Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

 

Parallel Strata

 

 

The earth’s sedimentary layers are typically parallel to adjacent layers. Such uniform layers are seen, for example, in the Grand Canyon and in road cuts in mountainous terrain. Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers. Their later burial by other sediments would produce nonparallel patterns. Because parallel layers are the general rule, and the earth’s surface erodes rapidly, one can conclude that almost all sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly relative to the local erosion rate—not over long periods of time (The mechanism involved is explained on pages  [url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction2.html#wp1100074]178-189 [/url]).

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/lifesciences-polystrate_fossil.jpg [/img]

Figure 11: Polystrate Fossil. Fossils crossing two or more sedimentary layers (strata) are called poly- (many) strate (strata) fossils. Consider how quickly this tree trunk in Germany must have been buried. Had burial been slow, the tree top would have decayed. Obviously, the tree could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial. Some polystrate trees are upside down, which could occur in a large flood. Soon after Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, scientists saw trees being buried in a similar way in the lake-bottom sediments of Spirit Lake. Polystrate tree trunks are found worldwide. (Notice the 1-meter scale bar, equal to 3.28 feet, in the center of the picture.)

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences26.html#wp1009156]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

[Revelation Man]

On 8/5/2016 at 5:09 PM, Running Gator said:

Science can neither prove nor disprove anything.  Science can  lend support or help refute.  That is all.

Actually True Science can prove all things. Science is only a journey from the unknown to the known. If we were to all of the sudden be given all the Mathematical equations then we would know the true Science behind all things. THINK IN HEAVEN...That will come to pass, so all things can be known because God knows all things, eve know we may never obtain His full knowledge, its possible. 

I used to DETEST Evolution and everyone that trumpeted it. They of course insist that evolution means there is no need for God and proves there is no God which we all know is a lie. BUT........Recently something slapped me upside the head. 

God Created the Heavens and the Earth.........then all that therein is and........AND He ceased His work or He RESTED !! 

If God RESTED (and He did) why are Stars, Planets and Universes still forming? Because God sent out the Command for the Heavens to COME FORTH, then he turned his attention to the Grasses/Tress/Animals etc. etc. 9.2 Billion years later and said COME FORTH. In between that time Gods command to the Universe was still taking place, the first Stars took 400 million years to be Created, the Universe is STILL EXPANDING, and stars are still being created.......BUT GOD RESTED !! Yes, He sure did, the Command come forth in the Beginning.

So that got me thinking, if God Rested, but the Universe is still being Created, could God have ordered life forth, then allowed it to come forth via Evolution, then fill Man with his Spirit 6000 years ago.........Just like Stars are still being created, even though God cased creating !!!!

Remember.......I think in terms of is this possible, not this is how it happened.............I still believe God created every animal over the last 600 Million years, and when he Created Man in His Image he ceased Creating and Rested.

But I like to look at things from different angles, and the Stars still forming means that God, even though He has Rested is STILL CREATING.........From His original command, 13.7 Billion years ago. 

The Reason I still don't buy the Evolution theories is God created the Heavens and Earth with ONE COMMAND.....But the Grasses/Trees and different Animals in detailed phases.........

BUT...Stars are still forming and God Rested.....................

 

 

[Running Gator]

6 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

Actually True Science can prove all things. Science is only a journey from the unknown to the known. If we were to all of the sudden be given all the Mathematical equations then we would know the true Science behind all things. 

No, science, true or other, does not prove anything, that is not the purpose or nature of science.  

Mathematical equations cannot be used to "prove" science as the outcome of equations depend on the rules chosen.  The most common example used is the difference between Euclidean and Spherical geometry.  According to the rules of Euclidean geometry, the angles inside a triangle always add up to 180 degrees, yet if you choose to go by Spherical geometry you can have the angles inside a triangle add up to 250 or 210 or what have you. 

Math is about the abstract and how the abstract relate to other abstract.  Science the opposite of this, science is about the real and the tangible, things we can sense with our senses. 

[Revelation Man]

6 hours ago, Running Gator said:

No, science, true or other, does not prove anything, that is not the purpose or nature of science.  

Mathematical equations cannot be used to "prove" science as the outcome of equations depend on the rules chosen.  The most common example used is the difference between Euclidean and Spherical geometry.  According to the rules of Euclidean geometry, the angles inside a triangle always add up to 180 degrees, yet if you choose to go by Spherical geometry you can have the angles inside a triangle add up to 250 or 210 or what have you. 

Math is about the abstract and how the abstract relate to other abstract.  Science the opposite of this, science is about the real and the tangible, things we can sense with our senses. 

Actually you missed my point when I stated TRUE SCIENCE.....Which means what? FACTS, not propaganda and theories. Global Warming is propaganda. Multiverse theory is not knowable since its outside our universe, until we can figure out how to see outside our universe and study it.

sci·ence ˈsīəns/ noun

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject

So TRUE SCIENCE is only a study from the unknown to the KNOW, so if it is based on Facts it can prove all things. God knows all the facts, we don't, so he knows all things and we don't, but the true Science of all things would tell us the facts. 

Each and everything God designed He did it with a mathematical equation. Ever hear of the Fibonacci Sequence? 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144, etc.etc. All design has this mathematical equation in them somewhere, even galaxies. A pine cone, your face etc. etc. Its there, check it out, Hurricanes even have it. EVERYTHING HAS IT FROM LARGE TO SMALL THINGS LIKE A SUNFLOWER.

 

Notice each layer of a pine cone, sunflower, etc. etc. go from 1 to 2 to 3, to 5, to 8 to 13 it never misses. There is never a layer of 10. 

 

If you have the known about anything that means you have the correct mathematical equation also. Of course that has nothing to do with Fibonacci sequences, but his discovery does show design.

[Running Gator]

4 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

Actually you missed my point when I stated TRUE SCIENCE.....Which means what? FACTS, not propaganda and theories. Global Warming is propaganda. Multiverse theory is not knowable since its outside our universe, until we can figure out how to see outside our universe and study it.

sci·ence ˈsīəns/ noun

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject

So TRUE SCIENCE is only a study from the unknown to the KNOW, so if it is based on Facts it can prove all things. God knows all the facts, we don't, so he knows all things and we don't, but the true Science of all things would tell us the facts. 

Each and everything God designed He did it with a mathematical equation. Ever hear of the Fibonacci Sequence? 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144, etc.etc. All design has this mathematical equation in them somewhere, even galaxies. A pine cone, your face etc. etc. Its there, check it out, Hurricanes even have it. EVERYTHING HAS IT FROM LARGE TO SMALL THINGS LIKE A SUNFLOWER.

 

Notice each layer of a pine cone, sunflower, etc. etc. go from 1 to 2 to 3, to 5, to 8 to 13 it never misses. There is never a layer of 10. 

 

If you have the known about anything that means you have the correct mathematical equation also. Of course that has nothing to do with Fibonacci sequences, but his discovery does show design.

I am sorry to be rude, but you just do not understand what science is all about.  True science is not about facts, if you have facts you do not need to observe and experiment.  Also, things you think are "true facts" really are not.  Take sunflowers for example, at least 20% of them do not follow the Fibonacci Sequence.  And we know this from observation and experimentation. 

[Pahu]

 

Fossil Gaps 1

 

 

If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record (a). 

 

a. “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

 

“...the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].”  Ibid., p. 323.

 

Darwin then explained that he thought that these gaps existed because of the “imperfection of the geologic record.” Early Darwinians expected the gaps would be filled as fossil exploration continued. Most paleontologists now agree that this expectation has not been fulfilled.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

[Pahu]

 

Fossil Gaps 2

 

 

The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Consequently, its former dean, Dr. David Raup, was highly qualified to discuss the absence of transitions in the fossil record:

 

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.” David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25.

 

“Surely the lack of gradualism—the lack of intermediates—is a major problem.” Dr. David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979.

 

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” Stanley, p. 95.

 

“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View,” Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

 

[BobRyan]

On 8/5/2016 at 2:26 PM, Pahu said:

 

Sexual Reproduction

 

 

   http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/lifesciences-male_and_female_birds.jpg [/img]

Figure 16: Male and Female Birds. Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce?

Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.

 

If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage. 

 

1. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct. 

 

2. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible (a). 

 

3. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical (b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system. 

 

4. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d) 

 

5. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally” evolved), would have to be tightly controlled. 

 

6. This remarkable string of “accidents” must have been repeated for millions of species. 

 

a.     In humans and in all mammals, a mother’s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby—half of whom is a “foreign body” from the father. If these immune systems functioned “properly,” mammals—including each of us—would not exist.

 

“The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged.” [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London: Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]

 

b. N. W. Pixie, “Boring Sperm,” Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p. 704.

 

c. Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, “Electrical Responses of Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm,” Science, Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654–1656.

 

d. For example, how could meiosis evolve?

 

Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e). 

 

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction (f). But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?

 

If life evolved, why would any form of life live long beyond its reproductive age, when beneficial changes cannot be passed on? All the energy expended, supposedly over millions of years, to allow organisms to live beyond reproductive age would be a waste. In other words, why haven’t all organisms evolved reproductive systems that last a lifetime?

 

Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle (g). 

 

e. “But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in mammals.” Jean Marx, “Tracing How the Sexes Develop,” Science, Vol. 269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.

 

f. “This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory.” George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.

 

“So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G. C. Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main Darwinian insights—just as early nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome without major modification of Newton’s celestial mechanics.” Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.

 

“The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists.” Michael Rose, “Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup,” New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30 October 1986, p. 55.

 

“Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology today.” Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, “Why Sex?” Discover, February 1984, p. 24.

 

“Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret.” Kathleen McAuliffe, “Why We Have Sex,” Omni, December 1983, p. 18.

 

“From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that intersexes [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges between two amazingly different structural types?”   Nilsson, p. 1225.

 

“One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that no one knows why sex persists.” [According to evolution, it should not. W.B.] Gardiner Morse, “Why Is Sex?” Science News, Vol. 126, 8 September 1984, p. 155.

 

g. “In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and mechanist concur except on just one point—a work of art, a machine or a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself.”   Pitman, p. 135.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences42.html]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

 

Thanks for posting that.

 

The religion of evolutionism presents its case in such a way as to reduce to this (in the case of T.E.) "An amoeba will sure enough turn into a rabbit over time given a talented enough amoeba and also a long and talented enough length of time filled with just-so stories all the way to the top of mount-improbable, stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" 

 

So then it is no wonder they cannot get off the dime when it comes to homologous chromosome based reproduction

[Pahu]

 

Fossil Gaps 3

 

 

Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson’s recent book, Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:

 

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Copy of letter, dated 10 April 1979, from Patterson to Sunderland.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

[Pahu]

 

Fossil Gaps 4

 

 

“But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group or that.” Hitching, p. 19. [emphasis in original]

 

“There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that furnished by palaeontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil hoards can only be test samples. Each sample, then, should represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be merely ‘transitional’ types, no definition and no species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persevering through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape; that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally disappear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in ever-increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings which exist aboriginally and exist still, without transition types, in the grouping of today.” [emphasis in original] Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Vol. 2 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p. 32.

 

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]