The lie of evolution

[JWI]

Helen

I do not believe Humprheys alone believes this, but a number of other astronomers as well.

Your view is from a Big Bang viewpoint where everything is expanding away from everything else. Even simple observations prove this wrong. There are many galaxies in collision with each other. Matter in space is not evenly spread whatsoever, but rather clumped.

All I was trying to show is that science discovers new information everyday. The theory of Evolution has undergone many mutations itself as facts were discovered that refuted it. The same with the Big Bang. Now astronmers are talking about the Big Burp.

Another new theory trying to explain God away.

 

[Helen]

I'm sorry, JWI, but my view is NOT from the BB viewpoint! My husband is Barry Setterfield (www.setterfield.org) and his work is primarily with cosmology and the reality of a very young universe. He has studied Tifft's work on the quantized redshift intensely as well as the work of others in this area.

You might also be interested in knowing that the very quantization of the redshift is strong evidence that the universe is not currently expanding at all, but is static.

The clumping of matter is another point altogether and recent material has shown something absolutely fascinating (to me, anyway). When grains of sand, or rice, or cream of wheat or whatever are put on a metallic surface which is then resonated with a violin bow or other such instrument, the grains start to clump and form patterns and figures. In science these are called chladni figures.

http://www.mysticalsun.com/cymatics/chladnifig.html

http://demolab.phys.virginia.edu/demos/demos.asp?Demos=D&Subject=3&Demo=3D40.30 (scroll down a bit for the figures themselves)



"In the beginning was the Word" may have a lot more to do with what we see in the universe than anyone has thought!

We are, by the way, young universe creationists. And we are involved in science.

 

[JWI]

Helen

Good, I am glad. I am just a regular guy, but have enjoyed amateur astronomy all my life. I own a nice telescope.

For years I read all the popular magazines until I got sick of one incredible theory after another.

To me, it is just evolution applied to the Universe, trying to explain God away.

As for Quantized Redshifts, I am just sitting back and waiting for more information. They are interesting.

I actually do not believe Einsteins Theory of Relativity. I believe the Universe is flat (parallel lines never intersect). And I do not believe the Universe is expanding either. I do not believe that the redshift always means distance or speed.

But I am no expert at all on any of this. At the same time, I have very little faith in modern cosmology. It seems to me that they look for evidence to prove a theory and disregard any information that disagrees.

Evolution is the same. I have shown many quotes from evolutionists saying there is no real transitional fossils. But these quotes are ignored.

But I do believe God's creation account in Genesis.

 

[Bunyon]

The reason for that, JWI, is if one starts his scientific inquiry with the presusposition that their is no God, then one must chase the evolution tail around in circles because there is nowhere else to go.

 

[JWI]

Bunyon

Well said.

Helen, I went to your website. Very nice. I am going to do lots of reading there. Thanks.

I too believe the creation to be young.

 

[JWI]

Bunyon

Well said.

Helen, I went to your website. Very nice. I am going to do lots of reading there. Thanks.

I too believe the creation to be young.

 

[just-want-peace]

Earth the center of the universe?

Well, until you can define the edges of the universe, how can you find the center? And if you find the edge, well, what's past that?

However, since God created the universe, and put man on the earth, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that earth COULD be the center. It does seems to be the focus of His creation.

Who, but God, truly knows?

 

[UTEOTW]

"Evolution is the same. I have shown many quotes from evolutionists saying there is no real transitional fossils. But these quotes are ignored."

They have not been ignored, they have been shown to be out of context...Or at least the ones that were examined were shown to be. Sufficient to cast doubt on the rest.

Do you have any quotes WITH FULL CONTEXT AVAILABLE where the author's intent is not changed by how he is quoted?

Just give us what you find to be damning quotes and also provide a link where we can go read the whole article from which it came. You keep claiming to have these quotes, provide the quotes with all necessary context and we will see. Based on your previous quotes we see why context is the enemy of the quote miner.

"I actually do not believe Einsteins Theory of Relativity."

You...don't...accept...relativity???

Then how do you explain all the things that relativity...

Oh never mind... I'm still waiting for you to explain some of the biological stuff I've given you.

 

[JWI]

UTEOTW

What you ask is unreasonable. I have shown you quotes from known evolutionists. You are probably far more acquainted with them than me.

I'm not going to post entire chapters. Next you would ask for the entire book.

It is just an attempt to avoid the real issue.

Gould's theory of puncuated equilibrium itself is proof that no true transitional fossils exist. Else, why would such a fantastic theory be needed?

It is absurd. It is saying that the lack of transitional fossils actually proves evolution. This is absolutely ridiculous to any thinking person.

But you accept it without question. How scientific is that?

And even you tried to use this theory in your explanation as to why true transitional fossils have not been found.

If you ask me, YOU have proved that transitional fossils do not exist with this unbelieveable and totally unscientific theory with not one shred of real evidence to support it.

Some folks will go to any length to prove they are right.

Even self deception.

 

[UTEOTW]

"What you ask is unreasonable. I have shown you quotes from known evolutionists."

You have given quotes. When I have been able to find the quotes in context, they meant something different than the way they were presented in your quotes. That is dishonest.

Now I understand that you got the quotes from people you trusted and that you were not personally trying to pull one over. However, just because someone agrees with your position does not automatically mean you should trust them.

In the quotes that I examined, a different meaning was intended by the author than what was presented. In short, your source lied to you and you passed it along.

Now, I have seen enough quote mines to know that they are generally not true. But what happens when you use one of these quotes in front of an unbeliever, who goes and looks it up and then thinks that you were forced to lie about your religion to try and prop it up. What good do you think comes from that.

"I'm not going to post entire chapters. Next you would ask for the entire book."

I am not asking for you to type the whole book in.

Just pick what you think is a particularly juicy quote. Then go find the original source and provide a link where we can read it.

I have an ulterior motive which I will freely reveal. I want you to go find the quotes in context before you post them. I want you to verify the quotes for yourself before you post them. I want you to read the whole bit in context before you post it.

I think that if you do these things you will suddenly have a very hard time finding "many quotes from evolutionists saying there is no real transitional fossils."

Just try it. I think you know in your heart what you will find and so you cannot bring yourself to do it. You know that the quotes are not proper presentations of the opinions of the authors.

And if the quotes do not accurately reflect the author's true opinions, then they are lies. Plain and simple.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Gould's theory of puncuated equilibrium itself is proof that no true transitional fossils exist. Else, why would such a fantastic theory be needed?"

Have you read anything I have explained to you about punk eek?

Again...

We have good evidence from the present day that small, isolated populations, especially when under different selective pressures than before, can change quite rapidly. I have given you several examples of this. I'll give you another topic. Go look up work done by Alan Cooper. He has studied measurable changes in very short periods, like one year, in populations as selective pressure change from year to year.

Now think about this. Small changes tend to happen very quickly and in small populations. Fossilization is a rare process.

The end result is that very small changes are rarely documented in the fossil record. This is not to say they do not exist. I have provided you with examples of very finely divided changes that have been measured.

I'll give you another.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/foram.html

This involves a very finely divided transitional series involving about 330 different species.

But such transitions are rare. But what you seem to missing, either deliberately or because of my poor explanations, is that it is only the very small scale changes that are rare. Changes within a species and small changes that lead to merely a new species of the same thing. The larger kinds of changes that you would expect to see if evolution were true are abundantly available. The most curious part in this are those who claim that all that is ever observed is change within the "kind." Curious becuae it is exactly these very small changes that are rare while the larger changes, much more extensive that what is allowed by "kinds," are common.

Since you brought up GOuld, let's return to him and a quote he gave.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

(Notice that I quote and then provide a link where you can read the whole document since I happen to know a place that stores it. This is not always possible but I doubt that anyone would even consider the possibility that I was misquoting GOuld on this one. Though he seems to get quite upset about the way he is misquoted by YEers.)

Please note just what he is saying. Transitions are very common among groups of organisms larger than simple a single species.

 

[UTEOTW]

"It is absurd. It is saying that the lack of transitional fossils actually proves evolution. This is absolutely ridiculous to any thinking person."

You are knocking over a strawman.

No one has claimed that there are no transitional fossils and certainly no one is arguing that any such lack of transitional fossils would be considered evidence FOR evolution.

"If you ask me, YOU have proved that transitional fossils do not exist with this unbelieveable and totally unscientific theory with not one shred of real evidence to support it. "

I have given you examples from modern times that show very rapid changes within species and leading to speciation. I have given you examples of finely detailed fossil series that show this mechanism working in the past. So you cannot honestly claim that "not one shred of real evidence" has been provided in support.

Furthermore, I have given you several examples of transitions between larger groups which you just seem to ignore. For some, I have provided other corroborating evidence that demands an alternative explanation if YE is to be true. And not just some sort of ad hoc explanation. Something that better explains the data and which provides us with some basis to differentiate it from evolution through testibility and falsifiability.

My favorite example, as you have noticed, are the whales.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/23.html

Here is some discussion on birds.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/89.html

Horses.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/2.html

Humans.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html

But to summarize the whales.

We have a fossil record which goes back to a land dwelling member of the group cetartiodactyl, or the even toed hooved animals. The coomon ankle bone as you like to put it although it is more than that. Follow the link above for more information on any of these bits.

When we genetically test large numbers of mammals, we find that the members of cetartiodactyls test as much closer to one another than to any other animals. When whales are included in this testing, they are found to have sprung from not just the edge of the cetartiodactyls, but from deep within their family tree. They are most closely related to the hippos. But other members to which they are closely related are to the pigs and camels and deer and giraffes and such.

Now, it is strange that these transitional fossils which you claim do not exist line up so perfectly with the genetic record. Maybe you have a good reason why a whale should test SPECIFICALLY as genetically close to a camel. Now I have heard people try and stich in a common designer argument here, but it does not work. I'll give you two reasons. The first is that if you are willing to predict that a camel and a whale, specifically, should be close genetically then you are going to have to give a very well reasoned account of why. Otherwise you will just blindly explain any observation with that but for no reason. The second is that YEers usually say that they expect that animals that are similar with simialr lifestyles should have similar genes. There is nothing alike about a camel and a whale to be the basis for such a statement. YEers should expect then that a whale would be similar to something like a seal or an otter or a shark. Not a camel.

While we are on the subject of genetics... Whales have dozens of disabled gened for making the same sense of smell that only land dwelling animals have. They have none of the genes for a water born sense that marine animals have. Why would this be the case if they did not have a land dwelling ancestor?

Whales also have genes for making a pelvis and legs and feet. Some adult whales have vesigal remnants of a pelvis and/or legs tucked away in there. Occasionally, whales are born will full atavistic legs. Whale embryos have little rear legs and feet that are absorbed before birth. Why would whales have these genes if they did not have land dwelling ancestors?

On a related note, the front flippers of the whales are homologeous to the arms of tetrapods. Why?

This is evidence. Please quit saying that there is not any that has been presented. I have presented such many times. There has yet to be a parsimonious alternate explanation give to account for all of the observations. Yet you continue to claim that no evidence has been presented.

 

[UTEOTW]

BTW, did you get a chance to read the responses to the problems you posted concerning radiometric dating?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3178/4.html#000053
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3178/7.html#000091

 

[Plain Old Bill]

If I were an evolutionist unless I had absolute verifiable proof that my theory was indeed fact I would never be dogmatic about my stand.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
If I were an evolutionist unless I had absolute verifiable proof that my theory was indeed fact I would never be dogmatic about my stand.

Agreed. Dogmaticism in science is the cause of many problems and the slow acceptance of truth in the field.

Historically, dogmaticism about geocentrism, spontaneous generation and many other positions in the scientific world have impeded scientific progress.

Dogmaticism should have no place in science, but is usually present where humans are.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by JWI:
Actually, there is some scientific evidence that the Earth (or very close to it) is the Center of the Universe and everything is revolving around us.

Now I know that sounds unbelieveable to you, and probably everyone else here. But it is true.

It is called Quantized Redshifts.

Ahh, quantized redshifts again.

Holmlid, L. "Redshifts in Space Caused by Stimulated Raman Scattering in Cold Intergalactic Tydberg Matter with Experimental Verification." Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 2005, 100, 637-644.

Basically quantized redshifts are observed for galaxies in the local supercluster. These are explained by the existence of a type of dark matter known as Rydberg matter, which has a life-time consistent with survival from the beginning of the universe. As the light passes through space it interacts with this intergalactic Rydberg matter to gain or lose energy in a quantized manner. This researcher generated Rydberg matter in the lab and studied its effects on light, and found them to be consistent with the observed redshift.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The quantized redshifts observed from galaxies in the local supercluster have recently been shown to be well described by stimulated Stokes Raman processes in intergalactic Rydberg matter (RM). The size of the quanta corresponds to transitions in the planar clusters forming the RM, of the order of 6X10^–6 cm^–1. A stimulated Stokes Raman process gives redshifts that are independent of the wavelength of the radiation, and it allows the radiation to proceed without deflection, in agreement with observation. Such redshifts must also be additive during the passage through space. Rydberg matter is common in space and explains the observed Faraday rotation in intergalactic space and the spectroscopic signatures called unidentified infrared bands (UIBs) and diffuse interstellar bands (DIBs). Rydberg matter was also recently proposed to be baryonic dark matter. Experiments now show directly that IR light is redshifted by a Stokes stimulated Raman process in cold RM. Shifts of 0.02 cm^–1 are regularly observed. It is shown by detailed calculations based on the experimental results that the redshifts due to Stokes scattering are of at least the same magnitude as observations.

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[JWI]

Petrel

Dark Matter has NEVER been detected by science,not even once. It is purely theoretical. It was invented to solve problems with the Big Bang theory.

http://www.montgomerybell.com/~clarkb/david.htm

But as usual, a theory becomes scientific fact to those who have preconceived beliefs.

Wishful Thinking.

OTE

I have this same problem with you. Now you are saying finding very different animals (large gap) proves evolution. This is just as ridiculous as claiming no real (close, or small gap)transitional fossils prove evolution.

Pretty convenient. I would say that is a win win theory.

But there is still no scientific proof.

You always refer to similarities. The whale, camel, and hippo have some similarities. So in your mind that proves they decended from a common ancestor.

I don't think it proves a thing. All animals have similarities to others. It is all a matter of which specific similarities you wish to consider.

Alligators have four legs, so do bears (and hundreds of other animals). They must be related.

Frogs have webbed feet, so do ducks. They must be related.

We have two eyes, so do most fish. We must be related.

You can probably find many similarities between any two animals on Earth.

Doesn't prove a thing.

But you never consider the differences. Whales have tremendous differences from camels and hippos.

When it comes right down to it, evolutionists believe that all life forms originated from one single life form. They have to believe this, because just as I have pointed out, all animals have many similarities to each other.

Even evolutionists cannot ignore this fact.

Do you believe this? Do you believe all animals originated from one original creature?

 

[UTEOTW]

"I have this same problem with you. Now you are saying finding very different animals (large gap) proves evolution. "

Maybe if I make a short statement...

The "gaps" explained by punk eek are the very smallest of changes. Changes within a species or between two very similar species. Larger changes are very well documented and are supported by independent information from other areas.

"You always refer to similarities. The whale, camel, and hippo have some similarities."

It is simply a search for the most parsimonious explanation. It can never be "proof." The thing is, there are no other explanations that take into account all of the observations outside of common descent.

"Alligators have four legs, so do bears (and hundreds of other animals). They must be related."

Now you're getting it, but it is more complicated than that. Homology is best understood at a deeper level than just noticing that they have four legs. There could be other reasons for that. We want things that are similar that don't have to be. In this case, not only do a frog and a bear both have four legs, but they have the exact same set of bones in those four legs. That is the key part of the homology.

"Do you believe all animals originated from one original creature? "

Yes, but I prefer one common gene pool.

"Dark Matter has NEVER been detected by science,not even once. It is purely theoretical. It was invented to solve problems with the Big Bang theory."

Sorry. YOu have been misinformed. Again. That is the danger of relying on YE websites.

We do not know what dark matter is. It is most likely one of the supersymettric particles. But it has definately been detected.

One method. YOu have heard of gravitational lensing, no. If the background object is directly behind the lensing galaxy, it can form what is known as an Einstein Ring. In this case, the background object is seen as a circle around the lensing object.

The size gives a direct method of measuring the mass of the lensing galaxy. When you add up the visible matter, it is only about 1/5 of what is needed to provide the lensing mass. The rest is dark matter. This is a direct measurment of the dark matter content of the universe.

 

[JWI]

UTEOTW

I just posted a link for a site about Dark Matter. It was not a creationist site at all.

If you would have read you would have seen the very first few lines....

"Dark matter is a theoretical type of matter that has eluded scientific detection even to this day since it is invisible to observations on Earth and only affects normal matter through gravity. The only reason scientists have questioned if such a matter could actually exist is that it is the only current explanation for unexplainable gravitational effects."

Dark Matter is a THEORY. It has NEVER been observed or measured by anyone. It is simply the only explanation astronmers and scientists can come up with to explain certain gravitational effects. In other words, it is an imaginary device to support the Big Bang theory. Without this Dark Matter there could be no Big Bang.

By the way, the Big Bang is just evolution applied to the cosmos.

But they could be completely wrong.

This is exactly the point I have been trying to make. You don't have any real scientific proof for evolution. It is still called the THEORY of evolution.

But you accept it as established fact. You also believe these incredible explanations that do not make sense.

So you are the one that is not getting it. It is obvious you are a highly intelligent person.

But at the same time you are naive enough to believe this puncuated equilibrium THEORY.

And still, not one Bible verse supporting evolution. Not one.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by JWI:
Dark Matter is a THEORY. It has NEVER been observed or measured by anyone. It is simply the only explanation astronmers and scientists can come up with to explain certain gravitational effects. In other words, it is an imaginary device to support the Big Bang theory. Without this Dark Matter there could be no Big Bang.

I would agree with this, except to say that dark matter is not there just to support the Big Bang. Its primary theoretical purpose if to explain gravitational observations. It has a secondary value of resolving problems in Big Bang theory.