Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[Amo]

No they did not, that is an absolutely ridiculous claim.

Bla bla bla. Alan said so doesn't equal scientific fact for me or countless others. As with all evolutionary science, there is a great deal of conjecture presented as fact regarding dinosaurs. Time has and will continue to reveal the constant evolution of the evolutionary theory itself, constantly changing and adapting as necessary when that presumed fact is proved wrong over and over again.

[The Barbarian]

My my...according to science the Tibetans INHERITED the EPAS1 gene in the past from some far away relatives.

Since all humans have an EPAS1 gene, likely from H. erectus.   However, only Tibetans and a few people in nearby populations have the mutated form that allows them to live at high altitudes successfully.   That evolved fairly recently.

That means that the gene existed many generations past.

But the particular allele in Tibetans is mutated and not the same one found in all other humans.

Which means that those people INHERITED it from their ancestors, who INHERITED it from theirs etc etc.

Nope.  You just assumed that all alleles are alike.

There is NO PROOF that in this chain of events anyone ACQUIRED the gene.

See above.   The mutation is found only in Tibetans and in a small number of people in adjacent populations, almost all of them Han Chinese.  So we know it evolved rather recently.

Now everybody in the world has fragments of the EPAS1 gene.

No.   Everybody in the world has an EPAS gene.   Just not the recent mutated form found in Tibetans

Which simply means that westeners LOST part of the gene, and the Tibetan family kept it.

No.  We just have a different version.  And it's not the only mutation found in Tibetans:

A gene that controls red blood cell production evolved quickly to enable Tibetans to tolerate high altitudes, a study suggests. The finding could lead researchers to new genes controlling oxygen metabolism in the body.

An international team of researchers compared the DNA of 50 Tibetans with that of 40 Han Chinese and found 34 mutations that have become more common in Tibetans in the 2,750 years since the populations split. More than half of these changes are related to oxygen metabolism.

The researchers looked at specific genes responsible for high-altitude adaptation in Tibetans. "By identifying genes with mutations that are very common in Tibetans, but very rare in lowland populations we can identify genes that have been under natural selection in the Tibetan population," said Professor Rasmus Nielsen of the University of California Berkeley, who took part in the study. "We found a list of 20 genes showing evidence for selection in Tibet - but one stood out: EPAS1."

The gene, which codes for a protein involved in responding to falling oxygen levels and is associated with improved athletic performance in endurance athletes, seems to be the key to Tibetan adaptation to life at high altitude. A mutation in the gene that is thought to affect red blood cell production was present in only 9% of the Han population, but was found in 87% of the Tibetan population.

"It is the fastest change in the frequency of a mutation described in humans," said Professor Nielsen.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jul/02/mutation-gene-tibetans-altitude

That is proof of DEVOLUTION

"Evolution" means "change."   "Devolution" would mean, "no change."   And as you see, the mutation in Tibetans was a change from the earlier forms of the EPAS1 gene.

and not evolution.

As you learned earlier, "evolution" is defined as a "change in allele frequency in a population over time."    Which is exactly what we have here.

[The Barbarian]

No they did not, that is an absolutely ridiculous claim.

Well, there is this....



And don't forget Onyate man...

Hello. My name is Stefan. My last name is not important, but my story it is. I have a incredible story to tell, which is being hushed up by scientists and goverments all over the world.

Darwin's theory of the evolution of species has been disproved. But everyone is covering it up. I kept some photographs of this event, and now I am telling the world. An American friend is helping me post this story to the internet. It is the only way I could think of to get these amazing facts out before it is too late. I don't know how long I can keep this web cite up. I use my own words so it is my story. Sorry about not perfect english.

It begin when I became visiting grad student to America, from where I was studying at University of Heidelberg. I came to work with my paleontology professor, Dr. Heinschvagel, who is a expert of dinosaur studies. We came to New Mexico in the South West, and worked in the Morrison Formation, over 140 million years old. Every day we would leave the student quarters in Albuquerque, and travel about 70 km north west to the cite.

It was hardly winter there at all. They said this year was dry. And so we worked early in the year, and in late February of 1999, we made a discovery that shakes the world.

We found a fossil of a hominid, being eaten by an allosaurus dinosaur. Look at the picture.


Of course, it is the impossible in Darwin's theory for hominids to have been lived 140 million years ago. In the 70s, there was talk of a human fossil called "Moab Man" found in dinosaur deposits, also Morrison formation, near Moab of Utah. But this case was controversial because some claimed the human skeleton fell into a crevise in the dinosaur layers. No one can tell, because the remains were taken away, and never tested. And that is what is happening again this time! All the evidence of this incredible find has been taken away. Except for a few photo's which I managed to keep. They had me taking some photographs at the dig, and my camera had a half-shoot roll of film, so I got about 8 shots taken before when I had to change the film. Then, I shoot two more rolls. After that, one of the guards came and made me give him all of the film. He said it would be very bad if I did not coo-perate, that I could be returned to Germany, and I was pretty scared. I gave him the 2 full rolls I shot, and I was so scared and worried that I forgot about the roll that had the 8 shots. When we returned to Albuquerque, I remembered, and hid the films till I returned home. Now my friend has been putting them on the internet so everyone can learn what has happenned, and how they are covering it all up.

