Evolution is a farce: Evidence

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Pardon?

Haha yes, I found more organic molecules, so based on how we`ve always known organic molecules can form, with time we will get Lucy, Darwins great grand parent, not impressed.

Not sure what you're trying to get at there.
Could it be that you don't accept that organic molecules have been found in outer space?
Because if you did that would start to unravel the belief you hold so true?
It would also suggest a gross mental immaturity on your part, you could even say that's suggestive of a mind that hasn't evolved...

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Pardon?

Haha yes, I found more organic molecules, so based on how we`ve always known organic molecules can form, with time we will get Lucy, Darwins great grand parent, not impressed.

Not sure what you're trying to get at there.
Could it be that you don't accept that organic molecules have been found in outer space?
Because if you did that would start to unravel the belief you hold so true?
It would also suggest a gross mental immaturity on your part, you could even say that's suggestive of a mind that hasn't evolved...

We've been creating organic molecules here on earth for the last hundred years in labs, often the wrong ones of course. You gave me this info as if finding organic molecules on a rock is some startling revelation for common descent. Is that the hook you are expecting me to buy into?

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Pardon?

Haha yes, I found more organic molecules, so based on how we`ve always known organic molecules can form, with time we will get Lucy, Darwins great grand parent, not impressed.

Not sure what you're trying to get at there.
Could it be that you don't accept that organic molecules have been found in outer space?
Because if you did that would start to unravel the belief you hold so true?
It would also suggest a gross mental immaturity on your part, you could even say that's suggestive of a mind that hasn't evolved...

We've been creating organic molecules here on earth for the last hundred years in labs, often the wrong ones of course. You gave me this info as if finding organic molecules on a rock is some startling revelation for common descent. Is that the hook you are expecting me to buy into?

Interesting how you leave out the fact that the rock was found in outer space. You really do ignore inconvenient things don't you?

a reply to: BlackManINC

No it did not, the big bang was not a theory when Darwin proposed his first take on Evolutionary theory. No reputable curriculum ever married the two together. Now if you are talking about education in science in general teaching the theory of evolution, and various iterations of the big bang as a possible start to the universe, then sure, they are taught as separate things.

So please, for the love of evolution, people, stop giving these trolls the dignity of a response

a reply to: Barcs
Wow Barcs, you really spilled the beans with that expression, "for the love of evolution", sounds almost adoring doesn't it? I can almost hear a melody behind it, like a hymn in the church of science. Seriously you guys have just swapped one deity for another.

You can't grasp the ineffable because of your atrophied brains so you create a fiction comprising of disparate jig saw pieces that don't actually fit but somehow cobble together and declare, "look we have the big picture" even though it resembles a Picasso after a particularly heavy night on sangria.

You state that creationists (not that I am one) are blinded by faith when yourselves are blinded by your own science. A desperate attempt to deny that anything could be greater or more powerful than, well! Monkeys.

I hope you can all see the baiting going on here and not get too aggressive. There will be a few though as they will be so enraged they won't actually make it to this bit, 1,2,3

Friendly Moderator Suggestion.


Address the topic of the thread. Not each other. If you find that impossible to do, don't post. Click onto another topic, or take a break.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Pardon?

Haha yes, I found more organic molecules, so based on how we`ve always known organic molecules can form, with time we will get Lucy, Darwins great grand parent, not impressed.

Not sure what you're trying to get at there.
Could it be that you don't accept that organic molecules have been found in outer space?
Because if you did that would start to unravel the belief you hold so true?
It would also suggest a gross mental immaturity on your part, you could even say that's suggestive of a mind that hasn't evolved...

We've been creating organic molecules here on earth for the last hundred years in labs, often the wrong ones of course. You gave me this info as if finding organic molecules on a rock is some startling revelation for common descent. Is that the hook you are expecting me to buy into?

Interesting how you leave out the fact that the rock was found in outer space. You really do ignore inconvenient things don't you?

Of course, you avoided the question as to how finding organic molecules anywhere, whether its earth, a rock in the void of space, or planet mars is relevant to the belief in common descent as expected.

a reply to: BlackManINC

The presence of organic molecules in space have very little to do with the evolution of life. Once life has occurred, it can be assumed that the molecules one needs for life (amino acids, and nucleic acids in particular) are available. I have to point out again, we are talking about the "Theory of Evolution" and as such that is the only thing which matters in this particular discussion. Not the origin of life, not the origin of organic molecules, and certainly not the origin of the Universe. Anything else is a diversionary tactic.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: BlackManINC

The presence of organic molecules in space have very little to do with the evolution of life. Once life has occurred, it can be assumed that the molecules one needs for life (amino acids, and nucleic acids in particular) are available. I have to point out again, we are talking about the "Theory of Evolution" and as such that is the only thing which matters in this particular discussion. Not the origin of life, not the origin of organic molecules, and certainly not the origin of the Universe. Anything else is a diversionary tactic.

Well tell this to the ESA, because this is what the mission is all about, explaining the origin of life by panspermia, rocks falling into the oceans beginning the process from soup to man, of which I have debunked in my other thread specially about the Rosetta mission.

a reply to: BlackManINC

It is still off topic for the thread. Its a diversionary tactic to keep harping at this subject. It neither proves nor disproves evolution. Evolution occurred when the first life form became something more adapted and or complex. Not when the first life form happened. it is pure and simple logic.

a reply to: seagull

Sorry Seagull, if that was meant for me, I will consider my hand to be smacked, although I did think it was ironically funny.

a reply to: Noinden

Following Seagulls advice,
Dear evolutionist

we are talking about the "Theory of Evolution" and as such that is the only thing which matters in this particular discussion. Not the origin of life, not the origin of organic molecules, and certainly not the origin of the Universe. Anything else is a diversionary tactic.

How is it a diversionary tactic if the very answer to the question of origin, could negate the entire purpose for evolution. you could all be out of jobs, you could always get work as gardeners or something.

a reply to: kennyb72

Seldom, if ever, are announcements like that meant for just one member.

No. It was addressed to everyone participating. Even the innocent...

a reply to: kennyb72

It is a diversionary tactic as the topic in question is not related to Evolution. You can't use the reasoning "Oranges which are fruit grow on trees, there for all other fruit grow on trees". This is faulty logic. Just because the origin of first life and the big bang are theories in science (actually the origins of first life are a number of different hypothesis not even theories yet) they must be integrated into evolution. These are all unrelated things, and as such are not reliant on the others for validity. The common thread they have is that they are things in science. Thus if you want to attack science, and scientific methodology, go for it. But do it, not in a circular manner

SO this is why these are diversionary tactics neighbor. They are only trying to remove emphasis that no one on the creationist side has been able to prove evolution is a farce (the topic of the thread). I am more than willing to engage in debate on any of these topics, but we should remain on topic inside a thread (as per moderator mandate).

originally posted by: kayej1188
a reply to: BlackManINC

Try and focus for one second and maybe try switching gears rather than literally saying the same things over and over again. You ask for some evidence of how micro changes can culminate in macro changes. I've posted this 5 times already to no avail. All I ask is you to take a look at EXAMPLE 2 here: www.talkorigins.org... . Note that every claim is backed by peer-reviewed scientific journal papers. If you can't just focus on this one example and intelligently present anything close to a coherent argument showing how you would interpret the results differently, then I will assume you have absolutely zero interest in actually having an intelligent discussion regarding this topic which you have spent the past several weeks posting in daily. That would be quite sad if it turns out to be the case. Realize that these are not simply empty claims, but real science, and you will need to put on your thinking cap. I would not be surprised if once you start reading some of the anatomy and physiology terms, you become confused and give-up, and say some generic thing that you have been saying all along. All I want for you to do is to read the example, and give me your analysis of why you think this is not evidence for macroevolution. It's very simple man

Here are the links where I addressed this rubbish pages ago for those who are concerned.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Noinden

Dear evolutionist

I always read your posts with a John Wayne voice in my head, can't help it, Get down of that horse neighbour

Any way, your reasoning is the product of a highly compartmentalised mind, can't see the woods for the tree's sort of thing. It's like giving you a damaged shoe and saying it's yours if you can fix it, then you spend a week fixing it and you say where's the other one and there isn't another one, an exercise in futility.

I know this is an impossible thing to ask, but if say you hypothetically discovered that there was a creator, absolute proof. Would you still spend your life putting bones together or would you decide to do something more productive with your life?

It seems like evolutionists are putting all their energy into proving that there is no power greater than their own. Keep working on that shoe neighbour, because the other shoe is the origin of life and you will never own it.

a reply to: kennyb72

You really have not been reading my posts if you just asked that question. I am a spiritual person, I belong to a religion, I am in training to be clergy in that religion. Said religion is recognized in the US as a 501.3C organisation, which means it is recognized as a religion. I however am not part of one of the Abrahamic paths. I also happen to be a scientist. I am educated as such, and employed as such.

Thus I can not help but doubt your line beginning with "I always read your posts ..." as you clearly have not read what I post. As for the "voice of John Wayne" whatever floats your goat neighbor. I'm however not possessed of a US accent so it's a tad inaccurate '

My ability to mentally compartmentalize really is part of being a scientist. There is no unifying theory of "all science" so as such its is imperitive that one does this.

So "Dear creationist" please stay on topic, or at least be admit you do not read my posts.

a reply to: kennyb72

Pardon the dilatory response. This stuff isn't really that interesting to me any more.

Your points have already been addressed by other posters, but I will address them from my own perspective.

point1

As WakeUpBeer pointed out, the Darwin quote about the evolution of the eye does not mean what creationists say it means. I have the quote in front of me, in my copy of The Origin of Species. I'm afraid this won't wash.

Furthermore, an examination of Darwin's late correspondence, as conducted by his biographers, gives the lie to any notion that he gave credence to intelligent design or returned to the religious faith of his early years.

point2

I am very familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Applied to open systems, it permits local aggregations of order at the expense of increased entropy (disorder) elsewhere in the system. If this were not the case, stars and galaxies could never form, crystals would not arrange themselves in lattice structures and chemical compounds could not exist. As evidence against evolution, this trope cannot and will not stand.

point3

Another poster earlier offered a detailed explanation of how reptile jawbones became mammal earbones. Your response was to say there are 'only a few fossils'. Well, there aren't. There are plenty.

The term 'transitional species' is based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Of course there are fossil intermediates between ancestral species and modern ones. But however closely these intermediates resemble the fossils on either side of them, there will always be other 'intermediates' between them whose fosslis remain undiscovered. The claim that 'there are no transitional species' can therefore always be made, no matter that it is meaningless in reality.

That disposes of the evidences you supplied against evolution (they are in no way proofs of intelligent design). Do you have more, or will you now accept that you are wrong and change your mind? Or will you go looking for more arguments to support a personal prejudice in favour or creationism (or rather, 'intelligent' design)?

a reply to: flyingfish

I have pages of information that says you're wrong.

a reply to: kayej1188 Well i was asking Barc if he thought evolution could explain humans having supernatural abilities, but if you want to take a jab at the answer that's fine with me.