Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

a reply to: wonderworld

So because we have not yet detected any discernibly intelligent radio signals from space we should assume there is no other sentient life forms in our multiverse? That's just sheer arrogance on our part!

Have you any idea how long said radio signals would take to propagate from one star to the next never mind between galaxies? Any race capable of travel between the stars would employ a rather more sophisticated method of communication im afraid.

a reply to: andy06shake

Just to add a visual representation of what you said here.
Well our radio signals anyhow lol.
Wonder even If they were looking for us we have not left a great big sign...just a little one.

a reply to: wonderworld

1. The whole Universe arose, by chance, at an event widely known as the ""Big Bang."

2. All of the matter in the Universe was contained, before the "Big Bang" in a "singularity."

3. The "singularity" was infinitesimally small, incredibly heavy, and created itself!

4. The "Big Bang" happened purely by chance, approximately 13.75 billion years ago

5. The "Big Bang" was the origin not only of matter, but of Space, Time, and Energy.

6. Space, Time, and Energy evolved simultaneously, all by chance, and all out of a "singularity," which was infinitesimally small.

7. All of the 118 known elements elements evolved from Hydrogen and Helium, the elements of the Sun, a process known as "Chemical Evolution."

8. The incredibly complex Galaxies, Solar System, the Sun, the Stars, Planets, moons around the planets, comets, asteroids, and space dust all evolved by pure chance. They all evolved from an initial source known as a "singularity." This process is known as "Stellar and Planetary Evolution".

9. The incredibly complex orbits of all known space bodies in the solar system, such as the planets, all occurred purely by chance.

10. The vast number of incredibly finely tuned parameters necessary for life on Planet Earth all evolved simultaneously and correctly, purely by chance.

11. Here is a very short list of just a few of these parameters, although there are millions of them:

- The temperature
- The magnetic field
- The partial pressure of all gases
- The rotation period of the Earth
- The gravitational forces in the Universe
- The water vapour saturation
- The availability of natural resources

12. There are literally millions of other finely tuned and interdependent parameters, which all have zero variation tolerance to maintain life.


Evolution is not a science at all. It is a belief, a hope, a wish based on a modern rendition of a book labelled a THEORY. But well done, for all true believers have more true faith than all others in the earth.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
This article is a HUGE lie all because it claims that evolution proponents argue how life began. Evolution STARTS with the premise that life already exists and makes zero, I repeat, ZERO claims on how life started. I therefore call this whole article invalid.

I could go on and debunk all these other claims (most are dumb arguing like the claim that invalidates statistics by saying that an infinite number of monkeys given an infinite number of typewrites wouldn't be able to produce the Gettysburg Address), but I won't. The fact that the article author couldn't be arsed to even fully understand what Evolution claims and just goes on to decide for himself what it claims just shows how much nonsense this article is. Typical Creationist drivel. Makes a bunch of straw man arguments, claims they are false, then claims victory.

Heck even the claim that the article is using science to disprove evolution is a lie. I saw no reference to any studies or calculations that disprove anything. Just a bunch of claims positioned as "facts" followed by what some idiot thinks is and isn't possible.

At the heart of Darwinism is the idea of adaptation to changing local circumstances. For instance... If it were cold in Russia a long time ago and some of the Elephants there had longer hair; than as a statistical average they will produce more successful offspring and then perhaps one thousand generations down the track we get Woolly Mammoths. It's not a better elephant; it's just an Elephant better suited to the transitory environment of that place.
Since the vector of environmental change through time is effectively random, if organisms under Darwin are tracking those changes then you are not going to generate a directional pattern of evolution leading to the development of higher, more complex or significantly different organisms.

Evolution is inherently flawed...

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

I have no idea what "Darwinism" is. I certainly don't believe in it. If what you described there is "Darwinism" then I'm glad I don't believe in it, because that isn't how things work. Please don't tell me my beliefs. I think that the Theory of Evolutionary Synthesis is the best answer for how we got to where we are today, but I don't believe in something called "Darwinism". Whatever that is.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
It is like arguing "Gnosticism" with an Atheist (I hear you).

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

I have no idea what "Darwinism" is. I certainly don't believe in it. If what you described there is "Darwinism" then I'm glad I don't believe in it, because that isn't how things work. Please don't tell me my beliefs. I think that the Theory of Evolutionary Synthesis is the best answer for how we got to where we are today, but I don't believe in something called "Darwinism". Whatever that is.

Perhaps you need to do some more research?

Darwinism is still a central and pivotal theoretical concept within Modern Evolutionary Synthesis!

.!.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

No, I think you are referring to the Theory of Natural Selection. There are parts of that theory that still apply to the modern theory yes, but even that is largely out of date. As for Darwinism? Nope, nothing in there about that. The only people who still care about Darwin when it comes to evolution are evolution deniers.

PS: I refuse to entertain strawmans from the Creationist camp. If you want to argue evolution, get your facts straight.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

No, I think you are referring to the Theory of Natural Selection. There are parts of that theory that still apply to the modern theory yes, but even that is largely out of date. As for Darwinism? Nope, nothing in there about that. The only people who still care about Darwin when it comes to evolution are evolution deniers.

PS: I refuse to entertain strawmans from the Creationist camp. If you want to argue evolution, get your facts straight.

My my... Aren't you just full of your own cleverness.

If you refer to my first post and your quote within it, you will see that it is NOT in fact a strawman argument. Perhaps you need to review the definition of a strawman argument and refine your understanding of how to apply the term corectly.

And please... to try and define a difference between Darwin and Evolution is ludicrous at best. Even if such a separation did in fact exist it would not change the fact that even the mechanism of Speciation is heavily reliant on the organisms reaction to the local environment making my original point still true and relevant.

Since the vector of environmental change through time is effectively random, if organisms under Speciation are tracking those changes then you are not going to generate a directional pattern of evolution leading to the development of higher, more complex or significantly different organisms.

Understand cupcake?

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

No, I think you are referring to the Theory of Natural Selection. There are parts of that theory that still apply to the modern theory yes, but even that is largely out of date. As for Darwinism? Nope, nothing in there about that. The only people who still care about Darwin when it comes to evolution are evolution deniers.

PS: I refuse to entertain strawmans from the Creationist camp. If you want to argue evolution, get your facts straight.

My my... Aren't you just full of your own cleverness.

If you refer to my first post and your quote within it, you will see that it is NOT in fact a strawman argument. Perhaps you need to review the definition of a strawman argument and refine your understanding of how to apply the term corectly.

Please refer to the fact that there is no such thing as "Darwinism". It is a made up term invented by creationists to discredit evolution with a strawman.

And please... to try and define a difference between Darwin and Evolution is ludicrous at best. Even if such a separation did in fact exist it would not change the fact that even the mechanism of Speciation is heavily reliant on the organisms reaction to the local environment making my original point still true and relevant.

Just because you can't be bothered to understand the theory thoroughly enough to tell the difference between the two concepts doesn't mean that a separation doesn't exist.

Understand cupcake?

I understand that that is complete bull# and not how things work. I understand that you are basing your opinion here not on facts or data, but on rhetoric built from your confirmation bias.

I think the guy who turned chicken feathers into scales pretty much showed that evolution is a farce and that outside manipulation makes much more sense.

a reply to: deadeyedick

And you are basing this on WHAT reasoning exactly? Are you even aware of the procedure that was done in order to do what you are talking about? Or are you just assuming that the scientists magiced those scales into existence? I mean, if you knew ANYTHING about that case, you'd know that the scientists USED evolutionary theory as their basis for that experiment. If evolution wasn't true, then what they did would have been impossible.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

funny how you always respond as if I am a complete dumbass.

The method they used does not concern me but what does concern me is the fact that some scientist managed to force millions of so called evolutionary yrs into a few weeks of work.

Now if you can see that is much evidence that other processes out there unknown to you or I could be used to force so called evolutionary process.

at the end of the day they are all guesses unless we were there during the changes happening to species on earth but if we listen to others they claim case closed and it shows there willingness to further a set of guidelines that some quack laid out yrs ago.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Krazysh0t

deadeydick: The method they used does not concern me but what does concern me is the fact that some scientist managed to force millions of so called evolutionary yrs into a few weeks of work.
Now if you can see that is much evidence that other processes out there unknown to you or I could be used to force so called evolutionary process.

Some force or being compressed Human evolution into a ridiculously small time frame; not natural compared to all of the species that somehow failed to evolve at all (forgotten; the ones that failed just died off replaced by the other competitors more successful in that environment). Humans are the only specie here that DO NOT BELONG at all. Freakish beings created unaturally to exist in an environment of animal, reptilian predators and infested with 1.5 million different specie of BUGS/insects (some say another 500,000 yet to be discovered). Does any of this make sense?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

No, I think you are referring to the Theory of Natural Selection. There are parts of that theory that still apply to the modern theory yes, but even that is largely out of date. As for Darwinism? Nope, nothing in there about that. The only people who still care about Darwin when it comes to evolution are evolution deniers.

PS: I refuse to entertain strawmans from the Creationist camp. If you want to argue evolution, get your facts straight.

My my... Aren't you just full of your own cleverness.

If you refer to my first post and your quote within it, you will see that it is NOT in fact a strawman argument. Perhaps you need to review the definition of a strawman argument and refine your understanding of how to apply the term corectly.

Please refer to the fact that there is no such thing as "Darwinism". It is a made up term invented by creationists to discredit evolution with a strawman.

please refer to any dictionary or scientific manual for a definition of Darwinism. It is a term used to consolidate Darwin's differing theory's of evolution of the species through natural selection.
Please refer again to my first post. While your argumentative prowess is quite exceptional it doesn't change the fact that in no part of my original post is a strawman argument presented.
Please stop making things up. It's childish.

And please... to try and define a difference between Darwin and Evolution is ludicrous at best. Even if such a separation did in fact exist it would not change the fact that even the mechanism of Speciation is heavily reliant on the organisms reaction to the local environment making my original point still true and relevant.

Just because you can't be bothered to understand the theory thoroughly enough to tell the difference between the two concepts doesn't mean that a separation doesn't exist.

Had you the intelligence that you believe yourself to have you wouldn't have posted such an ignorant and misguided statement.

Understand cupcake?

I understand that that is complete bull# and not how things work. I understand that you are basing your opinion here not on facts or data, but on rhetoric built from your confirmation bias.

I understand your need to make things up when you find yourself unable to explain why...

Since the vector of environmental change through time is effectively random, if organisms under Modern Evolutionary Synthesis are tracking those changes then you are not going to generate a directional pattern of evolution leading to the development of higher, more complex or significantly different organisms.

Is not true. .!.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

hudsonhawk:
"Since the vector of environmental change through time is effectively random, if organisms under Modern Evolutionary Synthesis are tracking those changes then you are not going to generate a directional pattern of evolution leading to the development of higher, more complex or significantly different organisms."

Quotation by another author should be credited as their thought; not fumble/bumbled into your argument.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Please refer to the fact that there is no such thing as "Darwinism". It is a made up term invented by creationists to discredit evolution with a strawman.

Is evolution dependent on abiogenesis or creation? I ask because
as you said, evolution does not and can not explain how life began.
If it doesn't include how life began it is then dependent on that
explanation. So evolution discredits itself just fine without
creationists because creationism is dependent on nothing. Creation
in all truth is intolerable to evolution, so that leaves abiogenesis.
And abiogenesis faces all the impossibilities that evolutions believers
avoid in the way you just did.

So now that we have that all pinned down tell me this shot.
Did the mind create time or did time create the mind?

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Krazysh0t

deadeydick: The method they used does not concern me but what does concern me is the fact that some scientist managed to force millions of so called evolutionary yrs into a few weeks of work.
Now if you can see that is much evidence that other processes out there unknown to you or I could be used to force so called evolutionary process.

Some force or being compressed Human evolution into a ridiculously small time frame;

Modern humans are the product of billions of years of evolution. Hardly a small time frame.

...not natural compared to all of the species that somehow failed to evolve at all

It's entirely natural, and there's absolutely no reason to think that every species in existence will continue to evolve forever. That's not how it works.

Humans are the only specie here that DO NOT BELONG at all.

How do we "not belong at all"?

Freakish beings created unaturally to exist in an environment of animal, reptilian predators and infested with 1.5 million different specie of BUGS/insects (some say another 500,000 yet to be discovered).

There are mountains of evidence showing exactly where we came from. What evidence do you have that we were "created unnaturally"?

Does any of this make sense?

Yes, even if you can't quite grasp it.

To deny Evolution is to deny what is immediately obvious to even the most basic visual check of what you can see around you in every day life.

The prime example of evolution is DOG.

Every breed that isn't wolf has been bred in about the last 150 years.