Skip to content

ExpatSingapore

Home Message Board Contact Us Search

ExpatSingapore Message Board 13 December 2017, 13:24:00 PM *
Username: Password: (or Register)
 
Pages: 1 ... 136 137 [138] 139 140 ... 150
  Print  
Author Topic: Science Disproves Evolution  (Read 409455 times)
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #2055 on: 16 June 2017, 14:37:53 PM »

Quote
You will find answers to these sick, childish, foolish, erroneous, pathetic, twisted, perverted attempts to distort the true meaning of Scripture here:

You mean your interpretation of scripture.
Logged


oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #2056 on: 16 June 2017, 15:15:26 PM »

To quote from one of your references
Quote
PROBLEM: Jesus has a different grandfather here in Luke 3:23 (Heli) than He does in Matthew 1:16 (Jacob). Which one is the right one?
SOLUTION: This should be expected, since they are two different lines of ancestors, one traced through His legal father, Joseph and the other through His actual mother, Mary.   

For this explanation to hold water, there should be other genealogies in the Bible which follow the maternal line.
Please quote several.
Logged
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #2057 on: 16 June 2017, 15:19:25 PM »

This reference: http://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Genesis_1.27.php
claims to prove that Adam and Eve were real people by quoting other biblical texts.

I could equally claim that Bilbo Baggins was a real person by quoting from Lord of the Rings.
Logged
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #2058 on: 16 June 2017, 16:35:50 PM »

Quote
  GENESIS 6:14FF—HOW COULD NOAH’S ARK HOLD HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SPECIES?

PROBLEM: The Bible says Noah’s ark was only 45 feet high, 75 feet wide, and 450 feet long (Gen. 6:15, niv). Noah was told to take two of every kind of unclean animal and seven of every kind of clean animal (6:19; 7:2). But scientists inform us that there are between one half a billion to over a billion species of animals.
SOLUTION: First, the modern concept of “species” is not the same as a “kind” in the Bible. There are probably only several hundred different “kinds” of land animals that would have to be taken into the ark.

What biblical or other evidence is there that a "kind" differs from our modern concept of  species" You are merely twisting what the Bible says to fit your interpretation.
Logged
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #2059 on: 16 June 2017, 18:13:35 PM »

Quote
LEVITICUS 11:5–6—HOW CAN THE BIBLE SAY THAT THE HYRAX AND THE RABBIT CHEW THE CUD WHEN SCIENCE NOW KNOWS THAT THEY DO NOT?

PROBLEM: In Leviticus 11:5–6, two animals, the rock hyrax and the rabbit, were designated as unclean by Leviticus because, although they chew the cud, they do not divide the hoof. But, science has discovered that these two animals do not chew the cud. Isn’t it an error when the Bible says they chew the cud when in fact they do not?
SOLUTION: Although they did not chew the cud in the modern technical sense, they did engage in a chewing action that looked the same to an observer. Thus, they are listed with other animals that chew the cud so that the common person could make the distinction from his or her everyday observations. 

So, ignorant persons put this into the Bible 
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1220



View Profile
« Reply #2060 on: 16 June 2017, 22:40:21 PM »

This reference: http://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Genesis_1.27.php
claims to prove that Adam and Eve were real people by quoting other biblical texts.

I could equally claim that Bilbo Baggins was a real person by quoting from Lord of the Rings.

The Lord of the Rings is fiction. the Bible is factual:

Bible Accuracy

 
1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
 
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/archaeology_and_the_bible.html
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bible-and-archaeology-how-archaeology-confirms-the-biblical-record

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
 
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
 
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
 
http://www.100prophecies.com/
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-prophecies-fulfilled.htm
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm
 
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to meeting those requirements.
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #2061 on: 16 June 2017, 22:45:21 PM »

Quote

The Lord of the Rings is fiction. the Bible is factual: 
 
You are merely repeating what you have posted before.
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1220



View Profile
« Reply #2062 on: 16 June 2017, 22:50:40 PM »

Quote
  GENESIS 6:14FF—HOW COULD NOAH’S ARK HOLD HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SPECIES?

PROBLEM: The Bible says Noah’s ark was only 45 feet high, 75 feet wide, and 450 feet long (Gen. 6:15, niv). Noah was told to take two of every kind of unclean animal and seven of every kind of clean animal (6:19; 7:2). But scientists inform us that there are between one half a billion to over a billion species of animals.
SOLUTION: First, the modern concept of “species” is not the same as a “kind” in the Bible. There are probably only several hundred different “kinds” of land animals that would have to be taken into the ark.


