INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Science Disproves Evolution

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22775
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#921 Postby Alan H » December 27th, 2017, 8:56 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
I thought I already made that clear. It seems you are more interested in deleting my words than allowing me to answer specific questions.
LOL! I am not aware of your canon, so I'm afraid you'll need to point out every time you are merely quoting yourself.


I did that and you still deleted me.
Nope.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22775
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#922 Postby Alan H » December 27th, 2017, 8:57 pm

Pahu wrote:
Ape-Men? 5



Another study, which examined their inner ear bones, used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity to those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but great differences from those of humans (p). Likewise, their pattern of dental development corresponds to chimpanzees, not humans (q). Claims were made—based on one partially complete australopithecine fossil, Australopithecus afarensis, (a 3.5-foot-tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called Lucy)—that all australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. However, studies of Lucy’s entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show that this is very unlikely. She likely swung from the trees (r) and was similar to pygmy chimpanzees (s). In 2006, a more complete Australopithecus afarensis specimen—a 3-year-old baby—was announced. Its new features were clearly apelike (t). The australopithecines are probably extinct apes (u).

p. “Among the fossil hominids, the australopithecines show great-ape-like proportions [based on CAT scans of their inner ears] [i]and H. erectus shows modern-human-like proportions.” Fred Spoor et al., “Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,” [i]Nature, Vol. 369, 23 June 1994, p. 646. [Many H. erectus bones are probably those of H. sapiens.]

q. “The closest parallel today to the pattern of dental development of [australopithecines] [i]is not in people but in chimpanzees.”   Bruce Bower, “Evolution’s Youth Movement,” [i]Science News, Vol. 159, 2 June 2001, p. 347.

r. William L. Jungers, “Lucy’s Limbs: Skeletal Allometry and Locomotion in Australopithecus Afarensis,” Nature, Vol. 297, 24 June 1982, pp. 676–678.

Jeremy Cherfas, “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” New Scientist, Vol. 93, 20 January 1983, pp. 172–178.

Jack T. Stern Jr. and Randall L. Susman, “The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus Afarensis,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, March 1983, pp. 279–317.

s. Adrienne Zihlman, “Pigmy Chimps, People, and the Pundits,” New Scientist, Vol. 104, 15 November 1984, pp. 39–40.

t. Zeresenay Alemseged et al., “A Juvenile Early Hominin Skeleton from Dikika, Ethiopia,” Nature, Vol. 443, 21 September 2006, pp. 296–301.

u. “At present we have no grounds for thinking that there was anything distinctively human about australopithecine ecology and behavior. ... [T][i]hey were surprisingly apelike in skull form, premolar dentition, limb proportions, and morphology of some joint surfaces, and they may still have been spending a significant amount of time in the trees.” Matt Cartmill et al., “One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology,” [i] American Scientist, Vol. 74, July–August 1986, p. 417.

“The proportions calculated for africanus turned out to be amazingly close to those of a chimpanzee, with big arms and small legs. ... ‘One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree,’ says Berger.” James Shreeve, “New Skeleton Gives Path from Trees to Ground an Odd Turn,” [i]Science, Vol. 272, 3 May 1996, p. 654.

“There is indeed, no question which the Australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the ape—so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them.” Solly Zuckerman, “Correlation of Change in the Evolution of Higher Primates,” [i]Evolution as a Process, editors Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1954), p. 307.

[i] “We can safely conclude from the fossil hominoid material now available that in the history of the globe there have been many more species of great ape than just the three which exist today.” Ibid., pp. 348–349.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Are you attempting to answer some previous question, evidence some previous claim or other or start something new with this? Or is it just your reading list?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 385
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#923 Postby Pahu » December 28th, 2017, 3:33 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:LOL! I am not aware of your canon, so I'm afraid you'll need to point out every time you are merely quoting yourself.


I did that and you still deleted me.
Nope.


Yep!
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 385
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#924 Postby Pahu » December 28th, 2017, 3:37 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Ape-Men? 5



Another study, which examined their inner ear bones, used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity to those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but great differences from those of humans (p). Likewise, their pattern of dental development corresponds to chimpanzees, not humans (q). Claims were made—based on one partially complete australopithecine fossil, Australopithecus afarensis, (a 3.5-foot-tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called Lucy)—that all australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. However, studies of Lucy’s entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show that this is very unlikely. She likely swung from the trees (r) and was similar to pygmy chimpanzees (s). In 2006, a more complete Australopithecus afarensis specimen—a 3-year-old baby—was announced. Its new features were clearly apelike (t). The australopithecines are probably extinct apes (u).

p. “Among the fossil hominids, the australopithecines show great-ape-like proportions [based on CAT scans of their inner ears] [i]and H. erectus shows modern-human-like proportions.” Fred Spoor et al., “Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,” [i]Nature, Vol. 369, 23 June 1994, p. 646. [Many H. erectus bones are probably those of H. sapiens.]

q. “The closest parallel today to the pattern of dental development of [australopithecines] [i]is not in people but in chimpanzees.”   Bruce Bower, “Evolution’s Youth Movement,” [i]Science News, Vol. 159, 2 June 2001, p. 347.

r. William L. Jungers, “Lucy’s Limbs: Skeletal Allometry and Locomotion in Australopithecus Afarensis,” Nature, Vol. 297, 24 June 1982, pp. 676–678.

Jeremy Cherfas, “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” New Scientist, Vol. 93, 20 January 1983, pp. 172–178.

Jack T. Stern Jr. and Randall L. Susman, “The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus Afarensis,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, March 1983, pp. 279–317.

s. Adrienne Zihlman, “Pigmy Chimps, People, and the Pundits,” New Scientist, Vol. 104, 15 November 1984, pp. 39–40.

t. Zeresenay Alemseged et al., “A Juvenile Early Hominin Skeleton from Dikika, Ethiopia,” Nature, Vol. 443, 21 September 2006, pp. 296–301.

u. “At present we have no grounds for thinking that there was anything distinctively human about australopithecine ecology and behavior. ... [T][i]hey were surprisingly apelike in skull form, premolar dentition, limb proportions, and morphology of some joint surfaces, and they may still have been spending a significant amount of time in the trees.” Matt Cartmill et al., “One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology,” [i] American Scientist, Vol. 74, July–August 1986, p. 417.

“The proportions calculated for africanus turned out to be amazingly close to those of a chimpanzee, with big arms and small legs. ... ‘One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree,’ says Berger.” James Shreeve, “New Skeleton Gives Path from Trees to Ground an Odd Turn,” [i]Science, Vol. 272, 3 May 1996, p. 654.

“There is indeed, no question which the Australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the ape—so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them.” Solly Zuckerman, “Correlation of Change in the Evolution of Higher Primates,” [i]Evolution as a Process, editors Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1954), p. 307.

[i] “We can safely conclude from the fossil hominoid material now available that in the history of the globe there have been many more species of great ape than just the three which exist today.” Ibid., pp. 348–349.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Are you attempting to answer some previous question, evidence some previous claim or other or start something new with this? Or is it just your reading list?


This is a long article broken up into six sections.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 385
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#925 Postby Pahu » December 28th, 2017, 3:39 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Ape-Men? 5



Another study, which examined their inner ear bones, used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity to those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but great differences from those of humans (p). Likewise, their pattern of dental development corresponds to chimpanzees, not humans (q). Claims were made—based on one partially complete australopithecine fossil, Australopithecus afarensis, (a 3.5-foot-tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called Lucy)—that all australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. However, studies of Lucy’s entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show that this is very unlikely. She likely swung from the trees (r) and was similar to pygmy chimpanzees (s). In 2006, a more complete Australopithecus afarensis specimen—a 3-year-old baby—was announced. Its new features were clearly apelike (t). The australopithecines are probably extinct apes (u).

p. “Among the fossil hominids, the australopithecines show great-ape-like proportions [based on CAT scans of their inner ears] [i]and H. erectus shows modern-human-like proportions.” Fred Spoor et al., “Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,” [i]Nature, Vol. 369, 23 June 1994, p. 646. [Many H. erectus bones are probably those of H. sapiens.]

q. “The closest parallel today to the pattern of dental development of [australopithecines] [i]is not in people but in chimpanzees.”   Bruce Bower, “Evolution’s Youth Movement,” [i]Science News, Vol. 159, 2 June 2001, p. 347.

r. William L. Jungers, “Lucy’s Limbs: Skeletal Allometry and Locomotion in Australopithecus Afarensis,” Nature, Vol. 297, 24 June 1982, pp. 676–678.

Jeremy Cherfas, “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” New Scientist, Vol. 93, 20 January 1983, pp. 172–178.

Jack T. Stern Jr. and Randall L. Susman, “The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus Afarensis,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, March 1983, pp. 279–317.

s. Adrienne Zihlman, “Pigmy Chimps, People, and the Pundits,” New Scientist, Vol. 104, 15 November 1984, pp. 39–40.

t. Zeresenay Alemseged et al., “A Juvenile Early Hominin Skeleton from Dikika, Ethiopia,” Nature, Vol. 443, 21 September 2006, pp. 296–301.

u. “At present we have no grounds for thinking that there was anything distinctively human about australopithecine ecology and behavior. ... [T][i]hey were surprisingly apelike in skull form, premolar dentition, limb proportions, and morphology of some joint surfaces, and they may still have been spending a significant amount of time in the trees.” Matt Cartmill et al., “One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology,” [i] American Scientist, Vol. 74, July–August 1986, p. 417.

“The proportions calculated for africanus turned out to be amazingly close to those of a chimpanzee, with big arms and small legs. ... ‘One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree,’ says Berger.” James Shreeve, “New Skeleton Gives Path from Trees to Ground an Odd Turn,” [i]Science, Vol. 272, 3 May 1996, p. 654.

“There is indeed, no question which the Australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the ape—so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them.” Solly Zuckerman, “Correlation of Change in the Evolution of Higher Primates,” [i]Evolution as a Process, editors Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1954), p. 307.

[i] “We can safely conclude from the fossil hominoid material now available that in the history of the globe there have been many more species of great ape than just the three which exist today.” Ibid., pp. 348–349.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Are you attempting to answer some previous question, evidence some previous claim or other or start something new with this? Or is it just your reading list?


This is a long article broken up into six sections showing apes and humans are different creations.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22775
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#926 Postby Alan H » December 28th, 2017, 4:03 pm

Pahu wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:Are you attempting to answer some previous question, evidence some previous claim or other or start something new with this? Or is it just your reading list?


This is a long article broken up into six sections showing apes and humans are different creations.
I'm sure there was no need to duplicate it.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 626
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#927 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » December 30th, 2017, 12:57 am

Pahu wrote: “There is indeed, no question which the Australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the ape—so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them.” Solly Zuckerman, “Correlation of Change in the Evolution of Higher Primates,” [i]Evolution as a Process, editors Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1954), p. 307.

“We can safely conclude from the fossil hominoid material now available that in the history of the globe there have been many more species of great ape than just the three which exist today.” Ibid., pp. 348–349.


Pahu, you must ( or should ) know that this has been exploded years ago:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wbrown.html

The Australopithecines are probably an extinct ape.

"There is indeed, no question which the Australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the ape - so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them." Solly Zuckerman, "Correlation of Change in the Evolution of Higher Primates," Evolution as a Process, editors Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1954), p. 307.



Hardly the most up-to-date reference available. The reason creationists have to use such old quotes is that Zuckerman seems to have been almost the only major scientist to dispute that australopithecines were hominids.



"We can safely conclude from the fossil hominoid material now available that in the history of the globe there have been many more species of great ape than just the three which exist today." Ibid., pp. 348-349.


True. So what? The fact that fossil apes exist does nothing to show that australopithecines are apes.



