Posted on 06/09/2017 11:01:38 AM PDT by fishtank
June 8, 2017 | David F. Coppedge
Stop the Presses! Human Evolution Falsified!
Human bones found in Morocco undermine almost everything that has been taught about human evolution since Darwin. But is that news? Happens every year, doesn’t it?
This news is so hot, we have to get the word out now and wait for a fuller analysis later. Evolutionary paleoanthropology is in big trouble, if a new find in Morocco is as important as the news are making it out to be. Announced in Nature this week, the discoverers are dating bones from five individuals at over 300,000 Darwin Years old – over 100,000 years older than when they thought modern humans first began to emerge. And it was found in northern Africa – not at Olduvai Gorge or in some South African cave where most of the attention has been focused. Added to that, the discoverers found stone tools and chemical evidence of cooking, and are saying these people probably lived all over Africa at the same time!
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
Sorry to hear of your misfortune.
Mr mm broke a hip years ago and it was just one and he was in good condition when it happened, and young by broken hip standards, and I remember what a long recovery it was even for him.
Creation science and the people who believe it are much more mature than you seem to think. The 1st link below only works indirectly now [by copying/pasting the web address] because they added an audio introductory summary.
The facts continue to pile-up in favor of creation not evolution. And creationists are interested in science - as long as the integrity is maintained by following the scientific method - rather than claiming some science is proven or settled. The best scientific theories are based on predictions that have been shown to be true, but evolution, like it’s cousin global-warming, has failed miserably in the predictions department.
Do you know what Darwin predicted? And then claimed that without it, his theory completely falls apart?
Fossil also support creation much more so than evolution. For instance please use evolution to explain polystrate [tree] fossils that show growth through strata that evolutionists claim covers multiple millions of years.
Even Sir Isaac Newton, continually voted the greatest scientist of all, believed in a young Earth and Universe.
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
See my post #142 for some links to more facts that evolution science chooses not to discuss. Creation scientists have performed numerous blind radio-isotope tests and found the results vary widely between the different father/daughter elements used.
For all intents and purposes the Earth IS considered a closed system. AND the entropy laws [not theory] have been proven many times and in many ways hence that is why they are laws.
The eruption of Mt. Saint Helens in 1980 blows big gaping holes in your views of uniformitarianism - the bigger the catastrophe the more impossible for evolution to explain these non-conformities.
Incidentally this free online book was also fist published in 1980. Maybe you should read the ‘other’ side of these arguments if you want to improve your debating skills?
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
“No. Not all theories are as well documented or as empirically provable as relativity.”
Of course not. Which makes them weaker theories and more likely to be incorrect in some of their basic assumptions and conjectures. However, many of those theories at least have a hope of experimental confirmation in the future, while evolution really has very little hope of that.
“Science in general accepts evolution because it seems to answer the objective facts as we see them as best as we are able to explain it. It’s just the best way to explain biological diversity so far.”
Scientists accept it because it appeals to their existing biases and assumptions, and they defend it despite the inability to confirm it through the scientific method because they would rather dress up philosophy as science than say “we don’t know”.
“It’s not up to a theory to explain all inconsistencies that inevitably arise.”
Lack of skepticism of a theory that produces inconsistencies is a sign that you aren’t doing science anymore, but defending orthodoxy for orthodoxy’s sake.
Let’s not get confused between the issue of age of the earth and the issue of Intelligent Design (creation) vs. Darwinism - they are two separate issues.
(Also, let’s not confuse the issue of evolution within an animal group with the issue of Darwinism. There is plenty of evidence of evolution within a major animal group, but of course, that is a separate issue from the Darwinist claim of the origin of the animal group itself. Darwinists love to confuse those two issues.)
The age of the earth which is probably billions or trillions years old, is a separate issue from the intelligent design (ID) of our current living things including man. (True science is a friend of the Bible which suggests man and current living things are about 6000 years old. True science and history has not contradicted that although there have been many fraudulent attempts to do so.)
But “age” is a different issue than “origin”. The Bible says today’s living things including man were intelligently created by an Intelligent Designer - Creator God - while Darwinism claims all living things evolved by themselves from a single organism.
To prove something in science or in law, you need the weight of evidence somewhere between a preponderance (over 50% in favor) up to the weight of evidence being so overwhelming it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Evidence of ID is overwhelming - it is countless and everywhere, beginning with the purposeful makeup one’s own body, its DNA and all the intricate parts that work individually and together that make up a multi-functioning body. Proof of purposeful and intricate design is proof of an Intelligent Designer.
Proof of the requirements of Darwinism which requires 1) a suspension of the second law of thermodynamics and 2) transference between animal groups, is nowhere. True science stands against Darwinism and calls it unscientific and a myth. Darwinism is a lie and one of the great hoaxes of the modern era. As I said earlier, Darwinism is dead they just don’t know it yet.
“no physical evidence in geology, physics, chemistry, etc. contradicts this assumption”
Lack of contradiction of an assumption isn’t the same as experimental confirmation.
“it is support by overwhelming observations”
If your assumption is correct, we’ve only been able to observe a statistically insignificant portion of the potential data, so that statement is meaningless.
“Have we ever witnessed a species changing into another because of random genetic mutations?”
If you define “species” to include fruit flies that are slightly different than other fruit flies, or birds that are exactly the same except for a slightly different shaped beak, then sure.
If you are talking about one group of animals giving rise to another of a radically different form that are genetically incompatible with their forebears, then no.
“Creationists don’t believe in fossils.”
Who told you that?
“For all intents and purposes the Earth IS considered a closed system.”
I’m a creationist, but this is simply not true. The earth constantly receives energy from the sun, so it cannot be considered a closed system, anymore than a cupcake inside an oven can be considered a closed system.
Only if our planet were floating in deep space far from any external source of energy would it be feasible to consider it to be a closed system.
I’m not confusing one with the other. Evolution needs long ages to maintain even a slight appearance to truth.
The age of anything becomes harder and harder to prove the older the age that is claimed. The scientific method should only rely on predictions, observations and experiments if integrity is to be valued upmost. Predictions, observations and experiments become increasingly impossible and implausible the longer the age ‘assigned’.
‘Assigned’ ages because that is exactly what they are doing, simply circular logic where the dirt defines the age of the fossils and the fossils define the age of the dirt. They want and need long ages therefore that is what they ‘found’ with radio-isotopes even though the radio-isotopes do not agree with each other.
If one trusts the Bible for the life creation account then one must also trust the Bible regarding death and decay - only entered into our world with the original sin - so it completely refutes any idea of long ages. There’s simply no way for life to be dying and transforming life in to new forms when viewed from the Biblical account.
That same Bible also provides ancestry of who begot who and at what ages. Bishop Usher added these up to 4,004 BC while Sir Isaac Newton calculated 3,992 years BC. Adding 2017 years take us slightly beyond 6,000 years, but the keepers of the Talmud tradition have us at 5,778 years since the creation week. Although these ages are not in complete agreement they do indeed all support a very young age for the Earth and Universe.
Micro-evolution [changes within the same kind] is both Biblically and scientifically supported although most avoid the term evolution b/c macro-evolution [change from one kind into another kind] has zero support both Biblically and scientifically. There are no transitional fossils where Darwin claimed there would have to be thousands upon thousands to support his theory.
From your argument I can only conclude you have read loads of evolutionary ‘science’ while studying little if any scientific laws and how they came to be referred to as laws rather than mere theories.
The 4 Theromodynamic Laws have been shown to be true and verifiable due to copious amounts of scientific experimentation. Call it an isolated system if you have a problem with closed but either way the Earth and Sun are and will continue to both completely devolve rather than the Sun turning our Earth into a more highly ordered planet.
Heck, even mankind [applying intelligent work] is doing more to aid devolution rather than evolution of our planet.
Mt. St. Helens was a rather common explosive volcano. The “stratification” that creationists point to was the result of repetitive pyroclastic flows in a short period of time. Pinatubo had similar flows without the lahar mud flows causing “instant” erosion. St. Helens does nothing to advance the creationist arguements. Been there, seen that.
If all the observations support my hypothesis, it seems to validate it.
Although these ages are not in complete agreement they do indeed all support a very young age for the Earth and Universe.
How so?
Micro-evolution [changes within the same kind] is both Biblically and scientifically supported although most avoid the term evolution
Within the Intelligent Design (ID) group we both belong, yes, but Darwinists love to confuse the two concepts (micro vs. macro-evolution), so I nip it in the bud right at the start. (Darwinists also love to confuse the "age vs. origin" thing which is why I also nip that one in the bud.)
“Call it an isolated system if you have a problem with closed but either way the Earth and Sun are and will continue to both completely devolve rather than the Sun turning our Earth into a more highly ordered planet.”
You weren’t talking about “the Earth and Sun”, you were talking only about the earth. That is called “moving the goalposts”. The fact is that the earth isn’t a closed system by any definition because it continually receives an input of energy from outside the earth. Therefore you can’t apply the 2nd law of thermodynamics to the earth as if it were a closed system. It’s a bad argument, and you can’t save it by making more bad arguments, such as the one you are trying to switch to now.
If you want to talk about the earth+sun system, then you can apply the 2nd law to a high degree, however you can only use it to make conclusions about the system as a whole, not one part of the system. Thus, you cannot say “the earth will devolve”, you can only say “the earth plus sun system will devolve”, which is of course true, but it tells us nothing about the state of the earth itself.
“If all the observations support my hypothesis, it seems to validate it.”
Not really, since as I said, if your thesis is true, your observations are limited to a statistically insignificant sample.
Besides, I think you’re overstating the amount of support actual observations give to your hypothesis. Some of the main propositions of evolution are still completely unobserved. Filling in those gaps with conjecture is not the same as actual observation.
ha ha ha
That is not moving the goalposts since both are devolving [and you even agreed!] - weak debate point at best - I did not change the argument only shed more light on it. So please tell us how the sunlight [this is not directed work btw] is specifically causing more order on the Earth [more plant and animal life is not more order]. The Earth can not be both evolving and devolving at the same time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.