• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Darwin Theory of Evolution has been proven scientifically

Toronto

Alfrescian
Loyal
4. Natural Selection is conservative, not creative.
The concept of natural selection was originally developed by natural theologians, who thought that it worked to preserve distinct created types. Darwin argued that natural selection, if given enough time, could actually create new types. However, field and laboratory observations of natural selection in action confirm that it only changes the relative abundance of certain already-existing characteristics, and doesn’t create new ones. For example, Darwin observed that the average beak size of finches increased in dry years, but later observers noted that this trend reversed in wet years. This is very different than the kind of changes that would be required to transform a finch beak into some other structure or a finch into a completely different kind of animal. In other words, scientific studies of natural selection demonstrate, without exception, that Darwin was wrong.

"New" characters, in most cases, are modifications of pre-existing characters which are altered in size, shape, developmental timing, or organization. This is true at the molecular level as well. Natural selection"creates" such modifications by increasing the frequencies of alleles at several or many loci so that combinations of alleles, initially improbable because of their rarity, become probable. Observations and experiments on both laboratory and natural populations have demonstrated the efficency of natural selection.
 

PUNISHER

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Even The Vatican have Advanced Technology Telescope :wink: to see whether god is up there ? Heheheehehe :wink:
 

Toronto

Alfrescian
Loyal
5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true.
If evolution were true, we should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don’t see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between every major “kind” of life. Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven’t been.

At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers. The exact count is unclear because some lineages of organisms are continuously evolving.
Here is a short list of transitional fossils documented by Prothero and that add to the mountain of evidence for Charles Darwin's theory. A lot of us relate most to fossils of life closely related to humans, so the list focuses on mammals and other vertebrates, including dinosaurs.
Mammals, including us

It is now clear that the evolutionary tree for early and modern humans looks more like a bush than the line represented in cartoons. All the hominid fossils found to date form a complex nexus of specimens, Prothero says, but Sahelanthropus tchadensis, found in 2001 and 2002, threw everyone for a loop because it walked upright 7 million years ago on two feet but is quite chimp-like in its skull size, teeth, brow ridges and face. It could be a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, but many paleoanthropologists will remain unsure until more fossils are found. Previously, the earliest ancestor of our Homo genus found in the fossil record dated back 6 million years.
-Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks, but anatomist Nikos Solounias of the New York Institute of Technology's New York College of Osteopathic Medicine is preparing a description of a giraffe fossil, Bohlinia, with a neck that is intermediate in length.
Manatees, also called sea cows, are marine mammals that have flippers and a down-turned snout for grazing in warm shallow waters. In 2001, scientists discovered the fossil of a "walking manatee," Pezosiren portelli, which had feet rather than flippers and walked on land during the Eocene epoch (54.8 million years ago to 33.7 million years ago) in what is now Jamaica. Along with skull features like manatees (such as horizontal tooth replacement, like a conveyor belt), it also had heavy ribs for ballast, showing that it also had an aquatic lifestyle, like hippos.
Scientists know that mastodons, mammoths and elephants all share a common ancestor, but it gets hard to tell apart some of the earliest members of this group, called proboscideans, going back to fossils from the Oligocene epoch (33.7 million years ago to 23.8 million years ago). The primitive members of this group can be traced back to what Prothero calls "the ultimate transitional fossil," Moeritherium, from the late Eocene of Egypt. It looked more like a small hippo than an elephant and probably lacked a long trunk, but it had short upper and lower tusks, the teeth of a primitive mastodon and ear features found only in other proboscideans.
The Dimetrodon was a big predatory reptile with a tail and a large sail or fin-back. It is often mistaken for a dinosaur, but it's actually part of our mammalian lineage and more closely related to mammals than reptiles, which is seen in its specialized teeth for stabbing meat and skull features that only mammals and their ancestors had. It probably moved around like a lizard and had a jawbone made of multiple bones, like a reptile.


Dinosaurs and birds

The classic fossil of Archaeopteryx, sometimes called the first bird, has a wishbone (fully fused clavicle) which is only found in modern birds and some dinosaurs. But it also shows impressions from feathers on its body, as seen on many of the theropod dinosaurs from which it evolved. Its body, capable of flight or gliding, also had many of dinosaur features - teeth (no birds alive today have teeth), a long bony tail (tails on modern birds are entirely feathers, not bony), long hind legs and toes, and a specialized hand with long bony fingers (unlike modern bird wings in which the fingers are fused into a single element), Prothero said.
Sinornis was a bird that also has long bony fingers and teeth, like those seen in dinosaurs and not seen in modern birds.
Yinlong is a small bipedal dinosaur which shares features with two groups of dinosaurs known to many kids - ceratopsians, the beaked dinosaurs like Triceratops, and pachycephalosaurs, known for having a thick dome of bone in their skulls protecting their brains. Yinlong has the thick rostral bone that is otherwise unique to ceratopsians dinosaurs, and the thick skull roof found in the pachycephalosaurs.
Anchisaurus is a primitive sauropod dinosaur that has a lot of lizard-like features. It was only 8 feet long (the classic sauropods later on could be more than 100-feet long), had a short neck (sauropods are known for their long necks, while lizards are not), and delicate limbs and feet, unlike dinosaurs. Its spine was like that of a sauropod. The early sauropods were bipedal, while the latter were stood on all fours. Anchisaurus was probably capable of both stances, Prothero wrote.


Fish, frogs, turtles

Tiktaalik, aka the fishibian or the fishapod, is a large scaled fish that shows a perfect transition between fins and feet, aquatic and land animals. It had fish-like scales, as well as fish-like fin rays and jaw and mouth elements, but it had a shortened skull roof and mobile neck to catch prey, an ear that could hear in both land and water, and a wrist joint that is like those seen in land animals.
Last year, scientists announced the discovery of Gerobatrachus hottorni, aka the frogamander. Technically, it's a toothed amphibian, but it shows the common origins of frogs and salamanders, scientists say, with a wide skull and large ear drum (like frogs) and two fused ankle bones as seen in salamanders.
A creature on the way to becoming a turtle, Odontochelys semistestacea, swam around in China's coastal waters 200 million years ago. It had a belly shell but its back was basically bare of armor. Odontochelys had an elongated, pointed snout. Most modern turtles have short snouts. In addition, the roof of its mouth, along with the upper and lower jaws, was equipped with teeth, which the researchers said is a primitive feature for turtles whose mugs are now tipped with beaks but contain no teeth.
 

Toronto

Alfrescian
Loyal
5. ... The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between every major “kind” of life. Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven’t been.


  1. The idea that gradual change should appear throughout the fossil record is called phyletic gradualism. It is based on the following tenets:
    1. New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants.
    2. The transformation is even and slow.
    3. The transformation involves most or all of the ancestral population.
    4. The transformation occurs over most or all of the ancestral species' geographic range.

    However, all but the first of these is false far more often that not. Studies of modern populations and incipient species show that new species arise mostly from the splitting of a small part of the original species into a new geographical area. The population genetics of small populations allow this new species to evolve relatively quickly. Its evolution may allow it to spread into new geographical areas. Since the actual transitions occur relatively quickly and in a relatively small area, the transitions do not often show up in the fossil record. Sudden appearance in the fossil record often simply reflects that an existing species moved into a new region.

    Once species are well adapted to an environment, selective pressures tend to keep them that way. A change in the environment that alters the selective pressure would then end the "stasis" (or lead to extinction).

    It should be noted that even Darwin did not expect the rate of evolutionary change to be constant.
    [N]atural selection will generally act very slowly, only at long intervals of time, and only on a few of the inhabitants of the same region. I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed (Darwin 1872, 140-141, chap. 4).​
    "But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification (Darwin 1872, 152).
    It is a more important consideration . . . that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change (Darwin 1872, 428, chap. 10).​
    "it might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life, for instance, to fly through the air; and consequently that the transitional forms would often long remain confined to some one region; but that, when this adaptation had once been effected, and a few species had thus acquired a great advantage over other organisms, a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms, which would spread rapidly and widely throughout the world (Darwin 1872, 433).

  2. The imperfection of the fossil record (due to erosion and periods unfavorable to fossil preservation) also causes gaps, although it probably cannot account for all of them.
  3. Some transitional sequences exist, which, despite an uneven rate of change, still show a gradual continuum of forms.
  4. The fossil record still shows a great deal of change over time. The creationists who make note of the many gaps almost never admit the logical conclusion: If they are due to creation, then there have been hundreds, perhaps even millions, of separate creation events scattered through time.
 

PUNISHER

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.
 

SuperMod

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you’d expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would’ve been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say “this guy”, because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.
No woman could or would ever fuck things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he’s at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn’t give a shit. Doesn’t give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.
 

Toronto

Alfrescian
Loyal
6. Pictures of ape-to-human “missing links” are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists’ already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.
The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be “reconstructed” a hundred different ways. Many supposed “ape-men” are very clearly apes, and most fossils hailed with much fanfare as “missing links” are later quietly reclassified as simply extinct varieties of non-human primates. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called “ape-men” were fully human. The body hair and the blank expressions of the supposedly primitive humans in these models don’t come from the bones, but from the evolutionary assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone’s eyes based on a few old bones. The “missing links” are still missing.

songsongpunggol,
Obviously, you have not read the earlier posts(specifically post #4) or you have read without understanding.

Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea is completely absurd. Science states that monkeys and humans evolved from a shared forefather and are hence relatives, (all primates are) but we are in no way direct descendants of them.

Basically, these creationist Scientists are known for fraudulent deliberate misinformation and very bad science.
 

Toronto

Alfrescian
Loyal
Ten Major Flaws of Evolution - Revised
By Randy Alcorn, Jim Darnall


7. The radioactive dating methods that evolutionists use to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are based on questionable assumptions and give unreliable results.
Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine a rock’s age assume that the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can be accurately estimated, that no isotopes moved into or out of the rock after its formation (closed system), and that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. However, the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can rarely be estimated with reasonable accuracy. In addition, it is commonly acknowledged that hydrothermal fluids (hot, mineral-rich water) often transport both parent and daughter isotopes from one rock to another, invalidating the closed system assumption. In fact, this process is often cited as a reason for rejecting dates that don’t fit the evolutionary timeline. What is not commonly known is that radioactive dating methods usually give a number of different results for the same formation and often even for the same rock! In practice, geologists choose the “correct” age from among these different results based on the age expected from the evolutionary timeline. This is a classic case of circular thinking! Also, different methods give different results, with heavier isotopes consistently giving older ages than lighter isotopes for the same rock. This pattern should not exist if radioactive decay rates have always been the same. Furthermore, lava flows with known historical ages often date as millions or even billions of years old. If radioactive dating methods can be off by so much for rocks of known age, how can they be considered reliable for rocks of unknown age?

songsongpunggol,
You copy the article without understand??



  1. Absolutely closed systems do not exist even under ideal laboratory conditions. Nevertheless, many rocks approximate closed systems so closely that multiple radiometric dating methods produce consistent results, within 1 percent of each other.
  2. Some rocks may be open to outside contamination, but not all of them are. Most ages are determined from multiple mineral and rock samples, which give a consistent date within 1 and 3 percent. It is extremely unlikely that contamination would affect all samples by the same amount.
  3. Isochron methods can detect contamination and, to some extent, correct for it. Isochrons are determined from multiple samples, and contamination would have to affect all of the samples the same way in order to create an isochron that appeared okay but was wrong (see CD002).

    With uranium-lead dating, closure of the system may be tested with a concordia diagram. This takes advantage of the fact that there are two isotopes of uranium ([SUP]238[/SUP]U and [SUP]235[/SUP]U) that decay to different isotopes of lead ([SUP]206[/SUP]Pb and [SUP]207[/SUP]Pb, respectively). If the system has remained closed, then a plot of [SUP]206[/SUP]Pb / [SUP]238[/SUP]U versus [SUP]207[/SUP]Pb / [SUP]235[/SUP]U will fall on a known line called the concordia. Even if samples are discordant, reliable dates can often be derived (Faure 1998, 287-290).
  4. Geochronologists are well aware of the dangers of contamination, and they take pains to minimize it. For example, they do not use weathered samples.
 

Tuayapeh

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
the invention of the scientific method and science , I’m sure we’ll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn’t withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn’t seem to work like that ,it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That’s an idea that religious nuts are so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it’s kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is ‘Here is an idea or a notion that you’re not allowed to say anything bad about it , Why not? – because their storybook tell you not to question about it .
 

currypuff

Alfrescian
Loyal
The Catholic Church also has 13 more books than the bible, kiss the feet of statues (idol worshiping), openly display pagan/ satanic cross/ upside down cross, prays to the intermediary "Virgin Mary" and denounce direct relationship with God. Ask any Catholic basic questions about the bible and you'll draw blank looks.

Matt 13:1-23 Parable of the Sower and Seeds

popecross.jpg

fig1.jpg

bro,
The debate here is clearly on Science not religion. I am not stopping your right to preach your religion but you have to do at the right place. Cheerios!
 

currypuff

Alfrescian
Loyal
They read the bible as a story book and nothing else . They study the bible does not mean they believe in it . Many people read the bible and realized its fake .. Do not assumed those who read the bible are being brainwashed to believe it :wink:

bro,
The debate here is clearly on Science not religion. Cheerios!
 

currypuff

Alfrescian
Loyal
Songsongpunggol,

No one....not even scientists (except perhaps Richard Hawking) has any doubt that information must come from a mind and information, being an immaterial substance cannot be created from nowhere.

Psalm23

Bro Psalm23,
You have an interesting point! Can you provide the source of your information?
 

currypuff

Alfrescian
Loyal
Songsongpunggol,

Your two threats on the "Fatal Flaws of Evolution" speak volume and truly testify that a Creator exits. But, alas, we are not going to see those anti-God reply or make any comments on the two threads.

bro Psalm23,
Are you a pastor? From your writing, you seem like one.

It took more than 300 years for Galileo to clear his name of heresy and anti-god.


Galileo and Darwin
Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun, which was deemed heretical by the Church.

Whereas Galileo spent his last days under house arrest and was formally condemned by the Church for his scientific views, the elder Darwin was widely respected by the Anglican Church and was buried at the Westminster Abbey, an honor reserved for only the most illustrious personages of Great Britain. The reason for the two scientists' very different fortunes is simple: Galileo couldn't prove the Copernican hypothesis but Darwin was able to demonstrate the truth of his theory of evolution.

Psalm23,
I hope you do take note and attention of historic facts while you recite your daily Psalms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
Biblical references Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."
 

currypuff

Alfrescian
Loyal
Pastor psalm23,
Anti-god is a very strong word to use in an open forum. Galileo was once considered anti-god. Please take imprudence in showing respect and tolerance towards others. People are merely debating some controversial scientific findings that happen to relate or perceive to conflict with some religious doctrines. I am anti-nobody but pro humanism.
 

Toronto

Alfrescian
Loyal
bro Psalm23,

It took more than 300 years for Galileo to clear his name of heresy and anti-god.

1. If the Bible is 100% factually accurate, then Galileo is wrong.
2. The Earth revolves around the Sun.
3. Therefore the Bible is not 100% factually accurate.


:smile::smile::smile::smile:
 

Toronto

Alfrescian
Loyal
I bet to drastically differ from your opinion. Many great inventors such as Issac Newton, Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Alexandra Fleming were strong believer of the God of the Bible. In fact, quite unknown to many people, Sir Issac Newton spent most later part of his years studying Bible and writing papers relating to theology than science. In terms of Noble Prize winners for science, the Jews even though have small population (in relations to other races) dominated the awards. Jews, as many us knew, are strong believers of the Old Testament and even till this day, many orthodox Jews strongly subscribed to the teaching of the Torah and many are practicing what the Torah teaches them.

So, get your facts right!

Charles Darwin was an Anglican priest under the Church of England. Why are you still having issue with Darwin, when most of the mainline churches and clergy have already accepted him?
 

Toronto

Alfrescian
Loyal
In terms of Noble Prize winners for science, the Jews even though have small population (in relations to other races) dominated the awards. Jews, as many us knew, are strong believers of the Old Testament and even till this day, many orthodox Jews strongly subscribed to the teaching of the Torah and many are practicing what the Torah teaches them.

So, get your facts right!

The greatest jewish scientist Albert Einstein was not a christian or believer of the torah teachings.

Albert Einstein: "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls"
 
Last edited:
Top