Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

reply to post by uva3021


Again with the mud slinging. Both sides seem to have a lot of that.

reply to post by iterationzero


It still kinda seems like a good question nontheless.

reply to post by rhinoceros


According to a book I rented called Genes, there are a recorded 25000 encoded protien genes. Much of the genetic code, according to what it said, has many thousands of unknown chemicals and chemical reactions. The book was published a few years back, so I don't know with certainty if that has changed.

reply to post by MainLineThis


Behind every myth lies some truth.

reply to post by Anonymous1225

Which I answered. Or was the answer unacceptable to you in some way?

reply to post by Anonymous1225

According to a book I rented called Genes, there are a recorded 25000 encoded protien genes. Much of the genetic code, according to what it said, has many thousands of unknown chemicals and chemical reactions. The book was published a few years back, so I don't know with certainty if that has changed.

The genetic code has unknown chemicals? No. There's literally only four molecules in your DNA: adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine. They're arranged in repeating base pairs, adenine with thymine and cytosine with guanine.

reply to post by iterationzero


It's not unacceptable.

Quick shout out to everyone. I'm not taking sides. I'm questioning both sides of the arguements to get the facts about both of them. Until I have made my descision I'm neutral.

reply to post by Anonymous1225

So go read.

Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.

I wouldn't necessarily say that 2 robots taking pictures of a planet so far away, is evidence that there wasn't life on mars. Just because mars is a dead planet, with water, doesn't mean that it has never held life on it. Sometimes i question if we ever even sent those robots to mars. Those pictures look a lot like the Arizona desert to me LOL.

reply to post by rhinoceros


I do read. Did you not see my comments on a book I was readin? Anyway, reading the books is just another way to see what someone has to say about something.

lol so a caterpillar going into a cocoon and coming out a butterfly is not considered a form of evolution? what about when a fetus needs to come out of the womb to now survive in the newer environment? thats not evolution? lol...it happens on a daily basis. say that it doesn't happen alll you want, actuality is, it does happen. everyday and theres nothing you can do about it.

reply to post by HispanicPanic

lol so a caterpillar going into a cocoon and coming out a butterfly is not considered a form of evolution? what about when a fetus needs to come out of the womb to now survive in the newer environment? thats not evolution? lol...it happens on a daily basis. say that it doesn't happen alll you want, actuality is, it does happen. everyday and theres nothing you can do about it.

Why would either of those two examples be forms of evolution? The genetics of the organisms aren't changing because of a physical transformation or introduction into a new environment. Evolution is well-defined as a change in allele frequency within a population over time. It has nothing to do with mammalian birth or insect pupation.

Originally posted by HispanicPanic
lol so a caterpillar going into a cocoon and coming out a butterfly is not considered a form of evolution? what about when a fetus needs to come out of the womb to now survive in the newer environment? thats not evolution? lol...it happens on a daily basis. say that it doesn't happen alll you want, actuality is, it does happen. everyday and theres nothing you can do about it.

#1: A caterpillar metamorphosing into a butterfly doesn't change it's genetic composition.
#2: A baby being born does not change it's genetic composition.

So no, according to what evolution is defined as, neither are. Sorry.

well if you guys cant put either 2 of those into a form or at least CYCLE of evolution...you are going to keep searching and searching until you DO find PROOF it does happen. cause you wont find proof its not happening...

reply to post by HispanicPanic


Um...neither of those things had anything to do with evolution. The birth of a child merely puts it a step closer to reproducing, it doesn't gain or lose any genetic traits. The same goes for the caterpillar.

reply to post by HispanicPanic

well if you guys cant put either 2 of those into a form or at least CYCLE of evolution...you are going to keep searching and searching until you DO find PROOF it does happen. cause you wont find proof its not happening...

Translation: "I don't know what evolution is, but it's wrong because it doesn't talk about this stuff I see happening that has nothing to do with evolution."

Please, for your own sake, follow the motto of the site your posting on and deny ignorance instead of embracing it. The genetics of the butterfly and the caterpillar from which it came are the same. The genetics of the child before and after gestation are the same. There is no evolution occurring in either of those cases.

deny ignorance is my favorite saying on this site. oh well, theres always going to be skeptics. you will know one way or the other eventually..

"And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind."
Genesis 1:25

"Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness"
Genesis 1:26

God is spirit, so therefore man is spirit also. Our refers to the holy trinity (I think): God, Jesus Christ, Holy spirit

"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him"
Genesis 1:27

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life"
Genesis 2:7

Humans when they die, they decompose back to "dust of the ground" ( the earth).

reply to post by sara09


So you quote the bible here. Help me out, this is from the first creation myth right? The other creation myth changes the order of creation right?

About all I see here is a bronze age understanding of biology. The taxonomy is rather simple isn't it:

1. beasts
2. cattle
3. creepers

Interesting how cattle seem to have been given a special place. No special mention of other livestock such as horses or sheep.