Bible Discussion: Genetics Show No Proof Of Evolution

Genetics Show No Proof Of Evolution
Posts: 32

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

IknowHimDoYou
2003-12-12 11:06:16 EST
Genetics Show No Proof of Evolution

There is no evidence, fossil or living, that shows one kind(dog) turning
into another kind(cat). This is a fact. The very fact that genetic
material and function is so complex even in the most primary life should
show a thinking person that it could not possible to come about by random
chance over long periods of time. All genetic material has a function and
therefore a specific design-this means a Designer(747s don't assemble
themselves out of a junk yard in the normal mind-they do if you swollow
the fairy tales of evolution though).

The fossil record reveals an abrupt appearence of highly complex
creatures-whether they are trilobites or whales-followed by stasis(no
change- for you self appointed scientists here). Science done in the
laboratory(observational evidence-for you inadequetly educated mouthpieces
of evolution) clearly shows there are natural limits to biological
change. There simply is no indication of radical
change(macroevolution-for you indoctrinated slaves to what you have been
told) that Darwin demands.

Are fossils a fact-yes. Do they show infinite changes over time-no. Do
they need long periods of time to form-no. Some fossils show fish eating
other fish and some show dolphin-like animals delivering their babies
while being fossilized. As a matter of fact, fossils can be made in the
laboratory using pressures of 10,000-12,000 psi almost instantaneously.

There are fossils that show animals and plants(even jelly fish) that are
identical to those living today. Evolutionists date these fossils to
50-90 million years ago, yet here they are with absolutly no changes in
all that time(makes one wonder about how they determine these long times
doesn't it?).

Has the fossil record been tampered with-yes. By whom? By the
evolutionists of course. Piltdown man, Java man, Lucy, Neanderthal skulls,
birds, fish and many others over time have been doctored or parts either
excluded or included that did not belong to the orginal specimens. An
example is the Meuseum of Man(Musee de Homo-Paris) that shows a
Neanderthal skull reconstructed where the jaw bone doen't even come close
to the joint location near the ear. This was done to make the specimen
look more ape like and thousands of children, let along adults, file by
this display and are convinced they are actually apes themselves.

Evolution is a fraud and has caused millions to be murdered because
others(those who have accepted the lie that all people are not the same)
thought they were a less desirable species..

This is a fact-your feet will go where your thinking is..

If you accept the lie of evolution life doesn't have any meaning or value.

If you accept the reality of a loving God speaking His creation into being
you know that life is special and His crowning creation-man-is of
tremedous value.

--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas

Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?

Matt Silberstein
2003-12-12 11:50:40 EST
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
I*m@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou):

>Genetics Show No Proof of Evolution
>
>There is no evidence, fossil or living, that shows one kind(dog) turning
>into another kind(cat).

As you have been asked many times, what is the operational
definition of "kind"? Not an example of two organisms that are
not the same kind, but the definition.

> This is a fact.

I agree. Unfortunately for you the theory of evolution does not
say that one kind turned into another. What it says is that
organism in a population had offspring that differed just a bit.
And those offspring had offspring that differed a bit more. And
so on for generations and that after some time the resultant
offspring differed so much that we give them different names
(cat, dog).

> The very fact that genetic
>material and function is so complex even in the most primary life should
>show a thinking person that it could not possible to come about by random
>chance over long periods of time.

The origin of life is a different question than the subsequent
divergence. Of course no scientist says that life arose by just
random chance.

> All genetic material has a function and
>therefore a specific design

Can you define "design"? Does it mean anything but "what
something does"?

>-this means a Designer(747s don't assemble
>themselves out of a junk yard in the normal mind-they do if you swollow
>the fairy tales of evolution though).

But amino acids do assemble themselves.

>The fossil record reveals an abrupt appearence of highly complex
>creatures-whether they are trilobites or whales-followed by stasis(no
>change- for you self appointed scientists here).

Not always and the record is very sparse. Luckily we have other
evidence as well.

> Science done in the
>laboratory(observational evidence-for you inadequetly educated mouthpieces
>of evolution) clearly shows there are natural limits to biological
>change.

There may be limits, but all current life is within those
limits.

> There simply is no indication of radical
>change(macroevolution-for you indoctrinated slaves to what you have been
>told) that Darwin demands.

Sure there is.

>Are fossils a fact-yes. Do they show infinite changes over time-no.

No just enough change to account for what we see.

> Do
>they need long periods of time to form-no.

Do they need long periods of time for all of them to form in the
layers we find them? Yes.

> Some fossils show fish eating
>other fish and some show dolphin-like animals delivering their babies
>while being fossilized.

Which says nothing about how long the fossil takes to form. If a
fish is buried in a landslide the fossil forms under the mud in
whatever position it was in.

> As a matter of fact, fossils can be made in the
>laboratory using pressures of 10,000-12,000 psi almost instantaneously.

I would love to see the reference for this.

>There are fossils that show animals and plants(even jelly fish) that are
>identical to those living today.

Identical?

> Evolutionists date these fossils to
>50-90 million years ago, yet here they are with absolutly no changes in
>all that time(makes one wonder about how they determine these long times
>doesn't it?).

You mean no visible change in the fossil. I doubt you claim
fossils show all details of an organism.

[snip]



Dave Oldridge
2003-12-12 12:06:17 EST
I*m@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-1212030806160001@pm3-43.kalama.com:

> Genetics Show No Proof of Evolution
>
> There is no evidence, fossil or living, that shows one kind(dog)
> turning into another kind(cat). This is a fact. The very fact that

Who told you THIS lie? There is a good sampling of fossils to a common,
carnivorous ancestor. Moreover there is genetic evidence supporting such
descent. Why are you lying in God's name? Who told you these lies?

> genetic material and function is so complex even in the most primary
> life should show a thinking person that it could not possible to come
> about by random chance over long periods of time. All genetic
> material has a function and therefore a specific design-this means a
> Designer(747s don't assemble themselves out of a junk yard in the
> normal mind-they do if you swollow the fairy tales of evolution
> though).

747's do not have self-assembling parts (chemicals do). And there are
WAY more than 200 of them. You see, God actually made the universe in
such a fashion that infinite complexity can emerge easily from a simple
iteration (see the Mandelbrodt set, which, from a simple iteration
produces a figure that has a finite area and an infinitely long,
infinitely complex perimiter).

> The fossil record reveals an abrupt appearence of highly complex
> creatures-whether they are trilobites or whales-followed by stasis(no
> change- for you self appointed scientists here). Science done in the

This is, at best, a half truth. For example humans appear LONG after a
host of highly complex creatures, the vast majority of which have come
and gone, long, song before.

> laboratory(observational evidence-for you inadequetly educated
> mouthpieces of evolution) clearly shows there are natural limits to
> biological change. There simply is no indication of radical
> change(macroevolution-for you indoctrinated slaves to what you have
> been told) that Darwin demands.

No it doesn't. It shows that there are natural limits to the RATE of
biological change. In fact, though, it shows that those limits are well
above what is actually observed in the fossil record. This is why we can
improve crops faster than insects can catch up by irradiating seeds to
force up the mutation rate.

> Are fossils a fact-yes. Do they show infinite changes over time-no.

Nobody has suggested that they would.

> Do they need long periods of time to form-no. Some fossils show fish

But the evidence is clear that fossils have been in the ground for
periods of time varying from three quarters of a billion years to
(geologically speaking) just yesterday.

> eating other fish and some show dolphin-like animals delivering their
> babies while being fossilized. As a matter of fact, fossils can be
> made in the laboratory using pressures of 10,000-12,000 psi almost
> instantaneously.

That's nice. But it does not show that all fossils were made at one
time.
>
> There are fossils that show animals and plants(even jelly fish) that
> are identical to those living today. Evolutionists date these fossils
> to 50-90 million years ago, yet here they are with absolutly no
> changes in all that time(makes one wonder about how they determine
> these long times doesn't it?).

Again, this is at best a half-truth. In fact very few ancient fossils
are of organisms completely identical to their modern counterparts.

> Has the fossil record been tampered with-yes. By whom? By the
> evolutionists of course. Piltdown man, Java man, Lucy, Neanderthal

And here you calmly slide right over the line into outright false
witness. Surely you realize that Piltdown is the only questionable (and
it was questioned by scientists, not creationist yammerheads like you)
hominin fossil you mentioned here. That, sir means that you are
deliberately lying to deceive (or your teachers are). You should, if you
have been told this lie by someone, fully distance yourself from that
person spiritually. From the moment you read this post, you are,
yourself responsible for this lie until you retract it in these same
echoes and repent the sin involved. Until I see evidence of that,
perhaps we should restrict these discussions to character issues, since
it appears that you are, at best, deluded and, at worst, a deceiving,
conniving liar, attempting to force your theology on others by deception.

> skulls, birds, fish and many others over time have been doctored or
> parts either excluded or included that did not belong to the orginal
> specimens. An example is the Meuseum of Man(Musee de Homo-Paris) that
> shows a Neanderthal skull reconstructed where the jaw bone doen't even
> come close to the joint location near the ear. This was done to make
> the specimen look more ape like and thousands of children, let along
> adults, file by this display and are convinced they are actually apes
> themselves.

Hmmph. Neanderthals are NOT considered that apelike by most
paleoanthropologists. The one feature that really distinguishes them
from other humans is their very heavy brow ridge. It is possible even
more prominent than that of our common ancestor, homo erectus (though
both erectus and neandertalis have the feature).

> Evolution is a fraud and has caused millions to be murdered because
> others(those who have accepted the lie that all people are not the
> same) thought they were a less desirable species..

Creationism is not only a fraud, it is a religious heresy, designed by
the devil, in my opinion, to lead well-meaning but ignorant Christians
into paths of unrighteousness and involve them in a futile and irrelevant
crusade against science to the point where they forget their salvation
and become crusade-worshippers. It is, in fact, an abomination in the
sight of the Most Holy God and will, when the end comes be erased from
the face of reality.

> This is a fact-your feet will go where your thinking is..

And yours go to the cult bookstore to buy books of lies and videos of
liars, no doubt.

> If you accept the lie of evolution life doesn't have any meaning or
> value.

If you accept the lie of young-earth creationism, TRUTH doesn't have any
meaning or value. And life is simply there to serve the lie.

> If you accept the reality of a loving God speaking His creation into
> being you know that life is special and His crowning creation-man-is
> of tremedous value.

And how is this reality of a loving God speaking His creation into being
necessarily in conflict with the earth and the seas actually doing what
He commanded and bringing forth life like He said? It is YOUR
misinterpretation of scripture that has God directly creating life. And
it is your reification of holy writ that makes Genesis into a
battleground for your heresy against all scientific observations.

YOUR theory: God created everything by magick 6000 years ago (give or
take a few hundred years). The entire fossil record was created by a
flood a mere 4500 years ago.

Consequences of your theory:

1. The universe should appear as a sphere, 6000 light years (give or
take a few hundred) in radius centered on us. We should see creation
happening at the outer edge. (Note that 6000 light years is a trivial
distance for today's telescopes to see stars and dust clouds and even
detect planets orbiting such stars).

2. The isotope ratios of rocks should show the same young age.
Isochrons should be essentially flat, horizontal lines.

3. The fossil record should be hydraulically sorted and should not show
any phylogenetic zonation.

I could go on, but each of these three predictions has failed. So why
are you still pushing this theory? Not because it's science, but because
you have been told that it is good religion. Someone is leading you
badly astray. It is NEVER good religion to lie about things.

--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667

Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.

Shan
2003-12-12 14:36:53 EST
I*m@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in message news:<IknowHim-1212030806160001@pm3-43.kalama.com>...
> Genetics Show No Proof of Evolution
>
> There is no evidence, fossil or living, that shows one kind(dog) turning

Congratulations. You graduate with Ph.D. in B.S.

Shan

Michael
2003-12-12 16:58:15 EST
In article <71bd538c.0312121136.494f02f2@posting.google.com>,
s*s@yahoo.com (Shan) wrote:

> IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in message
news:<IknowHim-1212030806160001@pm3-43.kalama.com>...
> > Genetics Show No Proof of Evolution
> >
> > There is no evidence, fossil or living, that shows one kind(dog) turning
>
> Congratulations. You graduate with Ph.D. in B.S.

Quite a compliment, coming from your religious perspective. Rather than
ad hominem the writer, try addressing the issue. what is the specific and
particular evidence, fossil or living, that shows that one kind such as a
dog and another kind such as a cat have a common ancestor and not a common
Creator?

Alberich
2003-12-12 17:17:38 EST
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:58:15 GMT, mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael)
wrote:

>what is the specific and
>particular evidence, fossil or living, that shows that one kind such as a
>dog and another kind such as a cat have a common ancestor and not a common
>Creator?

What is the specific and particular scientific evidence, fossil or
living, that shows that one species, such as a dog and another species
such as a cat have a common Creator and not a common ancestor?

Alberich


Mvillanu
2003-12-12 18:29:48 EST
Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message news:<Xns944F5C9F1F52Adoldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211>...
> IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
> news:IknowHim-1212030806160001@pm3-43.kalama.com:
>
[snip]
>
> You see, God actually made the universe in
> such a fashion that infinite complexity can emerge easily from a simple
> iteration (see the Mandelbrodt set, which, from a simple iteration
> produces a figure that has a finite area and an infinitely long,
> infinitely complex perimiter).
>

Isn't this the Koch curve? Or does the Mandelbrot do this as well?

Matt Silberstein
2003-12-12 18:55:29 EST
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
m*u@hotmail.com (mvillanu):

>Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message news:<Xns944F5C9F1F52Adoldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211>...
>> IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
>> news:IknowHim-1212030806160001@pm3-43.kalama.com:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> You see, God actually made the universe in
>> such a fashion that infinite complexity can emerge easily from a simple
>> iteration (see the Mandelbrodt set, which, from a simple iteration
>> produces a figure that has a finite area and an infinitely long,
>> infinitely complex perimiter).
>>
>
>Isn't this the Koch curve? Or does the Mandelbrot do this as well?

Many curves can do this.



Steve Zodiac
2003-12-12 19:44:07 EST

"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-1212030806160001@pm3-43.kalama.com...
> Genetics Show No Proof of Evolution
>
> There is no evidence, fossil or living, that shows one kind(dog) turning
> into another kind(cat).

Every fossil is in transition. There is no definition for kind. Why use the
term.

This is a fact.

It is not a fact it is a statement.

>The very fact that genetic
> material and function is so complex even in the most primary life should
> show a thinking person that it could not possible to come about by random
> chance over long periods of time.

That is also false because the farther back in time one goes, the simpler
life gets. ANY thinking man can interpolate what is goint on.

>All genetic material has a function and
> therefore a specific design-this means a Designer(747s don't assemble
> themselves out of a junk yard in the normal mind-they do if you swollow
> the fairy tales of evolution though).

Utter nonsense. Species don't suddenly appear out of thin air as the typical
creationist would have you believe.
>
> The fossil record reveals an abrupt appearence of highly complex
> creatures-whether they are trilobites or whales-followed by stasis(no
> change- for you self appointed scientists here).

The fossil record is not only incomplete but it has proven to be
consistently reliable and ever more supportive of evolution.

>Science done in the
> laboratory(observational evidence-for you inadequetly educated mouthpieces
> of evolution) clearly shows there are natural limits to biological
> change.

>There simply is no indication of radical
> change(macroevolution-for you indoctrinated slaves to what you have been
> told) that Darwin demands.

Then I suppose one is at a loss to explain how a species could radically
appear if it can't be observed directly.


>
> Are fossils a fact-yes. Do they show infinite changes over time-no.

They do. The fact of fossil gaps has nothing to do with the theory but has
everything to do with the rarity of fossils.


Do
> they need long periods of time to form-no. Some fossils show fish eating
> other fish and some show dolphin-like animals delivering their babies
> while being fossilized. As a matter of fact, fossils can be made in the
> laboratory using pressures of 10,000-12,000 psi almost instantaneously.

Your appeal to science and your faith in its abilities is duely noted.

> There are fossils that show animals and plants(even jelly fish) that are
> identical to those living today. Evolutionists date these fossils to
> 50-90 million years ago, yet here they are with absolutly no changes in
> all that time(makes one wonder about how they determine these long times
> doesn't it?).

One doesn't argue with sucess.
>
> Has the fossil record been tampered with-yes. By whom? By the
> evolutionists of course. Piltdown man, Java man, Lucy, Neanderthal skulls,
> birds, fish and many others over time have been doctored or parts either
> excluded or included that did not belong to the orginal specimens. An
> example is the Meuseum of Man(Musee de Homo-Paris) that shows a
> Neanderthal skull reconstructed where the jaw bone doen't even come close
> to the joint location near the ear. This was done to make the specimen
> look more ape like and thousands of children, let along adults, file by
> this display and are convinced they are actually apes themselves.
>
> Evolution is a fraud and has caused millions to be murdered because
> others(those who have accepted the lie that all people are not the same)
> thought they were a less desirable species..
>
> This is a fact-your feet will go where your thinking is..
>
> If you accept the lie of evolution life doesn't have any meaning or value.
>
> If you accept the reality of a loving God speaking His creation into being
> you know that life is special and His crowning creation-man-is of
> tremedous value.
>
> --
> Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
>
> Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?



Freddy
2003-12-13 01:31:58 EST
I*m@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in message news:<IknowHim-1212030806160001@pm3-43.kalama.com>...
> All genetic material has a function and
> therefore a specific design-this means a Designer(747s don't assemble
> themselves out of a junk yard in the normal mind-they do if you swollow
> the fairy tales of evolution though).

You stupid twit. Organic material is not assembled by factory workers like a 747 is.


> Evolution is a fraud and has caused millions to be murdered because
> others(those who have accepted the lie that all people are not the same)
> thought they were a less desirable species..

People haven't been killed in the name of God or religion?!?
Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron