Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 4
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by jimbo999
 


so your telling me a big bang magically apeard to creat all things? sounds alot like god to me.


Nope - I''m NOT telling you that. Nor did I say anything along those lines. Trying to put words into other peoples mouths is a desperate act my friend. Do you have any rational explanation for life on this planet that does not involve evolution then?


No, all i have are theorys just like evolution. your theory says the big bang just came to be. why wouldent life just come to be as well? How did the big bang just come to be? you still have not awnsered my question. How did matter come to be? how did energy come to be? remember energy cant be destroyed or created? how did it get here then if it cant be created? From the magical big bang that came from nothing?




posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
OK, I'll bite.

Evolution is complete bunk. It makes no sense. Even Darwin himself recanted his THEORIES in the end. And remember, it is just a THEORY, and a very weak one at that.

Those who are stating there is EVIDENCE to support evolution: where is this evidence? The fossil record in no way supports evolution. Not only is there a "missing link" from apes to man, there is an equally missing link for every species. We have found plenty of bones of wooly mammoths, for example. Explain to me how they "evolved" into a smaller and weaker version, the elephant. Where are some bones of the in between stages? They do not exist.

Apparently, one day a wooly mammoth gave birth to an undersized and under-furred baby, then keeled over and died. This baby then gave birth to more exactly like itself, nothing like their grandmother. Explain that one to me?

The fossil record contradicts evolution in every way. There are no in between stages of anything.

And agrarianism. That book Guns Germs and Steel is great, by the way. But, show me how ancient man figured out how to "evolve" wild grasses into wheat, barley, and oats. These things just suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Yet we are supposed to believe that ancient people were somehow just stupid, yet they could genetically manipulate plants? And, once again, where are the intermediate stages?

Dogs. Show me some intermediate stage between wolf and dog. Yes, you can have hybrids like a husky. You can even sort of tame wolves and keep them captive, however, that is NOT A DOG and is still wild at heart. Show me some intermediate stage between the ancient aurochs and modern cattle. They DO NOT EXIST.

If things were "evolving" they would tend to get bigger, not smaller. They have found fossils of sloths ten times the size of modern ones. How about a beaver the size of a cow? Saber toothed tigers? How would getting smaller be evolution?

Now, I don't believe the bible thumpers either. God putting fossils in the earth to "test our faith" is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard. I pretty much just don't believe anything anymore.

In the entire history of the world, everything that everyone thought they "knew' has ALWAYS turned out to be WRONG. It is the height of hubris to think, "Yeah, those idiots in the old days were always wrong, but now we are RIGHT. We've finally got it all figured out."

This website: s8int.com... does a GREAT job of destroying the moronic evolution THEORY. They are bible thumpers, so their competing theory is also weak in my book, so take it all with a grain of salt, but they do a much better job than me of pointing out how flawed evolution is as a theory, it does not even support itself.

As far as the Big Bang THEORY goes, that is more nonsense. All predicated on the "redshift equals distance" theory which was proven false by Halton Arp a long time ago. When he came up with hundreds of celestial objects, having different redshifts but being physically connected together, or higher redshift objects IN FRONT OF lower redshift ones, what happened? Did the brainiac "scientists" consider falsification of a theory, the true scientific method? Nope. They banned him from telescope time, and he was shouted down. Much like the plasma cosmology theory is shouted down today.

The big bang theory is: first there was nothing. Then nothing exploded, and became something. This is so illogical it hurts. It is also just a way for "scientists" to have their cake and eat it, too, as in, "let there be light" basically was the big bang.

I could go on and on. I have yet to see any of you evolutionists put forth even one WORD that supports your THEORY in this thread. Bring it on.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
if humans are just an accident, a fluke, then why does the double slit experiment change results when human observation is added?

why would the universe be "structured" around something that it has no awareness of, and is indeed an accident?

think about it.

i have nothing against evolution philosophically, but i don't believe it happened. it wouldn't matter to me if it did.
edit on 21-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 


I like your answer. Dont agree with it but you make your position very clear.

I am off to bed now so it is probably an unfair question and I will not be able to respond to your answer tonight but I have to ask.

If everything was created as is why mosquitto's that carry maleria and have killed more people than war? What was the thinking behind tape worms and a mirad of other parasites?



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos

The big bang theory is: first there was nothing. Then nothing exploded, and became something. This is so illogical it hurts. It is also just a way for "scientists" to have their cake and eat it, too, as in, "let there be light" basically was the big bang.


i like your quote here, its what im trying to get at. The big bang theory is based on faith that everything happend from nothing just like god created everything from nothing. but sence science said its possible for a big bang to creat something from nothing its possible right, but god, creating something from nothing.... well thats crazy.... but the big bang... no thats science.
edit on 21-9-2011 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-9-2011 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Also, if redshift equals distance and/or speed of retreat from the observer, well, everything we look at has redshift. IN other words, it is all going AWAY from us in every direction. This would indicate that THE EARTH IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE. So we just happen to be in the exact position where the 'big bang' took place? Come on. That is so weak.

Every time they look at anything with the Hubble telescope, "astronomers are baffled". EVERY TIME they turn it in a new direction, their theories are shot down. But instead of considering maybe the theory is wrong, they invent new magic fairy dust like "dark matter" and "dark energy" and now, even "cold dark matter" to patch their obviously wrong theory together.

Just waiting for that guy you all seem to think is some kind of scientist who just happens to hang out on a conspiracy website all day, every day, to happen along here. Should be funny.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Here are the best two reasons to review evolution as a crackpot theory:

1) Consciousness collapses wave function and the observer changes what is observed at the fundamental quantum level. This makes it impossible for consciousness to arise from matter. Matter must arise from consciousness. Each is necessary for the other to exist. Many people will say that I have reached with this implication. The research does not support any other implication than what is easily understood from our current theory of quantum mechanics. LINK

2) We know from entropy in information theory that a bit of information is guaranteed to degrade over time and drop data. Since all life is built form information in DNA, entropy in information is understood to increase in complexity. Yet, this goes against all we know of entropy in information. For complex information to arise with purpose and obvious design across multiple species of life, entropy in information cannot operate the way it does if evolution is to be taken seriously. LINK

There are so many other reasons to understand that consciousness pre-exists matter. The best reason is found in the Bible. Physics of God



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 


Genocide, Infanticide, natural disasters etc...... I think there a few things that contribute to the control of our population that you may be looking over. haha It's not like we have been reproducing without any being taken away.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


What do you say about the evolution that we can observe and have been observing over the past few decades of the Italian Wall Lizard? I suppose that god is causing the gradual change in them as well? They are adapting, and therefore evolving to obtain the food they need.


news.nationalgeographic.com...


Your first "explanation" is irrelevant in proving or disproving evolution. It is more along the lines of the origin of existence, rather than the insignificant process on our planet compared to the cosmos. Stating a few things from Wikipedia and a biased view from a religious website does not hold any merit in regards to proving or disproving a theory that has an insurmountable amount of evidence. Also, I enjoy the fact that the religious website has dubbed itself "superior-education."
edit on 21-9-2011 by Tony4211 because: Add- in



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
edit on 21-9-2011 by Tony4211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


You're title is inaccurate and misleading. If you merely want to discuss the merits of evolution there are plenty of threads already available.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptChaos
 


Evolution is complete bunk. It makes no sense.

Quite the opposite, especially given the whole of modern biology makes no sense except in light of evolution. But let's see what you have to try and make your case...


Even Darwin himself recanted his THEORIES in the end.

Actually, that's a complete fabrication. Even creationist websites recognize that this is a lie. Strike one.


And remember, it is just a THEORY, and a very weak one at that.

Ah, the "just a theory" chestnut. You need a better understanding of what constitutes a scientific theory:

From the American Academy for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

From the US National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

So not only is evolution not "just a theory", but it's one of the most well-supported scientific theories. Strike two.


Those who are stating there is EVIDENCE to support evolution: where is this evidence? The fossil record in no way supports evolution. Not only is there a "missing link" from apes to man, there is an equally missing link for every species. We have found plenty of bones of wooly mammoths, for example. Explain to me how they "evolved" into a smaller and weaker version, the elephant. Where are some bones of the in between stages? They do not exist.

Apparently, one day a wooly mammoth gave birth to an undersized and under-furred baby, then keeled over and died. This baby then gave birth to more exactly like itself, nothing like their grandmother. Explain that one to me?

The fossil record contradicts evolution in every way. There are no in between stages of anything.

So this boils down to "there are no transitional forms". You're probably right. There can't be any fossils of transitional forms. Nope, not one.

Strike three. Sorry, but if you can't be bothered to actually research your claims to make sure that you're not spouting things that are demonstrably incorrect, why should I? Maybe you should go back and fact check your post and at least try and find some links that support your claims.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by cypruswolf
 


There is not one part of what he posted that could be inaccurate. He is stating a hypothetical scenario in which the Evolution Theory is flawed. How could that be inaccurate? Misleading? I don't think so. He is asking for factual evidence in support of Creationism. Pretty upfront, if you ask me. Try to add to the thread and not clutter it with the Creationist pleasing, "Evolution is wrong" crap.
edit on 21-9-2011 by Tony4211 because: add- in



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Tony4211
 




What do you say about the evolution that we can observe and have been observing over the past few decades of the Italian Wall Lizard? I suppose that god is causing the gradual change in them as well? They are adapting, and therefore evolving to obtain the food they need.


Adaptation can be observed in life from the programming of the DNA and does not need evolution as an explanation. An acorn is an enfolded oak tree into information that expresses to form when it gains union with the soil. This is information and not matter. Information with obvious design, purpose and clever craftsmanship does not arise on its own. Entropy in information theory demonstrates this handily.



Also, I enjoy the fact that the religious website has dubbed itself "superior-education."


The website is my blog. The 'Superior Educator" is a book that I wrote on education and classroom management. It is based on the "Superior Man" idea of Confucius and is modeled on virtue. Confucius asked, "What does it take to be a superior man?" I asked the same question in my book for the educator. The "Superior Educator" idea is celebrated across the country as an award that is presented to gifted teachers for their efforts to assist children with accessing knowledge. My book is a unique look into preserving the dignity of students at risk.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution. So aside from this tidbit it has no place in the argument.

It's a whole other can of worms. Right now the leading theory would be with M-Theory, which from the little i understand of it would mathematically allow researchers to predict what was before the big bang, leaving as usual more questions that answers. That being said it has no place in the argument.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


You did not answer my question, though. You seemed to talk in circles. A seed becomes a tree, like a child becomes an adult. There are observable changes that are taking place in the lizard as a result of adaptation, which is proven through evolution. Changes that are gradually converting it into a different creature than what it was before. Either you don't enjoy factual evidence of a contradicting claim, or you are ignoring it.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
You made a thread title which was a lie and bait. That precludes you from intellectual honesty and from searching for truth. Good day.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
You'll find the answer in The Source Field Investigations by David Wilcock. Basically, DNA can be changed by genetic information contained within coherent light and there is considerable evidence that waves of coherent energy is being radiated out from the center of our galaxy every 62 million years, which corresponds to the sudden disappearance of old and replacement by new, species in the fossil records



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


You did not answer my question, though. You seemed to talk in circles. A seed becomes a tree, like a child becomes an adult. There are observable changes that are taking place in the lizard as a result of adaptation, which is proven through evolution. Changes that are gradually converting it into a different creature than what it was before. Either you don't enjoy factual evidence of a contradicting claim, or you are ignoring it.


I answered well. Adaptation is not dependent on evolution as a reason. The programming of logic sequences in the coding of DNA accounts for adaptation as a design feature. This is easily demonstrated by examining the sequences of DNA. Also, merely saying it is so does not mean it is so. Science only points out what is already there to begin with.

Augustine, from City of God
"And yet the validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God. For as the man who narrates the order of events does not himself create that order; and as he who describes the situations of places, or the natures of animals, or roots, or minerals, does not describe arrangements of man; and as he who points out the stars and their movements does not point out anything that he himself or any other man has ordained;—in the same way, he who says, “When the consequent is false, the antecedent must also be false,” says what is most true; but he does not himself make it so, he only points out that it is so."



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by cypruswolf
 


There is not one part of what he posted that could be inaccurate. He is stating a hypothetical scenario in which the Evolution Theory is flawed. How could that be inaccurate? Misleading? I don't think so.

The title makes the claim evolution is 100% wrong. Yet, the author wants a hypothetical debate, without any counter argument from the other side, and doesn't add anything to support the title. That is misleading.



He is asking for factual evidence in support of Creationism. Pretty upfront, if you ask me. Try to add to the thread and not clutter it with the Creationist pleasing, "Evolution is wrong" crap.
edit on 21-9-2011 by Tony4211 because: add- in

Funny you should mention this since its exactly what the thread is intended to do.





new topics
top topics
 
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant