Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Evolutionism

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-14 4:55

Nothing is more humorous than when an evolutionist pokes fun at creationists or IDists for not putting forth a scientific theory to explain life.

First of all, life is not scientific -- life is spiritual. Contrary to what evolutionists say, what makes us human is not the shape of our jaw bone or the size of our heads. Life is something that controls and manipulates the matter it occupies. Thus, those who claim to be able to describe life scientifically are kidding themselves because life is more than material -- it's metaphysical, which by definition is in conflict with science. Science is the study of the material world. I believe they are asking us to play a game, which includes defining life according to a flawed premise.

What's truly laughable about all this is that the "science" evolutionists put forth is not science at all. Like I said, "science" is (or should be) the study of the material world. But what the world's evolutionists have forced down our kids' throats is not science. Instead it's long list of "what ifs," "probablys," "maybes," and "more-than-likelys."

And their so-called evidence is NEVER visible. Never. For example, every creature on earth is said to have evolved from a common ancestor. Thus there must, be thousands and thousands of common ancestors that link each creature to the next. For example, lions and tigers must have a common ancestor....man and ape must have a common ancestor...squirrels and skunks must have a common ancestor...bats and whales must have a common ancestor. Of course none of these common ancestors have been found -- or will ever be found -- but we're just supposed to take their word for it because they know more than us. But the reality is, this is not science -- this is nothing but brain-rotting blind faith in an intellectually bankrupt theory.

But the fairytale doesn't stop there. Evolutionists have made a living the past 75 years on the Big Joke that is the unseen beneficial random mutation. I honestly believe this is the most ridiculous aspect of the whole theory. The notion that a once-in-a-multi-million chance mutation can be beneficial and spread throughout a population via sexual reproduction is truly outrageous -- especially when you consider that populations are often separated by hundreds or thousands of miles and mutations are 99% destructive and/or deadly. Not only that, but a grand total of only 4,000 hominid bones have been dug up...(this includes humans, australopithecus, Neanderthals, Homo erectus, etc) Thus, there simply is not enough of a population for the likely occurrence of beneficial random mutations. Of course cumulative selection of thousands of such mutations has never -- and will never -- be witnessed.
And the fairytale continues. THE most crucial aspect to the whole evolutionary farce is natural selection. This, as well, has never been documented, studied or witnessed. As far as I know there have never been controlled experiments on animals in an attempt to prove this concept. Once again, we are supposed to fall in love with the theory -- not any actual evidence.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-03 21:24

>>21
The tl;dr is that nothing legitimate has yet been found that has contradicted Evolution in any significant way. At least, not in any way that Evolution can't either explain entirely or adapt to.

1) "A fossil of a human handprint, for example, was found in limestone estimated to be 110 million years old."
2) "What appears to be a fossilized human finger found in the Canadian Arctic also dates back 100 to 110 million years ago."

Ah, yes, the works of "Dr." Carl Baugh. Infamous for dozens of poorly executed hoaxes over the last few decades, all of which are easily debunked by high schoolers (literally, I've seen science fair projects debunking them). His pitiful attempts can only be regarded as an exercise in legendary trolling. It's gotten to the point that even most Creationists go out of their way to urge people NOT to cite his work, lest they get laughed out of the room by anyone with a functional brain. The only people who actually believe his claims are the people who haven't done a shred of actual research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Baugh
http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC120.html

Baugh has claimed to have found several "handprints", but all are painfully obvious forgeries. Like most of his "footprints" (of both the "dinosaur" and "human" varieties), all of his "handprints" show obvious tool impressions-- drill bits, chisels, etc.

The "finger" was not even a fossil, it was verified to be just a regular rock. Sandstone, to be precise, the infillings of ancient shrimp burrows, common in Cretaceous rock. Contrary to common misconceptions, the CT scans do NOT show bones, but the natural density grain of the specimen.

But the clincher is that NONE of Baugh's "discoveries" are ever documented "in situ", one of the most basic requirements for paleontological evidence.  As such, because they cannot be reliably linked to an actual ancient formation, the finds would be worthless even if they were genuine.

The "finger" wasn't even excavated, let alone "in the Canadian Arctic". It was found in a loose gravel pile outside of Glen Rose, Texas. Three guesses as to where Baugh's "Creation Evidence Museum" is. The address on their site is "3102 FM-205, Glen Rose, TX".

3) "And what appears to be the fossil of a human footprint, possibly wearing a sandal, was found near Delta, Utah in a shale deposit estimated to be 300 million to 600 million years old."

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC102.html
http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/antelope.php

They only appear to be sandal-clad footprints to someone who isn't an archaeologist (or even a geologist) and when they are taken out of context. The pattern is a well documented spalling (fracturing) effect. In the rock the "prints" were taken from, there was a fracture running along the face of the rock. There were also other "prints" with identical features but in many various non-footprint shapes. Also, all of the "prints" are isolated examples-- there is no trail, just those shapes taken out of context. Then there's the matter of the "prints" not even really looking like real prints. No weight distribution, no wearing of the heal, traction, etc. Not to mention the fact that the "prints" were found among (real) trilobite fossils, which would mean someone was walking on the bottom of the ocean. Etc, etc, etc.

4) "So then how does science explain semi-ovoid metallic tubes dug out of 65-million-year-old Cretaceous chalk in France?"

http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/livet.php

There's apparently nothing TO explain, otherwise Druet and Salfati would have continued talking about it. The fact that nothing further happened after the specimens were taken in for study suggests that it turned out to be a simple explanation and they were too embarrassed to come out and admit it.

5) "In 1885, a block of coal was broken open to find a metal cube obviously worked by intelligent hands."

http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/cube.php

Read the text, look at the picture. It isn't a "cube" at all and it seems fairly obvious to me that it is indeed meteoric. The only reason for suggesting it MIGHT not be meteoric is that it happened to lack certain trace metals, which isn't unheard of. To say that it is "obviously worked by intelligent hands" is bullshit and nothing more than the result of uninformed rumor.

6) "In 1912, employees at an electric plant broke apart a large chunk of coal out of which fell an iron pot!"

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC131.html
http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/wilburton.php

Anecdotal evidence (in the form of a letter written *36 YEARS* after the discovery), not in situ, multiple simpler and more reasonable explanations, etc. The "evidence" for the claim is laughably weak.

7) "A nail was found embedded in a sandstone block from the Mesozoic Era."

http://badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/kingoodie.php

Similar to the above examples, what was a curiosity in 1844 is easily explained today. The nail was not embedded, it had simply been lying against the sandstone when the boulder clay was rested on top of it, pressing the nail a mere 25 mm into the sandstone. Hardly surprising considering the properties of the materials and the forces involved. Plus, without any surviving evidence, we are forced to assume nothing out of the ordinary was found.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List