PROOF against evolution

If all evolution states is whether or not a species lives or dies, then why support it?1) Where is the parent species for these biogenetically mutated life forms?2) Because the DNA samples are closely related does not mean that something has common ancestry. Why, then, are no two things exactly the same?3) What was the original bacterium that started this whole mess about creation and evolution? As far as the common man has seen, every life form has its own individual purpose, whether it is to feed off of other living things, or to supplement itself using natural forces.4) The creation model incorporates both the conservation of quantity and the law of decay (Second Law of Thermodynamics). When plants photosynthesize, it is for the purpose of nourishing themselves, and keeping the natural order in the earth. Plants die eventually, succumbing to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.5) There is no solid evidence indicating the age of the earth. The oldest known records were kept by the Egyptians, and those stopped at 3000 BC. Where did these dates come from? Were they inscribed on the fossils? Did the dating method calculate these values? In other words, a man hypothesized that a fossil was a certain age, and, subsequentially, all other fossil dates were modeled after it.6) Creationists believe that the earth was created according to the specifications of an omnipotent God, who indicated every species' purpose. Evolutionists believe that order came out of chaos; this chaos, over billions of years, condensed and became the universe as we know it. Can it get any simpler?7) Why is it that many life forms complement one another to achieve their goal? For example, a plant processes carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, which expels oxygen into the air for humans and other species to use.Think about this.

Okay. I will reply because this is a resonse to me even though I realize it is totally futile.You are once again simply making assertions with absolutely no evidence or reasoning.If you have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion, please select ONE thing that you think might be proof against evolution and supply your reasoning and evidence.So far you have nothing.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

For the recortd, that's not even close to being a description of how dating methods work.

Sir, how do dating methods work? Who put the initial dates on them? In other words, there is one person who first used a dating method, and hypothesized that this was, say, 325 million years old.This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 06-01-2004 02:19 PM

JAR:If I may be so kind...
I have put assertions. And I have supported them with fact. Since you are so adamant concerning viewing people's opinions, I would ask you to do better. Thanks.Note to AdminNosy:
I am only responding to people's statements.

1. They've mutated (evolved) also, though we do have some ancient creatures still about that just did well (sharks + crocs).2. DNA samples of you and your mother would show a 50% relationship, maybe a little up or down depending on mutation, but pretty close. To you and an unrelated person it would be less, you are in fact more closely related to your mother, wow it works. No two things are exactly the same because of the inadequecies in the replication system of DNA, small mutations occur.3. Well it probably started just as self replicating molecules similar to crystals, then when one of them mutated enough it could have adapted to start using resources faster and so would replicate more. As far as possibly the first thing we could class as a cell well i imagine it worked by oxidising stuff like most things do (cept plants). Nothing has a purpose, it just replicates, the original cell was just trying (tho with no intent) to replicate.4.Plants photosynthesize because this is the route that their little replicating chemicals have found allows them to replicate reliably. Just because plants die doesnt mean that they're suddenly obeying a law. Once again you're misrepresenting the second law, its been done many times.5. There are many other sorts of record from humans such as cave paintings etc that are aged to be much older, if your talking geneologies etc then maybe the egyptions were first, what of it? Fossils are tested using a variety of methods, the dates and dating forum should easily clear up any problems you have on methods of dating the earth and just about anyhting else. It wasnt just some guy saying "yep this looks pretty old, id say a million years! that must mean this one is two million cos it looks older...."6. Not necessarily, evolutionary atheists fit your description, youd need to ask Mike or someone similar on a theistic evolution point of view. But not the universe as we know it, that looks pretty chaotic to me, just following some basic rules, our plant tho seems to have been quite lucky.7. Now this fits in nicely with the theory of evolution, plants start using this abundant resource of CO2 with the sunlight, and use it to create sugars etc with which they can help themselves replicate. As a side process they release oxygen, this means air breathing oxidisers can evolve (strangely enough this is the order that the dating systems says things came about too which is good for evolution.) Thats not even an impressive one, you wanna play hardball take a look into some of the impressive symbiotic relationships going on, its predicted 25% of all insects species has a bacteria symbiont called Wolbachia within it, now thats where the evolution of such adaptions can become interesting.I've thought about all you have said, and still you put forward your viewpoints with no backup (though admittedly the last lot were more sorta opinions not needing fact). The second law of thermodynamics seems to be your favorite at the moment, anyone know a link to quickly stop this one?Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....Do unto others before they do unto you.

That is a great question and even though it is off topic, maybe the moderators will let us go into it here or direct you to a thread on Dates and Dating.There are a variety of ways that things are dated. If it's okay I'll start with some of the older methods and maybe others will contribute information on some of the different methods used to crossreference and verify the dates.Let me begin with position. Would you agree that in a relatively undisturbed site, something must be younger than what is above it?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

1) Explain how they evolved.2) If me and my mother have a 50% DNA relationship, and me and a monkey have a 99.9% DNA relationship, the monkey must be more related to me than my mother.3) The question here is not that they replicate; that's already known. The question here is what are they replicating from? As far as we know, every species have a parent (read Darwin's Origin of Species).4) What is YOUR definition of the Second Law? Do you have a better interpretation? If so, I would like to see it. Besides all the technical sub-notations, it simply means that all things fall into decay.5) Who determined the age limitations on the dating methods? The dating methods didn't determine themselves; they are controlled experiments, much like every other scientific observation. What if, per chance, a fossil was dated back to 6 billion years?6) It is possible to believe both the Bible and evolution, but that doesn't make it true. The Bible says that everything was created with order, and evolution states that chaos birthed order. It is an internal conflict.7) What about the other 75% of insects? What genus of bacteria do they come from? If all things came from one bacterium, then all things will have this Wolbachia in it.I see that you, amongst other evolutionists, desire to cancel me out. You can say that all of my statements are mindless assertions that have no point, but some who have actually read and analyzed my statements give me logical answers, as opposed to the usual "these are unsupported opinions". Now, tell me, at what point did my answers cease to be logical responses to questions that were first asked to ME? I could just as easily tell you that your assertions are farcical and have no basis. No one's right or wrong in this opinion unless it is an absolute falsehood. Have a nice life, kid.

You should be more than a little embarassed to make this statment after you have made this one: You can not critise things which you know nothing about. It is astonishing that you think you can argue from ignorance.You might want to take a bit of time to read the dates and dating forum. If you want to show how the dating is wrong after you know something about it then have a go at it.

Very well, I must have missed that support. Please re state your argument. You should also point to your assertions and the facts behind them.If you continue to be unable to do this you will not keep full posting priviledges.

Sorry jar, please take that to dates and dating.If you want to open a new topic that steps through it gradually as you are starting to do. Then I would quickly move it.It is a good idea that we haven't done yet that I know of.

I'm afraid that this doesn't answer TNG03's question.The 50% number for mother and child and the 90+ percent number for us and chimps are NOT the same thing.We get 50% of our genome from a parent. And the other 50% from the other parent.Because both parents are human very large parts of their genomes will be identical. Therefore our genome will be very much more than 50% matched to either parent.I don't have numbers but the total diversity of all humans is pretty low so we will be near 99% to any other human and a bit more than that to our parents is what I would guess.We and chimps are a few more percent different.

Yeah, i realised after posting that i'd screwed that one up more than a little. Didnt want to edit my post cos then it would look like im just changing it all to make it fit again.I will try and reassess what i have said in my next reply.Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....Do unto others before they do unto you.

NosyNed:
Why should I be embarrassed? I simply wanted to know why the person made that statement.I know it's off-topic, but I don't believe you have the authority to tell me I know nothing about something. Have you, yourself, been to a dig? Have you taken the time to test substances to check for their consistency? If you use 30 different dating methods and they all yield different results, that's more than enough to convince me that there's something wrong. I'm simply stating solid knowledge and asking questions that need to be asked.

Okay Boss. I kinda suspected as much. And quite frankly, unless there is some committment to actually follow through such a thread without all the assertion and nonsense coming in, I think it would be pretty fruitless.Do you think it would be worthwhile to open a series of threads, one on each dating method that would show each as independant as they are in reality? If so, I would be willing to begin with one on the placement method. Mayhaps you could find someone to ride herd on one based on radiometric data, another on genetics, etc? Finally if someone could be found so foolish as to raise their hand, they could tie all the different methods together.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion