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
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

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

Latest post of the previous page:

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.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6356
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#942 Postby animist » January 18th, 2018, 12:18 pm

Pahu wrote:
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.. Evolutionists almost always ignore these remains.
probably the reason is that these discoveries were so long ago and in such untrustworthy circumstances that they are not reliable from the POV of modern archaeology. I just chekt out the first one that you mention, where the discovery was in 1860, just one year after Darwin's famous book!: http://www.badarchaeology.com/out-of-pl ... olo-skull/

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#943 Postby Pahu » January 18th, 2018, 10:00 pm

animist wrote:
Pahu wrote:
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.. Evolutionists almost always ignore these remains.
probably the reason is that these discoveries were so long ago and in such untrustworthy circumstances that they are not reliable from the POV of modern archaeology. I just chekt out the first one that you mention, where the discovery was in 1860, just one year after Darwin's famous book!: http://www.badarchaeology.com/out-of-pl ... olo-skull/


And of course you reject Darwin's notions for the same reason.

The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Are Polar Ice Sheets Only 4500 Years Old?

Unnecessary text and graphic deleted by admin

http://www.icr.org/article/120/390
Last edited by Alan H on January 18th, 2018, 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Tsk, tsk, Pahu.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6356
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#944 Postby animist » January 18th, 2018, 10:27 pm

Pahu wrote:
animist wrote:
Pahu wrote:
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.. Evolutionists almost always ignore these remains.
probably the reason is that these discoveries were so long ago and in such untrustworthy circumstances that they are not reliable from the POV of modern archaeology. I just chekt out the first one that you mention, where the discovery was in 1860, just one year after Darwin's famous book!: http://www.badarchaeology.com/out-of-pl ... olo-skull/


And of course you reject Darwin's notions for the same reason.

Darwin's thought was based on a large number of discoveries. I don't see the discoverer of this single skeleton opining that it disproved Darwin's thesis, do you? To quote the end of this piece: "A radiocarbon date obtained on the ribs in 1969 confirmed the recent date of the skull, with a determination of 958±116 bp (847-1271 Cal AD; BM-496); the presence of a second skeleton in a grave makes it likely that Ragazzoni had unknowingly stumbled upon a forgotten medieval cemetery"

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#945 Postby Pahu » January 19th, 2018, 3:07 pm

animist wrote:
Pahu wrote:
animist wrote:probably the reason is that these discoveries were so long ago and in such untrustworthy circumstances that they are not reliable from the POV of modern archaeology. I just chekt out the first one that you mention, where the discovery was in 1860, just one year after Darwin's famous book!: http://www.badarchaeology.com/out-of-pl ... olo-skull/


And of course you reject Darwin's notions for the same reason.

Darwin's thought was based on a large number of discoveries. I don't see the discoverer of this single skeleton opining that it disproved Darwin's thesis, do you? To quote the end of this piece: "A radiocarbon date obtained on the ribs in 1969 confirmed the recent date of the skull, with a determination of 958±116 bp (847-1271 Cal AD; BM-496); the presence of a second skeleton in a grave makes it likely that Ragazzoni had unknowingly stumbled upon a forgotten medieval cemetery"


Except they are found in strata that is millions of years old according to evolutionists. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Unnecessary graphic and copy and pasted text deleted by Admin

Bacteria 'Resurrected' from Greenland Glacier

http://www.icr.org/article/4771/390/
Last edited by Alan H on January 19th, 2018, 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: <yawn>
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#946 Postby Alan H » January 23rd, 2018, 12:55 am

A different topic, but many parallels here for Phau. Amusing if nothing else: What's Wrong With Gay Sex?
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
Tetenterre
Posts: 3229
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#947 Postby Tetenterre » January 23rd, 2018, 10:19 am

Alan H wrote:Amusing if nothing else: What's Wrong With Gay Sex?
:smile:
Reminded me of the "Dear Dr Laura" letter.
Steve

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

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#948 Postby Alan H » January 23rd, 2018, 11:37 am

Tetenterre wrote:
Alan H wrote:Amusing if nothing else: What's Wrong With Gay Sex?
:smile:
Reminded me of the "Dear Dr Laura" letter.
Indeed. And this on The West Wing:

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: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#949 Postby Pahu » January 23rd, 2018, 3:43 pm

Alan H wrote:A different topic, but many parallels here for Phau. Amusing if nothing else: What's Wrong With Gay Sex?


It is a sin, an abomination to God.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#950 Postby Alan H » January 23rd, 2018, 3:51 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:A different topic, but many parallels here for Phau. Amusing if nothing else: What's Wrong With Gay Sex?


It is a sin, an abomination to God.

:hilarity: :hilarity: :hilarity:
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: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#951 Postby Pahu » January 31st, 2018, 3:50 pm

Chemical Elements of Life 1

Unnecessary copy and pasted text deleted by Admin

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

VINDICATOR
Posts: 424
Joined: December 22nd, 2016, 11:07 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#952 Postby VINDICATOR » February 1st, 2018, 2:05 pm

Dear Pahu,
I admire you in your passion to prove evolution is wrong. But why? Even if you could prove that evolution is wrong, it is impossible to prove that the whole universe was created just 6000 years ago as "The Word of God" states. All those fossils of ancient organisms have been dated some as old as millions of years. The Cosmos is proven to be 13.8 billion years old, not a measly 6000 years! Learn something true about astronomy. Don't believe willy nilly in the description of the universe given in a book written by bronze age nomads!

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#953 Postby Pahu » February 1st, 2018, 4:10 pm

VINDICATOR wrote:Dear Pahu,
I admire you in your passion to prove evolution is wrong. But why? Even if you could prove that evolution is wrong, it is impossible to prove that the whole universe was created just 6000 years ago as "The Word of God" states. All those fossils of ancient organisms have been dated some as old as millions of years. The Cosmos is proven to be 13.8 billion years old, not a measly 6000 years! Learn something true about astronomy. Don't believe willy nilly in the description of the universe given in a book written by bronze age nomads!


Those bronze age nomads revealed scientific facts that have just recently been rediscovered. They also accurately predicted the future proving God is the author of the Bible. Dating methods are unreliable. Should I believe the millions and billions of years asserted by men, or the revelation given by God?

Bible Accuracy


1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... bible.html
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

http://www.100prophecies.com/
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophe ... lity-bible
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#954 Postby Alan H » February 1st, 2018, 4:21 pm

Pahu wrote:
VINDICATOR wrote:Dear Pahu,
I admire you in your passion to prove evolution is wrong. But why? Even if you could prove that evolution is wrong, it is impossible to prove that the whole universe was created just 6000 years ago as "The Word of God" states. All those fossils of ancient organisms have been dated some as old as millions of years. The Cosmos is proven to be 13.8 billion years old, not a measly 6000 years! Learn something true about astronomy. Don't believe willy nilly in the description of the universe given in a book written by bronze age nomads!


Those bronze age nomads revealed scientific facts that have just recently been rediscovered. They also accurately predicted the future proving God is the author of the Bible. Dating methods are unreliable. Should I believe the millions and billions of years asserted by men, or the revelation given by God?

Bible Accuracy


1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... bible.html
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

http://www.100prophecies.com/
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophe ... lity-bible
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

:laughter:

You keep saying all that never once realising just how poor and pathetic your 'evidence' is, despite it being pointed out to you.
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?

VINDICATOR
Posts: 424
Joined: December 22nd, 2016, 11:07 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#955 Postby VINDICATOR » February 1st, 2018, 8:21 pm

Dear Pahu,
Your Bible is out of date and is full of mistakes. Even the Pope admits that the Bible has mistakes. The new standard of truth is the Quran! When Islam conquors the World you will have to bow to ALLAH!

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#956 Postby Pahu » February 1st, 2018, 8:52 pm

VINDICATOR wrote:Dear Pahu,
Your Bible is out of date and is full of mistakes. Even the Pope admits that the Bible has mistakes. The new standard of truth is the Quran! When Islam conquors the World you will have to bow to ALLAH!


The Pope is wrong about that. Islam is a false religion.

The Essential Difference Between Christianity and Islam

Unnecessary copy and pasted text deleted by Admin

https://townhall.com/columnists/michael ... t-n2345637
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#957 Postby Pahu » February 8th, 2018, 3:43 pm

Chemical Elements of Life 2

Unnecessary copy and pasted text deleted by Admin

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

VINDICATOR
Posts: 424
Joined: December 22nd, 2016, 11:07 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#958 Postby VINDICATOR » February 9th, 2018, 5:12 am

Dear Pahu,
You say "archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible". Please tell us how archaeology proves that the universe is just 6000 years old as the Bible says.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#959 Postby Alan H » February 9th, 2018, 10:59 am

VINDICATOR wrote:Dear Pahu,
You say "archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible". Please tell us how archaeology proves that the universe is just 6000 years old as the Bible says.
The bible doesn't say the universe is 6,000 years old, of course.
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?

VINDICATOR
Posts: 424
Joined: December 22nd, 2016, 11:07 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#960 Postby VINDICATOR » February 9th, 2018, 1:42 pm

Alan,
The Bible doesn't say explicitly that the universe is 6000 years old. However, By calculating the chronology of all the characters starting from Adam to Jesus and adding on 2000 years gives us approximately 6000 years. Many Biblical scholars have have arrived at the same conclusion. For example you can refer to the following site:

http://biblehub.com/timeline/

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#961 Postby Alan H » February 9th, 2018, 2:24 pm

VINDICATOR wrote:Alan,
The Bible doesn't say explicitly that the universe is 6000 years old. However, By calculating the chronology of all the characters starting from Adam to Jesus and adding on 2000 years gives us approximately 6000 years. Many Biblical scholars have have arrived at the same conclusion. For example you can refer to the following site:

http://biblehub.com/timeline/

Yes, I know. but it's an inference: the bible does not state the universe is 6,000 years old and it requires interpretation of very many things to come up with 6,000 years.
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?


Return to “Sciences and pseudo-science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests