The Evolution Fraud - Page 14 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Besoeker2
#15029220
Hindsite wrote:Living things provide abundant evidence of their relatively recent creation


Top 10 Oldest Animal Species On Earth
10 Martialis Huereka-120 million years old.
9 Frilled Shark – 150 million years old.
8 Horseshoe Shrimp – 200 million years old.
7 Sturgeon – 200 million years old.
6 Coelacanath – 360 million years old.
5 Horseshoe Crab – 445 million years old.
4 Nautilus – 500 million years old.
3 Jelly Fish – 550 Million years old.
2 Sponge – 580 million years old
1 Cyanobacteria – 2.8 billion years old
By Hindsite
#15029226
Besoeker2 wrote:Top 10 Oldest Animal Species On Earth
10 Martialis Huereka-120 million years old.
9 Frilled Shark – 150 million years old.
8 Horseshoe Shrimp – 200 million years old.
7 Sturgeon – 200 million years old.
6 Coelacanath – 360 million years old.
5 Horseshoe Crab – 445 million years old.
4 Nautilus – 500 million years old.
3 Jelly Fish – 550 Million years old.
2 Sponge – 580 million years old
1 Cyanobacteria – 2.8 billion years old

None of those ages are correct. It is all made up by quacks.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15029241
Hindsite wrote:This is actually opposite of evolution.

Wrong!

Darwin's four propositions

Within a given species, more individuals are produced by reproduction than can survive within the constraints (e.g. food supply) imposed by the species' environment.

Consequently, there is a struggle for existence, because of the disparity between the number of individuals produced by reproduction and the number that can survive.

Individuals within a species show variation; no two individuals are exactly alike (not even those we call 'identical' twins). Those with advantageous characters have a greater probability of survival, and therefore of reproducing, in the struggle for existence.

Individuals produce offspring that tend to resemble their parents (the principle of inheritance). Provided that the advantageous characters that promote survival are inherited by offspring, individuals possessing those characters will become more common in the population over successive generations because they are more likely than individuals not possessing those characters to survive and produce offspring in the next generation.

From the horse's mouth...

Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive.

Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Chapter III: Struggle for existence



:)
By Hindsite
#15029293
ingliz wrote:Wrong!

Darwin's four propositions

Within a given species, more individuals are produced by reproduction than can survive within the constraints (e.g. food supply) imposed by the species' environment.

Consequently, there is a struggle for existence, because of the disparity between the number of individuals produced by reproduction and the number that can survive.

Individuals within a species show variation; no two individuals are exactly alike (not even those we call 'identical' twins). Those with advantageous characters have a greater probability of survival, and therefore of reproducing, in the struggle for existence.

Individuals produce offspring that tend to resemble their parents (the principle of inheritance). Provided that the advantageous characters that promote survival are inherited by offspring, individuals possessing those characters will become more common in the population over successive generations because they are more likely than individuals not possessing those characters to survive and produce offspring in the next generation.

From the horse's mouth...

Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive.

Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Chapter III: Struggle for existence

Darwin did discover some things about small changes in species, but he never answered the question of the origin of species.

Besoeker2 wrote:OK. Disprove them. Or even any one of them.

I already provided videos that did that.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15029402
Hindsite wrote:he never answered the question of the origin of species.

If you mean the question of the origin of life, why would he?

The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.

― Charles Darwin

Darwin’s theory of natural selection describes how living organisms adapt, change to suit particular ecologies, nothing more.


:)
User avatar
By Besoeker2
#15029407
Hindsite wrote:
"Besoeker2 wrote:
OK. Disprove them. Or even any one of them."

I already provided videos that did that.


Your videos did no such thing.
Look at the last link you posted. It is not proof of anything. It doesn't even claim to be proof. It claims evidence of a young creation. You do understand the difference between proof and evidence don't you? Or do you?

Anyway, the evidence presented is, at best, very shaky. Taking just one example, the video shows a coal cliff face and the presenter waxes on about it not being eroded by weathering. Yet, the ground at the base of the cliff is littered with pieces of coal which have eroded off the cliff face.

Oh, and coal takes about 300 million years to form.
By Hindsite
#15029520
ingliz wrote:If you mean the question of the origin of life, why would he?

We already know that God is the origin of life. Louis Pasteur proved that life does not spontaneously arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation, but that complex living things come only from other living things by means of reproduction.

Darwin's book was supposed to be answering the question about origin of species according to his title. He failed.

ingliz wrote:Darwin’s theory of natural selection describes how living organisms adapt, change to suit particular ecologies, nothing more.

We already knew how changes are made in species by selective breeding, which we had been doing for centuries. As you stated, all he was able to show is that adaptive changes could also take place in certain restrictive environments. He did not really understand tadpole to frog or caterpillar to butterfly changes. He only speculated on the possibility that many small changes might result in large changes leading to the origin of all the species on earth, including man from ape. That is the part of his idea that became known as the theory of evolution that has never been proven.
User avatar
By Besoeker2
#15029522
Hindsite wrote:That is the part of his idea that became known as the theory of evolution that has never been proven.

It has vastly more evidence than your creation in six days idea.
By Hindsite
#15029525
Besoeker2 wrote:Oh, and coal takes about 300 million years to form.

No, coal does not take millions of years to form.

Rapid Formation of Coal in Nature/b]


[b]Creation Has Answers: Rapid Coal Formation

User avatar
By Besoeker2
#15029526
Hindsite wrote:No, coal does not take millions of years to form.

Rapid Formation of Coal in Nature/b]


[b]Creation Has Answers: Rapid Coal Formation



Coal produced in a laboratory verses coal under vast layers of sedimentary deposits.
Surely even you can see the disparity in that comparison???
Remove those blinkers.
User avatar
By Besoeker2
#15029597
Hindsite wrote:Perhaps you are the one with the blinders.

Do you know what my user name means? Probably not.

Image

I spent time in South Africa visiting gold mines and diamond mines. Most of them are tens of thousands of feet deep. Much of my business was in the Johannesburg area which is about 6,000 feet above sea level. So the working depth of the mines was below sea level even at that elevation.

Do really believe all those layers accrued in just 6,000 years. Two feet per year?
Get real.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15029598
Hindsite wrote:many small changes might result in large changes

Don't be silly

It is indisputable that, given enough time, many small changes will result in large changes. That is why you have to post videos showing that God lies to save your argument.


:)
User avatar
By Besoeker2
#15029612
ingliz wrote:Don't be silly

It is indisputable that, given enough time, many small changes will result in large changes. That is why you have to post videos showing that God lies to save your argument.


:)


There's the rub. Enough time. He thinks it all kicked off around 6,000 years ago.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15029614
Besoeker2 wrote:He thinks it all kicked off around 6,000 years ago.

If he believes that, he condemns his God to be a trickster and a liar.

Example:

Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,700 years. As long as his God isn't playing tricks, it should be easy enough to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely by looking at the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in a sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism.
By Hindsite
#15029675
Besoeker2 wrote:Do you know what my user name means? Probably not.

No and I don't care.

Besoeker2 wrote:Do really believe all those layers accrued in just 6,000 years. Two feet per year?

I never said the layers accrued two feet per year. That sounds like something that stupid evolutionists would say.
User avatar
By Besoeker2
#15029677
Hindsite wrote:I never said the layers accrued two feet per year. That sounds like something that stupid evolutionists would say.

You're right. You didn't. I did. Do pay attention!

If your fictitious man in the sky created everything in six days 6,000 years ago, including diamonds, they would need to be buried at the rate of two feet per year to be at a depth of 12,000 feet. Very simple arithmetic. Don't you even understand that?
By Hindsite
#15029740
ingliz wrote:If he believes that, he condemns his God to be a trickster and a liar.

Example:

Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,700 years. As long as his God isn't playing tricks, it should be easy enough to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely by looking at the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in a sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism.

Radiometric Dating Debunked in 3 Minutes


Carbon Dating Flaws


The Fossil Record: Proof of Noah's Flood or Evolution
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17

Who's doing all this dying you're referring to? P[…]

You sound like a normal person who doesn't need to[…]

Key Rasmussen Polls

Here's this weekend's round-up of polls . Anyon[…]

You mean in countries where freedom is severely r[…]