuries of propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
werejag Posted April 15, 2002 Share Posted April 15, 2002 jimF please explain why humans consist of 80 to 90 percent dead dna code. )(dna code with no future or present purpose). if you can tell me why god did this without refering to Evolution, ill give you some of my valuable time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenLin Posted April 15, 2002 Share Posted April 15, 2002 The creationists seem to be very good at pointing out the holes in evolutionary theory, but are unwilling to submit their own theories to the same rigerous testing. We constantly hear "there is no PROOF that we evolved from apes or even single cell organisms". That is true. The thing about science is that you cannot prove a theory is right, you can only fail to prove it is wrong. So lets put creationist to the test. Creationism says the Earth was created a few thousand years ago by 'someone'. Carbon dating proves the earth is billions of years old, not thousands. Hmmmm. I think you will also find that people who believe evolutionism do so because it is the best going theory. If there were a major discovery that showed strong evidence that something else occured, they would switch their loyalty pretty quickly. Why? Because our belief is based on scientific fact and not 'faith'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modem Posted April 15, 2002 Share Posted April 15, 2002 It's definately not about finding every fossil on the surface of this earth, but it's establishing a proven pattern. Lets say in regards to a horse/cattle eveolution theory. Look how many animals exsist in that classification today and throughout history. I'm not talking about some microscopic fly that had enormous changes either. With that many and innumerous dead carcases filling up spots on this earth, why hasn't there been a patter or trend showing evelotion from toed horses to hooved animals of today? Also I want to pose this question. With the earths human population roughly at around 6 billion right now and with billions of other humans who have lived and died in the past centuries alone... why haven't they showed a single sign of evolution? I mean think about it. If evolution was a "real" science it would use the largest unbiased specimen there is... the human body. With that many people of that many races, it would show gradual or any changes in at least the past 1,000 years. Do we find any? Not a single change. One thing I thought was noteworthy and funny that I read about a month ago was that evolutionists hounded of and thought they found a skeleton of a humped man/ape person over in europe. They triumped this as being a possible missing link. Well come to find out later it was nothing more than a man who had some sort of cancer/diesease that crippled him sort of like what we see in older folk today. So much for me being the single minded person. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF Posted April 15, 2002 Author Share Posted April 15, 2002 username: Similarity proves common designer not common ancestor. Have you noticed that MS Word, Excel, Access, Frontpage have a lot of similarities ? That proves same guys are writing the software. It doesn't prove they all evolved from Morse code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted April 15, 2002 Share Posted April 15, 2002 No examples of a positive example huh? Why do you think various bacteria are now immune to many antibiotics? It?s because of mutations. Everyone knows this, and smaller organisms with high exponential population growth have the highest rate of DNA replication errors and thus the positive mutation. Creationized that one, or do you think that someone is magically making these new bacteria? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted April 15, 2002 Share Posted April 15, 2002 a thousand years, in the scale of time, that carbon and other forms of radioactive dating have proven the earth has been here for millions upon millions of years, do you think a 1000 years or 5000 years rates to a longtime in that hourglass, it would be nothing more then a couple grains of sand, what do expect to happen in such a short time frame. So please dont use that argument Evolutionists dont claim it happened over night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF Posted April 15, 2002 Author Share Posted April 15, 2002 TurdFerg: http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=3 Q: Doesn?t carbon dating or Potassium Argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old? A: Carbon dating: Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up. Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ? of the original C-14. It goes from ? to ? to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950's. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon. Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating. The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half life), and so on. (See chart on page 46 about C-14). Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle. The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted April 15, 2002 Share Posted April 15, 2002 JimF, you post a reputable source, in case you don't know what that is, a scientific journal, research thesis, anything besides these off the wall websites, then give me a call. Until then, read something and learn. You never did answer this. No examples of a positive example huh? Why do you think various bacteria are now immune to many antibiotics? It?s because of mutations. Everyone knows this, and smaller organisms with high exponential population growth have the highest rate of DNA replication errors and thus the positive mutation. Creationized that one, or do you think that someone is magically making these new bacteria? ANSWER THAT CREATIONISM BOY And as for your post about C-14, everyone who has done a study on glabal warming knows this. That site does not even know why C-14 has encreased since 1950, ITS BECAUSE the use of NUCLEAR WEAPONS. They use C-14 to test the amount of C in the atmosphere in polor ice. Don't post crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modem Posted April 15, 2002 Share Posted April 15, 2002 One last post before I head out to do productive work for today. One thing I've learned and 9-11 proved that time and again is that the human body and the human soul is evil. No way around it, no way to get past that. I'll stand firm knowing that the world and every single specimen on it was created seperate as an entire unevolable organism and I"ll teach my kids that, tell others that who want to know what the truth is. As for trying to convince the masses... na. People since the beginning of time want to believe things opposite of the truth and evolution is no different. Trying to and proving that evolution isn't real is like talking to a brick wall with people who believe that. I'm not out to convince any of you and I'm happy and content in knowing that Creationism has already been proven as what happened. As for the rest of you, go about your merry way. You'll only believe when you actually "look" at the evidence. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF Posted April 15, 2002 Author Share Posted April 15, 2002 username: The example about bacteria becoming immune to many antibiotics is a proof for adaptation not evolution. You started with bacteria and you ended up with bacteria. you don't have a horse or a tomato. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts