Evolution is Science, Creationists Delusional

Yoda411,

What makes you think that "evolution" is not controlled??? "Evolution" is technically "constant re-creation". We are being created RIGHT NOW AS YOU READ THESE WORDS, by the energy that surrounds us.

God still exists, he is alive right now, and is the infinite energy inside every atom. God is all energy combined together. All that energy is responsible for the "evolution" of all objects, and IT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

The problem with most "evolutionists" is they are so blind they can't even see that they are being "created" RIGHT NOW! For some reason they completely separated the words "evolution" and "creation", and don't realize that "evolution" IS "creation". ITS THE SAME THING!!!

The energy around you, and everything you touch is responsible for your evolution, responsible for your creation. The energy is your God. You can't deny it, because it's 100% true. Energy is our God, it created us, and is constantly re-creating us (evolving).


The Bible states God made man from dirt in the ground. Even "evolution" proves this!!!! Since we had to start from "carbon".

The Catholic Church expects 10% of your entire paycheck to "repent your sins".
[edit on 12/19/08 by Yoda411]

That pretty much sums it up

But, you can't prove creationism wrong, not right either. It is as much a reality to it's believers as the reality that the earth was flat - to the historic 'scientists'. Today we laugh at a flat earth, i think we both will enjoy tomorrows world.. sadly we will be long gone by then. Religion tend to hang around until the power tells us to believe in something else, maybe science in the future.

I bleieve in the celestial teapot!
Russell's teapot

Enjoyed your thread

reply to post by Jadette


Your videos are very funny. Can you produce a naked picture of my wife on your CGI television set through randomly moving around pixels or the random firing of electons? I'll buy one if you can!!

I have worked with editing and special effects software for more than 12 yrs. on a professional level. Your demonstration involves very basic editing and CGFX skills. You can make it do whatever you want and most people won't have a clue how you did it. The learning curve involved for the average citizen to be able to properly investigate and understand what you did, and then try to duplicate it, would be about 1 year of intense learning. Most people haven't the time for that and wouldn't bother even if they did.

Since I know the outcome was manipulated, I encourage people to view the video with tongue in cheek and have a good laugh. It proves nothing. However, if people believe it, then it proves that people who want to believe evolution will believe anything presented as evidence to support their view....including circus side shows.

Survival of the fittest is one thing, but natural selection cannot develop a species' genetic data; therefore, natural selection cannot be used to account for the emergence of new species.

Geneticist have already demonstrated that variations within species is a result of their genetic code. Cows breed and we end up with many different sizes and colors of cows. We never end up with a whale or a giraffe.

Mutations are harmful to a species. No mutations have been observes that are helpful. No mutations demonstrate a species is transforming to another spieces.

Transitional fossils are not found in the fossil record. Some frauds have been exposed where a scull or other bones have been put togther that were later shown they did not belong together.

You may be able to dazzle some people with your brilliance.
But you didn't baffle me with your BS.

[edit on 19-12-2008 by John Matrix]

Originally posted by Yoda411Evolution is Science, Creationists Delusional

I'm sorry, that's as far as I read. We are delusional when you believe that everything that exists today poofed into existence out of nothingness? Right...

Yet you have no faith in the super natural. You don't believe God exists because he's not here before you commanding you to bow down to him 24/7. But sure, the universe was a little dot back in the day and exploded into 23523463462472657674574672567474784 x infinity planets suns moons asteroids solar systems and so on. And where did the dot come from? You don't know? It came from nothingness? Great science there, but it's fiction. Face the music, science as far as the universe origins goes, it is a religion, nothing more. It requires faith to believe in.

Originally posted by John Matrix

I'm not going to reply to any of your specific replies because your replies don't make any sense.

that ok they make perfect sense to everyone else so ill just keep commenting on yours

The molecule known as DNA, which is found in the nucleus of each of the 100 trillion cells in our bodies, contains the complete blueprint for the construction of the human body. The information regarding all the characteristics of a person, from physical appearance to the structure of the inner organs, is recorded in DNA within the sequence of four special bases that make up the giant molecule. These bases are known as A, T, G, and C, according to the initial letters of their names. All the structural differences among people depend on variations in the sequences of these letters. In addition to features such as height, and eye, hair and skin colors, the DNA in a single cell also contains the design of the 206 bones, the 600 muscles, the 100 billion nerve cells (neurons), 1.000 trillion connections between the neurons of the brain, 97,000 kilometers of veins, and the 100 trillion cells of the human body. If we were to write down the information coded in DNA, then we would have to compile a giant library consisting of 900 volumes of 500 pages each. But the information this enormous library would hold is encoded inside the DNA molecules in the cell nucleus, which is far smaller than the 1/100th-of-a-millimeter-long cell itself.

umm you can fit it on a standard writable cd

and none of that proves evolution is wrong, thats just a descriptor of dna

i guess were going for logical fallacy number 9 Ignoratio Elenchi

Evolution is a "blind faith" based system for explaining life on earth from it's origin to this present day. The mathematical probability for one living cell to have come into existence (over any period of time) as a result of non living particles coming together is utterly absurd....A single human cell is more complex than the space shuttle.....which makes evolution even more absurd.

guess i was right then yepp talk about one thing jump to a conclusion that has nothing to do with it

well those odds cant be that great we have set up conditions and observed very very basic cells form, science doesnt class them as life yet but they still fill all the agreed tenates of life so maybe the odds arnt as great as your bad maths suggest?

Evolution is a conspiracy and a fraud.

except no ones hiding it and it uses real evidence

But the spoon fed masses are too close minded and far too lazy to do their own research so they blindly put their faith in it

as opposed to bieng so opended minded and only reading thier holy book of choice? or favorite aliesn from the stars did it book?

and in the scientists that keep the conspiracy alive in order to collect their gov. funding.

even though most of thier money doesnt come from the goverment as they have a habbit of making useful things that they get money for and so self fund

Intelligent design is evident throughout the universe.

just not the one were in

It takes very little faith to accept that there is a designer/creator behind life on earth.

well without a scrap of proof it takes faith how much doesnt matter it requires faith

science on the other hand says stop bieng silly and go read about it we would much rather you understand it then use somthing as pointless as faith

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
God still exists, he is alive right now, and is the infinite energy inside every atom. God is all energy combined together. All that energy is responsible for the "evolution" of all objects, and IT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

Where creationists fill the void to explain the unexplainable with "God" to back up their claims, scientists call this force nature.

If you plant a seed in the ground and it grows to be a tall tree, was that tree created by God - or by nature? Does this simulate an act of god? Or the ability of nature to convert light energy into chemical energy and storing it in the bonds of sugar?

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Jadette

 

Your videos are very funny. Can you produce a naked picture of my wife on your CGI television set through randomly moving around pixels or the random firing of electons? I'll buy one if you can!!

send em a picture and a large sum of money to modify it to conform to natural selction and yes i can ^_^

I have worked with editing and special effects software for more than 12 yrs. on a professional level. Your demonstration involves very basic editing and CGFX skills.

thats funny becaue it doesnt use any of them it uses an algorythm to emulate goal orientated natural selection

maths is not special effect no matter how hard it is for you

This time fitness is determined based on a two part mathematical function. It is analogous to an animal's behavior evolving to balance its need to find food and find mates (really can't do both at the same time, well, not effectively) or a seal's flipper evolving to be both good on land and in the sea. Here the function pulls the organisms in two directions.

uk.youtube.com...

Survival of the fittest is one thing, but natural selection cannot develop a species' genetic data;

thats becasue mutation changes its genetics and natural selection kills the organism if those genetic changes make it less fit for its enviroment

therefore, natural selection cannot be used to account for the emergence of new species.

well thats becasue it also requires speciation events (again already observed many times) the 2 of them together can do and will account for new species when mutations are thrown into the mix

Geneticist have already demonstrated that variations within species is a result of their genetic code. Cows breed and we end up with many different sizes and colors of cows. We never end up with a whale or a giraffe.

which just goes to prove how right evolution is, if they ever managed that one we would have to toss the proven theory away becasue we must have gotten it soo wrong

Mutations are harmful to a species.

disease resitance, increased muscle mass, pestacide resitance, antibiotic immunity .... not really harmful to those species that have them

No mutations have been observes that are helpful. No mutations demonstrate a species is transforming to another spieces.

what like those ones above?

how about increased bone density, ability to metabolise fatty acids from blood to prevent heart disease .. i can find some more if you like

Transitional fossils are not found in the fossil record.

except for

Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays:
Cladoselachians (e.g., Cladoselache).
Hybodonts (e.g. Hybodus)
Heterodonts (e.g. Heterodontus)
Hexanchids (e.g. Chlamydoselache)
Transition from primitive bony fish to holostean fish:
Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis); living chondrosteans such as Polypterus and Calamoichthys, and also the living acipenseroid chondrosteans such as sturgeons and paddlefishes.
Primitive holosteans such as Semionotus.

Transition from holostean fish to advanced teleost fish:
Leptolepidomorphs, esp. Leptolepis, an excellent holostean-teleost intermediate
Elopomorphs, both fossil and living (tarpons, eels)
Clupeomorphs (e.g. Diplomystus)
Osteoglossomorphs (e.g. Portheus)
Protacanthopterygians

Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians:
Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis)
Osteolepis -- one of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other group of lobe-finned fish). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of bones, and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
Eusthenopteron (and other rhipidistian crossopterygian fish) -- intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian-like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet.
Icthyostegids (such as Icthyostega and Icthyostegopsis) -- Terrestrial amphibians with many of Eusthenopteron's fish features (e.g., the fin rays of the tail were retained). Some debate about whether Icthyostega should be considered a fish or an amphibian; it is an excellent transitional fossil.
Labyrinthodonts (e.g., Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) -- still have some icthyostegid features, but have lost many of the fish features (e.g., the fin rays are gone, vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined.)

Transition from amphibians to reptiles:
Seymouriamorph labyrinthodonts (e.g. Seymouria) -- classic labyrinthodont skull and teeth, with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits; amphibian ankle.
Cotylosaurs (e.g. Hylonomus, Limnoscelis) -- slightly amphibian skull (e.g. with amphibian-type pineal opening), with rest of skeleton classically reptilian.
The cotylosaurs gave rise to many reptile groups of tremendous variety. I won't go into the transitions from cotylosaurs to the advanced anapsid reptiles (turtles and possibly mesosaurs), to the euryapsid reptiles (icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and others), or to the lepidosaurs (eosuchians, lizards, snakes, and the tuatara), or to most of the dinosaurs, since I don't have infinite time. Instead I'll concentrate on the synapsid reptiles (which gave rise to mammals) and the archosaur reptiles (which gave rise to birds).

to name a few

Some frauds have been exposed where a scull or other bones have been put togther that were later shown they did not belong together.

that were discreditied and shown to be fakes by science its self and usually made by people not part of the science community

i really dont think the litterally millions of fossil specimins form thousands of various species are all going to fake are they

You may be able to dazzle some people with your brilliance.

good becasue you dont baffle us with your lack of brilliance or plentiful BS



[edit on 19/12/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by Yoda411


Your research on both sides of the issue involved questioning the Christan church about why they believe the bible it true?

That's it? That's your research?

Christians are not the only group that believe in the creation model or look to creation science to explain life on earth.

I should also preempt any thought that all creationists believe in the young earth theory. I don't need to take away millions of years from evolutionists in order to demonstrate the mathematical improbability that life randomly came into existence. The numbers against the probability of one living cell randomly coming into existence are too staggering for the human mind to even grasp.

Evolution requires blind faith. Add to that "tunnel vision".

great OP. I love to see mass amounts of hard evidence to prove a point. well done. now if we could only get creationists to do the same.

I just finished reading the entire topic and would have to agree with nj2day's statement. He(she?) said that the only way to really solve this would be to have the creationists stating why Evolution is incorrect (which they have been... to a degree...) and with evidence (or what they think is evidence at least, which i guess they've been doing) and then have the evolutionists prove their statements wrong (which we have been doing) and so on and so forth. Unfortunately I dont see any creationists providing any hard evidence to prove their theory (as usual), but merely "your the ones that are delusional" statements.

What Creationists don't realize is that you have to back up your statements, other wise they are completely irrelevant, serving no purpose at all.

Ill be keeping a watchful eye on this topic, thanks for the topic OP!

The problem with both creationists and evolutionist is that neither side can admit that each is a THEORY. If both sides could concede this, we could live in peace. For every fossil found, both sides have an idea that supports their THEORY, Sorry, no one here today was there when life began.

