Proof of Evolution

Vomiting out everything we know seems perfectly fnie to me. :) What else are we to do anyway? None of us have the real answers. If we did, we wouldn't be posting here; we'd be collecting Nobel Prizes.

is it really? then what's the point of a debate/ discussion if it's not about the exchange of knowledge but just the relaying of information? telling others what you want them to hear and not what they want to know.
 
Actually, Evolution lies on the bedrock (Assumption) that the earth is millions of years old. Debunk this and the theory dies.

Evidences that Earth is not old:
* Too few supernova remnants.

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

* Comets disintegrate too quickly.

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.


* Not enough sodium in the sea.

Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
* Biological material decays too fast.

Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.

* Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.

Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.

* Too much helium in minerals.

Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.

* Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.

With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

* Not enough Stone Age skeletons.

Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

* History is too short.

According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.

I could list a lot more but too time consuming.

http://www.icr.org/article/1842/
 
Last edited:
if all dogs do not contain the genes that encode for e.g. gills. even after one million generation of mating how can they obtain the genes to grow gills? that is also discounting the interaction within the organism that affects the gene expression. e.g. all humans share common genes for eye color but in our case "brown" is the dominant gene therefore it is expressed and we end up with brown eyes.

if mutation causes it, my fellow softies i mentioned again and again its not any new theory, its a proven scientific fact - mutation changes one nucleotide at a time not a string of DNA sequences. one nucleotide change, changes the whole protein expression. (proteins are created/encoded from DNA). in a sense, the species has to SURVIVE the mutation to pass it onto the next generation. on top of this mutation is not favored, otherwise why would there be a system to correct mutations? a popular theory on how cancer occurs is when the system that corrects mutations within the cell fails and the cell grows without restraint forming tumours.

scientist suggest it can happen over millions of years. if that is possible, logically it must follow that the environment also stays largely unchanged for say a land-dweller to eventually end up swimming in the sea. conditions must remain such that it will cause the land-dweller to e.g. constantly swim in the sea to look for food. my qns is what does geological evidence support this?
 
Last edited:
Or you could just link the page where you got your copy-pasta from.. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

<sarcasm on> which is obviously a site that takes a impassive scientific view of the evidence </sarcasm off>

<sarcasm on> Very constructive answer. I learned a lot from you. and your comment is clearly "Impassive as well". </sarcasm off>

All answers here are either copied from somewhere or rewritten... as we are musicians, not scientists.

My point is Evolution (from what I have read) assumes the the world is billions of years old based on methods that can easily dis proven. if you have proofs that cannot be easily dis proven that the world is old, please do share. than making such comments that is clearly and obviously <sarcasm on> "Impassive".</sarcasm off>

Some also may a point out that the proof or evidence is used in courts to convict criminal. So evolution also does this as well. but you don't see that the a lot of the evidences presented in a court has to go through meticulous cross examinations and most of them don't even make it as real evidence. this is why lie detectors are never used in courts as evidence even though they give 90% correct results because courts can only accept 100% or only 1 in a billion chances of failing evidences like DNA. unlike evolution theory.

I cannot prove that there is a God as that is not my point. I am also not against science, but I am against evolution being forced down everyone's throat as it is not yet a fact. but you cannot argue the 90% of the books and encyclopedias discuss evolution as a fact. This is clearly very deceptive for most.

Also another thing, Why can't evolutionist have a discussion without ridiculing Creationists? So basically it is ok to ridicule a Creationist but we all condemn people who ridicule other races, religion(except Christians) or culture?
 
thats outright plagiarism.

also isnt that an amazing example of 'vomiting out everything you know without answering the question.'

Evolution lies on the bedrock (Assumption) that the earth is millions of years old. Debunk this and the theory dies.

Evolution theory will still work fine even if the earth is only 1 yrs old. Evolution is a process that happens all the time. Natural selection happens everywhere and everytime.
 
thats outright plagiarism.

also isnt that an amazing example of 'vomiting out everything you know without answering the question.'



Evolution theory will still work fine even if the earth is only 1 yrs old. Evolution is a process that happens all the time. Natural selection happens everywhere and everytime.

lol plagiarism? you copied my post without specifying my name... you are as guilty of plagiarism as me hahaha. And FYI plagiarism only happens if the author claims ownership of the material... I did not... this is an online forum the meaning soft owns your each and every post... they can add edit delete anytime they want.

going back to topic... if the world is proven to be 1 year old... where will your evidences for evolution be? and who will be the intelligent being to observe evolution if that ever happens?
 
if all dogs do not contain the genes that encode for e.g. gills. even after one million generation of mating how can they obtain the genes to grow gills? that is also discounting the interaction within the organism that affects the gene expression. e.g. all humans share common genes for eye color but in our case "brown" is the dominant gene therefore it is expressed and we end up with brown eyes.

if mutation causes it, my fellow softies i mentioned again and again its not any new theory, its a proven scientific fact - mutation changes one nucleotide at a time not a string of DNA sequences. one nucleotide change, changes the whole protein expression. (proteins are created/encoded from DNA). in a sense, the species has to SURVIVE the mutation to pass it onto the next generation. on top of this mutation is not favored, otherwise why would there be a system to correct mutations? a popular theory on how cancer occurs is when the system that corrects mutations within the cell fails and the cell grows without restraint forming tumours.

scientist suggest it can happen over millions of years. if that is possible, logically it must follow that the environment also stays largely unchanged for say a land-dweller to eventually end up swimming in the sea. conditions must remain such that it will cause the land-dweller to e.g. constantly swim in the sea to look for food. my qns is what does geological evidence support this?

evolution is not dependent on mutations. And there will be no mutations that will suddenly develop gills for land animals. Dolphins and whales still have lungs and still breathe air, they never had genes to develop gills, they adapted using what they already had.

And I'm not sure what you are trying to say with the last part. Are you trying to say evolution must occur in the same unchanged place for a long time?
 
<sarcasm on> Very constructive answer. I learned a lot from you. and your comment is clearly "Impassive as well". </sarcasm off>

All answers here are either copied from somewhere or rewritten... as we are musicians, not scientists.

Also another thing, Why can't evolutionist have a discussion without ridiculing Creationists? So basically it is ok to ridicule a Creationist but we all condemn people who ridicule other races, religion(except Christians) or culture?

I'm not ridiculing you or your beliefs. I'm ridiculing the fact that you copy and paste large blocks of text and present them as your own original ideas.

If you start presenting your beliefs as scientific theory (such as the young earth theory material you posted), then those theories will be subject to the same standards as any other scientific theory.
 
lol plagiarism? you copied my post without specifying my name... you are as guilty of plagiarism as me hahaha. And FYI plagiarism only happens if the author claims ownership of the material... I did not... this is an online forum the meaning soft owns your each and every post... they can add edit delete anytime they want.

going back to topic... if the world is proven to be 1 year old... where will your evidences for evolution be? and who will be the intelligent being to observe evolution if that ever happens?

My suggestion, Morlock, is for you to step aside. You are obviously out of your intellectual league here; anyone who blatantly cuts and pastes the theory of another without at least adding (in at least a few sparse instances) some of his own ideas obviously has nothing much to say.
 
Pasted my souce... apologies for not placing them initially... its my first post in soft and I didn't that people here are quite sensitive on those things...
 
My suggestion, Morlock, is for you to step aside. You are obviously out of your intellectual league here; anyone who blatantly cuts and pastes the theory of another without at least adding (in at least a few sparse instances) some of his own ideas obviously has nothing much to say.

I can't believe the arrogance of your post... so I presume you are a scientist of some sort? I.Q. of at least 200? you are not even a senior member of the forum to be saying thing like that
 
I can't believe the arrogance of your post... so I presume you are a scientist of some sort? I.Q. of at least 200? you are not even a senior member of the forum to be saying thing like that

Are you saying the people who post the most (to become a senior member) make the most sense? :p
Still, at least you apologized. So all is forgiven.

Just teasing you in any case. I haven't actually been reading this thread thoroughly :)
 
Last edited:
Anyway, I wanted to say that this thread is really very engaging.

I guess I have learned quite a bit(how good and credible the information is-that's another issue) on evolution itself and I have greatly entertained myself watching the Creationists debating against the Evolutionists.

You guys can continue debating... But I guess you guys have all strayed from the very initial point of the thread(It always does).

Such discussion is healthy and I'm glad no moderator has attempted to lock it down.
 
we did recreate it, -->Dogs!!

Sorry, I do not mean inbreeding, but something more complex like land-dwelling mammals to whale, you get what I mean? As mentioned in one of my earliest post, inbreeding, eugenics, selective breeding, are not something new, and all these can cause an evolution of a specie, and these subtle, non-drastic evolution, I have already (for the 9999999th times) agree with. What I am refering to is a well-documented experiment, witness or observation, of a drastic evolution from one organism to another, similar to the example of land-dwelling mammals to whales.

I havent heard any scientist claim we all evolved from ONE common or even a single one ancestor. All I've heard is we all have common ancestorS, not one common ancestor. "But that is just about whales, what about the rest of the animals." AAAAAHHHH WHEN WILL THIS END?!?!? I think whales and dolphins evolving from land animals is less believable than some type of mammal evolving into todays mammals. Are you requesting more evidence for other animals? pls say no!

Good, you havent heard of it, but I have. Now if someone makes such a claim, will you agree? I have already mentioned that I do not agree (maybe due to my stubborness). I have already on numerous times, expressed my opinion that a drastic extent of evolution is not possible, that is merely how I feel, you may not agree, but do you have to disagree and attempt to convince me otherwise everytime I post? Looks like you are also a very persistent and hardheaded person. BTW, I will be glad to learn more examples or facts, so far contributions to this thread has been a good read.

I think my mindset through this thread 'evolved' (LOL) from trying to prove evolution to trying to disprove creationism

I guess pretty many so-called creationists here have not attempted to force their religion on you. At least, I have not. So please try to refrain from disproving creationism in this thread. By trying to outrightly disprove creationism, you are behaving like those creationists (whom you detest) who insisted that creation is science.
 
Back
Top