Evolution disproved by 11 year old niece

by StopTheTears 285 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Vidqun

  Lime, he did more than start a fire. He melted the rocks (cf. 1 Kings 18:38). No mean feat. How factual is it. Here's a scan and quote I found from a previous thread.

  Atomic Energy on Mount Carmel

  Professor A. Freeman, LL.D., Litt.D., in a letter to the editor of The Flame, said :

  "Your mention of Mount Carmel in The Flame (May-June issue) reminds me of some facts revealed in the Bible Exhibition at Pembridge Road Hall, Notting Hill Gate, London W. 11, where there are thousands of Biblical exhibits. Two of these, to my mind, prove once more how historically and scientifically correct is the Bible. From New Mexico, in U. S. A., comes a blue transparent crystal. Here the first test bomb (atomic) was exploded, and all over the area were these crystals. I have a crystal found by the archaeologists which looked exactly like the one from New Mexico (and also those found after Hiroshima). I had the two crystals examined by a noted analyst in London, and he declared they were exactly the same. This stone bearing the crystal came from Mount Carmel, and was over 3,000 years old! The crystals were embedded upon it. In 1 Kings, chapter 18, we read that fire came down from heaven and destroyed the offering and the large altar stones. The stone in my possession was one of the fragments of the altar stones! The same forces at work—made by God in the beginning and just discovered by man. How true is the Bible!"

  DECEMBER 22, 1948

  The "crystals" are called tektites. Naturally occuring tekties are thought to be either lunar in origin, or products of large meteor impacts. They are also found at sites of nuclear explosions, although the article I'll link doesn't mention that. It is possible that the scientific community is using a different name for the examples of nuclear origin since I can't seem to find any references to nuclear explosions in any of the articles I've checked (see below about the ones found at the site of the first nulcear explosion, the trinitites). They are not "crystals", rather, they are glass made up of material fused under high temperatures. I would assume that the tekties associated with nuclear explosions would also contain unused urainium or plutonium, since not all of the fissionable material is used up in the explosion.

  Flat_accent, can't get to your videos. Can you repost path.
• 

  HintOfLime

  If you are claiming that 1 Kings was a 'nuclear event' - well, that is extremely stupid for several reasons (spectators would be immediately vaporized due to energy release, etc.)

  Way to go digging up a quote from 1948 to support your try to world-view, though. Kudos - that'll might help people to think about it a bit. Certainly man hasn't learned anything in the past 64 years!

  - Lime
• 

  Vidqun

  You're right, it doesn't prove anything, just like your post. Doesn't say anything either.
• 

  Vidqun

  Yesterday we were blasted by particles from the sun. Worst sun eruption since 2003. We were unharmed. Does that mean that the event never occurred? All the scientists are wrong. No, we were protected by various natural mechanisms. Hopefully you can follow my reasoning. I usually allow for benefit of the doubt, until a matter is proved wrong.
• 

  cofty

  Cofty, I saw the documentary of the wolves. Your "gut feeling" says evolution. My "gut feeling" says: Adaptation - a change, as of an organism's structure, to conform to environment. [Gut feeling, i.e., in my view "leap of faith": See article in thread and previous posts] Nothing I have read or seen since have convinced me otherwise.- Vidqun

  Talking about adaptation rather than evolution is a distinction without a difference.

  Gut feelings don't get any respect in a discussion about science.

  The evidence says its a classic example of evolution in action and a powerful example of pleiotropy.

  Individual creatures don't adapt to their environment. This is a common misunderstanding of evolution that is based on Lamarkianism. If it was true Jewish boys would be born without foreskins by now.

  Individuals experience random mutations in germ cells that are passed on to future generations. If these mutations have a beneficial effect on the reproductive success of their progeny it will be passed on to further generations. Often a mutation will have other surprising effects as in the case of the foxes. It illustrates the amazing power of natural selection.
• 

  Vidqun

  What would happen if those "dogs" are put back into the wild? Will the next generation not turn back into foxes?
• 

  Vidqun

  I mean wolves.
• 

  cofty

  Foxes - Silver fox actually.

  No. Nothing ever turns into anything!!!

  Mutations happen, natural selection favours those mutations that increase an individual's breeding success.

  Will the next generation not turn back into foxes?

  No that's not how evolution works. Its more likely the domesticated foxes would become extinct if they are no longer suited to survival in the wild.
• 

  Vidqun

  Yes, seems you're right, the domestication process only works one way. Interestingly, I see they've discovered a 33,000 year old dog skull in a Siberian cave.

  This skull once belonged to somebody's pet, over 33,000 years ago. It's one of the earliest known examples of the domestication of dogs — and it might actually mean modern dogs aren't all related to each other after all. The skull, recently discovered in a Siberian mountain, dates to roughly the same time period as a skull previously discovered in Belgium. And that's problematic for the idea that dogs were only ever domesticated once. Though not impossible, it's questionable whether humans could have domesticated dogs from wolves in some central location and then spread out to the far east and west edges of the Eurasian landmass, all by 30,000 years ago.

  Instead, this find may point to multiple domestication events for dogs, which might mean modern dog breeds don't actually represent a single species, which in turn might disprove the old evolutionary canard that a chihuahua could theoretically breed with a Great Dane. As University of Arizona researcher Greg Hodgins explains, this Siberian dog almost certainly represents a domestication event distinct from the one — or ones — that produced modern dogs:

  "Both the Belgian find and the Siberian find are domesticated species based on morphological characteristics. Essentially, wolves have long thin snouts and their teeth are not crowded, and domestication results in this shortening of the snout and widening of the jaws and crowding of the teeth. The argument that it is domesticated is pretty solid. What's interesting is that it doesn't appear to be an ancestor of modern dogs."

  Both the Belgian and Siberian skulls predate the peak of the most recent Ice Age, known as the Last Glacial Maximum. This event, which lasted from 26,000 to 19,000 years ago, severely disrupted Earth's ecosystems and drove many species extinct. Both the Siberian and Belgian dogs were likely among the species that didn't make it. But the fact that these represent two previously unknown domestication events suggest the evolution of modern dogs might be more complicated than we had anticipated. And, as Hodgins points out, this also means that dogs have been humanity's best friend for a long, long time:

  "In terms of human history, before the last glacial maximum people were living with wolves or canid species in widely separated geographical areas of Euro-Asia, and had been living with them long enough that they were actually changing evolutionarily. And then climate change happened, human habitation patterns changed and those relationships with those particular lineages of animals apparently didn't survive...The dogs are not necessarily providing products or meat. They are probably providing protection, companionship and perhaps helping on the hunt. And it's really interesting that this appears to have happened first out of all human relationships with animals."
• 

  N.drew

  N.drew... Your god proved his "worth" in 1st Kings by... producing fire. Fire, I guess, is amazing or something.

  No hint. My God is not in the business of impressing fools.

  God is Love.

  I am impressed that love can move a child to survive the worst kind of upbringing to become a functioning adult.

  I am amazed that a child can live with hate and grow up to tell funny storied about it and LAUGH!

  There was an episode of House where the patient had a brain disorder that caused everything she saw to be ugly. That is how some look at the world. They see only ugly evil stuff so they conclude either love has no power or it is evil.

  I look at the world differently so people say "go get medicine" or "are you on drugs/drinking?"

  I remember vaguely the apostle Paul wrote he acts on your account. (I'm not looking it up, sticks out tongue and they see it is not forked, like those other tongues!). What he means imo is he would not write in a certain style that would cause the listener to respond in unfavorable ways. That is why imo many people do not post. It is not because they have nothing to say, but is because they know they will get a bad reaction which will cause another poster to post some garbage, and they feel sorry for that person. So they remain silent. That's my theory.

  If I know that why do I post? I'm not afraid of fire. I think a bath in the fire would be apropos. (don't take it personal-I know you will-I mean me)