Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth
In one post you try to maintain you can no longer post links because somehow they will not work and even more unbelievably, will only not work for you who had no trouble before. You have the cheek to accuse me of pointing out your lies telling me it is only my opinion.

Now you post this absolute garbage

The people on this thread are trying to convince me that evolution can perform the following...
Create new species.
Cause adaptations.
Cause speciation.
Cause natural selection.
Cause sexuall selection.
Alter our DNA without us knowing.
Cause mutations.

(sexual not sexuall) How many times have I told you evolution is a word. It cannot cause anything; has not got eyes, intelligence, hands. It does not create or explain creation.

You deny its use in medicine. Deny evidence both fossil and DNA WTF are you doing on this thread?

450 pages and you have no idea. Not even grasped the basics and you are crazy enough that despite not having any understanding of evolution and what it describes you think you can debunk it

Oddly enough it can do all this and much more and do it without getting noticed, but not just that, it has the ability to hide its work so that we can't seem to trace it.

Here you even show that the list above is YOUR uneducated ignorance. What you believe with nothing to back you up and not what you are being told. ANOTHER LIE

Comon man, even if evolution was real, which it isn't, you would have to agree there is some sort of intelligence behind its construction. Abracadabra!

(Come on not common)Magic is how you base your belief in an alien god. You maintain it by denial and lies. Evolution is based on evidence, proof and verifiable honesty. No wonder you hate it so much

Many find it hard to accept the creation account. They contend that it is drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: “No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe” and the myths “are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis] 1-2. Regarding Babylonian creation legends, the trustees of the British Museum stated: “The fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different.
From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only “according to their kinds.” The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it indicates that each “kind” appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous “kind,” as required by the evolution theory.
All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished Moses, the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis. Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who was there.
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.
However, evolutionary theory does not allow for a Creator who was there, knew the facts and could reveal them to humans. Instead, it attributes the appearance of life on earth to the spontaneous generation of living organisms from inanimate chemicals.

reply to post by itsthetooth
Suddenly you can provide links so before I comment on your rediscovered ability and the links you have now supplied

Supply the source of the definition you claim to be for natural. Provide the quote from your original link (including the link) where it states ADHD changes DNA.

I never said smoking is good for anyone, but what I said is it can have benefits. Why don't you read what I write instead of putting words in my mouth.

Can you name any of the benefits that smoking can offer? Don’t forget to supply links and quotes

I have seen a lot of tobacco advertisements and have yet to see one that points out that smoking is bad for you.

So much for putting words in your mouth. That makes it true then. Forget the evidence from research that shows smoking is a killer not just bad for you. This is the best showcase of the way you approach this thread, subject yet, and how you form your one man fantasy religion. Bravo

That depends, if it was going to live a shorter life with nothing else in the tank, then technically you just extended its life.

More signs you have very little education or at the very least have no ability to put it too use. Life expectancy of the Hawaiian Red Volcano Shrimp in its environment is 20 years, the longest of all shrimp. In a sealed globe 18 months, 2 years at best and you claim technically you have extended its life. Even you cannot actually believe that rubbish. How desperate are you?

That depends on the degree of technicallity, and I'm not the one that set that standard.

](Technicality not technicallity)

No actually you have it backwards as your making the extrodinary claim we are from here since there is no proof of it at all. OH WAIT we are suppose to be related to apes, but there is no proof of that either. What are you going to do.

(Extraordinary not extrodinary, supposed not suppose and you forgot the question mark after do?)

The process Evolution describes is not an extraordinary claim. It does have when compared to the other sciences an extraordinary amount of supporting evidence.

Claiming that 'We are not from here' & 'Aliens transported us as a punishment or as gold miners' and that diversity can be explained by 'a creator or maybe many creators using spare parts'. Now those are extraordinary claims for which you have no evidence at all.

Actually I was thinking more along the lines that you think those two elements are extraordinary.

Oh dear god no! your thinking. Stop it immediately. Starting to do something so alien to your normal practises could cause you serious harm.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector

 

Wow its been so long that I have forgotten. It might be in hebrews section.

So you make another claim you have no intention of providing proof for. No link, no quote from that link. Your claim is unfounded and dismissed as such

Although most scientists trace the universe back to a very small, dense beginning (a singularity), we cannot avoid this key issue: “If at some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We have to face the problem of a Beginning.”—Sir Bernard Lovell.
This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very finely tuned. “If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster,” said Lovell, “then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life.”

reply to post by itsthetooth

And see the problem with parasites is that it is entirely possible that we brought therm here when we were transplanted here. After all they do live in us. The original idea of trying to find human specific related species was to help prove we are from here, and that I'm wrong, but with parasites its hard to prove.

You asked for one example of an animal which has a natural relationship with man. I give you a hundred, and it fails to suffice. I'd ask you what sort of proof would be sufficient, but that's the question that led to this answer in the first place. Fortunately, I'm so clever I put an answer to this response in the post you responded to:

Of those human specific parasites, many are obligate parasites of mulitple creatures, which is to say that during their life cycle they must pass through multiple organisms.
As an example, there is a liver fluke which live southeast asia which as an adult preys on humans. It lays its eggs in the our intestines and they pass out of us in our feces. The eggs in the feces are consumed by a particular species of snail, and hatch inside the snail becoming larvae. The larvae waits in snail until the snail is eaten by a grazing mammal, such as a cow or pig. When the cow or pig is eaten by a human the larvae makes its way to human's liver and forms its adult stage, whereupon it begins to reproduce. If we were brought here, the fluke, snail, and mammals were too, because the fluke can't survive without each stage in its life cycle being completed. At the same time, those snails are host to parasites which in turn prey on other animals later.There are more parasitic organisms on earth than there are straight herbivores or carnivores, and they form a vast web of interdependencies which humans are as much a part of as any other animal

So, extinctions. You say:

Extinctions are NOT natural, and not normal. However because we don't know any better we teach ourselves that they are natural and normal. They aren't.

Once again I managed to answer this question with the post you were replying to. To refresh everyone, here is the definition of natural: dictionary.reference.com...
In my post to which you were replying I helpfully linked this list of ten major extinctions: listverse.com...
A quick perusal shows the most common causes of such extinctions are climate change, volcanic eruptions, and tectonic movement. Are such things natural? Again, natural means this: (as per dictionary.com)
1. existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.
4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.
5. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.
Those darn unnatural volcanoes and land subsidences. And whats with the curious lack of human intervention during the Late Devonian Extinction? Also, all the others? But that's okay, we have your word, and Itsthetooth's word is good enough. I'm sure you know what you're talking about:

Every planet is suppose to be in a good balance. When you see extinctions, its a real good indication that things are really screwed up. At one time long ago, earth was in balance, and it was probably way back when the diansours roamed the earth. It's open for debate I guess but it would appear that someone has eraticated a lot of life on this planet for unknown reasons, just to colonize this planet. Thats what it looks like.

I assume you have good reason to state this. Some evidence that aliens or "they" or someone caused a million year long climate shift to wipe out a portion of the life on earth so they could colonize it with more life to wipe out 9 more times. I assume you are sure that all the other planets you've never seen are in good balance, or at least supposed to be. I assume you have some reason to state that earth was a least probably in balance when dinasaurs roamed the earth. I assume incorrectly, because of the 10 great extinctions in that list in the post you were replying to, the most recent one was that which wiped out the dinasaurs. I guess earth could have been properly balanced until those pesky flatworms threw a wrench in the works right before the End-Ediacaran Extinction 542 million years ago.

So, you have no idea what you are talking about. The fact that you have no idea what you are talking about doesn't stop you from pretending to know what you are talking about. And when someone presents you with actual information regarding the subject you are talking about, you ignore it. Willfull ignorance.

reply to post by AMDPiledriver
Hi AMD

I personally have no problems with any views, ideas or accounts of creation. Whether they be based on science, myth or holy books because none of the above have anymore to back it up than any others.

Another poster (Quad) brought up the subject of how close the biblical account of creation follows the explanation given by science. Something that cannot be just ignored but also a view can only be formed on faith or speculation. Faith is just as valid as my view that we could plot the path by using logic and so could the ancient peoples of this world who were at least as intelligent as us. So I see no conflict just unanswered questions that we ALL make a guess on to form our opinions.

I do not agree that the only way mosses could have wrote genesis is with the guidance of god if he wrote it at all but again with no evidence there can be no experts to refer to.

What I cannot understand is why people insist this is a function of the theory of evolution to explain creation or that evolution tries to explain the creation of the universe and life.

The theory of evolution has in fact one sole purpose. To explain how life progressed after life started and shows how the diversity we see today came to be. The only way it challenges the worlds faith based views is some of the stories that fundamentalists claim to be fact. Like tooths insistence that a man can live inside a whale as an example.

The only other challenge that seems common is peoples egos are dented because it shows we share a common ancestor with all other apes. Those people need to grow up.

The whole idea of this thread was to discuss honestly, if the theory of evolution is wrong an alternative explanation of the diversity we see today without referring to it.

The purpose of this thread has been derailed by one person that has infested this thread with foundation less claims, denial and dishonesty. This has not coloured my view that a polite and informative debate can take place and an understanding reached on differing views rather than the cyclic argument that always occurs.

Tooth is doing his best to show those that those who base their understanding on belief to be dishonest and in denial. I hope if you can put up with the madness that is prevalent here ATM. That you and others like you can show is not the case.

reply to post by AMDPiledriver
A previous poster suggested a good debating point and an alternative would be Emanationism Which I found interesting but was just about the time tooth arrived and killed the conversation stone dead.

reply to post by mastermindkar
Your reply deserves more than one star but alas that is all I can give you.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Let's return to target food. I asked this:

You are positive that target foods exist, but you can't tell me what difference it would make if they didn't exist?

And you reply with this:

LIfe cant exist without it. Our ability to adapt is the only exception but that doesn't put things in balance.

I disagree with this statement. I don't believe that life cannot exist without target food. I don't believe that we are the only exception. But I can't prove this to you. There is no evidence, only your word. I and many others have tried to show you otherwise, with facts and examples and our own opinions, but you remain unassailable. But I have found someone who can show that you are wrong. I know he can, becasue he is never wrong. To counter your statement that life cannot exist without target food, I present Itsthetooth:

If an animal can survived just as easily on non target foods as target foods, what is the difference? No a target food is going to be better for a species than a substituite.

It is very difficult to prove if a food is a target food for any species. Especially since its going on all around us. Species have collapsed and some species have resorted to eating food that doesn't belong to them

A target food would be easier for a wolf to obtain, and still much better for him. It's just simply possible that its not here.

As an example extinctions can cause this to happen, so a species ventures away from its intended food as it doesn't want to starve. But keep in mind it will never give them what the target food did.

A target food will always be of greater value than other foods as it was made for that species is the ideal way to understand this.

The unstoppable force meets the immovable object. You say life cannot exist without target food. You say life does exist without target foods, (just not as well). You've twisted your words so much they now completely contradict themselves. The only thing we know for sure is that your opinion and your word are worthless.

Originally posted by Connector


If you are not here to debate, well then, donèt post. Care to address any points made in this threadÉ

I leave the inside-the-box debate to others. My purpose comes from another angle, and yes, if you were paying attention, you might see that I have addressed points made in this thread.

I will make this point: Both sides are exclusionistic to some degree. Debater A says so-and-so, and debater B replies that A left out such-and-such, which proves this/that. Debater A comes back and alleges that B forgot some point or other, which invalidates his position. On and on... We should adhere to a theory which best explains the evidence at hand without excluding any items of verifiable evidence. The basic trouble with these debates is that the two sides are not on the same page, not even in the same library.

reply to post by Lazarus Short


May I ask as to what points your referring to here..."However, the evolution crowd will, and I have seen it myself here and elsewhere, ignore the points that count, and respond only to those points which appeal their profound logic and shallow understanding." Specifically the points that count.

There is no need for links I can look them up for myself. I'm not asking you for a debate on the topic just your opinion as to the points that show the proof of creation.

Lol this is easy, -takes a deep breath for this one-
Darwin disclaimed himself and said all of his evolution theories were # LOL
and If evolution IS real, then why can't scientists tell what the next evolution stage is for all living creatures on
planet earth?

Also it is good to notice that archeologists never find fossils in half evolution stage,
for some reason they always only find creatures from one level to the next,
if you don't understand me this is what i mean.

They say Dinosaurs evolved into birds right?
Why can't we EVER find a fossil of a half-bird half-dino looking muated #?
All we find is a Dinosaur, and then BIRD, where are the middle sage fossils at?

Another thing, in order to "evolve" mutations are involved, morphing of cells n crap,
Why is it that every mutation in humans we see today leads to their demise?
Let's take Mylaria for an instant
The human blood cells apperantly mutated into what are known as sickle cells so the mylaria passed
on by blood thirsty mosquito's doesnt kill the human. Ok so the body adapted.
But guess what, now if that human doesnt get blood every dag'on week they're gonna die -_-.
So much for evolving.
but like I said.
Darwin disclaimed himself and all his theories before he died
and became a born again Chrisian LOL what a nut xD
Evolution theory has too many contradictions, just like the big bang theory,
but i also am againt's christians so any of yll who come up in here thinking we buddies, lol think twice
but their is a mighty creator,
as a matter of fact as much as scientists physicists and all you smart people proceed in making dscoveries, the sht you discover only reaffirms that theirs a creator but you guys get mad and try'ta twist # around, lol i've seen yall do it, specially when something new is discovered and they get inerviewed? lol
but yeah, Darwin is one hellova guy

Originally posted by drivers1492
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

May I ask as to what points your referring to here..."However, the evolution crowd will, and I have seen it myself here and elsewhere, ignore the points that count, and respond only to those points which appeal their profound logic and shallow understanding." Specifically the points that count.

There is no need for links I can look them up for myself. I'm not asking you for a debate on the topic just your opinion as to the points that show the proof of creation.

Perhaps I was too bombastic and got carried away with my own rhetoric. However, this statement is based on several posts in several threads, in which (it seemed so to me) that others passed over points which I thought were important, and addressed minor issues in such a way as to put the other person on the defensive. "Profound logic and shallow understanding" is my own perception/opinion.

Please understand my reasons for staying out of the debate box, and I will decline your respectful request of my opinion only because of the tactics used by some others here. Just remember that the evidence is there for all to see, but there are a million wrong ways to interpret it, most of them wrong. Here's a hint - what if, instead of looking at the fossil record in the usual manner, we applied to it the principles of biological pathology? What might we conclude then??

reply to post by Gedaliahbenisrael

Lol this is easy, -takes a deep breath for this one-

Wait, wait look before you leap ........... oh dear too late !!splash!!

Darwin disclaimed himself and said all of his evolution theories were # LOL

Darwin died 130 years ago. He made his theory public over 150 years ago. Things have changed a little since then.

and If evolution IS real, then why can't scientists tell what the next evolution stage is for all living creatures on

Because they cannot tell how the environment is going to change that drives evolutionary change.

Also it is good to notice that archeologists never find fossils in half evolution stage, for some reason they always only find creatures from one level to the next, if you don't understand me this is what i mean.

We have found thousands of transitional fossils. Do a search.

They say Dinosaurs evolved into birds right? Why can't we EVER find a fossil of a half-bird half-dino looking muated #? All we find is a Dinosaur, and then BIRD, where are the middle sage fossils at?

Do a search for 'feathered dinosaurs' Hope you have loads of time, there is plenty to read.

Another thing, in order to "evolve" mutations are involved, morphing of cells n crap, Why is it that every mutation in humans we see today leads to their demise?

The mutation that has lead to immunity to aids by some African women has not led to their demise? Evolution is about small changes over time, selected for by the environment. When an organism has a mutation that puts them at such a disadvantage they fail to breed and pass on that mutation that is evolution in action.

The human blood cells apperantly mutated into what are known as sickle cells so the mylaria passed
on by blood thirsty mosquito's doesnt kill the human. Ok so the body adapted. But guess what, now if that human doesnt get blood every dag'on week they're gonna die -_-. So much for evolving.

Yep. You have provided another example. So if this allows the person with the a single Sickle Cell cell mutation to lives long enough to breed and pass on that advantage then job done. Malaria is a massive killer of infants so sickle cell gives them an advantage to enable them to survive.

but like I said. Darwin disclaimed himself and all his theories before he died

Despite this being a claim often made by creationists but never supported by proof. So what if he did? Does not change what evolution describes today.

and became a born again Chrisian LOL what a nut xD

Not heard that. Did you just make it up you devil you?

Evolution theory has too many contradictions, just like the big bang theory,

That is a bold statement. Do you have any supporting evidence or examples?

Sorry I just could not pick my way through what followed.

reply to post by Lazarus Short


Sorry I'm just not seeing what your trying to get at here or how it would alter ones view of the geologic record. Since you are adamant about not posting direct opinions to avoid a debate in the thread feel free to msg me as I am genuinely curious as to what point your trying to make.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
It's just such wording which convinces me that it is a trap, especially your last sentence. Tell me, does your mindset even allow for the admission that a creationist can possibly have a good argument? I suspect not. I will not debate you, as I have seen one sideshow too many.

You seem to assume a lot about me, without even understanding my intentions. I am defending science, which is under constant attack by creationists. I think it's a vital pillar of society today, and anybody who attacks it is doing more harm than good. Knowledge = power. If you don't agree with it, you can run your own experiments to confirm or contradict some of it, you are welcome to do so and if others can repeat your results it will start to hold weight. My mind is not closed to the idea of god or a creator, but I still have yet to see a solid logical objective argument for the existence without committing massive fallacies and misunderstandings of science and that's the honest truth. Itsthetooth has become a poster boy for this. If you've seen legitimate arguments, I'd love to see a link or reference to your ideas, because the idea of creation is fascinating, but there's not any evidence behind it that I've seen, and I've looked pretty hard.

reply to post by Connector

This is not a discussion, it's a debate. If you make a claim, support it with veritable proof i.e. links, quotes, field of research. To make a claim and then respond " wow its been so long I have forgotten" is not acceptable and makes you and your claims look ridiculous.

So in other words ( thought you'd like that) you have NO PROOF other then your option

OH ya right, because when you do have 49 out of 50 pieces of the puzzle it can't possibly be correct. Right dude.

reply to post by Connector

So in other words, you have NO PROOF or supporting evidence, just an opinion.

Please provide your list of things from here and not. The bible verses I quoted will help you along the way. Remember....every living thing, every moving thing, every green plant. What is our target food according to the Holy Scriptures? The same book that exclaims a man lived in a whale. Believe one, must believe the other

How can holy scripture talk about target food when I'm the one who made it? No the bible is clear about us eating everything on this planet. But the bible was also inspired by gods word and he has ill intentions.

reply to post by colin42

In one post you try to maintain you can no longer post links because somehow they will not work and even more unbelievably, will only not work for you who had no trouble before. You have the cheek to accuse me of pointing out your lies telling me it is only my opinion.

Ya there was a problem long before this thread with links not wanting to post correctly.

(sexual not sexuall) How many times have I told you evolution is a word. It cannot cause anything; has not got eyes, intelligence, hands. It does not create or explain creation.

You deny its use in medicine. Deny evidence both fossil and DNA WTF are you doing on this thread?

450 pages and you have no idea. Not even grasped the basics and you are crazy enough that despite not having any understanding of evolution and what it describes you think you can debunk it

Then just call it a process if you like, but the bottom line is it sure looks like it has intelligence behind it.

Here you even show that the list above is YOUR uneducated ignorance. What you believe with nothing to back you up and not what you are being told. ANOTHER LIE

I have never read anything that conclusivly proves that evolution took place. There is only conjecture.

(Come on not common)Magic is how you base your belief in an alien god. You maintain it by denial and lies. Evolution is based on evidence, proof and verifiable honesty. No wonder you hate it so much

Then why isnt there any proof that we evolved, and that we are currently evolving?