Evolution is a farce: Evidence

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: boymonkey74

I won't be bullied off this thread the way you do with others with an opposing point of view. I shall patiently wait for somebody intelligent to come along who actually has manners.

Well, hate to say it, but you won't find an intelligent evolutionist with manners on this site. You'll be waiting for a very long time because they really don't exist anywhere.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Lol thats rich coming from you.

I see this thread has devolved into a mud slinging contest quite quickly.

a reply to: kennyb72

I won't be bullied off this thread the way you do with others with an opposing point of view.

Hear, hear!

Now, a polite request: could you please make your (no doubt highly incisive and relevant) points in posts that people actually have time to read? If you cut out the personal remarks and general reflections on the idiocy of science it would help a lot. I've been trying to skim through all that stuff in your posts to get to the meat of your arguments but there's just too much extraneous material. I haven't been able to find the actual arguments yet.

I shall patiently wait for somebody intelligent to come along who actually has manners.

Here — ahem — I am. Former physics student, musician for over thirty years, very familiar with the Pythagorean legend and the pseudoscientific musical 'theories' it has spawned, convinced 'evolutionist' and — despite what BlackManINC would have you think — not altogether stupid (or so I've been told).

Could you put your objections to the theory of evolution in three sentences, please? Shouldn't be hard for an intelligent person to do.

Go on. I challenge you.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Blackmaninc started it back on about page 3 lol.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Well if we are doing that, it started with the OP, but I was more referring to exchange on the last page.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ah just getting sick of people attempting to diss the more learned members of ATS.
The ones who have taught me so much including yourself .

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Blackmaninc started it back on about page 3 lol.

The flaming started against the OP as soon as the thread was posted. I never start anything, I just always end up finishing it.

a reply to: boymonkey74

I understand, but like I said to him earlier, I just stopped talking to him.

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: boymonkey74

I won't be bullied off this thread the way you do with others with an opposing point of view. I shall patiently wait for somebody intelligent to come along who actually has manners.

Well, hate to say it, but you won't find an intelligent evolutionist with manners on this site. You'll be waiting for a very long time because they really don't exist anywhere.

I resemble that remark! Ask anyone here, I'm sweet as pie..

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: boymonkey74

I won't be bullied off this thread the way you do with others with an opposing point of view. I shall patiently wait for somebody intelligent to come along who actually has manners.

Well, hate to say it, but you won't find an intelligent evolutionist with manners on this site. You'll be waiting for a very long time because they really don't exist anywhere.

I resemble that remark! Ask anyone here, I'm sweet as pie..

If you are as sweet as pie, then I'm as sweet as the Manna from heaven. The pie on earth may be sweet, but nothing beats the food in heaven.

a reply to: Astyanax

Oh Ok, Hello

point1
I am a confirmed believer(yes I said that word) in intelligent design, which if one where to read between the lines so was Charles Darwin in his later years. One does not throw away a life long reputation because you have changed your mind. Towards the end of his life he pondered on the complexity of the eye and how it could ever be possible for a process of mutating genes to arrive at such a complex biological mechanism.

point2
The second law of Thermodynamics dictates that order deteriorates to disorder without outside influence and yet we are told that evolution creates self organising systems that strive to create order without any assistance.
So which of these opposing views are correct?

Point3
The much vaunted fossil record does not support Macro evolution, yes, yes, I understand the reasoning of incremental changes but there is no evidence and you can argue until you are blue in the face, it does not change this fact.

Therfore it is a faith based theory.

I hope you are not just being nice to stab me in the back, I will be so disappointed! It is more than a MeerKat can bear.

Mmmm....the flavors of sky pie and cake.

a reply to: BlackManINC

A rare breed indeed, I won't give up hope though.

I am usually a very mild mannered person but when faced with this level of aggression you really have to toughen up.
I have a tendency to mirror those around me and when they basically see themselves they don't like it.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Astyanax

Oh Ok, Hello

point1
I am a confirmed believer(yes I said that word) in intelligent design, which if one where to read between the lines so was Charles Darwin in his later years. One does not throw away a life long reputation because you have changed your mind. Towards the end of his life he pondered on the complexity of the eye and how it could ever be possible for a process of mutating genes to arrive at such a complex biological mechanism.

point2
The second law of Thermodynamics dictates that order deteriorates to disorder without outside influence and yet we are told that evolution creates self organising systems that strive to create order without any assistance.
So which of these laws are correct?

In the double mindedness of an evolutionist, they'll reconcile this glaring contradiction and tell you that both of them are correct.

originally posted by: kennyb72Point3
The much vaunted fossil record does not support Macro evolution, yes, yes, I understand the reasoning of incremental changes but there is no evidence and you can argue until you are blue in the face, it does not change this fact.

Therfore it is a faith based theory.

If these incremental changes had any influence on changing the very makeup of one kind into another kind, we wouldn't be having any "living fossils" in the first place. 20 millions years of so called "incremental changes" has morphed the Tadpole fish into....................well, a Tadpole fish.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: BlackManINC

A rare breed indeed, I won't give up hope though.

I am usually a very mild mannered person but when faced with this level of aggression you really have to toughen up.
I have a tendency to mirror those around me and when they basically see themselves they don't like it.

And that's all I was doing, toughening up. They apparently see that as an "insult".

a reply to: kennyb72

Why do people bring the second law of thermodynamics up, with out understanding it. The second law only holds for simple closed systems. This is neither simple or closed. Thus the second law can not be held as counter evidence.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Yes! lets star each other, fun isn't it, it's so much fun in fact that people come on here all the time just to get stars, unbelievable

I suppose they could argue that certain species felt no need to change because they where perfect the way they are.

Like cockroaches.

My new theory is that evolutionists will not evolve any more for the same reason.

a reply to: Noinden

Why do people bring the second law of thermodynamics up, with out understanding it. The second law only holds for simple closed systems. This is neither simple or closed. Thus the second law can not be held as counter evidence

Dr John Ross of Harvard University rightly states:"… there are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.

a reply to: kennyb72

Oh wow, yeah one academic says that (whats his speciality, please cite your exact source for that quote). Because those words in no way shape or form can be applied to evolution, with out explicitly stating it as such.

curious.astro.cornell.edu...

viz

"However, evolution does not take place in a closed system, but rather requires the existence of outside forces - i.e., natural selection. The idea is that there can be some environmental effect that makes organisms with a particular mutation (one that makes them more "complex") more likely to survive and pass their genes on to the next generation. Thus, as generations go by, the gene pool of the species can get more and more complex, but notice that this can only occur if the gene pool interacts with the outside world. It is through the course of that interaction that some other form of entropy (or disorder) will be generated that increases the entropy of the universe as a whole."