I have asked you repeatedly to check your sources. I am now reduced to asking you to understand them. Can you manage that?
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6294
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#928 Postby animist » December 30th, 2017, 10:00 am

Pahu wrote:This is a long article broken up into six sections showing apes and humans are different creations.
I doubt that you will get this point, Pahu, but you beg (ie prejudge) the question when you say that the article shows that "apes and humans are different creations"; what you mean, or should do, is that they are different creatures, ie species. The problem with this thread is that palaeontologists, ie experts who AFAIK do not include any of us, are not creationists and are therefore not much aware or concerned that their language might be used by an absurd theological cult to attempt to show that that evolution between species did not occur. Therefore they, the specialist experts, kind of start off with an acknowledgment that the extant primate species of today, which are "apes" of some sort, plus the "naked ape" (ie homo sapiens sapiens) are a convenient way on which to base a sort of classification of species for describing non-extant species like the ones coming up in the thread. Truth is of course that, while particular examples of these extinct species might resemble more us lot or the chimps, they are neither of them!

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 385
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#929 Postby Pahu » December 30th, 2017, 7:02 pm

animist wrote:
Pahu wrote:This is a long article broken up into six sections showing apes and humans are different creations.
I doubt that you will get this point, Pahu, but you beg (ie prejudge) the question when you say that the article shows that "apes and humans are different creations"; what you mean, or should do, is that they are different creatures, ie species. The problem with this thread is that palaeontologists, ie experts who AFAIK do not include any of us, are not creationists and are therefore not much aware or concerned that their language might be used by an absurd theological cult to attempt to show that that evolution between species did not occur.


It didnl't!

Therefore they, the specialist experts, kind of start off with an acknowledgment that the extant primate species of today, which are "apes" of some sort, plus the "naked ape" (ie homo sapiens sapiens) are a convenient way on which to base a sort of classification of species for describing non-extant species like the ones coming up in the thread. Truth is of course that, while particular examples of these extinct species might resemble more us lot or the chimps, they are neither of them![/quote]

The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Human evolution: oh so clear?
by Don Batten

[Unnecessary graphic and copy and pasted text deleted by Admin.

If you wish to refer to specific text on that page, please feel free to tell us.]


https://creation.com/human-evolution-stories
Last edited by Alan H on December 30th, 2017, 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Ho hum.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 385
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#930 Postby Pahu » January 12th, 2018, 4:13 pm

Ape-Men? 6


For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. This false idea was based upon some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets (v). Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest that they were humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than people today (w). Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human. Artists’ drawings of “ape-men,” especially their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence (x).

Furthermore, the techniques used to date these fossils are highly questionable. [See pages 36-42]

v. Francis Ivanhoe, “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?” Nature, Vol. 227, 8 August 1970, pp. 577–578.

William L. Straus Jr. and A. J. E. Cave, “Pathology and the Posture of Neanderthal Man,” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 32, December, 1957, pp. 348–363.

Bruce M. Rothschild and Pierre L. Thillaud, “Oldest Bone Disease,” Nature, Vol. 349, 24 January 1991, p. 288.

w. Jack Cuozzo, Buried Alive: The Startling Truth about Neanderthal Man (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 1998).

Jack Cuozzo, “Early Orthodontic Intervention: A View from Prehistory,” The Journal of the New Jersey Dental Association, Vol. 58, No. 4, Autumn 1987, pp. 33–40.

x. Boyce Rensberger, “Facing the Past,” Science 81, October 1981, p. 49.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Last edited by Alan H on January 12th, 2018, 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Again, Pahu?
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3227
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#931 Postby Tetenterre » January 13th, 2018, 4:15 pm

Hey, Pahu, since you've managed to survive Saturnalia, perhaps you can clear up a few biblical queries I have?

What day did Jesus die on? Was it the day before the Passover meal (John 19 xiv) or after the Passover meal (Mark 14 i-ii)?

On the day after the sabbath when Mary Magdalene went to the sepulchre, did she go alone (John 20 i), with just the "other Mary" (Matt 28 i), with Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16 i), or with Mary the mother of James, Joanna and "the other women that were with them" (Luke 24 x)?
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6294
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#932 Postby animist » January 13th, 2018, 4:46 pm

Pahu wrote:
animist wrote:
Pahu wrote:This is a long article broken up into six sections showing apes and humans are different creations.
I doubt that you will get this point, Pahu, but you beg (ie prejudge) the question when you say that the article shows that "apes and humans are different creations"; what you mean, or should do, is that they are different creatures, ie species. The problem with this thread is that palaeontologists, ie experts who AFAIK do not include any of us, are not creationists and are therefore not much aware or concerned that their language might be used by an absurd theological cult to attempt to show that that evolution between species did not occur.


It didnl't!

Therefore they, the specialist experts, kind of start off with an acknowledgment that the extant primate species of today, which are "apes" of some sort, plus the "naked ape" (ie homo sapiens sapiens) are a convenient way on which to base a sort of classification of species for describing non-extant species like the ones coming up in the thread. Truth is of course that, while particular examples of these extinct species might resemble more us lot or the chimps, they are neither of them!


not that it matters, but how you've miscoded this post makes my words (ie the second section after your "It didn't!") appear to be yours! Well, I thought, funny, this sounds like what I would say, not Pahu!

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 385
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#933 Postby Pahu » January 13th, 2018, 6:59 pm

Tetenterre wrote:Hey, Pahu, since you've managed to survive Saturnalia, perhaps you can clear up a few biblical queries I have?

What day did Jesus die on? Was it the day before the Passover meal (John 19 xiv) or after the Passover meal (Mark 14 i-ii)?


He died on Passover day which began at sundown.

On the day after the sabbath when Mary Magdalene went to the sepulchre, did she go alone (John 20 i), with just the "other Mary" (Matt 28 i), with Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16 i), or with Mary the mother of James, Joanna and "the other women that were with them" (Luke 24 x)?


Mary went with a group of women. She was ahead of the other women and arrived at the tomb alone and found it empty. She immediately ran to tell the disciples. The gospels harmonize better than you might think. This is the way I see it using the NIV translation:

THE EMPTY TOMB
(Mt. 28:1-10; Mk. 16:1-8; Lk. 24:1-12; Jhn. 20:1-9)

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

After the Sabbath, very early on the first day of the week, at dawn while it was still dark, they went to look at the tomb. Just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

When the women looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where they laid him. Then go quickly and tell his disciples and Peter: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ Now I have told you.”

Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. The women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”

Very early in the morning, others took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’” Then they remembered his words.

When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and others with them who told this to the apostles. But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. Peter and the other disciple, however, got up and started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. Peter went away wondering to himself what had happened. (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead).

THE GUARDS’ REPORT
(Mt. 28:11-15)

While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

JESUS APPEARS TO MARY MAGDALENE
(Jhn. 20:10-18)

Then the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?” “They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. “Woman,” he said, “why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (Which means Teacher). Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

motherofheathens
Posts: 3
Joined: January 15th, 2018, 8:18 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#934 Postby motherofheathens » January 15th, 2018, 10:01 pm

I'm new to the forum, and I'm going to jump right in here!

Hey Pahu! I was you a few years ago. I did a report in my Southern Baptist middle school about how evolution was a big conspiracy theory and creation was the only real way that made sense. I got straight A's.

Since then, I have read many books on astronomy, biology, chemistry, and whatnot that first gave me the clue that the whole Bible timeline might be a little off. Sometimes I would read something that I would think fit into my little box of religion, and I would feel empowered. Eventually, I decided that Genesis should be loosely interpreted to mean each "day" meant millions or billions of years. I mean, God told this to shepherds. How were they supposed to understand that? Maybe they were confused when they wrote it down. Evolution made too much sense to me when I finally read about it from credible sources. I know other people have suggested this, but Richard Dawkins explains evolution beautifully.

Believe in God if you want. But you can understand evolution at the same time. You have obviously come to this forum to convert some peeps. Maybe it is your ministry? It has always bothered me the way Christians are ready to discount science when it does not fit inside your little, tiny box. This has larger implications for society as a whole, and that is one reason we are in the state we are at this time. There are many prominent Christians that believe in evolution. The age of the internet is a savior and curse. You can post all these websites that align with your preconceived beliefs. It is this slippery slope that has led to the dumbing down of society.

You have a distrust of science. If a government agency or an academic conveys knowledge that does not align with your beliefs, you distrust them. Suddenly, the CDC, the EPA, Health and Human Services, scientists, doctors, universities are not only wrong but they are actively against you. This mindset is causing a rift in our society.

This long rant comes down to this: evolution was discovered and studied by men and women who love the universe in which they live, and it excites them to know more about it. Try to discover this excitement for yourself.

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3227
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#935 Postby Tetenterre » January 16th, 2018, 12:30 pm

Pahu wrote:
Tetenterre wrote:Hey, Pahu, since you've managed to survive Saturnalia, perhaps you can clear up a few biblical queries I have?

What day did Jesus die on? Was it the day before the Passover meal (John 19 xiv) or after the Passover meal (Mark 14 i-ii)?


He died on Passover day which began at sundown.
That's not what the gospels say, though, is it?
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 385
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#936 Postby Pahu » January 16th, 2018, 3:49 pm

motherofheathens wrote:I'm new to the forum, and I'm going to jump right in here!

Hey Pahu! I was you a few years ago. I did a report in my Southern Baptist middle school about how evolution was a big conspiracy theory and creation was the only real way that made sense. I got straight A's.

Since then, I have read many books on astronomy, biology, chemistry, and whatnot that first gave me the clue that the whole Bible timeline might be a little off. Sometimes I would read something that I would think fit into my little box of religion, and I would feel empowered. Eventually, I decided that Genesis should be loosely interpreted to mean each "day" meant millions or billions of years. I mean, God told this to shepherds. How were they supposed to understand that? Maybe they were confused when they wrote it down. Evolution made too much sense to me when I finally read about it from credible sources. I know other people have suggested this, but Richard Dawkins explains evolution beautifully.


If a day meant millions or billions of years, explain how the grass and trees, which were created on the third day, survived for millions or billions of years without the insects, created on the fifth day, needed for reproduction.

Believe in God if you want.


Don't you believe in God? Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving God exists.

But you can understand evolution at the same time.


How can you believe in God and evolution? God reveals He created everything. Evolution teaches everything created itself. How can this contradiction be reconciled?

You have obviously come to this forum to convert some peeps. Maybe it is your ministry? It has always bothered me the way Christians are ready to discount science when it does not fit inside your little, tiny box. This has larger implications for society as a whole, and that is one reason we are in the state we are at this time. There are many prominent Christians that believe in evolution. The age of the internet is a savior and curse. You can post all these websites that align with your preconceived beliefs. It is this slippery slope that has led to the dumbing down of society.


Christians do not believe in the evolution myth. Evolution is evidence free speculation disguised as science. Evolution has led to the dumbing down of society.

You have a distrust of science. If a government agency or an academic conveys knowledge that does not align with your beliefs, you distrust them. Suddenly, the CDC, the EPA, Health and Human Services, scientists, doctors, universities are not only wrong but they are actively against you. This mindset is causing a rift in our society.


I do not distrust science. If you will review my past articles, that have not been deleted by the administration, you will see how science disproves evolution.

This long rant comes down to this: evolution was discovered and studied by men and women who love the universe in which they live, and it excites them to know more about it. Try to discover this excitement for yourself.


No, evolution was created by people who tried to explain creation without a Creator.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 385
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#937 Postby Pahu » January 16th, 2018, 4:10 pm

Tetenterre wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Tetenterre wrote:Hey, Pahu, since you've managed to survive Saturnalia, perhaps you can clear up a few biblical queries I have?

What day did Jesus die on? Was it the day before the Passover meal (John 19 xiv) or after the Passover meal (Mark 14 i-ii)?


