Evidence Against Evolution

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Science can not answer what happened before the big bang either.

Theists don't know either so they make up a sory that has no proof!

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Science can not answer what happened before the big bang either.

and so science says "we don't know yet and we are trying to figure out an explanation that can be tested". As opposed to religion which pulls a fairy story out of the air and says that's how it happened.

Which approach do you think is the more sensible?

--- Penguin

Originally posted by Penguin
and so science says "we don't know yet and we are trying to figure out an explanation that can be tested". As opposed to religion which pulls a fairy story out of the air and says that's how it happened.

Which approach do you think is the more sensible?

--- Penguin

You really expect an honest answer?

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is other evidence that you can see in person at the Creation Evidence Museum in Texas.

And the reason why it is in a religious institution and not in a scientific institution is because it is not science. None of that 'evidence' has been able to stand up to scientific scrutiny.
What makes you think that you will do better than scientists with far better science education than you?
What makes you so sure the people at the Creation museum are not lying? I know that you both want to prove the same point and believe in the same Bible, but that does not guarantee that they are telling the truth? Why are you so uncritical when it comes to fellow Christians?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
http://www.creationevidence.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8&Itemid=10

"A team of volunteers removing a ledge of limestone, by hand, during the footprint excavation on the Paluxy River."

"The museum is often asked to let small children participate in the digs."

"Children ages 14 and up may participate along with their parents under close supervision."

sounds like quite a professional dig site to me.


this is the only time human prints and dinosaur tracks are mentioned together in this link. the rest are descriptions of finding one dinosaur or another.
"Since that time, Baugh, along with teams of volunteers, has uncovered over 400 dinosaur tracks and over 80 human footprints in Cretaceous limestone."

no proving they are actual human footprints, no proving they are together with dinosaur tracks, no telling why it is believed to be cretaceous limestone and wait a sec, aren't all humans supposed to be from around mesopotamia? what are descendants from adam and eve doing in texas?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I am unconvinced. Do you have images of these sculptures and the Archaeopteryx for us to compare? How anatomically accurate can a sculpture be anyway?

I have nothing more than claims and speculation to counter the claims
and speculation of the evolutionists. So I guess we are equal here. But
I listed only a small fraction of the evidence against evolution. Would
anyone else like to mention some of them? I don't want to have to do
all the work. I got to go now but I'll be back later.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have nothing more than claims and speculation to counter the claims
and speculation of the evolutionists. So I guess we are equal here. But
I listed only a small fraction of the evidence against evolution. Would
anyone else like to mention some of them? I don't want to have to do
all the work. I got to go now but I'll be back later.

I suspect you might rather enjoy Vishvahetu's oft-touted tome 'Forbidden Archaeology' by Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson. It's packed to the gills with stuff which 'proves' that mankind has been around for billions of years. Of course, they're not christians, they're some sort of Hare Krishnas I think.

As twhitehead says, however, none of this stuff stands up under scrutiny.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
This has been tried many times in the US, the most recent being the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in 2005. Part of the judges conclusion, who incidentally was a church going, George Bush appointed republican -

We have concluded that Intelligent Design is not science, and moreover that I.D. cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedents.

But what I am saying is that with a little more evidence, a good lawyer
to present it, and a fair-minded judge evolution would be declared NOT
science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But what I am saying is that with a little more evidence, a good lawyer
to present it, and a fair-minded judge evolution would be declared NOT
science.

non science that is. Yeah but the materialists would never allow it for to do so would be to leave the door open to accountability, no more , 'it was my hormones that made me do it'.

Originally posted by Penguin
and so science says "we don't know yet and we are trying to figure out an explanation that can be tested". As opposed to religion which pulls a fairy story out of the air and says that's how it happened.

Which approach do you think is the more sensible?

--- Penguin

The main problem is that even though the scientist are trying to figure out
an explanation, atheist will not wait for the tested proof to declare any
little thing that supports evolution as fact. They claim it is proven fact,
before it has been tested to see if it passes the tests. The Holy Bible is
not a fairy story pulled out of the air. What have you to say about the
ridiculous story that atheist evolutionist say about how the universe just
happened into existence? That sounds more like a fairy story to me.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember when the USA decided
to try to beat the USSR by being the first nation to reach the moon. Then
Bob Hope asked Neil Armstrong, one of the astronauts, what was his
greatest fear about setting foot on the moon. Armstrong said it was the
amount of cosmic dust the scientist had told the astronauts to expect on
the surface of the moon. The scientists were convinced that the moon
was at least 4.5 billion years old and because it did not have the constant
wind and water like the earth, there could be anywhere from 50 to 180 feet
of loosely packed cosmic dust on the moon's surface. The threat was that
the Lunar Lander would sink down into this loose layer and affect the blast
off for the return trip. But the astronauts measured the cosmic dust at
about an eighth of an inch. The scientist were wrong because the moon
is only a few thousand years old. The average nickel content in cosmic dust
is 300 times as great as in the earth's crust. Calculation's based on the
relatively small amount of nickel found in the earth's crust and ocean
indicate the earth is only a few thousnd years old.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But what I am saying is that with a little more evidence, a good lawyer
to present it, and a fair-minded judge evolution would be declared NOT
science.

Its always easy to say what might happen if...
But clearly we have to wait for 'a little more evidence' as a good lawyer would be found really quickly if creationists thought they could get anywhere with the evidence they have. Money is not in short supply for creationists.

So basically what you are saying boils down to: you don't have enough evidence, you think you will in future. Well I can counter that with:
"With a little more evidence and a good lawyer to present it and a fair minded judge we will prove that God does not exist".
Now which of us is better at predicting the future?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The average nickel content in cosmic dust
is 300 times as great as in the earth's crust. Calculation's based on the
relatively small amount of nickel found in the earth's crust and ocean
indicate the earth is only a few thousnd years old.

Please give a reference for this, or is it another one of your 'facts' that you heard from an unnamed scientist that you will not give a reference too?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please give a reference for this, or is it another one of your 'facts' that you heard from an unnamed scientist that you will not give a reference too?

do the research yourself, you think hes here to pander to your every whim?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
do the research yourself, you think hes here to pander to your every whim?

No, I think he makes up half the stuff he posts. Last time he talked about 'proof' of something it turned out he didn't know what the proof consisted of, but claimed some unnamed scientist somewhere had the proof. His failure to give a reference suggested to me that he made it up.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But what I am saying is that with a little more evidence, a good lawyer
to present it, and a fair-minded judge evolution would be declared NOT
science.

Evidence of what exactly? Evolution was proposed 150 years ago and try as the creationists might, it's still here. I still find it odd that the most vocal opponents of the theory in this forum haven't even bothered to read a book between on the subject.