Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: wonderworld

Good luck with this one lol, even though the head evolutionist refuted his very own idea they still continue to push this crap and now they have even changed it into something else just to keep the bs story going. Going by most of the evidence that is proof of evolution, a pimple forming on my forehead is an evolutionary breakthrough.

How is that an evolutionary breakthrough? Please, demonstrate to us your flawless grasp of evolutionary theory.

Maybe you should demonstrate why I should put faith into evolution...

originally posted by: DarknStormy

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: wonderworld

Good luck with this one lol, even though the head evolutionist refuted his very own idea they still continue to push this crap and now they have even changed it into something else just to keep the bs story going. Going by most of the evidence that is proof of evolution, a pimple forming on my forehead is an evolutionary breakthrough.

How is that an evolutionary breakthrough? Please, demonstrate to us your flawless grasp of evolutionary theory.

Maybe you should demonstrate why I should put faith into evolution...

Not until you answer my question. I'm sure we're all fascinated to know how your pimple constitutes an evolutionary breakthrough, according to your understanding of evolution.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: charles1952

5.) If you do this long enough, we will eventually have humans with super tough skin, psychic abilities, vision into the infra-red and ultra-violet, and any other desirable trait you might want.

Do I have this down pretty much correctly?

Only if such mutations confer a significant reproductive advantage.

And given that in today's rather artificial western world, just about anybody no matter how dumb and ineffectual can successfully reproduce, I wouldn't hold your breath.

It's actually more reasonable to postulate that humans' body chemistry will evolve to more easily accept bad food (probably at the cost of intelligence, not that many humans use it anyways), sedentary lifetstyles, and other things that we currently consider bad but continue to live on. We will probably also diverge along different evolutionary paths from the elites, who have access to better healthcare and other resources to live better and longer. Of course this won't happen overnight, but give it time (you have to assume that humans won't destroy the world in the meantime), but eventually there will be two intelligent and distinct species on the planet. One in charge and the other being slaves to them, both have homo sapien sapien as a common ancestor.

ETA: It actually already started to happen with the different races around the world, but since we are so interconnected these days, we've pretty much nipped that evolutionary path in the bud. But money and power have always been an uncrossable bridge between people. While we won't go down evolutionary paths as races in different areas of the world, there will always be a divide between the haves and have nots. And there is no changing it.

If one wants to see evolution in practise one only needs to take the example of the common dog. I see no debate here. Forced or not is another question entirely.
Or perhaps sheepdogs were created to specifically herd sheep and chihuahuas to annoy people.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is a theory that RNA is the precursor to DNA. There was a good program about it on Through the Wormhole.

www.sciencechannel.com...

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: Krazysh0t

They have to find ways to make science look ridiculous because their only other option is to make creationism look probable.

Lol. You know it's funny you say that. The OP also makes the fallacious assumption that disproving evolution somehow proves creationism. One doesn't exclude the other, both could be false, both could be true, or one could be true and the other false. It is a silly argument that creationists make saying that evolution is false, therefore creationism is true. It isn't an either/or situation.

originally posted by: DarknStormy

Maybe you should demonstrate why I should put faith into evolution...

That's just it. When you're dealing with facts and the scientific method you DON'T NEED FAITH!!!

Faith isn't required in Science. Save your Faith for your Religion.

originally posted by: charles1952
What a very odd thread!

The posters here are interested in evolution, so I'd like to ask for a lesson in it. I am seriously asking out of ignorance. Just looking for a little clarity, so I'm hoping you can clear up errors in my thinking. It seems to me that:

1.) Science doesn't really have an answer for how life (or consciousness for that matter) arose from non-living material.
2.) Once life began, the current belief is that cells went through mutations every now and again.

3.) Most of the mutations ended up killing off the creature, but every now and then the mutation survived and continued to reproduce.

Science cannot figure out where the soul lives (heart) or spirit (mid brain) or how they work in unison with each other. Cells mutate when Mind doesn't take charge and say to them (as its body is at high risk for rebellion we are talking 3 trillion individualized cells in organ groups) IM IN CHARGE HERE as your boss, your overlord... 'Listen up".

[I]charles1952[/I]4.) Eventually, the mutations were passed on from one generation to the next, resulting in a different animal. This, to me sounds like the infinite monkeys situation, except that instead of requiring the monkeys to produce Shakespeare's works, they only have to produce some piece of literature.

5.) If you do this long enough, we will eventually have humans with super tough skin, psychic abilities, vision into the infra-red and ultra-violet, and any other desirable trait you might want.

So it was the monkey in those days of old produced the original blueprint for Gothic Romance Novels, which turned into a more revenue producing Juvenile Stephen King type horror stories, Vampire Ann Rice etc.. I knew the blame would eventually be placed somewhere; right on the lap of the publisher/literary agent/editor. You forgot the most important, after all of the accidental or planned evolution we still do not have wings?

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Prove the soul and spirit please.
We could just have the illusion of those things.
We don't have wings because we have not needed them and split from the bird family a very long time ago.

Anyone want to see more actual proof of evolution?.

Here is a Giraffe autopsy (graphic btw).



If it was designed the designer needs to get fired....In fact why If we were designed were we so badly designed? people die every year from choking on food because we can't breath and eat at the same time..other great apes can do both.
I think it was the evolution of our ability to talk that sorted that out btw.

originally posted by: boymonkey74

We have proved it we are related to other Great Apes....

We are also related to bananas, so what? How does this prove evolution? It simply proves we are made from the same things and could just as easily mean evidence of a common creator.

BTW we have seen evolution happen in our life time...from lizards to moths.

Oh, have we? We've seen lizards and moths turn into completely new species?
the gripe is with macro evolution, in case you haven't noticed. And in spite of evolutionist claims, it is not the same as micro evolution. that is simply an argument used to backtrack and excuse irrational evolutionist faith that "time did it" in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

If you are from the states please stop dumbing down everyone...It will be the USA's undoing teaching kids lies.

Speak for yourself and stop shoving your dogmatic religion of scientism onto feeble young minds who can not yet think for themselves about how much BS they're being taught. Evolutionists are quite the loony bunch.

a reply to: paradox

Speak for yourself and stop shoving your dogmatic religion of scientism onto feeble young minds who can not yet think enough about how much BS they're being taught. Evolutionists are quite the loony bunch.

But Sunday School is perfectly kosher for those feeble young minds, amirite?

a reply to: paradox

And in spite of evolutionist claims, it is not the same as micro evolution. that is simply an argument used to backtrack and excuse irrational evolutionist faith that "time did it" in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

Alright this is great you are someone that claims there is evidence.

Please explain and provide the "evidence" to what logical or biological barriers would prevent microevolutionary changes from becoming macroevolutionary changes over long spans of time

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: paradox



But Sunday School is perfectly kosher for those feeble young minds, amirite?

the more and more evolution falls flat on its face with absurd claims and lack of evidence, the more and more credence it gives to creationism. Watching scientists trying to "figure things out" is like watching a dog chase its own tail.

a reply to: paradox

It isn't dogmatic at all...It has facts around them proven in labs and peer reviewed by other scientists.
Also explain to me why some people are born with tails? this is old junk DNA which sometimes awake it is called atavism.
Also look into embryology.




I just don't understand why the religious are always the ones fighting evolution...you can have god and evolution also.
We have found many transitional; fossils and even Dolphins grow the odd leg everynow and then due to Atavism.
Why do you ignore the facts and peer reviewed poapers which prove evolution..their is no debate really it is real and has happened.

Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

Science is now copying and pasting? I could go find a pro-evolution website and do the exact same thing. "Look ma! Science!"

originally posted by: Grimpachi


Please explain and provide the "evidence" to what logical or biological barriers would prevent microevolutionary changes from becoming macroevolutionary changes over long spans of time

It's called Mendel's Law. Go ahead and look it up.

Now since you are claiming it can happen, go ahead and provide your evidence.


Oh wait..

a reply to: paradox

Also why not actually try and refute the videos I have posted eh? instead of just bleating your own ill-informed uneducated views.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: DarknStormy

Maybe you should demonstrate why I should put faith into evolution...

That's just it. When you're dealing with facts and the scientific method you DON'T NEED FAITH!!!

Faith isn't required in Science. Save your Faith for your Religion.

Science is treading water; one reason is it will not allow Metaphysics to enter its realm of interest; or the thought that Magick (something else they cant define, alchemy, energy transference or transmutuation by humans...). Old school thoughts of science are stuck in the 'hard school" no room for elasticity or new approaches to old problems that can easily be solved, theorums; some have been solved and published but the stalwarts forgot how to read.

originally posted by: paradox

Watching scientists trying to "figure things out" is like watching a dog chase its own tail.

Whereas watching religion trying to explain nature is like watching a dog trying to paint the Sistine Chapel.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: DarknStormy

Maybe you should demonstrate why I should put faith into evolution...

That's just it. When you're dealing with facts and the scientific method you DON'T NEED FAITH!!!

Faith isn't required in Science. Save your Faith for your Religion.

Science is treading water; one reason is it will not allow Metaphysics to enter its realm of interest; or the thought that Magick (something else they cant define, alchemy, energy transference or transmutuation by humans...). Old school thoughts of science are stuck in the 'hard school" no room for elasticity or new approaches to old problems that can easily be solved, theorums; some have been solved and published but the stalwarts forgot how to read.

Can you offer a means of objectively and critically studying metaphysics while eliminating the possibility of human error?