The professor said this is not like the Moab man. He said there was no evidence that showed Moab Man was true. But he said our bones of the hominid and the dinosaur were together, in hard sandstone, and that they had to become the fossils at the same time, 140 million years ago, in the Upper Jurassic. The dinosaur is apparently trying to eat the cave-man, and then both became killed in some event. Perhaps the allosaurus choked on his food. We were not able to find the foot bones of the hominid, and the Americans started calling it "Onyate Man" after some local politician. They thought it was funny but I didn't see how. The professor said "Onyate Man" was almost like Homo Erectus, but different in a few features.

This picture shows one of the guards, one of the other students, and Professor Heinschvagel, working on final cleaning before the casting. The guard was named Billy, he said he was in the Marines before this. He kidded around some with the students, but he got real mean when he needed something, like my photos. The girl in the photo was called Pilar P******, or something like that. She is from New Mexico, and she is only a grad student, but also, is a real expert of fossil preparation. I learned greatly working with her.
http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html

How can you ignore evidence like that?

[The Barbarian]

 For Amo:
The above post is a joke.  It's a joke.

There wasn't really any Onyate Man.   It was a hoax perpetrated by some guys who wanted to have a little fun with the issue.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
The problem is in defining "kind."   Seems that transitional forms exist between any sort of kind you can define.   Let's try primates.   How many "kinds" would that be, or do you think all primates are a single kind?

And give us your evidence for your belief.

Kiwi dodges the question:

PROVE that ANY form is "transitional"

No other YE creationist can answer that one, either.   That should be a wake-up for you.

We'll just note that you couldn't answer.

Regarding your question; a transitional is any organism with apomorphic characters of two different groups.

Transitional forms

Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.

Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.

A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.

   ,,

Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern gray whale — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!

Horse evolution tree


      Our understanding of the evolution of horse feet, so often depicted in textbooks, is derived from a scattered sampling of horse fossils within the multi-branched horse evolutionary tree. These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses.

But, the standard diagram does clearly show transitional stages whereby the four-toed foot of Hyracotherium, otherwise known as Eohippus, became the single-toed foot of Equus. Fossils show that the transitional forms predicted by evolution did indeed exist.

As you can see to the left, each branch tip on the tree of horse evolution indicates a different genus, though the feet of only a few genera are illustrated to show the red
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03

[Alan]

Bla bla bla. Alan said so doesn't equal scientific fact for me or countless others. As with all evolutionary science, there is a great deal of conjecture presented as fact regarding dinosaurs. Time has and will continue to reveal the constant evolution of the evolutionary theory itself, constantly changing and adapting as necessary when that presumed fact is proved wrong over and over again.

Cute, but not one thing has been proven "wrong", as we continually attempt to relay to you and others, science is a progression of data and research, it is NOT a series of theories that will be turned upside down.

[Texas Conservative]

Careful, this will come back at you 

And it should, as a few times I heard the word "fact" spewed which shows some here who think they are on the side of "science" are also full of it.

[Alan]

For Amo:
The above post is a joke.  It's a joke.

There wasn't really any Onyate Man.   It was a hoax perpetrated by some guys who wanted to have a little fun with the issue.

May be a hoax but it's a typical characteristic of people when genuine facts and evidence cannot substantiate a view. Conspiracy theories have been mentioned in this thread, just as they are mentioned in politics, religion, and a host of other topics that contain multiple views.

[grams]

The bible does not tell us  millions of years ago.........

What  trash that is.......... 

If  that were true   our  GOD   would let us know  for sure !   

[The Barbarian]

The Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is, nor should it, unless God finds that knowing how old it is, is important to salvation.   

And it's not important to salvation.

[AVZ]

The Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is, nor should it, unless God finds that knowing how old it is, is important to salvation.   

And it's not important to salvation.

And neither has the age of the earth anything to do with evolution

[AVZ]

Barbarian asks:
The problem is in defining "kind."   Seems that transitional forms exist between any sort of kind you can define.   Let's try primates.   How many "kinds" would that be, or do you think all primates are a single kind?

And give us your evidence for your belief.

Kiwi dodges the question:
No other YE creationist can answer that one, either.   That should be a wake-up for you.

We'll just note that you couldn't answer.

Regarding your question; a transitional is any organism with apomorphic characters of two different groups.

Transitional forms

Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.

Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.

A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.

   ,,

Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern gray whale — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!

Horse evolution tree


      Our understanding of the evolution of horse feet, so often depicted in textbooks, is derived from a scattered sampling of horse fossils within the multi-branched horse evolutionary tree. These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses.

But, the standard diagram does clearly show transitional stages whereby the four-toed foot of Hyracotherium, otherwise known as Eohippus, became the single-toed foot of Equus. Fossils show that the transitional forms predicted by evolution did indeed exist.

As you can see to the left, each branch tip on the tree of horse evolution indicates a different genus, though the feet of only a few genera are illustrated to show the red
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03

Science claims that this


evolved in to this



The sheer number of morphological changes are mind boggling. Only on cellular level millions of changes must have taken place.
Multiply that with the number of biological changes and physical adaptations, and you end up with a speed of evolution that even today should be observable and measurable.
On top of that the fossil record should be littered with intermediate specimen.

Yet, none of this exists. No fossil record and no measurable evolution in today's living specimen.
Besides a nice morphological drawing, and vague claims by evolutionists...not a shred of proof exists.

The question has been posted many times to evolutionists: How many biological, cellular, sociological and habitual changes take place to go from a land dwelling animal to a sea dwelling animal.
No evolutionist has ever dared to answer this question because the sheer number would blow their theory right out of the water.

[Alan]

Pretty good explanation of Pakicetus to Whale evolution here if you care to read.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-did-whales-evolve-73276956/

[The Barbarian]

Science claims that this


Evolved to this:


And eventually, to a hole host of other more evolved whales.

It was kind of a surprise because at first all we had was the skull of pakicetus, which looked like that of a primitive whale.



Then, the rest of the skeleton was found, with another skull.  Turns out it was quite capable of moving about on land.

And not long after, a series of transitional whales were found.

It's why YE creationist Dr. Kurt wise notes that the whale series is an especially difficult challenge for creationists.

[AVZ]

Science claims that this


Evolved to this:


And eventually, to a hole host of other more evolved whales.

It was kind of a surprise because at first all we had was the skull of pakicetus, which looked like that of a primitive whale.



Then, the rest of the skeleton was found, with another skull.  Turns out it was quite capable of moving about on land.

And not long after, a series of transitional whales were found.

It's why YE creationist Dr. Kurt wise notes that the whale series is an especially difficult challenge for creationists.

It is rather funny how you mislead the reader by posting outdated pictures, and incomplete information.

The Pakicetus in your drawing looks like an aquatic animal and it is drawn in a swimming position with webs between the toes.
It has already been admitted by scientists that Pakicetus was not aquatical, it was a running land dwelling animal.

Your claim "And not long after, a series of transitional whales were found." is severely exaggerated!
Not a single transition between terrestial animals and aquatic animals have EVER been found.
The gap between them is absolutely huge, and not been filled in by any proof.

For example, to go from a land dwelling creature to a sea dwelling creature, the pelvis must completely change.
The support for weight carrying hind legs must disappear and the pelvis must twist.
Not a single specimen of such a transition has ever been found, even though such a transition must have been massive, spread over many generations in numerous stages.
In the meantime, the intermediate species, because of the transition could neither walk nor swim.
Science still has not explained that.

So the information you post is misleading, outdated and incomplete.
You jump from "here we have a skeleton of a Pakicetus" to "And not long after, a series of transitional whales were found." without informing that these new discoveries are not transitional whatsoever. Scientist find the same animal over and over again. What they do not find are transitions....and there should be numerous.

The whale series is not at all difficult for creationists to refute. The main reason is that science itself has put it under scrutiny again, and some even admit it is wrong.
There are still a few knucklehead evolutionists (outdated people like you) that defend the series by introducing more speculated intermediates based on a handful of bone fragments, but all that is left are only some scientists who hope that someday intermediates will be found.
Wishful thinking, that's all whats left of the theory.

Finally, about what Dr. Kurt Wise said, please post your source.
You can make any claim you want about any scientist, if you do not post the source your claim is without merit.

[The Barbarian]

It is rather funny how you mislead the reader by posting outdated pictures, and incomplete information.

The Pakicetus in your drawing looks like an aquatic animal and it is drawn in a swimming position with webs between the toes.

It looks just like the one you posted.  Only it's in a swimming posture. 

It has already been admitted by scientists that Pakicetus was not aquatical, it was a running land dwelling animal.

The Pakicetus had a very long and robust tail, and it's four legs had bones which suggested it was semi- aquatic.

https://jodyneilson.wikispaces.com/Pakicetus

Your claim "And not long after, a series of transitional whales were found." is severely exaggerated!

You've been badly misled.



Ambulocetus is even more adapted to aquatic conditions, and while it could walk on land, it is more adapted to the water.



Rhodocetus could probably still move on land a little, but is more adapted to water than Ambulocetus.