What biblical or other evidence is there that a "kind" differs from our modern concept of  species" You are merely twisting what the Bible says to fit your interpretation.


A kind, or family, is the original created plants and animals with the built in ability to adapt to changes in their environment, up to a point. For example when bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations.  It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man.  Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1220



View Profile
« Reply #2063 on: 16 June 2017, 22:55:10 PM »

Quote
LEVITICUS 11:5–6—HOW CAN THE BIBLE SAY THAT THE HYRAX AND THE RABBIT CHEW THE CUD WHEN SCIENCE NOW KNOWS THAT THEY DO NOT?

PROBLEM: In Leviticus 11:5–6, two animals, the rock hyrax and the rabbit, were designated as unclean by Leviticus because, although they chew the cud, they do not divide the hoof. But, science has discovered that these two animals do not chew the cud. Isn’t it an error when the Bible says they chew the cud when in fact they do not?
SOLUTION: Although they did not chew the cud in the modern technical sense, they did engage in a chewing action that looked the same to an observer. Thus, they are listed with other animals that chew the cud so that the common person could make the distinction from his or her everyday observations. 

So, ignorant persons put this into the Bible 

That proves the Bible was inspired by God. All those writers who knew nothing were able to reveal scientific facts that have just recently been discovered. Also they accurately predicted the future.

If humans wrote the Bible, then please explain how they knew scientific facts that have only recently been discovered, and how were they able to accurately predict the future 2000 times.

The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
 
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
 
http://www.100prophecies.com/
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-prophecies-fulfilled.htm
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1220



View Profile
« Reply #2064 on: 16 June 2017, 22:58:05 PM »

Quote

The Lord of the Rings is fiction. the Bible is factual: 
 
You are merely repeating what you have posted before.


Repetition is often required to make a point to those who are unable to get it the first time.
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #2065 on: 16 June 2017, 23:04:47 PM »

Quote
  Repetition is often required to make a point to those who are unable to get it the first time. 
Very true. I have been presenting the same facts in different ways for years. Unfortunately some people are closed minded.
Logged
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #2066 on: 16 June 2017, 23:07:17 PM »

Quote
  SOLUTION: Although they did not chew the cud in the modern technical sense, they did engage in a chewing action that looked the same to an observer. Thus, they are listed with other animals that chew the cud so that the common person could make the distinction from his or her everyday observations.

So, ignorant persons put this into the Bible 

That proves the Bible was inspired by God.   
   
I'm afraid I don't follow you here. Does your gad think that hyraxes chew the cud?
Or was there another reason not to eat them?
Logged
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #2067 on: 16 June 2017, 23:09:51 PM »

Quote
A kind, or family, is the original created plants and animals with the built in ability to adapt to changes in their environment, up to a point. 

 That is not explained in the Bible. Where does it come from?
Did birds adapt to bats?
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1220



View Profile
« Reply #2068 on: 16 June 2017, 23:27:17 PM »

Quote
 SOLUTION: Although they did not chew the cud in the modern technical sense, they did engage in a chewing action that looked the same to an observer. Thus, they are listed with other animals that chew the cud so that the common person could make the distinction from his or her everyday observations.

So, ignorant persons put this into the Bible  

That proves the Bible was inspired by God.  
 
I'm afraid I don't follow you here. Does your gad think hyraxes chew the cud?
Or was there another reason not to eat them?
Where does the Bible mention hyraxes?
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1220



View Profile
« Reply #2069 on: 16 June 2017, 23:38:59 PM »

Quote
A kind, or family, is the original created plants and animals with the built in ability to adapt to changes in their environment, up to a point. 

 That is not explained in the Bible. Where does it come from?

Yes it is. See Genesis 1:21.

Quote
Did birds adapt to bats?

I doubt it. Here is more information:



The Evidence Rats Out Bat Evolution

Of the 1,240 living mammal species, almost 25 percent are the amazingly designed bats.1 They compose the second-largest order of mammals, next to rodents,2 and are ecologically and economically important. Bats effectively control insect pests and are essential to the pollination of some flowers. In fact, a number of tropical plants depend entirely on bats for seed dispersal. Mammologists place these nocturnal creatures into two suborders—the Microchiroptera (echolocating, insect-eating bats) and Megachiroptera (fruit-eating bats). According to evolution, both groups evolved from an unknown flying common ancestor.

Bat Origins

Evolutionists maintain that a rodent of some sort evolved into a bat. Yet, over 1,000 fossil bats have been unearthed and scientists have not classified a single one as an intermediate between rodents and bats. They’re all bats, as predicted by the creation model.

If there was ever such a great transformation, evolutionarily speaking, it would be a remarkable transition from an unknown rodent to a swift-flying bat. How do evolutionists account for this? Strangely, a 2007 book edited by two evolutionists titled Major Transitions in Vertebrate Evolution3 does not explain the process. Neither does Great Transformations in Vertebrate Evolution, published several years later.4 Why the silence on bat origins?

The phylogenetic (evolutionary) relationship of different groups of bats is contentious, and no evidence exists for an evolutionary transition from rodents to bats. Indeed, an intermediate form is hard to imagine since rodents have front legs designed for the tetrapod (four-footed) lifestyle. Evolutionary theory suggests that through a large number of unknown beneficial mutations, these front legs evolved into highly articulated bones for flight and added the two dozen independent joints and membranous wings (patagium) that we see in bats. Not surprisingly, evolutionists themselves state, “There are no known intermediate stages between bats and insectivores.”5 Bats are 100 percent bat from their first appearance.

Bat Wings

The earliest fossil bats resemble their modern counterparts in possessing greatly elongated digits to support the wing membrane, which is an anatomical hallmark of powered flight.6

Bats flap only their digits, not their entire forearms as birds do. So, according to evolutionists, other than the normal thumb with a claw, the four short toes of the alleged non-flying bat ancestor slowly and gradually extended into the greatly elongated digits (metacarpals 2-5) seen in bats today. Zoologists observe that bats’ fine-tuned wing movement—due to the reshaping and stretching of the webbing and hand—is responsible for their fantastic flying abilities.

Their agility in the air demands quick, precise wing movements and a constant adjustment of tiny muscles in the wing membrane. They also use their wings for other delicate tasks, like holding food and cradling young. To adjust their complex wings for the job at hand, they must integrate a variety of sensory feedback.7

For those willing to acknowledge it, the intentional design in bat wing construction is obvious. Researchers at Brown University stated in a news release that

Birds and insects can fold and rotate their wings during flight, but bats have many more options. Their flexible skin can catch the air and generate lift or reduce drag in many different ways. During straightforward flight, the wing is mostly extended for the down stroke, but the wing surface curves much more than a bird’s does—giving bats greater lift for less energy. During the up stroke, the bats fold the wings much closer to their bodies than other flying animals, potentially reducing the drag they experience. The wing’s extraordinary flexibility also allows the animals to make 180-degree turns in a distance of less than half a wingspan.8

One must ask just how untold billions of intermediate creatures (not a rodent but certainly not yet a bat) survived for millions of years while waiting for such well-constructed wings and prey-catching abilities. Of course, the fossil record does not reveal such a fantastical transition but instead shows that bats have always been bats. This was shown to be true as far back as the early Eocene with the discovery of Onychonycteris and Icaronycteris, which are described as “reasonably complete bat fossils.”9 They possess key features of the small insect-eating bats (Microchiroptera): the four elongated digits, a living flight membrane with specialized muscles, sensors, and elastic fibers, and “the feet are turn backwards so that these early bats could hang upside down as modern bats do.”10

God created bats with unique bone morphogenetic proteins referred to as Bmps, a family of multifunctional proteins present in mammals. As a bat develops embryonically, a crucial gene controlling Bmp signaling, called Bmp2, is expressed in the developing forelimbs. This accelerates their finger elongation. If evolution were true, we should find early bat fossils with shorter fingers. Through the millennia, digit length should increase, reflecting increased Bmp2 activity caused by genetic mutations. Scientists should observe accompanying changes in a variety of interconnected controlling factors such as regulatory RNAs, epigenetic controls, and a variety of regulatory DNA sequences in and around the Bmp2 gene.

All these fine-tuned critical factors must be in place all at once for the whole system to make a proper bat wing. And an early bat fossil dated at “50 million years” revealed no noteworthy increase in digit proportion. Creation scientists see this as evidence that bats have always reproduced after their kind, with developmental genes and their regulatory systems, such as Bmp2, in place from the beginning.

The supposedly 50 million-year-old fossil does not show any evolution from an alleged common ancestor. But evolutionists maintain that the consistency of bat wings throughout the fossil record is only an indication that genes remained unchanged over large expanses of evolutionary time—a concept called conservation.

Evolutionist Michael Denton weighs in on the elongated and webbed hand of the bat, saying,

This implies that the actualization of this remarkable novelty has involved what would appear to be complex simultaneous compensatory recruitment of new gene circuits, which operate in unison to generate long fingers and the intervening webbing—a finding at odds with the Darwinian conception that novelties emerged gradually via a succession of individual genetic changes.11

In other words, Denton claims the appearance of elongated fingers and webbed wings in bats throughout the fossil record means that multiple necessary traits must have evolved at the same time through complex genetic interactions. This contradicts the gradual accumulation of mutations over time that Darwinian evolution expects. But bats appearing in the fossil record with the ideal design from the get-go is much better explained by the Genesis account of an omniscient Creator.

Bat Sonar

Biological sonar, or echolocation, uses sound to “see.” The biological equipment that grants this God-designed ability in bats is smaller, weighs less, and yields higher resolution than man-made sonar equipment. Could such design really evolve? As evolutionary paleontologist Michael Benton admits,

The evolution of echolocation in bats has been hard to resolve.12

Bats “see with sound” by emitting narrow beams of frequency-modulated sounds (ultrasounds) that are projected from their larynxes and out their mouths. They vocalize faster as they near their targets, giving them the higher resolution required to catch their prey. The bat evaluates the returning signals picked up by its uniquely shaped ears and uses them to “paint” a mental image of its surroundings. The sonar image is as well-defined as the visual images of human and diurnal (daytime) animals.

Bats can effortlessly fly around obstacles in pitch-black darkness. Their sonar sensibilities rapidly detect the flying insects such as mosquitoes they love to eat. The bat can even instantly determine the type of insect it is chasing, but to do this it must vocalize high-pitched, high-energy pulses that would soon damage its own inner ear tissue. With the emission of such sharp and repeated blasts of ultrasonic energy, one must ask how they avoid deafening themselves. The Creator solved this problem by designing a tiny skeletal muscle attached to the bat’s miniscule hearing bones. The muscle contracts during each emitted sound pulse, protecting the sensitive inner ear. But the bat must hear returning pulses at the same time, especially as it closes in on the prey. In order to hear these returning pulses, the muscle relaxes to re-engage the bones 10 or more times per second.

One would think insects such as moths wouldn’t have a chance against the efficient bat sonar. However, God has created defensive abilities for a number of insects, giving them a chance for evasion. Certain moths such as the tiger moth can detect bat sonar and use a sonar-jamming defense method. Just when the bat closes in on the hapless moth, the moth emits ultrasonic counter-clicks to jam the bat sonar. The clicks are so rapid that they sound like a siren, briefly confusing the bat and allowing the moth to escape.13

Hibernation

Bats are also true hibernators. The design features that allow these flying mammals to undergo a period of winter inactivity are incredible. God designed the hypothalamus portion of the brain to slow the bat’s respiration, heart, and metabolic rate. The hypothalamus sets the bat’s thermostat to about two degrees Celsius, which lowers respiration to only four shallow breaths per minute. Compare this to its several hundred breaths per minute while active! Heart rate also changes radically during hibernation. A medium-size bat has a heart rate of 1,000 beats per minute (bpm) while flying, yet it transitions to only 25 bpm while hibernating.

To awaken bats from hibernation, God gave a special type of fat deposit to endothermic (warm-blooded) vertebrates called brown fat. It is different from normal fat in that it contains a large number of mitochondria, organelles in which aerobic respiration and most energy production occurs. God designed brown fat cells for the production of heat (thermogenesis or metabolic heating). They are stimulated by reduced temperatures. As brown fat cells are metabolized, this unique tissue slowly brings the bat’s temperature up to 37 degrees Celsius, awakening it from its sleep-like state.

Bats are very complex animals that show no evidence of having evolved from a rodent ancestor. Indeed, they would have to make the remarkable transition to powered flight, echolocation, complex brain function, unique cranio-maxillary structures, and more, all within a mere 10 million years. That’s a blink of a bat eye in supposed evolutionary time. Based on the evidence, the most logical explanation for bat origins is an ingenious Creator, just as Genesis says.

http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-rats-out-bat-evolution/
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Pages: 1 ... 136 137 [138] 139 140 ... 150
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines