The Delusion of Evolution

[Neandertal Ned]

There is plenty of evidence that the so-called "process" of evoution is more of a delusion than a real biological process. It is a delusion in the sense that you can only imagine a species of one genus "evolving" into the species of an entirely different animal genus by "natural selection" alone since no one has ever observed it to happen "naturally" in real life. Until physically demonstrated to have ever happened on earth let alone that is physically possible nowadays or at some distant time in the future, it can only be called a mass delusion on the part of the so-called "scientific community."

http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/ ... ution.html

http://www.god-book.com/TheEvolutionDelusion.htm



http://evolutiondelusion.blogspot.com/

Do you have any doubts or objections to evolution being classified as a mass delusion or modern myth?

[Nickman]

If your faith is in both God and evolution then pointing to evolution would be a confirmation of your faith. Pointing to evolution alone while denying the existence of God or mocking your Christian faith would not be a confirmation of your faith in God and evolution.

Ah ha. So you can believe in evolution and be a child of god. This goes against your previous claim:
- "trying to rob everyone else in the world of the priviledge of becoming a child of God."

Do you have problems with reading comprehension or just with following a logical argument?

Is it God and evolution or God or evolution? Make up your mind.

Im not sure who flip flops more Nean Ned of Romney. I saw his flip flop too. I think Ned is an evolutionist but cant commit. What say you?

[Neandertal Ned]

Genesis also accounts for all of the plants and animals which exist and accounts for the fossilization of millions of extinct species buried in the earth after the worldwide flood.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... in+genesis

Except, of course, you have to ignore many facts, such as 'DATING OF THE FOSSILS', and 'THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN' and 'PLANTS BEING FORMED BEFORE THE SUN' in Genesis. So, that falsifies your claim....

Hardly, since the fossils can only be dated according to flood theory and the geologic column confirms the flood. Light existed before the sun and stars. Even "big bang" theory confirms that.

Fossils in general can be held. It is not just human fossils.

Human fossils can never be handled by the general public.

Although I have visited most of the major natural history museums in the United States and some overseas, I have never seen an original human fossil. Neither have most of the anthropologists who teach human evolution in our universities. Neither have you. In fact, you may not have even seen a picture of an original fossil. What you thought were pictures of original fossils may have been pictures of reproductions.

No prisoner on death row is under greater security than those ancient relics called human fossils. Most of the original fossils are sequestered inside vaults of concrete or stone and accessible only through massive steel doors, the type you would expect to see at the First National Bank. Few can even see them"let alone study them.

This process of seclusion was true with the original 1856 Feldhofer Cave Neandertal. The skull and the bones were Fuhlrotts private property, and he did not show them to many. Only very few scholars in Britain and on the Continent had seen the skull or obtained a cast. Even Rudolf Virchow, the greatest medical man of his time, could only study the remains in Fuhlrotts house after gaining access from his wife when Fuhlrott was away.1 William King never saw the original fossils, although he is the one who, in naming them Homo neanderthalensis in 1864, declared them to represent a different species from modern humans. Darwin never saw these or any other fossil humans, although he published an entire book on human evolution in 1871. Thomas Huxley, Darwins bulldog, never saw the original fossils either, although he described them in his famous 1863 work, Mans Place in Nature.2 That should dispense with the concept that human evolution was based upon fossil evidence.

http://www.christianbookpreviews.com/ch ... 0801065232

it is the whole range of fossils. Those fossils exist, and they can be examined by people. If you can't hold a specific specimen, other people and, and those specimens PHYSICALLY exist. They can be held. They have physical substance.

So you say, but until what you claim to be human fossils are put on display for the public to even see, there is no evidence of their existence as far as they are concerned. Plaster casts or artificial reconstructions by imaginative artists or photos of them are not fossils. Show me the real thing.

You can also go out into places, and get shell fossils, plant fossils, buy yourself a nice mastadon bone, or even a dinosaur bone. .. or even go to the right place, look for, and dig them out yourself, if you have the energy, knowledge, and resources. It's there for the finding.

Sure, you can buy trilobite fossils labeled 300 million years old for a dollar or two in some museum shop but the shop won't give you a written guarantee stating that the fossils really are 300 million years old. I wonder why.

And your point?? Those specimens physically exist.

Fossil specimens of Human species? Prove it. Show me the physical evidence.

By physicists, geologists, archeologists, paleontologists, chemists, astronomers, etc etc etc.

Physicists, geologists, archeologists, paleontologists, chemists, astronomers, etc etc etc have falsified the Book of Genesis? Gee. I wonder if they know that. Give me some quotes from physicists, geologists, archeologists, paleontologists, chemists, astronomers, etc etc etc who have publically stated that they have falsified the Book of Genesis, or else it is just your own religious opinion.

The evidence of the formation of the earth is pretty good.

It is? Where is the evidence - in your imagination?

Now, no amount of evidence will be convincing to someone who is in the constant state of denial and sees no evidence, speaks no evidence, and hears no evidence. However, unbiased observers will take note of such behavior, and will notice on the fact that , well, one side avoids the issue, and projects their behavior on the other side, and ignores all the points presented.. and the other, well, presents facts and evidence.

There is plenty of evidence supporting flood theory so who is in the constant state of denial and sees no evidence, speaks no evidence, and hears no evidence?

It seems you are taking criticisms that you have heard directed against how some people interpret the Bible, and trying to project it on a book on science. This shows a lack of understanding about science, and the bible at the very same time.

To the contrary, it shows a greater understanding of both science and the Bible than you currently have.

There is one factor that you are ignoring.. and that is 'Using the theory to make predictions on what will be found for new information'. The TOE makes testable predictions, and can be checked with future events/discoveries..

That's a ridiculous claim. There is no evolution for Darwinists to test and Darwin's prediction that the progenitors of humanity would be found in some species of anthropomorphic African apes has never materialized.

[Neandertal Ned]

If your faith is in both God and evolution then pointing to evolution would be a confirmation of your faith. Pointing to evolution alone while denying the existence of God or mocking your Christian faith would not be a confirmation of your faith in God and evolution.

Ah ha. So you can believe in evolution and be a child of god. This goes against your previous claim:
- "trying to rob everyone else in the world of the priviledge of becoming a child of God."

Do you have problems with reading comprehension or just with following a logical argument?

Is it God and evolution or God or evolution? Make up your mind.

Check with micatala. He believes in both.

I believe in God, not Darwin.

[Clownboat]

If your faith is in both God and evolution then pointing to evolution would be a confirmation of your faith. Pointing to evolution alone while denying the existence of God or mocking your Christian faith would not be a confirmation of your faith in God and evolution.

Ah ha. So you can believe in evolution and be a child of god. This goes against your previous claim:
- "trying to rob everyone else in the world of the priviledge of becoming a child of God."

Do you have problems with reading comprehension or just with following a logical argument?

Is it God and evolution or God or evolution? Make up your mind.

Check with micatala. He believes in both.

I believe in God, not Darwin.

Hey Micatala, I guess we are suppose to ask you what Ned meant.

- What did he really mean by "you can't believe in evolution and be a child of god?" You (and others) are proof that his claim is false, so any idea what he was getting at? I showed that his claim was false, but rather than trying to support it (or retract it) he wants me to ask you for some reason. Any clue, because it sure seems to me like he is trying to wiggle out of his claim.

Please help me to understand this, otherwise his wild claim that biologist ect... are frauds might need to be examined for honesty as well.

[micatala]

actually, i think you'll find they are rather different. for a start, evolutionary sculptors have science and fossils to work with, so they have a set path in mind.
the other kind don't have said science, so just make up a plan, so are you seriously accusing these people of being charlatans?

He accuses practically every biologist and every other person working on or believing in evolution or evolution related research living or dead to be involved in a worldwide conspiracy with the sole purpose of robbing him of his great privilege of having been especially created by a god, if I understand him correctly.

Not only of trying to rob me but of trying to rob everyone else in the world of the priviledge of becoming a child of God.

I accept that evolution is a fact.

I am also blessed to be a child of God.

I really am not sure how the first is supposed to rob me of the second. I have no problem with both.

If anyone thinks believing in evolution robs me of my faith, or attempts to dissuade me from faith by pointing to evolution, I am afraid I must be a sore disappointment to them. I see no reason to have my faith and other beliefs boxed in by the assumptions or illogical arguments of others.

If your faith is in both God and evolution then pointing to evolution would be a confirmation of your faith.

I do not have "faith" in evolution. I accept that the evidence overwhelmingly supports that evolution of life on earth has occurred.


I have faith in God as a matter of personal belief.

I reject the notion that evolution disproves God or debunks religion in general.

I reject the notion that being a Christian means one must pretend evolution is not true.

[micatala]

Genesis also accounts for all of the plants and animals which exist and accounts for the fossilization of millions of extinct species buried in the earth after the worldwide flood.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... in+genesis

Except, of course, you have to ignore many facts, such as 'DATING OF THE FOSSILS', and 'THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN' and 'PLANTS BEING FORMED BEFORE THE SUN' in Genesis. So, that falsifies your claim....

Hardly, since the fossils can only be dated according to flood theory and the geologic column confirms the flood.

COmpletely and utterly false. The geologic evidence completely refutes the flood.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/


See the geological column in North Dakota.

You have sandstone wtih small burrowing tubes in them. If the flood happened after these formed and they were close to the surface, they would have been wiped out.

Above these you have shale, which forms very slowly in tranquil waters. Did these form before, during, or after the flood? Could definitely not have been during.

Shale, due to the very small particle size requires quiet, tranquil waters for deposition to take place. This is one of the unrecognized difficulties of flood geology. Every shale, which is approximately 46% of the geologic column, is by its existence, evidence for tranquil waters.

Then we have:

Above this is the Ordovician Winnipeg formation. It consists of a basal sand whose lithology is very similar to that of the Deadwood scolithus sand, "suggesting that the Deadwood Sandstone may be a source for the Winnipeg Sandstone" (Bitney, 1983, p. 1330). This would mean that local erosion was the cause of the sand for the Winnipeg sand rather than a world wide catastrophe. The Winnipeg does not have scolithus burrows.

Above this is the Icebox shale. Once again a shale requires still water for deposition.

So, Icebox shale is either before or after the flood, not during.

Above this is 1300 feet of Dolomite. Can't be during a short flood since its formation generates a lot of heat. That amount of heat in a short time would fry the earth. ALso, this layer includes lost of fossil sea creatures, including coral, and some burrowing.

Then the Silurian formation, with more coral, but none that exist today. There is also layers of salt. Salt can only form with slow evaporation. Thick layers of salt require vast amounts of time to form.

Then Devonian. MOre layers formed through evaporation, but of a different kind. If both this and Silurian formed during the flood, how did they get to be different kinds of layers? A single flood would produce a fairly uniform layer. How did the crushed seashells in this layer get on top of the two other layers of coral that are below?


After a few more layers, you get this:

Much of the massive limestone formation is composed of sand-sized particles of calcium carbonate, fragments of crinoid plates, and shells broken by the waves. Such a sedimentary rock qualifies for the name sandstone because it is composed of particles of sand size cemented together; because the term sandstone is commonly understood to refer to a quartz-rich rock, however, these limestone sandstones are better called calcarenites. The Madison sea must have been shallow, and the waves and currents strong, to break the shells and plates of the animals when they died. The sorting of the calcite grains and the cross-bedding that is common in this formation are additional evidence of waves and currents at work. Even in Mississippian rocks, where whole crinoids are rare fossils, and as a result it is easy to underestimate the population of these animals during the Paleozoic era. Crinoidal limestones, such as the Mission Canyon-Livingstone unit, provide an estimate, even though it be of necessity a rough one, of their abundance in the clear shallow seas they loved. In the Canadian Rockies the Livingstone limestone was deposited to a thickness of 2,000 feet on the margin of the Cordilleran geosyncline, but it thins rapidly eastward to a thickness of about 1,000 feet in the Front Ranges and to about 500 feet in the Williston Basin. Even though its crinoidal content decreases eastward, it may be calculated to represent at least 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates. How many millions, billions trillions of crinoids would be required to provide such a deposit? The number staggers the imagination.

The volume of crinoids here is simply too great to have all been alive in the sea at one time, especially as they live in shallow seas. This means one very long expanse of time with no massive global flood to allow for their formation.

Skip another layer to:

Above this is the Minnelusa formation which contains three features which are incompatible with the flood. First there is a desiccated dolomite with desiccation cracks. Secondly, there are two anhydrite layers with a peculiar "chicken-wire" structure (Achauer, 1982, p. 195). Thirdly, the sands are cross-bedded in a fashion identical to modern desert dunes! The importance of these three features is that desiccation is not likely in a world wide flood, and "chicken-wire" anhydrite only forms above 35 degree C. and near the water table (Hsu, 1972, p. 30). This type of anhydrite is deposited in the Persian Gulf area today. Fossils include brachiopods, cephalopods, gastropods, fish teeth, crinoids pelecypods. None of the Minnelusa beds are likely to be deposited under flood waters.

We already have a lot of layers that cannot have formed during a flood. We also have a lot of problems trying to put a flood between most of these layers.

And it gets worse for 'flood geology'.

The Opeche shale is of Permian age and overlies the Minnelusa. The interesting thing about the Opeche is that in the center of the basin, at its deepest part, it is salt - 300 feet of salt. Permian pollen is found in the salt, modern pollen is not found (Wilgus and Holser, 1984, p. 765,766). This bed has the appearance of a period of time in which the Williston Sea dried up, leaving its salt behind in the deepest parts of the basin as would be expected. The area of salt deposition is 188,400 square kilometers. Assuming that over this area the salt averages half that 300 feet(91 m) or averages 45 meters, then this deposit represents 9 trillion cubic meters of salt! With a density of 2160 kg/m^3 this represents the evaporation of 845 million cubic kilometers of seawater. This is 1/14 of the world's ocean water. This is hardly something to be expected in a global flood.

I will let you continue reading. Where in this vast sequence of layers can you find evidence for a global flood?




I will also point out we can do the same thing with the Grand Canyon, where we find sea creatures and land creatures alternating in layers, and some layers include fossilized footprints, indicating formation on dry land. There are corals buried as they lived above land creatures. How is that consistent with a global flood?



Flood geology in fact is the most delusional part of the anti-evolutionary obsession.

[Neandertal Ned]

Genesis also accounts for all of the plants and animals which exist and accounts for the fossilization of millions of extinct species buried in the earth after the worldwide flood.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... in+genesis

Except, of course, you have to ignore many facts, such as 'DATING OF THE FOSSILS', and 'THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN' and 'PLANTS BEING FORMED BEFORE THE SUN' in Genesis. So, that falsifies your claim....

Hardly, since the fossils can only be dated according to flood theory and the geologic column confirms the flood.

COmpletely and utterly false. The geologic evidence completely refutes the flood.

Not true. You can't refute the flood.

See the geological column in North Dakota.

Do you have a photo of it?

http://www.google.com/search?q=geologic ... 24&bih=493

http://creation.com/does-geologic-column-exist

http://www.icr.org/article/ten-misconce ... ic-column/

Flood geology in fact is the most delusional part of the anti-evolutionary obsession.

The evolutionary obsession with the millions of years they attribute to the geologic colums is even more delusionary.

[micatala]

Genesis also accounts for all of the plants and animals which exist and accounts for the fossilization of millions of extinct species buried in the earth after the worldwide flood.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... in+genesis

Except, of course, you have to ignore many facts, such as 'DATING OF THE FOSSILS', and 'THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN' and 'PLANTS BEING FORMED BEFORE THE SUN' in Genesis. So, that falsifies your claim....

Hardly, since the fossils can only be dated according to flood theory and the geologic column confirms the flood.

COmpletely and utterly false. The geologic evidence completely refutes the flood.

Not true. You can't refute the flood.

I just did, you just refuse to look at the evidence because of your pre-determined and completely unsubstantiated view.

See the geological column in North Dakota.

Do you have a photo of it?

No, but oil geologists have the actual rocks brought up from wells they drill. They know the geology otherwise they wouldn't be able to find oil. You can cover your eyes and deny the evidence if you wish, but every single piece of evidence mentioned in the site I referenced exists courtesy of the oil industry, and much if not all of it is available in their publications.

[otseng]

Do you have problems with reading comprehension or just with following a logical argument?

Moderator Warning


This would be considered an indirect personal attack. Please avoid questioning the abilities of another poster.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Neandertal Ned]

No, but oil geologists have the actual rocks brought up from wells they drill. They know the geology otherwise they wouldn't be able to find oil. You can cover your eyes and deny the evidence if you wish, but every single piece of evidence mentioned in the site I referenced exists courtesy of the oil industry, and much if not all of it is available in their publications.

I didn't see any evidence which would substantiate the millions of years it would take to form the strata. There is no denying the stratification but only flood theory explains it.