14 reasons not to believe in Macro-Evolution

[spiritman]

Over the last couple of weeks I've been jumping back and forth on these creation vs Evolution threads, and I just like to say that I'm throughly convinced that Evolution is a crock. So I'd like to post 14 Reasons I've found during my study time on this subject; why you should not believe in Evolution.

1. Radiometric Dating: despite evolutionist claim that Radiometric dating works. This depends on Radioactive decay rates to be constant. Now the truth; Radioactive decay rates are not constant. This show by the amount of helium in both the rocks and the atmosphere.

See these two links: Click here

and click here

2. Irreducible complexity: If Macro-Evolution is true, then all things must have evolved right?. Wrong. Living in mitochondria is class of Molecular machines called Bacteria Flagella. This class of molecular machines, transports proteins across the surface of the Mitochondria to produce energy. The Bacteria Flagella propel themselves by means of a whip like tail. The bacteria flagella could not have evolved because if just one part of it was missing, it could not function.

For more detail into; Irreducible complexity click here

3. According to Evolutionary time frames, when digging for fossils in strata; the further you dig down the older the fossil should be. But it has been discovered that in some digs

there has been younger fossils under older fossils. for further information click here

4. Marine fossils are found up on very high mountains. This supports the Genesis flood. Gen 7:17-20 (NASB)

17 Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth.

18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.

19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.

20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.

For more on Marine fossils found on very high mountains click here

5. Polystrate Fossils: According to evolutionists, Layers of rock called strata are suppose to run millions of years, with each layer representing a long period of time, the further down you go the older the layer. Polystrate Fossils; are fossilized trees fully intact , some of these Polystrate fossils go through 40 feet of strata. this begs the question, that if each layer of strata represents large periods of time; how did these trees manage to run through them fully intact without rotting, or decay? click here

6. According to Evolutionists, the star light we see is Billions of years old, therefore since it takes Billions of years to get to earth, then that means the universe is Billions of years old. This theory of course rests on the fact, that the speed of light is constant at 186,000 m/s. But is the speed of light constant?. Click here

click here

7. Transitional forms: Every once in a while you will see a media report, shouting; the missing link has been found!!!. and this will be on the front pages of the news papers, and on the front stories of most news shows. But what you don't see; or if you do see it, usually it's in the C or D section, of the news paper in fine print, and probably never on a nightly news cast, is what happened to these transitional forms over a period of time after being studied. Well the following is just a report.

the following is a list of transitional forms proved to be fakes or mistakes:

Transitional forms proven to be fakes or mistakes:

1. Lucy: very long article so please click here

2. . Ida: B]ecause the fossil is similar to a modern lemur (a small, tailed, tree-climbing primate), it

[ellarose]

The last reason is the one that gets me!

[JIME]

Spiritman!!!!!

[georgedrw81]

7: the best reason to reject maco evolution is: In the Book of Genesis God said, that he made the heaven and the earth, and the sea, and all that is in them. And that He formed man from the dust of the earth.

God Bless

Right

[spiritman]

1. Radiometric Dating: despite evolutionist claim that Radiometric dating works. This depends on Radioactive decay rates to be constant. Now the truth; Radioactive decay rates are not constant and can be affected by the Distance from the Earth to the Sun, because solar neutrinos evidently accelerate nuclear decay.

Actually you have it backwards. If radioactive decay was drastically different in the past the strong interaction would be different since that's essentially what governs decay rates in isotopes of things like uranium. Essentially this means that you're changing the binding energy which is holding things together allowing more things to break away from an atom faster. A change this drastic in universal binding energy is going to affect gravitational forces as energy bends space. So if decay rates were that different THEN the orbits of planets would differ as well, not the other way around. Your following links have been debunked already.

See these two links: Click here

The study cited in this paper has some serious problems assocaited with it which you can read about here,

"Subjecting a solution of 228Th to ultrasound (20 kHz, 100W), Cardone et al. [Phys. Lett. A 373(2009) 1956] claim to observe an increase in the transformation or decay rate of 228Th by a factor of 104. The evidence provided seems however far from conclusive and in part contradictory to the claims made. In fact, looking at the presented data we find it cannot be taken as justification to discard the null hypothesis, namely, that the data from exposed and non exposed samples are drawn from the same distribution. We suggest a number of additional tests that should be made in order to improve the quality of the study and test the hypothesis of so-called piezonuclear reactions."

"The authors base their conclusion, that the transformation or decay rate of 228Th has been increased by a factor 104, on

[spiritman]

luker, so far all you have done is show me a retraction of the Solar nutrino theory. But you have yet to prove that there is the right amount of helium in the rocks to atmsphere for there have been long periods of radioactive decay. The rest of the 13 points as far as I'm concerned still stand.

[spiritman]

As far as debunking me on sea fossils goes, I've already mentioned the fact that the scientists here are using radiometric dating to make their point so debunked right back at you.

[spiritman]

as far as your claim about Irreducible complexity goes, most of it is an argument based on the fact that professor behe was not peer reviewed by a mob of evolutionary scientists, and the fact that these evolutionary scientists gave all those papers still doesn't change the fact that they are evolutionary scientists. This is like the fox guarding the hen house.

There is no way, that these evolutionary scientists are going to side with behe; even if he's right. So as far as I'm concerned this one stays too. I will only except creation scientists retractions. Not to mention the courts are bought off by Evolution money so my trust in them is in doubt as well.

[spiritman]

your link then goes on to argue that adaptation is the argument against Irreducible complexity, however you didn't read all my link did you? Because it answers this argument.

Here so you don't have to spend the energy on going back and reading my link I'll summarize it for you. mitochondria have been studied over a number of years to see what would happen to them if they are given food. The result is they lose their ability to produce flagella. Why? because they no longer have a need for the flagella, natural selection

erased the flagella.

So If you are relying on adaptation to answer Irreducible complexity forget it. The parts that are setting around doing nothing, would be erased through natural selection. sorry dude.

have a nice day

[spiritman]

As far as debunking me on sea fossils goes, I've already mentioned the fact that the scientists here are using radiometric dating to make their point so debunked right back at you.

I'm trying to decide whether you just don't understand the implications of your argument or if you're purposely not thinking this through. All you've done is provide very very bad examples of how certain isotopes could possibly speed up their decay rates. You haven't even tried to explain how every isotope was affected differently so that they would all arrive at concordant dates, do you realize that radiometric dating methods include both alpha AND beta decay? Do you understand that these are two completely separate phenomena governed by different forces? How on earth are you going to explain the fact that methods based on both agree with each other?

Let's grant your hypothesis for a moment; the sea floor was replaced during a global flood around 4,000 years ago during an undefined period of super-radioactive decay rates. Because every single isotope has a different decay rate then all radiometric dating of the ocean floors should be different, we should NOT expect to find a nice, orderly, progression of young dates starting at the mid-oceanic ridge where magma is being slowly pushed up to older dates at subduction zones. What else can we expect not to find?

- Life. By speeding up decay rates this high you've flooded the earth with enough radiation to kill every living thing in existence.

- Pretty much anything under a few thousand degrees F. By speeding up decay rates this high you've released enough heat to turn the earth's crust into molten slag.

- Concordant radiometric and non-radiometric dates. You can refer to the OP of the Radiometric Age Dating Correlations for a list of these.

- Evidence of pretty much constant decay rates over millions of years. You can refer to my last large post in the Radiometric Age Dating Correlations for references to two examples of this using distant starlight and the Oklo natural reactor.

Wait a minute didn't you already show me an article where some of the creation scientists retracted their argument about solar nutrinos?

Second of all the radiation would be scattered quickly because of the quick creation and the fast spreading out of the universe it self. don't you agree that the universe is expanding, that is how the radiation was dealt with. Indeed lurker you don't understand creation concepts very well at all do you?