Originally posted by John Matrix
Christians are not the only group that believe in the creation model or look to creation science to explain life on earth.

we know and theya re just as wrong

I should also preempt any thought that all creationists believe in the young earth theory. I don't need to take away millions of years from evolutionists in order to demonstrate the mathematical improbability that life randomly came into existence.

no you dont

becasue evolution isnt random it very regulated by several factors so if you take away million sof years we still see it on the small sclae add those years back on we can gain glimpses of the bigger changes

the only thing evident is you dont know a lot about it when you say

natural selection should make new species (not on its own it doesnt but you wouldnt know that)
all mutations are bad (when clearly theya rnt most are totally neutral)
evolution is random (it really isnt even close to random so your mass odds dont work either)

The numbers against the probability of one living cell randomly coming into existence are too staggering for the human mind to even grasp.

but luckily were not talking about a random thing like you think it is

so maybe if you learn what it is were talking about you might better understand how to discredit it without looking rather silly

Evolution requires blind faith. Add to that "tunnel vision".

no just a blind watch maker and a little study of real science, note ken hams latest comedy dvd doesnt count as science

[edit on 19/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by Twilly
The problem with both creationists and evolutionist is that neither side can admit that each is a THEORY. If both sides could concede this, we could live in peace. For every fossil found, both sides have an idea that supports their THEORY, Sorry, no one here today was there when life began.

umm you do realise scientific theory and the genral term theory have VERY different meanings?

and no one was there when a body was found dead in an alley with a knife in its back but using the evidence we can work out what happened and who did it

this is very different stratergy to looking in an old book and saying it cant be right becasue its not in this book

Originally posted by Twilly
The problem with both creationists and evolutionist is that neither side can admit that each is a THEORY. If both sides could concede this, we could live in peace. For every fossil found, both sides have an idea that supports their THEORY, Sorry, no one here today was there when life began.

Yes.
You can prove that evolution is onto something up a Start point or a beginning.
Evolution has to have a start and a beginning or a source. Because nothing can create everything out of nothing.

Only a creator can create a beginning or a source for evolution to take place. Only something that is Eternal or infinite can create. Because it is always there.
What better explanation than God fits that role.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Yoda411

 

I don't need to take away millions of years from evolutionists in order to demonstrate the mathematical improbability that life randomly came into existence. The numbers against the probability of one living cell randomly coming into existence are too staggering for the human mind to even grasp.

Evolution requires blind faith. Add to that "tunnel vision".

life randomly came into existence.

Why is this such a common misinterpretation of Evolution? Evolution never states, what-so-ever, that life randomly came into existence. Evolution is the scientific explanation on how life is what it is today. Evolution begins with a cell slowly adapting in a physical value to its surroundings. Evolution does not state why life is present on earth, but why it came to be as it is today.

Evolution is not random what so ever. to put it simply, an organism will adapt over time to its environment so it is better of suited for it. A great example is visible even to this day. Lets take one of many examples, the blind snake. The blind snake family in the reptilian species is fairly small and generally ground dwelling. If looked at quickly, you may presume that it has no eyes. however it HAD eyes. Scales, over time through natural selection and adaptation (evolution), grew over the primitive eye. Why? Because the snakes environment changed, or predators came in to play, the list goes on. So, after being underground for most of its lifetime and over many many years the need for a functioning eye ceased to exist. It no longer needed eyes. Adaptation aloud it to use other ways to find food and other necessities for life. Smell, sonar, heat sensors and so on are all the results of adaptation and natural selection in many species around the world.

Lets stick with snakes shall we? Lets take boas and pythons (primitive snakes) along with venomous snakes (advanced snakes). Boas and pythons use constriction rather than venom to kill their prey, a very primitive weapon compared to something like a cobra, which adapted the use of venom.

Boas even show signs of limbs around the vent (anus).

You can also see animals like legless lizards with remarkably resemble that of baby snakes. Some really good examples of these can be found in Australia, where legless lizards look almost identical to a few very dangerous venomous snakes. Why? because they, in a long time, adapted a way to look like the babies of these venomous snakes to avoid predators. same thing goes for butterflies, many bugs and beetles, and even their own young resembling something that may be toxic or dangerous elsewhere in their environment.

The numbers against the probability of one living cell randomly coming into existence are too staggering for the human mind to even grasp.

More random than a god deciding to create life for no apparent reason? Yet human minds so readily accept that?

Originally posted by Yoda411
Where creationists fill the void to explain the unexplainable with "God" to back up their claims, scientists call this force nature.

LOL, NATURE IS GOD!!!!!

There is no difference. Read this again, GOD IS THE ENERGY INSIDE EVERY SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLE. Those sub-atomic particles created water, dirt, air, everything you see, ALL OF NATURE. That is why they say God is all powerful, and everywhere at all times. God literally IS power/electrical/energy.

God is "super-natural". Super NATURE.

Originally posted by Yoda411
If you plant a seed in the ground and it grows to be a tall tree, was that tree created by God - or by nature? Does this simulate an act of god? Or the ability of nature to convert light energy into chemical energy and storing it in the bonds of sugar?

You are smart, but you don't see the BIG PICTURE!

Lets explain:
First you said "If YOU plant a seed in the ground". Do you realize that YOU are just a collection of sub-atomic particles of energy? You, just like the plant seed, is a collection of the SAME sub-atomic particles. The air, water, dirt, metal, every element in existence IS MADE OF THE SAME SUB-ATOMIC PARITICLES. There is no difference between them, except for their arrangement, and how that specific arrangement acts with other sub-atomic arrangements.

YOU are made of energy, and the plant seed is made of the SAME energy, and the dirt you plant the seed in is made of the SAME energy, and the water you give to the plant seed is made of the SAME energy, and the oxygen your plants breathe in, and carbon-d the plants breathe out (yes plants breathe like men) is the SAME energy, and the light..... oh the beautiful all powerful light is ALL the SAME energy, and is the source of all sub-atomic particles. ALL electromagnetic.

You are ONE.

ONE big collection of energy. This energy all combined together is GOD. In no places does this energy not exist, much like the radio waves and electromagnetic radiation that is all around you at all times.. Everything is connected electromagnetically, separation is an illusion.

So to answer your question:
"was that tree created by God - or by nature?"

BOTH, because nature and God are the SAME THING.

Here is the big problem: Neither evolution, nor creation, is completely provable. As far as the Miller experiment goes, he did not prove evolutionary theory one bit, which is the theory that man evolved from a single cell on down the line (you people are all intelligent, and I know I don't need to explain it all out). Miller took the four elements, or chemicals, THOUGHT to exist here at the time, not proven mind you, and inserted an electrical spark. Evolution is about random natural selection. Life is thought to have started under completely random circumstances. How was any of that random? Also, did you know that the amino acids he produced were actually poisonous? And nothing even close to creating anything resembling life, or it's building blocks? Just saying that both ideas go off of faith.

reply to post by Ghost147


To make things clear, evolution is not the study of life's origin, that is abiogenesis, but it is the study of how the earliest life forms changed into what we have today. This causes many scientists to ponder how life did start. One of the common theories is the big band, which states that what inorganic matter was available was extremely compact and dense, under huge amounts of pressure, and caused itself to explode, a spark igniting the inorganic chemicals, resulting in organic, living cells..... this is the basis of the Miller experiment. So maybe evolution does not exactly focus on this, but it goes along with the territory.

One of the posters said that creationists are not showing their evidence. I suppose I could spoon feed you with evidence for creation from all the sources on the Intenet. But why not do your own research. Start here:

www.darwinismrefuted.com...

reply to post by noobfun


Hey, sorry I didn't respond to your u2u. I didn't know anything about this place, till I started reading the faq. I have read a lot of your posts, and I think you seem to be a pretty smart guy. I have a book I want you to check out, if it's cool with you. It is called The Evolution of a Creationist, by Dr. Jobe Martin. It isn't perfect, but it raises some pretty interesting questions. You would appreciate the read, I believe.

Does anyone find it very amazing that a collection of sub-atomic particles can randomly combine together to create a HUMAN BRAIN? How can these small sub-atomic particles (physical) create human thoughts, ideas, emotions, and feelings (non-physical?), inside your mind???

If a small collection of sub-atomic particles can do such an amazing thing such as create a working brain, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE ENTIRE COLLECTION OF SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES IN THE UNIVERSE CAN DO!?

The entire universe, IS A HUGE BRAIN. The brain of God.