The End of Evolution

[FindTruth7]

How can evolution still exist? It’s flat out wrong!! Time and time again it has been proved wrong by Creationism. Three perfect examples: the eath’s magnetic field, it’s gradually decreasing. Were the earth billions of years old, we would have no field left. The dust on the moon, if the earth is so old, why don’t we find so much dust upon the moon by the gravity pulling it, it should have had so much time to gather, yet there is little, and finally,** the moon is moving away from the earth**, and isn’t as far away from the earth as should be expected were everything billions of years old.

Also, I have a book, “Darwin’s Leap of Faith” and in it the brilliance of John Ankerberg and John Weldon quote evolutionists and science magazines, even Steven Jay Gould, claiming there are no trannsitional fossils from one creature to another, (the prime reason Gould “invented” punctuated equilibrium, what else could he do when such evidence stands against him and in favor of Creationism).

And a final note (I could go on demolishing all evolutionists claims ) the only reason the fossil record exists and that “dumber” creatures remain on the lower levels is because of the Genesis flood.

There you go, evolution …blown away! So why does it exist?

 

[tobinatorstark]

How can evolution still exist? It’s flat out wrong!! Time and time again it has been proved wrong by Creationism. Three perfect examples: the eath’s magnetic field, it’s gradually decreasing. Were the earth billions of years old, we would have no field left. The dust on the moon, if the earth is so old, why don’t we find so much dust upon the moon by the gravity pulling it, it should have had so much time to gather, yet there is little, and finally,** the moon is moving away from the earth**, and isn’t as far away from the earth as should be expected were everything billions of years old.

Also, I have a book, “Darwin’s Leap of Faith” and in it the brilliance of John Ankerberg and John Weldon quote evolutionists and science magazines, even Steven Jay Gould, claiming there are no trannsitional fossils from one creature to another, (the prime reason Gould “invented” punctuated equilibrium, what else could he do when such evidence stands against him and in favor of Creationism).

And a final note (I could go on demolishing all evolutionists claims ) the only reason the fossil record exists and that “dumber” creatures remain on the lower levels is because of the Genesis flood.

There you go, evolution …blown away! So why does it exist?

I also agree that it is wrong. Darwin himself was agnostic. Today anybody can get paid to come up and way out of balance idea and make it seem believable

 

[thistle]

How can evolution still exist? It’s flat out wrong!! Time and time again it has been proved wrong by Creationism. Three perfect examples: the eath’s magnetic field, it’s gradually decreasing. Were the earth billions of years old, we would have no field left. The dust on the moon, if the earth is so old, why don’t we find so much dust upon the moon by the gravity pulling it, it should have had so much time to gather, yet there is little, and finally,** the moon is moving away from the earth**, and isn’t as far away from the earth as should be expected were everything billions of years old.

Also, I have a book, “Darwin’s Leap of Faith” and in it the brilliance of John Ankerberg and John Weldon quote evolutionists and science magazines, even Steven Jay Gould, claiming there are no trannsitional fossils from one creature to another, (the prime reason Gould “invented” punctuated equilibrium, what else could he do when such evidence stands against him and in favor of Creationism).

And a final note (I could go on demolishing all evolutionists claims ) the only reason the fossil record exists and that “dumber” creatures remain on the lower levels is because of the Genesis flood.

There you go, evolution …blown away! So why does it exist?

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
You seem to be one of those who mistakenly think the earth is only 6000 - 10000 years old.
The magnetic field is weakening because it will reverse itself at some stage like it has done many times in the past millions of years.
What you say about the moon is also rubbish.
I’m not impressed your conclusions.
There is nothing contradictory about our religious beliefs and evolution. God created the universe out of nothing and its up to him to let it develop as he sees fit. If he chooses to do this by evolution then that’s up to him.
By the way your profile says under religion “whatever is truth”. Then join us in the Catholic Church which has the fullness of truth.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

You seem to be one of those who mistakenly think the earth is only 6000 - 10000 years old.

It was my understanding that this is one area where the Church is not completely decided on and therefore has not condemned either belief? Am I mistaken?

God bless

 

[Calliso]

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
You seem to be one of those who mistakenly think the earth is only 6000 - 10000 years old.
The magnetic field is weakening because it will reverse itself at some stage like it has done many times in the past millions of years.
What you say about the moon is also rubbish.
I’m not impressed your conclusions.
There is nothing contradictory about our religious beliefs and evolution. God created the universe out of nothing and its up to him to let it develop as he sees fit. If he chooses to do this by evolution then that’s up to him.
By the way your profile says under religion “whatever is truth”. Then join us in the Catholic Church which has the fullness of truth.

Yep! the OP should read some actual science. For evolution in particular here is an awesome site. talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html.

