Evolution... the biggest hoax

[turbonium]

Are you a creationist, AnhZors? Don't worry, I don't make judgements on people's religious beliefs.

[AnhZors]

yes im a recent creationist. I use to be a evolutionist and didnt have a care on religion.

i accidently copy and paste the wrong name on my last post.

Edited July 30, 2005 by AnhZors

[turbonium]

yes im a recent creationist.  I use to be a evolutionist and didnt have a care on religion.

i accidently copy and paste the wrong name on my last post.

762247[/snapback]

What changed your views?

[AnhZors]

well when i was an evolutionist i though that it was all rigth. But then i notice somethings, after learning about the pepermoth in school and was about to write a report on it, when i search online i found out it was a hoaxs and that the man who was taking pictures of them where using dead moth(if you look carefully you can find that the spoted moth have the same marking on every picture) i told my teacher that and my teacher knew that it was a hoax but he had to do his job and teach it. I then decided to read some article online and after a while it greatly change my view. What evin boosted my view on this was that i found many of the smartest teacher in my school, my math teacher who has a master degree in math, said that in his own words "evolution is a bunch of crap".

I later relize there is no point in life if the whole point is to pass your genes . And i then became a atholic.

[hyperactive]

a masters in mathematics means nothing in relation to evolutionary theory. click the link in my sig.

[AnhZors]

i believe dating is related to math. And the only reason he teaches math is beacuse he didnt want to teach science.

[turbonium]

hyperactive - what do you make of the idea that man may have lived with dinosaurs?

[hyperactive]

ahnzors: so does he then hold a masters in a scientific field? (not that it matters, people change paths.) if you want to use him as an authority on evo you need tioshow his credentials. i could list my degrees off too, but they are not in the biological sciences so my "authority" is irrelevent. dating is of the physical sciences (math is involved, but don't forget math is involved in many fields).

turbonium: my take on man living with dinos is that of a skeptic (as it is with everything). if you claim it to be so, present the evidence to me. i have yet to have seen evidence that the two did co-exist. cave paintings could have been inspired by any number of sources.

Edited July 30, 2005 by hyperactive

[AnhZors]

He wasn't a big part of why i change, YOU hyperactive put him up there. All i said about him is that i though that i was the only one at my school that didnt believe in evolution.

He is not my main evidence for me changing, infact if you read it carefully, it was me who by myseft change.

hyperactive Do you have a degree in evolution? If not how do i know your rigth?

Edited July 30, 2005 by AnhZors

[hyperactive]

we work from evidence to build models. models by their very nature do not represent the full compexity of what they describe. we are not able to model very complex systems in a reductionist method. we are able to create models of complex systems through simplification (if you want more detail please ask).

so "are evolutionists right"? as of the current data evo stands with high certianty in some areas (less projection, more data) and less certian in other areas (greater projection, less data).

the important thing is to not look at things like "I later relize there is no point in life if the whole point is to pass your genes" to determine the validity of a scientific theory.

note that you put more emphasis on your teacher's "authority" than the online article which you do not mention by name. so a "hoax", an unnamed article, and a man with a M.math changed your views. truly these are three must contain very powerful arguments! much more so than just a "smart man" saying "evo is a bunch of crap"!

[AnhZors]

the peppered moth of england, please you seriously have never know about this? Kettlewell The man who made the project gave it a big boost to the evolution theory, but latter review to be a haox. They use his work in many school book all over the english speaking country untill about a year ago when they remove it.

[hyperactive]

so let me get this right: the methodolgy of science worked and revealed a hoax, so you cast all research into evo in the trash can and replaced it with "creationism" which lacks any kind of validation process at all?

[turbonium]

turbonium: my take on man living with dinos is that of a skeptic (as it is with everything).  if you claim it to be so, present the evidence to me.  i have yet to have seen evidence that the two did co-exist.  cave paintings could have been inspired by any number of sources.

762362[/snapback]

I'm not claiming it to be true, I'm skeptical about all sides. I'm only pointing out interesting questions are raised by certain archaeological or historical finds. Yes, cave paintings could have been inspired by non-dinosaur sources. But that does not rule out they were inspired by actual dinosaurs, either.

The more we discover, the more questions that are raised about our origins and development. Evolution is put forth by its proponents as a scientific and quantifiable study. But I have noticed how it is so rigid and incapable of modification or revision - you have to defend the argument that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist or the entire theory would apparently collapse. If it was a true scientific endeavor, it would not exclude any possibilities or modifications. We know so little about the ancient past that to exclude or falsely modify new findings so that the theory of evolution continues to be valid is absurd, and against the most basic of scientific principles.

It has also become a staple of Biological Science courses in schools, a position completely undeserved as it has not a single scientific fact to support it. I look at it from a scientific perspective, not as an opponent based on religious or creationist beliefs. That is a strawman argument made by many supporters of evolution - that you must be a creationist if you are against evolutionism.

I am only interested in the truth of our origins. If humans co-existed with dinosaurs, it would be an exciting new discovery, not something to despise because it destroys a theory made over a hundred years ago. You should look at those cave paintings as something intriguing, that should be further investigated and researched for better understanding and possibilities of corroborating evidence, not act as someone who thinks the idea is absurd or impossible simply because it doesn't fit in with your current beliefs. That is, if you are as you say - a skeptic of everything.

[Insight]

Actually folks, there is a very simple test one can do to determine once and for all how old the earth really is. Part of me is surprised that no one here has thought of this before. But at the same time, I realize how strong the social programming is in North America....

ANYWAYS, here is the test:

The moon orbits the earth. However, the orbit of the moon is not 100% correct. If you look up this fact, you will learn that the moon actually moves away from the earth 1 inch every year. This may not seem like much, and I supposed it really isn't. By the way, the fact that the moon moves away from us 1 inch every year is a very well established astronomical fact. Feel free to look it up where ever you please.

Anyways, as we have established, the moon moves away from the earth 1 inch every year. The distance from the earth to the moon is roughly 250,000 miles.

Do you know how many inches are in 1 mile? 63 360. There are 63,360 inches in one mile.

Now, lets do the math. what is 250,000 multiplied by 63,360?

15,840,000,000. That is, fifteen billion, eight hundered forty million.

Now, you average evolutionist believes the universe is between 12 and 14 billion years old.

Now, obviously the universe couldn't be 14 billion years old, otherwise the moon would have been so close to the earth to begin with, that it's gravity would cause a flood which would wipe out every living being every single day. Infact, it is quite mathematically impossible for the earth and the moon to have existed together for over 2 or 3 billion years (closer to two). If you do not believe me, It's quite simple: do the math yourself. The numbers I have provided here are realtively easy to confirm.

HOWEVER, for you more serious egg heads, you will want to delve a little deeper into how many terawatts of tidal energy the moon gives to the tides each year, and debate how fast the earth has been spinning all along. It really gets very complex. (L = mvr Angular momentum is defined to be mass times velocity times the radius.” E = ½mv2 Kinetic energy is half the mass times the velocity squared blah blah blah. Look it up). In any case, there is methematical proof that the universe could not be as old as our school texts books claim. at maximum 4.5 billion years old. Why were we lied to? Why was this simple experiment kept from us? Who wants us to believe in an "old universe" and why? I don't have the answers to those questions. But in any case, the numbers, while disputable, don't lie. Do the math.

PS This puts a serious damper on the evolutionists time scale, without proving evolution it's self right or wrong.

[Tiggs]

Anyways, as we have established, the moon moves away from the earth 1 inch every year. The distance from the earth to the moon is roughly 250,000 miles.

Logical, but I don't believe that gravitational attraction remains constant over distance. If I remember correctly, there's that whole inverse square thing going on.

In other words, although the Moon is moving away from the Earth at the speed of an inch every year currently, prior to that it would have been less, and in the future it will be more.

Any physicists out there want to back me up?

[Kabutarian]

Actually folks, there is a very simple test one can do to determine once and for all how old the earth really is. Part of me is surprised that no one here has thought of this before. But at the same time, I realize how strong the social programming is in North America....

ANYWAYS, here is the test:

The moon orbits the earth. However, the orbit of the moon is not 100% correct. If you look up this fact, you will learn that the moon actually moves away from the earth 1 inch every year. This may not seem like much, and I supposed it really isn't. By the way, the fact that the moon moves away from us 1 inch every year is a very well established astronomical fact. Feel free to look it up where ever you please.

Anyways, as we have established, the moon moves away from the earth 1 inch every year. The distance from the earth to the moon is roughly 250,000 miles.

Do you know how many inches are in 1 mile? 63 360. There are 63,360 inches in one mile.

Now, lets do the math. what is 250,000 multiplied by 63,360?

15,840,000,000. That is, fifteen billion, eight hundered forty million.

Now, you average evolutionist believes the universe is between 12 and 14 billion years old. 

Now, obviously the universe couldn't be 14 billion years old, otherwise the moon would have been so close to the earth to begin with, that it's gravity would cause a flood which would wipe out every living being every single day. Infact, it is quite mathematically impossible for the earth and the moon to have existed together for over 2 or 3 billion years (closer to two). If you do not believe me, It's quite simple: do the math yourself. The numbers I have provided here are realtively easy to confirm.

HOWEVER, for you more serious egg heads, you will want to delve a little deeper into how many terawatts of tidal energy the moon gives to the tides each year, and debate how fast the earth has been spinning all along. It really gets very complex. (L = mvr Angular momentum is defined to be mass times velocity times the radius.”  E = ½mv2  Kinetic energy is half the mass times the velocity squared blah blah blah. Look it up). In any case, there is methematical proof that the universe could not be as old as our school texts books claim. at maximum 4.5 billion years old. Why were we lied to? Why was this simple experiment kept from us? Who wants us to believe in an "old universe" and why? I don't have the answers to those questions. But in any case, the numbers, while disputable, don't lie. Do the math.

PS This puts a serious damper on the evolutionists time scale, without proving evolution it's self right or wrong.

762691[/snapback]

And yet, your theory falls apart with a simple fact; The earth only formed 5 billion (give or take) years ago, and that doesn't even account for where the moon was. Also, there's the whole physics thing that Tiggs mentioned. Unfortunately, I'm not far enough along in my educational career to adress that, so =/

Edited July 30, 2005 by Kabutarian

[hyperactive]

You should look at those cave paintings as something intriguing, that should be further investigated and researched for better understanding and possibilities of corroborating evidence, not act as someone who thinks the idea is absurd or impossible simply because it doesn't fit in with your current beliefs. That is, if you are as you say - a skeptic of everything.

where did i suggest something should not be researched because it might challange "your current beliefs"? don't try and warp my position to sound like i desire to protect the theories of evolution above all else.

as for your idea insight: kabutarian and tiggs have pointed out major problems with your proposition.

[turbonium]

where did i suggest something should not be researched because it might challange "your current beliefs"?  don't try and warp my position to sound like i desire to protect the theories of evolution above all else.

762946[/snapback]

Perhaps I misunderstood you when you said..

"if you claim it to be so, present the evidence to me.  i have yet to have seen evidence that the two did co-exist.  cave paintings could have been inspired by any number of sources."

It came off to me like you were not really interested in the possibilty. To just say it could have been inspired by other things, does not, to me, show any actual interest in it. How do we know there would be "any number of sources" to inspire these drawings? They wouldn't know the structures of dinosaurs through any re-structured fossils at that time. If they were just imaginary things they painted, it would be quite strange to show humans hunting them. And there are other drawings that depict dinosaur-like creatures, so no single alternative explanation may suffice for all of them.

It seems that you wanted to dismiss them without my having any proof, but not consider that they could be actual depictions of the time. Anyway, if I've misread your intentions, I do apologize for making that assumption. I find the possibility quite exciting to ponder as we continue to discover more of our very ancient past.

Edited July 31, 2005 by turbonium

[hyperactive]

the thing is we have yet to even identify how many possibilities there could be! if you go to the creationscientist site ahzors posted earlier in this thread and browse around you will find an appology for a misprepresentation in the book of a decomposing basking shark as a dinosaur (because in the photo, the way the shark decomposes leaves the appearance of a sea dino). if people of this century can mistake a decomposing shark as a sea-dino (monster), what did ancient mariners take such things as (if they found them).

i am open to all possibilities, but i am not active in anthropology. hence, what you take as not interested is actually just my not having very much knowledge in that area. that is why i say if you have evidence of something present it (because i do not have evidence either way). note that evo does indeed allow for dinos and humans to have existed together. we still don't even have consensus on what killed the dinos off, so there is a vast area of the undetermined and unknown. do not also forget that even facts are temporary.

[turbonium]

That we can agree on - we know so little of the actual origins and development of early life on Earth. Our total knowledge is virtually a grain of sand in the 'Sahara Desert' of Earth history!

Edited August 1, 2005 by turbonium

[manapa99]

alright insite i have a question

what about the theory that the moon is really part of the earth that was knocked off by asteroids?

that would definantly explain how the earth could be older then your figures

and what about all the test done i forget the exact test but where they smash really old rock and throw some beams against it to test for the presence of some element lol i don't remember the specifics

and granted all decay rates and half lifes are estimates exc. but could it really be that far off? could natural laws just up and change and accelerate?

i don't see that happening at all so i have to go with the really old conclusion say 4.5 BILLION years

[hyperactive]

manapa, science make quite a few assumptions about the fundamental nature of the universe.

now i too accept the 4.5 billion year age of the earth, but i accept it with full statement of the assumptions behind that number.

man's models are very weak. we are able to accurately model only the most basic of things, and even then we must put in controls. our predictions are poor, for various reasons. never let arrogance lead you to overstate the values of man's models.