Dorudon was the one of the first whales completely unable to walk on land.   Notice that the nostrils of these transitional forms are slowly moving backwards from the front of the snout.

Notice also the trend to larger and more robust tails in a transition from used feet to using the tail for swimming.

Not a single transition between terrestial animals and aquatic animals have EVER been found.

See above.  You've been misled about that.

For example, to go from a land dwelling creature to a sea dwelling creature, the pelvis must completely change.

As you see, in whales it became vestigial.

Not a single specimen of such a transition has ever been found, even though such a transition must have been massive, spread over many generations in numerous stages.

And now you know how.

In the meantime, the intermediate species, because of the transition could neither walk nor swim.

That's absurd.  We have mammals like otters and polar bears that can do both.   Ambulocetus, for example, was primarily adapted to water, but could still walk.

You jump from "here we have a skeleton of a Pakicetus" to "And not long after, a series of transitional whales were found."

See above.   I left out a good number of them, just showing you the general trend.   Would you like to see some more?  The transitional forms are numberous and gradual.

The whale series is not at all difficult for creationists to refute.

Creationists familiar with the issue disagree with you.

Finally, about what Dr. Kurt Wise said, please post your source.

Sure...

At  this  point  in  time,  the  largest  challenge  from  the stratomorphic  intermediate  record  appears  to  this  author  to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic   series   of   archaeocete   genera   claimed   by Gingerich

(Ambulocetus,  Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon[or  the  similar-aged Basilosaurus]

followed  on  the  one hand  by  modern  mysticetes, and  on  the other  hand  by  the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.

That same  series  is  also  a  morphological  series: Ambulocetus
with the largest hind legs; Rhodocetus with hindlegs one- third  smaller;

Prozeuglodonwith  6  inch  hindlegs;
   
and the  remaining  whales  with  virtually  no  to  no  hind  legs:
toothed  mysticetes  before  non-toothed  baleen  whales;

the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;

and  the  modern  odontocetes  with  telescoped  skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic  series.  Because  the  land  mammal-to-whale transition   (theorized   by   macroevolutionary   theory   and evidenced  by  the  fossil  record)  is  a  land-to-sea  transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing  Flood  waters).  Furthermore,  whale fossils  are  only  known  in  Cenozoic  (and  thus  post-Flood) sediments.

  This  seems  to  run  counter  to  the  intuitive expectation  that  the  whales  should  have  been  found  in  or even throughout Flood sediments.At  present  creation  theory  has  no  good  explanation  for the fossil record of whales.
YE creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
CEN Tech J. vol. 9 no. 2, 1995

[KiwiChristian]

The Pakicetus had a very long and robust tail, and it's four legs had bones which suggested it was semi- aquatic.



Ambulocetus is even more adapted to aquatic conditions, and while it could walk on land, it is more adapted to the water.



Rhodocetus could probably still move on land a little, but is more adapted to water than Ambulocetus.

A whole lot of speculation and imagination and guesses here! "probably","suggested", etc.

Notice also the trend to larger and more robust tails in a transition from used feet to using the tail for swimming.


There are no "transitional form"


and  the  modern  odontocetes  with  telescoped  skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic  series.  Because  the  land  mammal-to-whale transition   (theorized   by   macroevolutionary   theory   and evidenced  by  the  fossil  record)  is  a  land-to-sea  transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing  Flood  waters).  Furthermore,  whale fossils  are  only  known  in  Cenozoic  (and  thus  post-Flood) sediments.

So you admit there WAS a flood?

  This  seems  to  run  counter  to  the  intuitive expectation  that  the  whales  should  have  been  found  in  or even throughout Flood sediments.At  present  creation  theory  has  no  good  explanation  for the fossil record of whales. [/color]
YE creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
CEN Tech J. vol. 9 no. 2, 1995

So? one persons OPINION. I am sure you discredit anything this person says that you DONT agree with! Plus, there IS no "fossil record". It exists NOWHERE except in the textbooks

Since you are too scared to present ONE piece of evidence for evolution or indeed to define the word "evolution" or "kind", let me put words in your mouth and see if i am correct.

You think that fossils in the ground prove evolution.

Yes or no?

[KiwiChristian]

The Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is, nor should it, unless God finds that knowing how old it is, is important to salvation.   

And it's not important to salvation.

Your first statement is a lie.

Your second statement is false because it means you think the Bible is NOT correct.

[KiwiChristian]

Professor W. Rusch has reported an iron pot encased in coal dated by evolutionary standards at 300 million years old. (Creation Research Quarterly (March, 1971) p.201). The pictured affidavit reads as follows: Sulphur Springs, Arkansas, November 27, 1948. While I was working in the Municipal Electric Plant in Thomas, Okla. in 1912, I came upon a solid chunk of coal which was too large to use. I broke it with a sledge hammer. This iron pot fell from the center, leaving the impression or mold of the pot in the piece of coal. Jim Stall (an employee of the company) witnessed the breaking of the coal, and saw the pot fall out. I traced the source of the coal, and found that it came from the Wilburton, Oklahoma Mines.  Frank J. Kenwood Sworn to before me, in Sulphur Springs, Arkansas this 27th day of November, 1948.  Julia L (?)

[KiwiChristian]

The Nampa Image is a baked clay figure obtained from a well being bored in 1889 at Nampa, Idaho. It was pumped from rocks 300 feet deep under a "Tertiary" lava sheet (12 million years old.) The problem for evolutionists is how can a man made clay figure 12 million years old (supposedly) have been laid down before man evolved 3 million years ago (supposedly)?  Source: American Geologist, F.Wright, 23 (1899), p.267.

[KiwiChristian]

What is Wrong with Evolution Theory?
Bible Reading: Isaiah 40:21-31; Genesis 1:1-31 'professing themselves to be wise, they became fools' Rom.1:22 Law of cause and effect: 'Every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.' Heb 3:4
Evolution denies any existence or involvement of God in i) Designing and creating the universe,
ii) Designing and creating life on earth, iii) Judging the wicked world by Noah's flood in 2418BC. It is atheistic, unscientific and totally biased against God. Most schools and universities teach evolution as fact.
It attributes the origin of the universe to a Big Bang theory, the origin of DNA and cells to random chemical processes and the origin of life and new species of life to random natural selection processes.
Since no scientist can produce life in a laboratory, life certainly could not evolve by accident. Evolutionists problem is dishonesty, unwillingness to be morally accountable to God as creator and judge.
Aim: Consider these reasons to reject evolution as bad science and a lying hoax. It is disproven by:
1. Jesus taught creation "From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" Mark 10:6
2. 7 day week is based on 7 days of creation week. "In 6 days the LORD made heaven and earth" Ex20:11
3. Oxygen in the atmosphere would oxidize (break down) any amino acids forming to evolve life.
4. Man's recorded history only goes back to 2500 BC agreeing well with the Noah's flood of 2418 BC.
Did man live for 3 million years, leave no records, then suddenly build pyramids and cities about 2400BC?
5. Sudden appearance of complex life in early Cambrian fossil layers deposited in Noah's flood.
6. No beneficial mutations have given a new species. How do you change the number of chromosomes?
7. No transitional fossil forms between species as predicted by evolution. 8. Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems go from order to disorder. Ev claims the opposite.
9. Complexity of sexual reproduction, brains & eyes can't be explained by evolution's random processes.
10. Genesis 1:1 shows space, mass, time universe 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'
11. Oldest trees are 4500 years old being planted just after Noah's flood. Evolution requires older trees.
12. Archaeology always confirms the Bible record as without error. Bible's accuracy extends to creation.
13. Anti God bias of evolution wants to remove God from creation and flood, ignoring many evidences.
14. A computer without software will never work. Neither will chemicals without software evolve life.
15. Evidence of a young earth is ignored: i) Atmospheric helium takes 11,600 years to reach todays level
ii) Meteorite dust on earth & moon would be 1 million times greater if age is 6 billion years or 6000 years.
iii) Dinosaur DNA shows that dinosaurs lived recently. DNA cannot survive 70 million years.
iv) No coral is older than 4500 years. v) Sun shrinks 5 feet/hour. 50,000 years ago it would boil oceans.
vi) Argon 36 and Krypton 84 gases on the moon would accumulate to present level in 10,000 years.
vii) Ocean concentrations of 30 out of 51 elements accumulate to todays levels in 10,000 years. Si 8000 yr
viii) Juvenile water. 1 cubic mile of water is added yearly to 340 million cubic miles of ocean. Ocean age?
16. Misplaced fossils: i) Hammer in 300 million year old limestone in Texas. ii) Human and dinosaur footprints in Texas, Turkmenia. iii) Iron pot in 300 million yr coal in Oklahoma. iv) Cave art of dinosaurs.
17. Flood traditions from 12 countries confirm the Bible's flood account. Epic of Gilgamesh, India, China
18. Geological column records 1 year destruction of life in the flood, not 500 million yr evolution of life.
19. Sorting of simple fossils in lower strata to complex fossils higher as more mobile animals flee higher.
20. Dinosaur extinction is easily explained by the flood, but impossible for evolution to explain.
21. Immense fossil graveyards are explained by the flood. 800 billion fossils off Sth Africa, Gobi, Utah.
22. Vulcanism. "The same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." (Genesis 7:11). Volcanic ash condensed the water canopy causing 40 days rain.
This lava flow caused India's 3 Km deep Deccan plateau. 10,000+ land and sea volcanoes caused ice age.
23. Ice Age. Cooling from volcanic dust darkening the sky in the flood, caused the ice age after the flood. "Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?" Job 38:29.
24. Louis Pasteur proved that all life came from life, never from non-life, as evolution claims.
25. Mathematical probability laws of proteins and DNA forming by chance are zero.
26. Molecular biology shows how complex the cell is (like a big city), that it could not form by chance.
27. Gregor Mendel proved that characteristics passed from parent to offspring by mathematical laws, not by chance random processes in what Darwin called "blending inheritance".
28. If evolution could produce a body, it would be dead. How did life, a soul and consciousness evolve?
29. Dating methods giving millions of years are based on false assumptions.

[The Barbarian]

Since you are too scared to present ONE piece of evidence for evolution

I showed you that it's directly observed:

or indeed to define the word "evolution"

I showed you that the scientific definition for biological evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

or "kind"

"Kind" is not a scientific term.  It's a creationist term.  So up to you to define it.   Since all known life on Earth is genetically related, that would indicate all living things are of one "kind."

let me put words in your mouth

Maybe it's time you stopped trying to do that, and started trying to put together a case for your new doctrines.

You think that fossils in the ground prove evolution.

Predicted transitional forms in the fossil record are (as YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise says) are strong evidence for evolution.    Even stronger, there are no transitional forms where there shouldn't be any.

However, "proof" is not part of science.   We merely accumulate evidence until it's sufficiently strong to make doubt foolish.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is, nor should it, unless God finds that knowing how old it is, is important to salvation.   
And it's not important to salvation.

Your first statement is a lie.

It's just a fact.  No where does the Bible say how old the Earth is.

Your second statement is false because it means you think the Bible is NOT correct.

No, I'm pointing out that your new interpretation of the Bible is incorrect.

[The Barbarian]

Ah, the "Gish Gallop."  Toss out so many fake objections that the creationist hopes scientists won't be able to get to them all.  Fortunately, it'a message board with unlimited time, and I'm a very patient guy.

1. Jesus taught creation "From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" Mark 10:6

In Genesis 1:1, God explicitly says what is there at the beginning of creation, and male and female are not there.  Jesus meant from the beginning of the creation of humans.

2. 7 day week is based on 7 days of creation week. "In 6 days the LORD made heaven and earth" Ex20:11

It was intended to be symbolic of creation, as the "days"  (actually "Yom", meaning "always", "period of time",  "in my day", etc.) in Genesis are symbolic.    Moreover, it was used by the Sumerians, before God spoke to Abraham.

3. Oxygen in the atmosphere would oxidize (break down) any amino acids forming to evolve life.

Prior to photosynthetic plants, the Earth was anoxic.   The reduced iron formations demonstrate this went on for nearly a billion years, long after prokaryotes appeared on Earth.

4. Man's recorded history only goes back to 2500 BC agreeing well with the Noah's flood of 2418 BC.

The first writing goes back to about 3400 BC, and that only tells us when writing was invented, not how old the Earth is.

Did man live for 3 million years, leave no records, then suddenly build pyramids and cities about 2400BC?

Men built large stone monuments long before writing was invented.   And  the pyramids didn't suddenly appear; they were developed from smaller monuments called "mastabas"

5. Sudden appearance of complex life in early Cambrian fossil layers deposited in Noah's flood.

Complex multicellular life existed in the Ediacaran, many millions of years before the Cambrian.

6. No beneficial mutations have given a new species. How do you change the number of chromosomes?

Many, many favorable mutations have been observed.   And speciations have been directly observed.  Chromosomes are just strings of genes.  The number can change by fusion of two chromosomes or by splitting one into two.  Both have been observed to happen.

7. No transitional fossil forms between species as predicted by evolution.

Let's test that belief.  Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional.   Hint: there are still a few for which the transitional is not known. You could get lucky.

8. Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems go from order to disorder.

No.   It says that without inputs of energy from an outside source, entropy will increase.   In many cases, entropy will increase order.   If you'd like to learn more about this, we can talk about it.  This is why plants can grow from seeds, new species evolve, and so on.

9. Complexity of sexual reproduction, brains & eyes can't be explained by evolution's random processes.

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.  If you doubt this, pick one of those and I'll show you.

10. Genesis 1:1 shows space, mass, time universe 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'

Which is consistent with evolutionary theory.

11. Oldest trees are 4500 years old being planted just after Noah's flood. Evolution requires older trees.

What's your evidence that the lifetime of trees is the same as the age of the Earth?

12. Archaeology always confirms the Bible record as without error. Bible's accuracy extends to creation.

The Bible is God's word.  But since it's consistent with evolution, that's no problem for science.

13. Anti God bias of evolution wants to remove God from creation and flood, ignoring many evidences.

In his book, Darwin suggested that God just created the first living things.  You've been misled on that one.

14. A computer without software will never work. Neither will chemicals without software evolve life.

God says the Earth brought forth life.  You should believe Him.

15. Evidence of a young earth is ignored: i) Atmospheric helium takes 11,600 years to reach todays level

Helium, being a very light gas, escapes into space.   The amount in the atmosphere is the amount you would expect to see, if it was leaving at the observed rate.

ii) Meteorite dust on earth & moon would be 1 million times greater if age is 6 billion years or 6000 years.

At the present influx of meteors and meteorites, it's about the correct amount.   If you'd like to learn how we know, start we can talk about it.

iii) Dinosaur DNA shows that dinosaurs lived recently. DNA cannot survive 70 million years.

"Jurassic Park" was just a movie.   There is no recovered dinosaur DNA.

iv) No coral is older than 4500 years.

Cores drilled out of Enitiwok atoll showed nearly a mile of coral.   At the fastest rate, the atoll had been growing for hundreds of thousands of years.

v) Sun shrinks 5 feet/hour. 50,000 years ago it would boil oceans.

The surface of the sun undergoes violent changes on a daily basis, but a group of astronomers has found that the size of our nearest star has been perplexingly constant in recent years.

The new study shows that the sun's diameter has changed by less than one part in a million over the last 12 years. The sun's width today is a steady 932,057 miles (1,500,000 km) across, the researchers found.

"The sun is remarkably constant," lead researcher Jeff Kuhn, the associate director of the University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy, told SPACE.com. "We're measuring that the diameter changes by less than a kilometer (0.62 miles).

"This constancy is baffling, given the violence of the changes we see every day on the sun's surface and the fluctuations that take place over an 11-year solar cycle," Kuhn said.
https://www.space.com/8405-sun-unchanging-size-baffles-scientists.html

vi) Argon 36 and Krypton 84 gases on the moon would accumulate to present level in 10,000 years.

Gases generated on the moon leave the moon because of it's low gravity.   That's why there's almost no atmosphere on the moon.

vii) Ocean concentrations of 30 out of 51 elements accumulate to todays levels in 10,000 years. Si 8000 yr

The equilibrium of elements in sea water varies widely.   If you use sodium in seawater as a measure, you'd come up with an estimate of a few hundred years for the age of the Earth.

viii) Juvenile water. 1 cubic mile of water is added yearly to 340 million cubic miles of ocean. Ocean age?

One word.  Evaporation.

16. Misplaced fossils: i) Hammer in 300 million year old limestone in Texas. ii)

Found in a crevice.   It is either 300 million years old, or it was dropped there.

Human and dinosaur footprints in Texas,

Fakes debunked by YE creationists themselves.  If you want to learn about that, start another thread.

17. Flood traditions from 12 countries confirm the Bible's flood account. Epic of Gilgamesh, India, China

Either there was one big flood, or devastating floods have happened in a lot of places. 

18. Geological column records 1 year destruction of life in the flood, not 500 million yr evolution of life.

Nope.  Even most YE creationists now admit this is false.

Sorting of simple fossils in lower strata to complex fossils higher as more mobile animals flee higher.

So the swift sloths outran the slow velociraptors and the speedy oaks outran the slow pine trees... really?

20. Dinosaur extinction is easily explained by the flood, but impossible for evolution to explain.

No dinosaurs are in the fossil record above the K-T boundary, marking the impact of a huge meteorite.

21. Immense fossil graveyards are explained by the flood. 800 billion fossils off Sth Africa, Gobi, Utah.

They are found in the deltas of long-lived rivers, where bodies were carried downstream and deposited when the stream slowed.  If all the animals in the South African Karoo formation lived at one time, there would have been standing room only.

22. Vulcanism. "The same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." (Genesis 7:11). Volcanic ash condensed the water canopy causing 40 days rain.

The sky is not actually a dome with windows in it.  And there could not be enough water in the atmosphere to do that.

This lava flow caused India's 3 Km deep Deccan plateau. 10,000+ land and sea volcanoes caused ice age.

The Deccan Traps are over a hundred million years older than the ice age.   And such release of lava, unlike Plinian eruptions, does not shoot ash into the sky.

23. Ice Age. Cooling from volcanic dust darkening the sky in the flood, caused the ice age after the flood. "Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?" Job 38:29.

See above.

24. Louis Pasteur proved that all life came from life, never from non-life, as evolution claims.

Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life.  However, God says life came from non-living matter.   You should believe Him.

25. Mathematical probability laws of proteins and DNA forming by chance are zero.

Darwin's discovery was that it didn't happen by chance.

26. Molecular biology shows how complex the cell is (like a big city), that it could not form by chance.

See above.

27. Gregor Mendel proved that characteristics passed from parent to offspring by mathematical laws, not by chance random processes

Actually, the genes you get are randomly determined.   That was Mendel's discovery.

28. If evolution could produce a body, it would be dead.

Show us your evidence for that.

How did life, a soul and consciousness evolve?

Not part of evolutionary theory.   But God gives you a soul directly, not by natural processes.

Dating methods giving millions of years are based on false assumptions.

Recently, argon/argon testing accurately called the age of the flow that buried Pompeii.   So that's wrong, too.

Well, that was fun, sort of...

[grams]

Evolution  ___________________                BUNK !!!!!! 

[Alan]

Evolution  ___________________                BUNK !!!!!! 

Do you have something to contribute here grams other than conjecture? Some reasonable discussion would be nice and don't forget to open your mind if you'd like to enter the discussion, it helps with understanding 

[AVZ]

At  present  creation  theory  has  no  good  explanation  for the fossil record of whales.

YE creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
CEN Tech J. vol. 9 no. 2, 1995

As I said, you are misrepresenting both scientific art as well as scientific quotes.

Kurt Wise said: "At  present  creation  theory  has  no  good  explanation  for the fossil record of whales."
You made it out to be this: "It's why YE creationist Dr. Kurt wise notes that the whale series is an especially difficult challenge for creationists"

First of all it is not the whale series as represented by evolutionists that causes difficult challenges. That series has already been dismissed because it is neither plausible nor possible.
It is the creationists own theory that causes problems with the fossil records. Perhaps the creationist theory needs to be adjusted. It is Kurt Wise critically looking at his own theory.

You get the difference, right?
Nothing the evolutionist theory brings forth is challenging to a creationist, because the principal of it is wrong. There never was, there never is and there never will be evolution.

But let me put this in a perspective even you can understand.

A rabbit lies dead on the street.
You say: it was zapped by UFO's
I say: it was run over by a motor cycle.

Now I realize that the tire prints are too wide for a bike, so I say that my theory has not good explanation for the size of the prints.
That does not mean that your theory is correct, or that I even remotely admit or suggest that UFO's zapped the rabbit. All I am saying is that my theory is insufficient.

[Alan]

A rabbit lies dead on the street.
You say: it was zapped by UFO's
I say: it was run over by a motor cycle.

Now I realize that the tire prints are too wide for a bike, so I say that my theory has not good explanation for the size of the prints.
That does not mean that your theory is correct, or that I even remotely admit or suggest that UFO's zapped the rabbit. All I am saying is that my theory is insufficient.

If your theory is insufficient it also begs for another explanation, given the severity of the incident, researches would work diligently to find the most plausible explanation rather than rest on the unknown evidence at the time of the finding.

[4WD]

There never was, there never is and there never will be evolution.

And you know that how?  The Bible certainly makes no such claim.

[AVZ]

In the meantime, the intermediate species, because of the transition could neither walk nor swim.

That's absurd.  We have mammals like otters and polar bears that can do both. Ambulocetus, for example, was primarily adapted to water, but could still walk.

You are not addressing the point.
Animals have either a pelvis that makes it a land dwelling animal, or a pelvis that makes is aquatic.
What you do have are animals like the polar bear and the otter, but their skeletal structure makes them able to walk. They are just good swimmers.

A transition between the two however would completely fail.
Once the pelvis turns, it will no longer support the hind legs and the animal can no longer walk. It may perhaps be able to drag itself through the mud, but since it is neither terrestrial nor aquatic, it will be unable to support itself in either habitat.

It is exactly that intermediate species that cannot be found in the fossil record. A species where the transition from terrestrial to aquatic is half formed.
It does not exist. The fossil record only shows species that are either terrestrial or aquatic, nothing in between.

[AVZ]

And you know that how?  The Bible certainly makes no such claim.

Because evolution is technically and biologically impossible. It does not happen because it cannot happen.
And that's why it has never been observed, and it will never be observed.

[AVZ]

If your theory is insufficient it also begs for another explanation, given the severity of the incident, researches would work diligently to find the most plausible explanation rather than rest on the unknown evidence at the time of the finding.

Thats irrelevant.
I am addressing the point that Barbarian is both misquoting and misapplying Kurt Wise's statement.

[Alan]

Because evolution is technically and biologically impossible. It does not happen because it cannot happen.
And that's why it has never been observed, and it will never be observed.

And now we know 

[Alan]

Thats irrelevant.
I am addressing the point that Barbarian is both misquoting and misapplying Kurt Wise's statement.

No, it's entirely relevant, inconclusive evidence will be replaced with conclusive evidence via research, data, and facts. Sooner or later we will know what killed the rabbit. 

[4WD]

Because evolution is technically and biologically impossible. It does not happen because it cannot happen.
And that's why it has never been observed, and it will never be observed.

No disrespect intended, but I strongly suspect that you have neither the technical nor biological expertise to make such a statement.