 

[VociMike]

So do you believe God lies to us through the natural world? Or that he “tests our faith” by misleading us through the natural world? Or are we humans just too stupid to do any real science?

I don’t see any alternatives, do you?

 

[FindTruth7]

So do you believe God lies to us through the natural world? Or that he “tests our faith” by misleading us through the natural world? Or are we humans just too stupid to do any real science?

I don’t see any alternatives, do you?

Of course, Creationism:thumbsup:

 

[VociMike]

Of course, Creationism:thumbsup:

You didn’t answer my question. Given that science (and the evidence it offers) is not compatible with Creationism, we must believe either

1. God is deliberately deceiving us through his creation
2. Humans are incapable of discovering truth through science

Which is it, in your opinion?

 

[lozeerose]

Evolution is Creationism…God has his methods and he also has the ability to let us take a peek behind the scenes every once in a while. Check the Catechism - the only thing in evolutionary theory that can contradict God is when the person espousing the theory does not believe in Him.

God Is…

 

[mlz]

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
You seem to be one of those who mistakenly think the earth is only 6000 - 10000 years old.
The magnetic field is weakening because it will reverse itself at some stage like it has done many times in the past millions of years.
What you say about the moon is also rubbish.
I’m not impressed your conclusions.
There is nothing contradictory about our religious beliefs and evolution. God created the universe out of nothing and its up to him to let it develop as he sees fit. If he chooses to do this by evolution then that’s up to him.
By the way your profile says under religion “whatever is truth”. Then join us in the Catholic Church which has the fullness of truth.

I agree with you. The Church is NOT against evolution. God can work through anything, however He chooses. We must know that HE CREATES There is a real “trend” these days to agrue against evolution since some of those that are not Christian (in fact very anti-Christian, like Dawkins, support evolution) But there ARE “Theistic Evolutionists”, those that believe that God could work through evolution. Many scientists in the Catholic faith consider themselves in this part of the spectrum of how they view creation.

Mary

 

[Nita]

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

Really? How do you know - beyond a shadow of doubt. (I notice you make the statement as a fact - not a supposition/theory/hypothesis/possibility.)

I find it almost humorous to see how dramatically the age of the earth has increased during the last 100-200 years in the eyes of science. In just those hundred plus years, the earth has gone through being thousands of years old, to millions of years old, to billions of years old. Heaven knows what we poor creationists will be told is the true age of the earth in say 10 years from now — and ridiculed if we dare to question it.

 

[tobinatorstark]

You didn’t answer my question. Given that science (and the evidence it offers) is not compatible with Creationism, we must believe either

1. God is deliberately deceiving us through his creation
2. Humans are incapable of discovering truth through science

Which is it, in your opinion?

God would not deliberately deceive us in any way. I would never deceive us period. The Bible is God’s word. Creationism is in the Bible, so I believe that Creationism is the way to go. Humans aren’t incapable of discovering truth through science. Science has a lots of truth to it, also it has a lot garbage attached to because people put science ahead of God, in the case of evolution. The link provided above is the same garbage that is fed by the fundamentalist about religions and ant-Vatican II websites as well.

 

[lozeerose]

Really? How do you know - beyond a shadow of doubt. (I notice you make the statement as a fact - not a supposition/theory/hypothesis/possibility.)

I find it almost humorous to see how dramatically the age of the earth has increased during the last 100-200 years in the eyes of science. In just those hundred plus years, the earth has gone through being thousands of years old, to millions of years old, to billions of years old. Heaven knows what we poor creationists will be told is the true age of the earth in say 10 years from now — and ridiculed if we dare to question it.

Those of us who believe in science and God believe that God gave us science as a means to understand His ways and better worship him as the Creator. But many times Young Earth theorists seems to limit God’s ability. God has no boundaries: time and space included. Yet we as creatures do and God knows that in our less than pure state we can barely understand each other let alone Him and his methods. However, that does not bar him from providing us with brains and knowledge to examine our physical world in order to know Him.

Of course the estimated age of the planet has changed, it is a consequence of our knowledge expanding. The problem with Young Earth that it does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. I am not saying that it is not possible, no one here was around 10K years ago let alone 10M; however, it just doesn’t make any sense…just like the earth is flat or we are at the center of the universe (God is I am sure of that).

Then we get into alien life - what is to bar God from creating other life forms? And what about the term Intelligent Design, an extraterrestrial could have designed us intelligently, no? Or UFOs could actually be us visiting ourselves from a future so advanced that we have…evolved…

I am just saying that science is the study of the physical world through physical means but that does not mean that God is not there…He gave us our brains.

And of course no one should make fun of anyone…at least in malice with an intention to hurt - between friends and in good fun…I think is okay.

 

[mlz]

The problem with Young Earth that it does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. I am just saying that science is the study of the physical world through physical means but that does not mean that God is not there…He gave us our brains.

Amen to the above!
Mary

 

[PhilVaz]

Evidence for an Old Earth

Evidence for Evolution

Second one is being updated, someday I’ll finish.

Phil P

 

[FindTruth7]

Evidence for an Old Earth

Evidence for Evolution

Second one is being updated, someday I’ll finish.

Phil P

Interesting, but how about this:

**Evidence for a young earth **
biblelandstudios.com/nuke/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=44

 

[FindTruth7]

You didn’t answer my question. Given that science (and the evidence it offers) is not compatible with Creationism, we must believe either

1. God is deliberately deceiving us through his creation
2. Humans are incapable of discovering truth through science

Which is it, in your opinion?

Number 3: God created the world in 6 days, the earth is about 10-12 thousand years old, and the evidence in science is better interpreted for Creationism (I’m not a Protestant by the way)

And again, why have more than a few evolutionists, especially Steven Jay Gould, claimed the fossil record does not support gradual change?

 

[rossum]

I am almost tempted to call Poe on this one, however there are not quite enough exclamation marks and little use of capital letters so I am not completely sure. If it is a Poe then well done FindTruth7, it is a very good one. So assuming it isn’t a Poe I shall continue.

How can evolution still exist?

It continues every time bacteria evolve immunity to a new antibiotic, MRSA or drug resistant TB for example.

It’s flat out wrong!!

See what I mean about the Poe; a Poe would have been more like “It’s flat OUT wrong!!!” with the strange capitalisation and more exclamation marks. Very close to the boundary, but not quite over it.

Three perfect examples: the eath’s magnetic field, it’s gradually decreasing. Were the earth billions of years old, we would have no field left.

When I go to the seashore I can see that the level of the sea is gradually decreasing because the tide is going out. Does that mean that last year the sea covered all of the land? No because I cannot just assume that the rate I see now was always the same in the past. The same with the earth’s magnetic field, you cannot make the uniformitarian assumption that the rate has always been the same in the past. We have evidence that the rate has changed in the past. For detailed coverage of this creationist PRATT see CD701. [PRATT = Point Refuted A Thousand Times]

The dust on the moon, if the earth is so old, why don’t we find so much dust upon the moon by the gravity pulling it, it should have had so much time to gather, yet there is little,

Oh boy. Why do you expect to convince anyone with this one when AiG are not convinced by it? Have a look at AiG’s Arguments we think creationists should NOT use:‘Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon.’ For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one either).
See also CE101 for the detail on this PRATT.

** the moon is moving away from the earth**, and isn’t as far away from the earth as should be expected were everything billions of years old.

Have you actually done the maths on this one? The moon is receeding at about 3.8 cm per year. Try doing the calculation, bearing in mind what I said above about uniformitarian assumptions. Again the PRATT is covered at CE110.

Also, I have a book, “Darwin’s Leap of Faith” and in it the brilliance of John Ankerberg and John Weldon quote evolutionists and science magazines, even Steven Jay Gould, claiming there are no trannsitional fossils from one creature to another.

Scientists argue from evidence, not from quotes in books. However if you want a quote from Gould, how about: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.

Source: Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. “Evolution as Fact and Theory” in Hens Teeth and Horse’s Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
I also can quote books, do you know that the Bible says that there is no God? I bet you find that a really convincing argument.

And a final note (I could go on demolishing all evolutionists claims ) the only reason the fossil record exists and that “dumber” creatures remain on the lower levels is because of the Genesis flood.

Then please explain why every oak tree could get to the high ground better than an animal like Dimetrodon? All Dimetrodon fossils are below all oak tree fossils.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

God would not deliberately deceive us in any way. I would never deceive us period. The Bible is God’s word. Creationism is in the Bible,

YE creationism is not in the Bible. In fact, the Bible clearly rules out YE creationism, because Genesis refutes the “life ex nihilo” doctrine of YE creationism.

On the other hand, the sort of “creationism” that allows for evolution, that is abundantly supported in the Bible.

Science has a lots of truth to it, also it has a lot garbage attached to because people put science ahead of God, in the case of evolution.

Odd then, that Darwin attributed the origin of life to God. Maybe you should go learn about it a bit. Learn about ID/creationism, too. It’s the doctrine of the Seventh-Day Adventists, who got many Protestants to accept it. Why would you want to take a recycled Protestant doctrine in place of Catholic teaching?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Then please explain why every oak tree could get to the high ground better than an animal like Dimetrodon? All Dimetrodon fossils are below all oak tree fossils.

All creationists know that oak trees can run faster than Dimetrodons.