Creation evidence

[Jonsul]

Here's one of them Carrol Alley
The Most Important Thing Armstrong Left on the Moon

Here's part of an Alley interview where he mentions it. He seems pretty neat, apparently he did early experiments that helped to prove the theory of relativity. And now he thinks the theory is flawed or incomplete

General relativity, contrary to the popular opinion, is not the greatest thing that Einstein did. It’s incomplete, and the equations are demonstrably incomplete. There’s no interaction between massive bodies in the Newtonian sense, in Einstein’s theory. I’ve come to that conclusion through my interaction with ProfessorYilmaz, who has found a completion to the Einstein work, Energy is not treated properly in general relativity. The stress energy tensor of the gravitational field turned out to be a non-tensor in general relativity, just a coordinate artifact. I don’t know how much you interest yourself in history of general relativity?

Here's the link to the full interview
Oral History Transcript - Carroll O. Alley

Also I haven't checked up on it yet but I found a mention of this you may find interesting. May be false.
'We have broken speed of light' - Telegraph
"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"

A site giving criticism to relativity. May just be hot air but interesting.
The Truth about Relativity. It contradicts basic logic and uses corruptible minutia for supposed proof.
The site appears very anti Einstein lol

Wikipedia entry to alternates
Alternatives to general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll edit this when I find more

 

[Arlanbb]

JONSUL I posted in #23 a place for you to go to to check out the information you presented. It looks like you have not done that otherwise you would understand why what you present are generally cosidered hoxes. The items you presented have not been proven to be real evidence of anything. They don't prove that creation was about 6000 years ago.

I have been involed in archaeology for over 20 years and a few years back I did a survey of over 300 archaeologist asking two simple question. Have you found any evidence that a biblical flood happened worldwide about 4500 years ago and have you found any evidence of a biblical flood or a creation in the last 10,000 years and every one of those that answers the survey said NO. You would think that at least one archaeologist would have found that kind of evidence if they happened. I don't think anyone is aruging that this earth was not created but the question really is when and how was it created. The information you presented does not give proof for anything. Again let me give you the website to check it out with an open mind so you can see bothside to the stories. http://wwwbibleandscience.com then type in "finger" in the "search our site" and hit Go. You will be amazed at what information you will find there. Enjoy a good read.

 

[Jonsul]

JONSUL I posted in #23 a place for you to go to to check out the information you presented. It looks like you have not done that otherwise you would understand why what you present are generally cosidered hoxes. The items you presented have not been proven to be real evidence of anything. They don't prove that creation was about 6000 years ago.

I have been involed in archaeology for over 20 years and a few years back I did a survey of over 300 archaeologist asking two simple question. Have you found any evidence that a biblical flood happened worldwide about 4500 years ago and have you found any evidence of a biblical flood or a creation in the last 10,000 years and every one of those that answers the survey said NO. You would think that at least one archaeologist would have found that kind of evidence if they happened. I don't think anyone is aruging that this earth was not created but the question really is when and how was it created. The information you presented does not give proof for anything. Again let me give you the website to check it out with an open mind so you can see bothside to the stories. http://wwwbibleandscience.com then type in "finger" in the "search our site" and hit Go. You will be amazed at what information you will find there. Enjoy a good read.

No I haven't read it yet. I was planing on it after looking up those quick sources. And thanks I always enjoy a good read^^

But like I said several times I'm not trying to prove creationism, just posting different things of creation evidence. Also I was planning on editing my first post and including the links for criticism on each one. I'll do that once I'm done looking around your site.

Thanks

 

[Jonsul]

Neat reads^^
I'm looking at the "The Bible and Science:
Does God Exist?" page
I now have days of reading material, thanks

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't think some conspiracy is going on^^
just pointing out that nothing is as it appears, ...

That was precisely my thought upon reading the OP.

 

[Luminous]

Neat reads^^

I now have days of reading material, thanks

: Ugh; are you serious? i hate reading. but give me a good movie and i'll learn as much as it can teach.

 

[Autodidact]

I find it sad that nobody can post a positive discussion of anything the majority doesn't feel is right without it automatically bringing a flame.

Discredited fraud is not a positive discussion. It has nothing to do with feelings, or with the majority. It has to do with things being false.

Of course I should have known as throughout history people have always been subjugated for what they believe.

Is someone subjugating you? Or just pointing out that you posted false information?

Years ago is was religious, people hunting those of other religions such as witchcraft.

You mean Christians persecuting witches and scientists?

Then social topics such as what happened during the red scare, man and women on the prow for anything that might suggest communism sympathy. Soon it could be scientific beliefs, with a witch hunt for creationists.

But it isn't.

You can see it happening right now when somebody speaks aloud with creationist sympathies, and the public goes mad. Accusations fly putting into question one's character. People assume one is ignorant for believing something different about something that is in the end so trivial even in the smallest of pictures. Maybe I thought that the everybody here was above this.

It has nothing to do with your character, Jonsul, unless you knew all these things were frauds and posted them anyway.

People marking others off who could of been great friends to them at one point in time. All on matters so trivial that it's astounding.

I don't think scientific knowledge about life is trivial.

Nobody knows who they talk to online yet one would think everyone knows everybody. Because they treat each other like that. You assume I'm ignorant because I posted some evidence with a sketchy background.

I don't know whether you're ignorant, gullible and deliberately lying. What I know is, everything you posted is false. And I don't think the truth is trivial, as you apparently do.

I knew this, and I'm not acting like it's not true. Am I a bad person for finding such things interesting?

Well, I agree that the depths to which creationists will sink is kind of interesting.

There are online tests on both sides that support and disclaim each evidence, but how do you know what's in them is true. Either test can be true or fake on both sides of the tracks. How can I think that any of that evidence is true? Because whether or not it's real, it's out there. And because I can't be sure I take it as simply an interesting thing.

Well, fake painting are out there too. That's doesn't make them old masters.

The worst thing is I haven't taken position on any side. All I did was show creationist sympathies by posting some evidence I found interesting. I'm not even promoting it all, I just said it's interesting. In truth I haven't taken a side and I probably won't, because it doesn't matter what happened in the beginning. And to argue about things like that really is ignorant. All that matters is what is happening now, and what is coming.

Evolution is happening now, and will continue to happen as long as there is life on earth.

I have been called a liar, that all I want to do is post lies, and people have pointed out that I may be stupid. If this is not being attacked then what is?

If you don't want people to discredit what you post, then make some effort to investigate it before you do.

This for something I haven't even stated that I believed. Just for the fact that I could even think it's interesting. I try to keep an open mind to all things, whether it messes with my beliefs or not.

But not so open that your brains fall out.

I was hoping everyone here would be more open minded, but I should have known everyone wouldn't be completely.

I'm completely open minded to any non-fraudulent evidence you care to present. I don't like being lied to, however.

Be mad at me if you want I don't care and it doesn't change what I think. I'll also thank those that gave me advice without being mean about it, thanks for your Patience^^

I'm not mad at you; I don't even know you. It has nothing to do with my emotions, it has to do with reality. What you posted is fraudulent bogus fakes, not evidence.

The truth of the matter is that nothing in this world can be proven. How do you know that I can see what I see? Maybe I can describe it to you, maybe I can show it to you. If the world comes to see it, does it prove what I see exists? So is fact just simply what the majority claims to be true? What if you take my word for it, does that make it fact? Do you realize how much in your life you assume to be true. How do you know if da Vinci ever really existed? No you can never truly know anything is fact, you can only choose to believe it is. And so anything has as much a chance to be right as anything else, even against the majority held belief.

You're right. Science is impossible, and all of the world's scientists should find something better to do with their time.

So much of science and what we accept to be true is built on what the majority accepted so many years ago that truth be told science cannot be trusted completely.

You actually don't know anything about science, do you?

If one thing is found to have fault the whole system could shatter.

That's what I thought. Tell me something. How old are you?

And the system is shaky enough as it is.

You actually reject all science, don't you?

How did the first life come to start? Is the theory of relativity true? You know there is now growing a number of scientists that are starting to think it may not be? Where is the dark matter that should be just as common as normal matter?

That's what I thought. Let's just go back to the dark ages and forget it. In fact, let's all throw our computers away right now. Then we won't have to read drivel like this.

What's funny is that we've been like this since history has been first recorded, and you'd think we would have evolved past this by now. Or maybe it's just coming to a head, maybe this is where we've been going all this time. As our race gets more and more involved with information it may just get worse as time goes on. Maybe as evolution suggests this will come to an ultimatum. A final between science and religion with the most fittest going on. You can tell it's building to this, you can almost feel the tension growing. It's to the point where people burst out with almost pure hatred just over who has the right belief, science or religion. I enjoy religion and I enjoy science and I don't see why it should happen like this. It shouldn't matter in the end, any belief no matter how crazy it is shouldn't incite anger.

It's nt science and religion, Jonsul, it's truth vs. lies.

 

[painted wolf]

I heard about the 'breaking the speed of light' thing... it didn't actually happen. It was never repeatable by any other lab.

some info you might find useful:
Light seems to defy its own speed limit
Measured Against Reality: We have NOT broken the speed of light

Some current research on Relativity.
Einstein was right: Unique stellar system provides 'laboratory' for testing relativity
Gravity Probe B: Testing Einstein's Universe

Thus far any challenges to Einstein have yet to get past notes. As I said they usually have errors that get picked apart once they are looked at by other physicists.
Not that Einstein was right about everything... Quantum physics was developed to fix holes in Einstein's math... just as Einstein plugged holes in Newton's math.

but anyway, back to evolution. Other than a few debunked curios Creationism offers very little in the way of evidence. They certainly don't offer anything scientific.

wa:do

 

[gnostic]

I find it sad that nobody can post a positive discussion of anything the majority doesn't feel is right without it automatically bringing a flame.

Can't you read, jonsul?

Painted wolf did patiently refuted your so-called "evidences" in both links that debunk your images, and in his own reply. He didn't attack you.

These photos and illustrations have been debunked already, scientifically. That you would bring them here without reading these debunked evidences showed how little you understand the science behind rigourous examinations of the evidences.

If you are in any way serious about them being evidences, then you should also read the essays and articles that debunk them.

So many people have already told you that you have posted a thread ON a "Evolution vs Creationism" debate forum. You say you don't want a debate and yet you post in debate forum. You can't expect to post here, without people responding to your thread with rebuttal on your so-called "evidences". And what is really sad is that you don't understand this.

I think one of the moderators or administrator here should explain to you that this is a debate forum through IM.

 

[Comicaze247]

*walks in*

*facepalm*

*walks out*

 

[islamcity]

On 11th January 1988, the Newsweek Magazine carried an article which stated that studies by molecular biologists of an international assortment of genes had put them on the trail of the mitochondrial Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA).

The studies were carried out on both black and caucasian women "with ancestors from Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia". Despite the fact that the women "were from widely different racial and geographical backgrounds", the geneticists "found that all had identical stretches of the mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited only from mothers and therefore not a mixture of parental genes". This has led them from a Qur’anic and Biblical perspective back to the idea of a common ancestor: "to a single women from whom we are all descended". The report went on to say, "most evidence so far indicates that Eve"..."was more likely a dark-haired, black skinned woman (who) lived in sub-Saharan Africa." It is believed that our common ancestor - African Eve - must has lived "between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago", and this is consistent with the findings related to Adam. This finding adds weight to the Biblical and Qur’anic statements about the existence of a Hawa (Eve), the mother of all humanity, who was not a product of an accident or chance in nature, but was created and fashioned by the Creator. Also, it is yet another piece of evidence for the authenticity of the Holy Qur’an, stating long before this discovery:

"The Revelation of this Book is from Allah, the Exalted in Power, Full of Wisdom... He created you (all) from a single Person:... created, (out of it) of like nature his mate... and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women" (S. 39:1,6: S: 4:1).​

 

[islamcity]

On 11th January 1988, the Newsweek Magazine carried an article which stated that studies by molecular biologists of an international assortment of genes had put them on the trail of the mitochondrial Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA).

The studies were carried out on both black and caucasian women "with ancestors from Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia". Despite the fact that the women "were from widely different racial and geographical backgrounds", the geneticists "found that all had identical stretches of the mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited only from mothers and therefore not a mixture of parental genes". This has led them from a Qur’anic and Biblical perspective back to the idea of a common ancestor: "to a single women from whom we are all descended". The report went on to say, "most evidence so far indicates that Eve"..."was more likely a dark-haired, black skinned woman (who) lived in sub-Saharan Africa." It is believed that our common ancestor - African Eve - must has lived "between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago", and this is consistent with the findings related to Adam. This finding adds weight to the Biblical and Qur’anic statements about the existence of a Hawa (Eve), the mother of all humanity, who was not a product of an accident or chance in nature, but was created and fashioned by the Creator. Also, it is yet another piece of evidence for the authenticity of the Holy Qur’an, stating long before this discovery:

"The Revelation of this Book is from Allah, the Exalted in Power, Full of Wisdom... He created you (all) from a single Person:... created, (out of it) of like nature his mate... and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women" (S. 39:1,6: S: 4:1).
​

​

 

[islamcity]

sorry for posting thread twice
it was accident....pc lagging

 

[Comicaze247]

On 11th January 1988, the Newsweek Magazine carried an article which stated that studies by molecular biologists of an international assortment of genes had put them on the trail of the mitochondrial Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA).

The studies were carried out on both black and caucasian women "with ancestors from Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia". Despite the fact that the women "were from widely different racial and geographical backgrounds", the geneticists "found that all had identical stretches of the mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited only from mothers and therefore not a mixture of parental genes". This has led them from a Qur’anic and Biblical perspective back to the idea of a common ancestor: "to a single women from whom we are all descended". The report went on to say, "most evidence so far indicates that Eve"..."was more likely a dark-haired, black skinned woman (who) lived in sub-Saharan Africa." It is believed that our common ancestor - African Eve - must has lived "between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago", and this is consistent with the findings related to Adam. This finding adds weight to the Biblical and Qur’anic statements about the existence of a Hawa (Eve), the mother of all humanity, who was not a product of an accident or chance in nature, but was created and fashioned by the Creator.

How in the world does that "add weight" to creationism? Creationism suggests that the world was created 6,000 years ago. If anything, that detracts from the validity of Creationism.

 

[islamcity]

i thout by creationism you meant creationism of humans only...
so what your trying to say is the creationism of the universe(earth,moons,stars etc)
however if you mean creationism of humans against the theory of evolution then what i have mentioned clearly proves the fact evolution is false.

 

[Heneni]

Hello Jonsul.

Never mind the vultures . They decended on you for simply posting something you found interesting. It happens all the time. I once posted stuff about giants and i had my head chopped off. Some here claim to be experts at something they arent. Its easy to bully the newbie.

Anyway...i dont know why people are so insecure in their beliefs that they feel the need to jump on others for trying to explore their own. One would think that on a religous forum, there would be more..'lets talk about this like adults' and less ' your a liar', 'this stuff is rubbish'.

Seems like many hold on to the evolution idea for dear life. Its essential to them that the theory holds up else there might be a god they are answerable to.

Keep your head about you. And welcome to the forum. I know you expected freedom. Instead you got a rude awakening. Anyway...i for one enjoy reading alternative ideas, and i am secure enough to not get my knickers in a twist when somebody presents their thoughts to me. This is far less controversial and dark then those who claim god to be a monster. Evolution of monsters seems to be the order of the day. They are mostly called human'kind'.

Happy posting!

 

[Heneni]

i thout by creationism you meant creationism of humans only...
so what your trying to say is the creationism of the universe(earth,moons,stars etc)
however if you mean creationism of humans against the theory of evolution then what i have mentioned clearly proves the fact evolution is false.

If evolution is true, then god set it in motion. And so no matter what, god is in the equation.

 

[islamcity]

If evolution is true, then god set it in motion. And so no matter what, god is in the equation.

very well said... i agree

 

[Comicaze247]

i thout by creationism you meant creationism of humans only...
so what your trying to say is the creationism of the universe(earth,moons,stars etc)
however if you mean creationism of humans against the theory of evolution then what i have mentioned clearly proves the fact evolution is false.

I still fail to see how that "proves" that evolution is false

 

[fantome profane]

On 11th January 1988, the Newsweek Magazine carried an article which stated that studies by molecular biologists of an international assortment of genes had put them on the trail of the mitochondrial Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA).

The studies were carried out on both black and caucasian women "with ancestors from Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia". Despite the fact that the women "were from widely different racial and geographical backgrounds", the geneticists "found that all had identical stretches of the mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited only from mothers and therefore not a mixture of parental genes". This has led them from a Qur’anic and Biblical perspective back to the idea of a common ancestor: "to a single women from whom we are all descended". The report went on to say, "most evidence so far indicates that Eve"..."was more likely a dark-haired, black skinned woman (who) lived in sub-Saharan Africa." It is believed that our common ancestor - African Eve - must has lived "between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago", and this is consistent with the findings related to Adam. This finding adds weight to the Biblical and Qur’anic statements about the existence of a Hawa (Eve), the mother of all humanity, who was not a product of an accident or chance in nature, but was created and fashioned by the Creator. Also, it is yet another piece of evidence for the authenticity of the Holy Qur’an, stating long before this discovery:

"The Revelation of this Book is from Allah, the Exalted in Power, Full of Wisdom... He created you (all) from a single Person:... created, (out of it) of like nature his mate... and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women" (S. 39:1,6: S: 4:1).​

​

​

The theory of evolution clearly indicates that all humans share a common ancestor. I realize that the Bible and Qur’an also indicate the same thing, but I think you have completely misinterpreted the concept of “Mitochondrial Eve”. This is a term (employing a biblical allusion) that refers to the most recent common ancestor when traced through the female only line (your mother, to your mothers mother, to her mother ect).

The point that you have to understand is that scientists have decided to refer to this concept as “Mitochondrial Eve” in reference to the biblical concept because she would be the mother of us all. But the Biblical Eve is not simply suppose to be the mother of us all, but is also suppose to be the first human woman. “Mitochondrial Eve” is not suppose to be the first human woman. Whoever she was, she had a mother, and a grand mother, and a great grand mother etc, as well as a father, as well as possibly aunts and uncles, cousins, bothers and sisters and so on. And she must have had at least two daughters. If you don’t understand why I say she must have had at least two daughters then you don’t understand the concept. She is not the first woman, she is the most recent common ancestor when traced through the female only line. Not the only common ancestor, not by a long shot.