He died on Passover day which began at sundown.
That's not what the gospels say, though, is it?


That is exactly what they say:

Matthew 26:18 And He said, "Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, 'The Teacher says, "My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at your house with My disciples." ' " 20 When evening had come, He sat down with the twelve.

Mark 14:14 Wherever he goes in, say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says, "Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?" ' 17 In the evening He came with the twelve.

Luke 22:11 Then you shall say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says to you, "Where is the guest room where I may eat the Passover with My disciples?" '

Luke 22:15 Then He said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 385
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#938 Postby Pahu » January 16th, 2018, 4:19 pm

Ape-Men? 6

For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. This false idea was based upon some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets (v). Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest that they were humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than people today (w). Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human. Artists’ drawings of “ape-men,” especially their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence (x).

Furthermore, the techniques used to date these fossils are highly questionable. [See pages 36-42]

v. Francis Ivanhoe, “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?” Nature, Vol. 227, 8 August 1970, pp. 577–578.

William L. Straus Jr. and A. J. E. Cave, “Pathology and the Posture of Neanderthal Man,” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 32, December, 1957, pp. 348–363.

Bruce M. Rothschild and Pierre L. Thillaud, “Oldest Bone Disease,” Nature, Vol. 349, 24 January 1991, p. 288.

w. Jack Cuozzo, Buried Alive: The Startling Truth about Neanderthal Man (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 1998).

Jack Cuozzo, “Early Orthodontic Intervention: A View from Prehistory,” The Journal of the New Jersey Dental Association, Vol. 58, No. 4, Autumn 1987, pp. 33–40.

x. Boyce Rensberger, “Facing the Past,” Science 81, October 1981, p. 49.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3227
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#939 Postby Tetenterre » January 16th, 2018, 4:59 pm

Pahu wrote:
Tetenterre wrote:
Pahu wrote:
He died on Passover day which began at sundown.
That's not what the gospels say, though, is it?


That is exactly what they say:

Oh dear, Pahu! Did you really think that I wouldn't that you dodged my question: "What day did Jesus die on?" and instead answered one I didn't ask, i.e. "When was the passover meal eaten?". You also somehow omitted to mention John 19 xiv "It was the day of Preparation of the Passover (i.e. the day before); If as Mark says, he died at 3pm, it was not on the day of the Passover, which didn't begin till dusk.

We also have a discrepancy between Mark 15 xxxvii-xxxviii which has the temple veil being torn after Jesus died and Luke 23 xlv which has it being torn before. Can't both be true! (well, of course, none of it is true, but that's a different point.)
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6294
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#940 Postby animist » January 17th, 2018, 5:35 pm

motherofheathens wrote:I'm new to the forum, and I'm going to jump right in here!

Hey Pahu! I was you a few years ago. I did a report in my Southern Baptist middle school about how evolution was a big conspiracy theory and creation was the only real way that made sense. I got straight A's.

Since then, I have read many books on astronomy, biology, chemistry, and whatnot that first gave me the clue that the whole Bible timeline might be a little off. Sometimes I would read something that I would think fit into my little box of religion, and I would feel empowered. Eventually, I decided that Genesis should be loosely interpreted to mean each "day" meant millions or billions of years. I mean, God told this to shepherds. How were they supposed to understand that? Maybe they were confused when they wrote it down. Evolution made too much sense to me when I finally read about it from credible sources. I know other people have suggested this, but Richard Dawkins explains evolution beautifully.

Believe in God if you want. But you can understand evolution at the same time. You have obviously come to this forum to convert some peeps. Maybe it is your ministry? It has always bothered me the way Christians are ready to discount science when it does not fit inside your little, tiny box. This has larger implications for society as a whole, and that is one reason we are in the state we are at this time. There are many prominent Christians that believe in evolution. The age of the internet is a savior and curse. You can post all these websites that align with your preconceived beliefs. It is this slippery slope that has led to the dumbing down of society.

You have a distrust of science. If a government agency or an academic conveys knowledge that does not align with your beliefs, you distrust them. Suddenly, the CDC, the EPA, Health and Human Services, scientists, doctors, universities are not only wrong but they are actively against you. This mindset is causing a rift in our society.

This long rant comes down to this: evolution was discovered and studied by men and women who love the universe in which they live, and it excites them to know more about it. Try to discover this excitement for yourself.
I think that this is an excellent challenge to Pahu, and can relate to some of it personally. I was on the Theologica forum for several years, and it was interesting to see the different ways that evangelicals reacted to the challenge of science and evolution. One of the most fundy of the fundies, someone called Marv, subscribed to the notion that "days" meant millions of years (as do the Jehovah Witnesses). So, looking at Pahu's rejoinder to your attack on this gloss on the Bible, I must conclude that he outfundies the Theologica fundies because he will not even move this far from a literalist interpretation of the Bible - he insists that "day" means "day" and nothing else! I am glad that you mention conspiracy theories, since the need to posit a conspiracy theory IMO casts doubt on the reliability of any world viewpoint, not just the fundamentalist Xian one, and I also think that you are right when you suggest that willingness to implicate all others who disagree with you in some sort of conspiracy is a depressing and possibly dangerous trend in modern society

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 385
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#941 Postby Pahu » January 17th, 2018, 8:13 pm

Fossil Man



Bones of modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to evolve. Examples include the Castenedolo skeletons (a), Reck’s skeleton (b), and possibly others  (c). Remains such as the Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszöllos fossil present similar problems (d). Evolutionists almost always ignore these remains.

a. Bowden, pp. 78–79.

Frank W. Cousins, Fossil Man (Imsworth, England: A. E. Norris & Sons Ltd., 1971), pp. 50–52, 82, 83.

W. H. B., “Alleged Discovery of An Ancient Human Skull in California,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 2, 1866, p. 424.

Edward C. Lain and Robert E. Gentet, “The Case for the Calaveras Skull,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 33, March 1997, pp. 248–256.

For many years, a story circulated that the Calaveras skull, buried 130 feet below ground, was a practical joke. This tidy explanation conveniently overlooks the hundreds of human bones and artifacts (such as spearheads, mortars and pestles, and dozens of bowls made of stone) found in that part of California. These artifacts have been found over the years under undisturbed strata and a layer of basaltic lava that evolutionists would date at 25 million years old—too old to be human.  See, for example:
Whitney, pp. 262–264, 266, 274–276.

G. Frederick Wright, Man and the Glacial Period (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1897), pp. 294–301.

George F. Becker, “Antiquities from under Tuolumne Table Mountain in California,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 2, 20 February 1891, pp. 189–200.

b. Bowden, pp. 78–79.

Cousins and Whitney state that the Calaveras was fossilized. This does not mean that it was pre-flood. Fossilization depends on chemistry much more than time. Cousins, pp. 48-50, 81.

Sir Arthur Keith correctly stated the dilemma evolutionists face with the Castenedolo skeletons:

“As the student of prehistoric man reads and studies the records of the ‘Castenedolo’ find, a feeling of incredulity rises within him. He cannot reject the discovery as false without doing an injury to his sense of truth, and he cannot accept it as a fact without shattering his accepted beliefs.” Arthur Keith, [i]The Antiquity of Man (London: Williams and Norgate, Ltd., 1925), p. 334.

However, after examining the strata above and below the Castenedolo skeletons, and after finding no indication that they were intrusively buried, Keith surprisingly concluded that the enigma must be resolved by an intrusive burial. He justified this by citing the unfossilized condition of the bones. However, these bones were encased in a clay layer. Clay would prevent water from transporting large amounts of dissolved minerals into the bone cells and explain the lack of fossilization. Again, fossilization depends much more on chemistry than age.

c. Bowden, pp. 183–193.

d. Ibid., pp. 79–88.

e. Fix, pp. 98–105.

J. B. Birdsell, Human Evolution (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972), pp. 316–318.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.


Return to “Sciences and pseudo-science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest