Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[revelarts]

A few more Scientist that Dissent from Darwin who gaffer says Dislike their profession of paleontology.

Hans Zillmer PhD is a German engineer, author, and paleontologist.

Russell Charles Artist Ph.D.now Professor Emeritus, was Head of the Biology Department at David Lipscomb University in Tennessee where he taught for 23 years. He received his BS from Butler University, a MS in paleoecology from Northwestern University and a Ph.D. and in botany from the University of Minnesota, and has pursued extensive graduate studies at the University of Zurich, Switzerland and, for five years, was a Professor at Frankfurt on Main College, Germany. He is now at Amarillo College, Amarillo, Texas.

Roberto É. Biaggi Ph.D. is a scientist with the Geoscience Research Institute. His Ph.D. in Paleoecology is from Loma Linda University.


Stephen F. Barnett PhD Professor of Natural Sciences, Bryan University. He has a B.A. Biology, from Covenant College, an M.S. Geology, and M.S. Paleobiology from Loma Linda University, and a Ph.D. Geology from the University of Kentucky.


Leonard R. Brand Ph.D. was Professor Emeritus of Biology and Paleontology at Loma Linda University in California. He received his Ph.D. in paleontology from Cornell University.

Anne Dambricourt-Malasse Ph.D. is a Paleoanthropologist at the Institute de Paléontologie Humaine, Prehistory Lab.

David Dockery III Ph.D. Chief of the Mississippi Office of Geology's surface geology division in Jackson. He holds a Ph.D. in paleontology from Tulane University

Roberto Fondi Ph.D. is Professor of Paleontology at the University of Sienna. He has a B.S. in Chemistry from Rhodes College, Magna cum laude, Phi Betta Kappa, and a Ph.D. in Paleontology. He has published several critiques of Darwinism.

[Gaffer]

A few more Scientist that Dissent from Darwin who gaffer says Dislike their profession of paleontology.

A good thing they have you to speak for them here. Your as bad as noir on christians. Here are all the evil evolutionists and a list of who have turned against it. And here's another list, and another list. Your list mean nothing to me Rev. We can dig up lists of former priests, clergymen, regular folks that have turned from religion. It means nothing without proof and facts. You only get proof and facts with scientific methods.

Evolution hasn't been proved yet. But neither has creationism. As I said before, you are prejudging based on belief and not fact.

[revelarts]

A good thing they have you to speak for them here. Your as bad as noir on christians. Here are all the evil evolutionists and a list of who have turned against it. And here's another list, and another list. Your list mean nothing to me Rev. We can dig up lists of former priests, clergymen, regular folks that have turned from religion. It means nothing without proof and facts. You only get proof and facts with scientific methods.

Evolution hasn't been proved yet. But neither has creationism. As I said before, you are prejudging based on belief and not fact.

gaffer have u posted any facts yet?
I've got pages of facts that people have yet to reply to.
I've mentioned a few times I've been on all sides of this issues believing evolution and cheering those like Carl Sagan back in the 80's, to being in the middle, to my current position. Your assertions of my bias being a preset to my investigations into this issue is just BS.

But you and others have been claiming that "the scientist SAY" after i present the facts of what science shows.
So I found few "Scientist that say" as well, but you dismiss them out of hand you didn't ask about their facts you just ASSUME prior bias WITHOUT ANY any facts to back it up.
and then you appeal to "facts" which you don't post! And toss in some misapplied analogues.

It's dishonest debate.

look, give me ONE Undisputed fact that you think helps PROVES Evolution from Cells to man or whatever.
A Scientific FACT. if there are scores of studies give me ONE.

and let's see if it stands up to honest scientific scrutiny. THE FACTS.

just like a in murder case.
finger prints are proof, but if they can be shown to have been made the day before the murder it isn't definitive.
Pictures are proof, but if there are other pictures that show the defendant ELSEWHERE at the same time then that puts the photos in question.
which ever side can produce the MOST solid evidence should win the case.
By proof beyond a shadow or something close, that's the best that can be said on this issue using science.
and as i've said before, at this point creation has a BETTER scientific case.

So what's your evidence gaffer? you don't want to hear from scientist that have LOOKED at the evolution evidence and think it's piss poor.
Lets take a look at the evidence they used and make our own determination.
And not be swayed by appeals to scientific authority, numbers or credentials.
if that's what you want.

but you can't have it both ways,
and claim all of "real" science says X but then dismiss those working IN "real" science who disagree... based on the facts.
And say that the scientific evidense against evolution is better than creation's because I don't want to use science to even ask that question.

[Gunny]

gaffer have u posted any facts yet?
I've got pages of facts that people have yet to reply to.
I've mentioned a few times I've been on all sides of this issues believing evolution and cheering those like Carl Sagan back in the 80's, to being in the middle, to my current position. Your assertions of my bias being a preset to my investigations into this issue is just BS.

But you and others have been claiming that "the scientist SAY" after i present the facts of what science shows.
So I found few "Scientist that say" as well, but you dismiss them out of hand you didn't ask about their facts you just ASSUME prior bias WITHOUT ANY any facts to back it up.
and then you appeal to "facts" which you don't post! And toss in some misapplied analogues.

It's dishonest debate.

I'm going to address THIS part of your post. Your very own words describe the issue. I certainly don't mean it as insulting. I'm not going to sit and read all that, then cut n paste my brain to death responding. I'm certainly not going to research the issue as far as you have. Regardless the side of the issue you are on. I skim, get a general idea where you're going, then express my opinion.

There's nothing dishonest about that. I am aware you responded to gaffer, and not me, but I pulled up your response and just went "crap. I ain't reading all that".

I believe that when you arguing an issue that science can neither prove nor disprove, then it's about individual personal beliefs.

Just my two cents.

[revelarts]

I'm going to address THIS part of your post. Your very own words describe the issue. I certainly don't mean it as insulting. I'm not going to sit and read all that, then cut n paste my brain to death responding. I'm certainly not going to research the issue as far as you have. Regardless the side of the issue you are on. I skim, get a general idea where you're going, then express my opinion.

There's nothing dishonest about that. I am aware you responded to gaffer, and not me, but I pulled up your response and just went "crap. I ain't reading all that".

I believe that when you arguing an issue that science can neither prove nor disprove, then it's about individual personal beliefs.

Just my two cents.

Sure but it's my contention that if one position has MORE proof than the other that the honest thing to do is give it the benny of the doubt to that side..

Again, like a murder case with 2 suspects, there may not be iron clad completely irrefutable evidence but there may be much more good evidence against one than the other. And One suspect may be proven to be almost incapable of the crime.

This is the type of proof I'm talking about .
I don't understand why people can't acknowledge this. especially since they are the ones who claim to be unbiased and objective.

[Gunny]

Sure but it's my contention that if one position has MORE proof than the other that the honest thing to do is give it the benny of the doubt to that side..

Again, like a murder case with 2 suspects, there may not be iron clad completely irrefutable evidence but there may be much more good evidence against one than the other. And One suspect may be proven to be almost incapable of the crime.

This is the type of proof I'm talking about .
I don't understand why people can't acknowledge this. especially since they are the ones who claim to be unbiased and objective.

I don't disagree with you. But is is STILL up to individual to believe what they wish. A lot of that is going to be based as much on perception and experience as anything else. Someone arguing his/her beliefs is not necessarily being dishonest.

[Gaffer]

Sure but it's my contention that if one position has MORE proof than the other that the honest thing to do is give it the benny of the doubt to that side..

Again, like a murder case with 2 suspects, there may not be iron clad completely irrefutable evidence but there may be much more good evidence against one than the other. And One suspect may be proven to be almost incapable of the crime.

This is the type of proof I'm talking about .
I don't understand why people can't acknowledge this. especially since they are the ones who claim to be unbiased and objective.

Okay, let's use do it like a court. What evidence do you have of Adam and Eve's existence? The use of the bible is hearsay in a court. So present your factual evidence. We can move on from here whenever you want.

[revelarts]

Okay, let's use do it like a court. What evidence do you have of Adam and Eve's existence? The use of the bible is hearsay in a court. So present your factual evidence. We can move on from here whenever you want.

so your not going to give me a study that presents good evidence of evolution?
Should I assume you can't find one? or you've decided that a a good offense is the best defense here?

look, I don't feel compelled to give you any hard data on this question then either.
I'll just flatly state some little known facts. But if anyone sincerely wants to READ/LISTEN/SEE the numbers, data or studies i will get them.

OK gaffer,
I can answer the way i've been answered after questioning evolution. but with more info.

We... are... here.
That PROVES there was a 1st man and 1st women.
What else do you need?!! (that's what i've been told by evolutionist as the END of the question. believe it or not, good for the goose right?)

but I'll be more honest and give more details.
We are here.
And there's far more proof that people come from OTHER people than from Monkeys or any other creature.
There is ZERO evidence of a monkey EVER giving birth to a human. OR even a transitional monkey/semi-human.

next I'll add this. there are a certain number of people on the earth today.
based on population growth, birth rates and death rates.
the population is nearly exactly right for a growth of population from 2 people (then 8 people after the flood) apx 10,000 ago. Counting back from the current 7 billion plus. the numbers work out nearly perfectly.

NEXT i'll add to that new studies of men's DNA (Y chromosomes) tracks back to ONE man. Also DNA tracers from women's Mitochondrial DNA track back to 3 or 4 women, then to ONE which lines up perfectly with the account of Noah with 3 sons (same y chromosomes) , with 3 wives (different mitochondrial) then to ONE woman.

is it possible that they could be named Adam and Eve?

BTW neither tracks back to 2 monkeys or missing links DNA just HUMAN.

so at this point there's MORE evidence for Adam and Eve than for a missing link. Especially since the missing links are well missing. Why are THEY missing? obviously because scientist can't find them? if they can't find them they are NOT evidence.
However our DNA, the current population and many years of humans experimental reproducing only other humans show compellingly that the human race came from ONE woman and ONE man.
Does this evidence FIT with the "religious" idea that they're could indeed be an original couple whose names were Adam and Eve?

I'd say so.

.................................................. ........

if you have data and studies to refute what I've just posted, them post them.
if not, please note that incredulity DOES NOT count as FACTS or Evidence.


so gaffer
please give me a study that presents some of the best evidence of evolution?

[revelarts]

I don't disagree with you. But is is STILL up to individual to believe what they wish. A lot of that is going to be based as much on perception and experience as anything else. Someone arguing his/her beliefs is not necessarily being dishonest.

Sure people don't have to believe that Lincoln was shot or that Atila the hun was a real person. But they can't honestly claim their disbelief to be binding on others if they can't produce good facts to back up their versions of history. and they shouldn't force it on other in schools etc right?

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs but they are not to entitled to claim the facts are on their side when they are not.

Concerning dishonesty, well there's a difference between people being sincere in their beliefs and being factually correct.

We may be giving an honest opinion
but be factually dishonest unwittingly without malice or an intent to deceive.

And when it comes to matters of faith, well there are people that SAW Jesus do miracles and they did not believe. Saw people rise from the dead, and did not believe.
the facts don't always changes hearts but the facts must be presented as facts to allow those who will believe a foundation to trust in God.
Jesus gave people enough hard evidence to believe for the whole show but we all have to take that final step.
the Bible says the Heavens declares the glory of God and Earth his handiwork.
and it's true. I think we all know this instinctively, but we to often suppress the truth in our unrighteousness.

anyway, yeah later.

[Gaffer]

so your not going to give me a study that presents good evidence of evolution?
Should I assume you can't find one? or you've decided that a a good offense is the best defense here?

look, I don't feel compelled to give you any hard data on this question then either.
I'll just flatly state some little known facts. But if anyone sincerely wants to READ/LISTEN/SEE the numbers, data or studies i will get them.

OK gaffer,
I can answer the way i've been answered after questioning evolution. but with more info.

We... are... here.
That PROVES there was a 1st man and 1st women.
What else do you need?!! (that's what i've been told by evolutionist as the END of the question. believe it or not, good for the goose right?)

but I'll be more honest and give more details.
We are here.
And there's far more proof that people come from OTHER people than from Monkeys or any other creature.
There is ZERO evidence of a monkey EVER giving birth to a human. OR even a transitional monkey/semi-human.

next I'll add this. there are a certain number of people on the earth today.
based on population growth, birth rates and death rates.
the population is nearly exactly right for a growth of population from 2 people (then 8 people after the flood) apx 10,000 ago. Counting back from the current 7 billion plus. the numbers work out nearly perfectly.

NEXT i'll add to that new studies of men's DNA (Y chromosomes) tracks back to ONE man. Also DNA tracers from women's Mitochondrial DNA track back to 3 or 4 women, then to ONE which lines up perfectly with the account of Noah with 3 sons (same y chromosomes) , with 3 wives (different mitochondrial) then to ONE woman.

is it possible that they could be named Adam and Eve?

BTW neither tracks back to 2 monkeys or missing links DNA just HUMAN.

so at this point there's MORE evidence for Adam and Eve than for a missing link. Especially since the missing links are well missing. Why are THEY missing? obviously because scientist can't find them? if they can't find them they are NOT evidence.
However our DNA, the current population and many years of humans experimental reproducing only other humans show compellingly that the human race came from ONE woman and ONE man.
Does this evidence FIT with the "religious" idea that they're could indeed be an original couple whose names were Adam and Eve?

I'd say so.

.................................................. ........

if you have data and studies to refute what I've just posted, them post them.
if not, please note that incredulity DOES NOT count as FACTS or Evidence.


so gaffer
please give me a study that presents some of the best evidence of evolution?

I'm not here to prove evolution. As for the case of everything leading back to one person, that's malarkey. How do you know how many people have lived in this world in just the past 10,000 years. The so called flood was just a regional occurrence following a volcanic eruption. The Black Sea is reportedly the result of that flood.

Tracing DNA back to one individual is about as factual as tracing it back to a particular ape. It's faux science based on a belief and nothing more.

Since you brought up Noah. He built an ark to carry all the animals in the world. With all the millions of species that had to be one hell of a big ark. Not to mention birds and insects. And when they were released how did they get back to where they originated from?

The book of Genesis is stories made up as a means of explaining to other ignorant people how things began and why they are the way they are. When you start a religion you have to have an answer for everything. Nothing more than camp fire stories. Sorry no links, just my opinion. I'm not going searching for links listing a bunch of doctors and theologians I've never heard of just to add credence to my opinion.

[revelarts]

I'm not here to prove evolution.

no problem

As for the case of everything leading back to one person, that's malarkey.

"please note that incredulity DOES NOT count as FACTS or Evidence."

How do you know how many people have lived in this world in just the past 10,000 years.

"
"Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found.However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.

Now the number of human fossils found is nothing like one would expect if this ‘Stone Age’ scenario were correct. The number found is more consistent with a ‘Stone Age’ of a few hundred years,....

When Europeans came to settle in Australia in 1788, it was estimated that there were perhaps only 300,000 Aboriginal people.And yet today we are told that the people have been here for 60,000 years or more. Now there is no way that a mere 300,000 people had exhausted the plenty of this large country so as to account for a long period of very low population growth. If we allow for one-third of the land area as desert, it means that there was only one person for every 18 square kilometres (7 square miles) of habitable land area—hardly overpopulated, even for a subsistence existence.

If 20 people had come to settle some time after the Flood, say 3,500 years ago, it would have needed a population growth of a mere 0.28% per year to produce 300,000 people. Such a minimal rate operating over 60,000 years could produce more people than there are atoms in the Milky Way Galaxy!

Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 10⁴³ people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a word for it! To try to put this number of people in context, say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square metre per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 10¹⁴ square metres. If every one of those square metres were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 10²⁸ people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 10⁴³ (10²⁹ is 10 times as much as 10²⁸, 10³⁰ is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.¹⁰ This stretches credulity to the limits.

It is relatively easy to calculate the growth rate needed to get today’s population from Noah’s three sons and their wives, after the Flood. With the Flood at about 4,500 years ago, it needs less than 0.5% per year growth.⁶ That’s not very much.
Of course, population growth has not been constant. There is reasonably good evidence that growth has been slow at times—such as in the Middle Ages in Europe....
...Hence, just four generations after the Flood would see a total population of over 3,000 people (remembering that the longevity of people was such that Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, etc., were still alive at that time).⁸ This represents a population growth rate of 3.7% per year, or a doubling time of about 19 years.⁹ ...If there were 300 million people in the world at the time of Christ’s Resurrection,² this requires a population growth rate of only 0.75% since the Flood, or a doubling time of 92 years—much less than the documented population growth rate in the years following the Flood...
...-therefore we- get get six billion people since the Flood."
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people

The so called flood was just a regional occurrence following a volcanic eruption. The Black Sea is reportedly the result of that flood.

there are seashells and fossil fish on the tops of mountains, there are fields with millions dead fossils all over the world, dead from some watery catastrophe.

Tracing DNA back to one individual is about as factual as tracing it back to a particular ape. It's faux science based on a belief and nothing more.

they trace the minor 'mutations' like, red hair, brown eyes, letter Bs on a gnome spot compared to letter Ts and find the base also looking at dna from bones of ancient dead.
and the result:
...It shouldn’t be surprising, though. Geneticists say that we are all descended from the same male and female. Their nicknames are Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam, and they lived 100,000 to 300,000 years ago. We all have a bit of their DNA. They are our great-great-great- (just keep repeating that about 5000 times) grandparents.

Some geneticists say our most recent common ancestor is far more contemporary than that. MIT computer scientist David Rohde argued in the journal Nature that a shared ancestor for all humans lived about 5000 years ago, thanks in part to increasing intermarriage. Which means that the vast majority of humans are probably, at most, 100th cousins by blood....
http://mentalfloss.com/article/58006...ire-human-race

There's debate on the date but ---i'll just state this but if you want details-- there's better evidence for the lower date.

Since you brought up Noah. He built an ark to carry all the animals in the world. With all the millions of species that had to be one hell of a big ark. Not to mention birds and insects. And when they were released how did they get back to where they originated from?

No need of all species no need for fish or for insects which could survive under the ground and on matts of floating debris and the dead. most animals are small and no need to carry the biggest adult animals. the ark is described as as big as apx 2 footbal feilds and 3 storites tall. It's est carrying space is calculated at about 700-800 railroad box cars. more than enough space to carry species/families with enough gentic diversity to create the animals we have today.

The book of Genesis is stories made up as a means of explaining to other ignorant people how things began and why they are the way they are. When you start a religion you have to have an answer for everything. Nothing more than camp fire stories. Sorry no links, just my opinion. I'm not going searching for links listing a bunch of doctors and theologians I've never heard of just to add credence to my opinion.

that's your opinion, fine, you admit that you haven't studied the subject, it seems you've just accepted the negative modern pop-cultural opinion without honest or careful examination. that's your right,
but it don't make it true.

There's FAR more factual info floating around to support the Bible's accuracy than is part of the average popular conversation.

[Gaffer]

Let's concentrate on this one thing rather than go through and argue each sentence piece by piece.

No need of all species no need for fish or for insects which could survive under the ground and on matts of floating debris and the dead. most animals are small and no need to carry the biggest adult animals. the ark is described as as big as apx 2 footbal feilds and 3 storites tall. It's est carrying space is calculated at about 700-800 railroad box cars. more than enough space to carry species/families with enough gentic diversity to create the animals we have today.

genetic diversity? As in evolving? And true, fish don't need to be there. Except fresh water fish don't survive salt water and vice versa. Birds don't fly well in down pours and don't have any where to shelter or rest. Insects can only go so far under ground and still need air. Many other insects do not burrow. The numbers don't add up no matter how big you make the ark.

It's a story, about a MAN saving all the animals of the world because GOD told him too. A GOD that could have done it all himself. But that's not as dramatic and gives no credit to the man. At the same time we can explain where rainbows come from. What does and omnipotent god need with a bow? Where did the water come from and where did it go?

As for sea shells and things on mountains. Those areas use to be ocean floors and were raised up in huge earthquakes. Water drains off and fish and shells remain. Happened several million years ago. Seventh grade science there.

[revelarts]

Let's concentrate on this one thing rather than go through and argue each sentence piece by piece.



genetic diversity? As in evolving? And true, fish don't need to be there. Except fresh water fish don't survive salt water and vice versa. Birds don't fly well in down pours and don't have any where to shelter or rest. Insects can only go so far under ground and still need air. Many other insects do not burrow. The numbers don't add up no matter how big you make the ark.

It's a story, about a MAN saving all the animals of the world because GOD told him too. A GOD that could have done it all himself. But that's not as dramatic and gives no credit to the man. At the same time we can explain where rainbows come from. What does and omnipotent god need with a bow? Where did the water come from and where did it go?

As for sea shells and things on mountains. Those areas use to be ocean floors and were raised up in huge earthquakes. Water drains off and fish and shells remain. Happened several million years ago. Seventh grade science there.

Gaffer you brought up 15-30 topics in the previous post i replied to 15.
now you say you want to deal with 1 at a time which you feel you can rebut, but still bring up 8 issues.

genetic diversity...
fresh water fish...
birds...
insects...
purpose of story...
rainbows...
water source...
mountain origins...

I'm not sure how i can reply to all of that WITHOUT going sentence by sentence.
Do you want to restate an objection to a single point?

or should i just hit them all.
I like to try to make honest and full replies to fair questions ,
it'd be nice to have the same returned btw.

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Vy9J3BbK4vQ?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[NightTrain]

A minor point, here... freshwater fish do voluntarily enter saltwater and indeed thrive there, returning years later to their freshwater birthplace to spawn. The curious thing is that only some do, while others remain where they were born.

Some Dolly Varden make the journey, and are then identified as Arctic Char. All 5 species of salmon do the same. Rainbow Trout return as Steelhead. Northern Pike swim from river mouth to river mouth out in the ocean and that's how they're spreading here in AK. There's lots more examples, but those are some local critters that I'm familiar with that do it.

Then you have the reverse - there's been many cases of saltwater shark attacks in freshwater rivers & lakes... somewhat unusual but it does happen. The sharks were cruising freshwater for some reason, voluntarily.

I'm no marine biologist by any stretch, but it seems to me that any fish can and will switch water types if they decide to do it. Freshwater fish returning from the ocean are a lot bigger than their counterparts that chose to remain, I would imagine it has something to do with more abundance of food and the big tank/big fish phenomena.