Science Disproves Evolution

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Pahu, you still have not answered my questions. They remain unresolved.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Pahu, you still have not answered my questions. They remain unresolved.

If he can't copy and paste it from a long ago debunked Creationist article, I wouldn't expect one.

 

[Pahu]

Mendel’s Laws


Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations occurring within species. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, such as in the dog family. A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation (a). Breeding experiments (b) and common observations (c) have also confirmed these boundaries.

a. Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 812.

Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently proposed the theory of organic evolution slightly before Charles Darwin, was opposed to Mendel’s laws of genetics. Wallace knew Mendel’s experiments showed that the general characteristics of an organism remained within distinct boundaries. In a letter to Dr. Archdall Reid on 28 December 1909, Wallace wrote:

“But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever varying conditions.” James Marchant, Letters and Reminiscences (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1916), p. 340.

b. “Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities.” Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 55.

“All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.” William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 184–185.

“A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be produced.” Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p. 96.

Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Ipswich, Massachusetts: Gambit, 1971), p. 36.

William J. Tinkle, Heredity (Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1967), pp. 55–56.

c. “...the distinctions of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 322.

“Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to non-biologists.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 105.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown
]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 3.** Mendel’s Laws

 

[Gunfingers]

[youtube]TU-7d06HJSs[/youtube]
Here's the 8th Foundational Falsehood of Creation. In it AronRa explains how mutations can add, remove, and change existing genes. I recommend watching all of his Foundational Falsehood videos, it'll give you a much better understanding of evolution and why it is factual.

[youtube]8FGYzZOZxMw[/youtube]
This is Ken Miller explaining why humans have one less chromosome than other hominids. This is an example of a species losing (sort of) an entire chromosome and indicating very strongly that there is not a limit on variation.

This is Walt Brown lying to you. Again.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Pahu, answer my damn question or go away already.

 

[AxisMundi]

Do you have anything of your own to say Pahu.

And how about a link to where you cut and paste this stuff from.

I believe the nonsence is from here...

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 2.   Acquired Characteristics

No wonder Pahu is reluctant to link to such an easily debunked site.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Pahu, you still have not answered my questions. They remain unresolved.

If he can't copy and paste it from a long ago debunked Creationist article, I wouldn't expect one.

Mendel’s Laws


Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations occurring within species. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, such as in the dog family. A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation (a). Breeding experiments (b) and common observations (c) have also confirmed these boundaries.

a. Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 812.

Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently proposed the theory of organic evolution slightly before Charles Darwin, was opposed to Mendel’s laws of genetics. Wallace knew Mendel’s experiments showed that the general characteristics of an organism remained within distinct boundaries. In a letter to Dr. Archdall Reid on 28 December 1909, Wallace wrote:

“But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever varying conditions.” James Marchant, Letters and Reminiscences (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1916), p. 340.

b. “Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities.” Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 55.

“All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.” William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 184–185.

“A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be produced.” Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p. 96.

Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Ipswich, Massachusetts: Gambit, 1971), p. 36.

William J. Tinkle, Heredity (Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1967), pp. 55–56.

c. “...the distinctions of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 322.

“Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to non-biologists.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 105.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown
]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 3.** Mendel’s Laws

See what I mean?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Not one original thought from Pahu.
I am starting to suspect a spambot.....

 

[Gunfingers]

Not one original thought from Pahu.
I am starting to suspect a spambot.....

I'd say it's more likely that he's Walt Brown.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'd say it's more likely that he's Walt Brown.

That is even sadder. That Walt could not come up with anything new since his ideas were thoroughly debunked.

 

[Pahu]

Pahu, answer my damn question or go away already.

Would you repeat the question?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Would you repeat the question?

Since we're talking about the Flood math, I would like to ask Pahu if he can provide a legitimate answer to this problem:

Let's take a look at a few numbers. The Earth is nearly spherical--not perfectly so, but close enough for our example. Now the Bible says that at their peak, the floodwaters covered the mountains by more than 20 feet, which we'll take to be Mount Everest at 29,029 feet, for a total of 29,049 feet. That's 348,348 inches. Since that height is a relatively tiny fraction of Earth's radius of nearly 4000 miles, we don't have to take the curvature of the Earth into effect for calculating how much water piled up; we can just imagine a measuring stick going nearly 30,000 feet down.

The other key figure is the time: 40 days, 40 nights. Rainfall is measured in height per hour--in other words, if the rain stuck to the ground like snow (or a Noah's Flood), whatever it's measured in inches is how high it would be. In our case, there are 960 hours in 40 days, so we get a result of 362.9 inches per hour. Let me explain what that number means. If you ever get a forecast for one inch of rain per hour, that's almost a guaranteed recipe for flash flooding. Three or more inches per hour is likely going to break the record books and cause catastrophic flooding if it continues for any length of time. In fact, this is about as high as even the most intense rainfalls ever recorded have reached.

But 362.9 inches of rain in one hour? How?? That's six inches a minute! Even a bathtub can't fill up that fast--and a bathtub holds significantly less water than a planet does! Where is the scientific mechanism for this? If Noah's Flood was a real, live, actual event, then there must exist some sort of natural explanation for how all that water could have come in so fast. What is this scientifically-verifiable explanation??

There you go...

 

[Autodidact]

I'd say it's more likely that he's Walt Brown.

This is possible. Walt is quite a little piece of work, and is entirely capable of using a sock-puppet. What he will not do is engage in a one-on-one debate. In fact, we could challenge pahu to such a debate, and if he starts imposing bizarre conditions, he is probably Walt.

 

[Pahu]

There you go...

Your math is probably impeccable. The problem is you are making some false assumptions. Before the flood, Mt. Everest, the Himalayas, and other mountain ranges did not exist. They are one of the results of the flood. If we took the amount of water on earth now, it would cover the earth to a depth of about 9,000 feet if those mountain ranges did not exist.

The rainfall was quite different than we experience today, even under the most torrential conditions. The historical record reveals that the fountains of the great deep were released. If you are interested in all the details from a scientific point of view, go here:
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - ***

 

[darkendless]

Water above Mountains?


Is there enough water to cover all the earth’s pre-flood mountains in a global flood? Most people do not realize that the volume of water on earth is ten times greater than the volume of all land above sea level.

Greater volume or not how did it get from where it is to cover the mountains? You would need some sort of monolithic object to displace enough water to cover anything. The volume of water is unimportant when considering how people make naive claims about finding sea shells on top of mountains. They tend to ignore the last 600 million years of seismic activity.

Most of the earth’s mountains consist of tipped and buckled sedimentary layers. Because these sediments were initially laid down through water as nearly horizontal layers, those mountains must have been pushed up after the sediments were deposited.

Thats almost factual well done. Where i live, the mountain range which covers most of the east coast of Australia used to be a coastal zone and where i'm sitting was a shelf until about 300 million years ago.

If the effects of compressing the continents and buckling up mountains were reversed, the oceans would again flood the entire earth. Therefore, the earth has enough water to cover the smaller mountains that existed before the flood. (If the solid earth were perfectly smooth, the water depth would be about 9,000 feet everywhere.)

The Seemingly Impossible Events of a Worldwide Flood Are Credible, If Examined Closely.

Wrong, gosh did an 8 year old write this before you copied it?

The world cannot simply flatten as it would disrupt equilibrium and create some very monolithic hot spots in the process. Simply the differening densities of continental and oceanic plates would prevent by nature any sort of flattening along the fault lines. Also different processes take different amounts of time. The Himilayas would take millions more years to flatten than the great dividing range in Australia.

 

[Pahu]

Greater volume or not how did it get from where it is to cover the mountains? You would need some sort of monolithic object to displace enough water to cover anything. The volume of water is unimportant when considering how people make naive claims about finding sea shells on top of mountains. They tend to ignore the last 600 million years of seismic activity.

You will find the answer here:
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - ***

Thats almost factual well done. Where i live, the mountain range which covers most of the east coast of Australia used to be a coastal zone and where i'm sitting was a shelf until about 300 million years ago.

You are assuming the dating methods used to determine the age of the earth are accurate. There is evidence they are not.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 63.** Radiometric Dating

The world cannot simply flatten as it would disrupt equilibrium and create some very monolithic hot spots in the process. Simply the differening densities of continental and oceanic plates would prevent by nature any sort of flattening along the fault lines. Also different processes take different amounts of time. The Himilayas would take millions more years to flatten than the great dividing range in Australia.

Where was anything said about flattening?

 

[linwood]

The title of this thread is "Science Disproves Evolution," and yet the OP doesn't say a word about evolution. Try again.

Or science for that matter.

I think the OP is off topic.

 

[darkendless]

You will find the answer here:
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - ***

Can't you think with your own mind and present your own facts?

My issue with intillectually bankrupt individuals spouting these websites is 1) they don't understand the information themselves and 2) if they do understand they're to lazy to demonstrate their knowledge. Do you even know how long a sedimentation process takes?

That compelling evidence is so devoid of actual logic its staggering. Individuals who actually believe this to be true really are sick. Whats more sick is people who make these websites are not put out of their misery.

You are assuming the dating methods used to determine the age of the earth are accurate. There is evidence they are not.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 63.** Radiometric Dating

They're pretty close. I rely on these dating methods to design foundations for buildings, if they were wrong, my designs would be inadequate. Please stop being silly.
Radiometric dating is the most accurate way to date rocks, but experience would tell you if you had an iota of common sense that we don't always have that kind of technology lying around.

Where was anything said about flattening?

Good lord

 

[Skwim]

Good lord

Not to be unkind, but you do seem to have a streak of masochism in you.

 

[darkendless]

Not to be unkind, but you do seem to have a streak of masochism in you.

:flirt: Maybe i do?

Haha no i'm just one awful person You still love me for it don't you?