Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by Tony4211

You most definitely can not explain diversity of life with creationism. If that is even what you believe. It does not account for the changes in species that we see happening right before our eyes. (a few years, not literally before our eyes)

I just had to comment on this. I think Evolutionists are missunderstanding creation as evolution. I'm actually on the fence about both myself however, just because we share the same DNA, protiens, and amino acids does not have to mean we are related. A creator could use the same parts or even recycled parts to make other life.

A program I watched on TV showed planets being formed from gasses and there is automatically life on them. It's twisted to try to understand how this could work. So I think of Trevor the giant celestial squid pooping out planets and life. It seems to be the only logical way. On the flipside whos to say a creator wasn't behind this planet forming package from the get go. I have studdied some things about microevolution and come to a dead stop on macroevotution. It's just not possible IMO. A species will die out from extensive mutations and sorry to say but evolutionists believe we are one giant mutation on hormones, without all the defects and death.

reply to post by itsthetooth


That TV program was speculating. Don't believe everything you watch on TV.

reply to post by Varemia


No, why would you assume it was speculation?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

No, why would you assume it was speculation?

Because we haven't found any other planets with life yet. There is a relatively high probability (when you consider the size of the universe), but there is no evidence that they spawn with life already on them. The program you were watching was probably doing some kind of visualization of the seemingly spontaneous formation of life in all its diversity. It was in no way scientific, merely for entertainment purposes.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

I am pretty sure you cannot refer to one post where you show any of your comments in this thread have been supported.

Actually everything I believe is supported by multiple sources, which I have shared but will share them again in case you forgot. The bible, Erich Von Daniken, Lloyd Pye, Zecharia Sitchen..

You're joking, right? We're supposed to take them as reliable sources? Not one of them is a scientist. Von Daniken was in prison for fraud when he wrote Chariots of the Gods--he did it for the money. Interesting theory, but it's got more holes than Swiss cheese.

It would appear more like they are just sources you don't want to accept so you claim that I don't have any sources.
Big difference.

You know, I bought into that stuff, too, and never questioned it. When I was 15.

reply to post by HappyBunny


Well I must be wrong then and its just a big coincedence that they all point in the same direction.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Well I must be wrong then and its just a big coincedence that they all point in the same direction.

You mean to tell me that some people think in a similar way? Nope. Must be aliens amiright?

reply to post by itsthetooth

As with many things in this thread and others, this has already been explained to you.

Von Daniken used the Bible as part of his "evidence" for alien involvement in early civilizations. Sitchin rode the wave of von Daniken’s Chariots of the Gods? and sprinkled a little Velikovsky for good measure. Pye is a self-professed “colleague” of Sitchin’s. The only thing approaching an independent source you have in this chain is, therefore, the Bible.

reply to post by iterationzero


I don't think so. I think they were just read correctly for those people. When I read it, I get the same thing out of it. Of course I never looked at it from the supernatural point of view beforehand. Afterwords I had heard rumors of this view and was pretty shocked to learn that the WHOLE book is supernatural. It's everywhere in there.

So you can think they all followed each other, I'm just saying they all agree, it doesn't matter either way. A source is a source regardless of what sparked their interest.

I could just as easielly say that everyone you are following is a follower of Darwin and he was found to be a fraud.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Darwin wasn't a fraud. Where do you get this contention?

reply to post by Varemia


I heard years ago he was found out to be a fraud.

www.arn.org...

reply to post by iterationzero


And I forgot to mention that the last time you brought this up, I answered it by doubting very seriously that ALL of his work was found false.

Seriously I doubt someone was able to prove god was NOT a space alien.

reply to post by itsthetooth


That's incorrect. Yes, Darwin believed that it was chance, but that is mainly the point where evolutionary theory diverged. You see, Darwin did not know about gene frequency transmissions and the mechanics of selection.

That's like saying that all physicists are frauds because Newton wasn't completely correct when it came to complex physical interactions involving elastic and inelastic collisions. The original theorist wasn't totally right, but we've advanced from there with much more tested and affirmed ideas.

If you've got a better idea than evolution, that's what this thread is for. Explain how life diversified without evolution.

reply to post by Varemia

That's incorrect. Yes, Darwin believed that it was chance, but that is mainly the point where evolutionary theory diverged. You see, Darwin did not know about gene frequency transmissions and the mechanics of selection.

Well I'm not basing my understanding of intervention on chance, I'm basing it on many people and many things all saying the same thing.

That's like saying that all physicists are frauds because Newton wasn't completely correct when it came to complex physical interactions involving elastic and inelastic collisions. The original theorist wasn't totally right, but we've advanced from there with much more tested and affirmed ideas.

I was just referring to darwinisim

If you've got a better idea than evolution, that's what this thread is for. Explain how life diversified without evolution.

In just this week I have talked in depth to two coworkers. One strongly believes in Evolution and the Other in Jesus. The one that believes in Jesus doesn't want to hear about any other ideas ( hes older ) but the other guy says intervention sounds more plausible than religion.

After much consideration with my own thoughts, I have decided to take a new side to all of this. They are all wrong. Evolution, or creation always seem to put us back to square one with more questions.

If you want to believe in evolution, and that we all evolved from slime, who made the slime?
If you want to believe that god created you, who made god?
I'm seriously looking more at trevor the giant celestial squid. Of course we know nothing about him and it could be a pre cursor to evolution or creation or both.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
If you want to believe in evolution, and that we all evolved from slime, who made the slime?
If you want to believe that god created you, who made god?
I'm seriously looking more at trevor the giant celestial squid. Of course we know nothing about him and it could be a pre cursor to evolution or creation or both.

Honestly, it's not based on belief. Evolution can be directly observed.

When it comes to slime, it was not made by anyone. It was made of a conglomeration of cells and only survived because there was no other life to consume it. The cells developed from mixtures of DNA slowly getting more abilities as they changed and worked to multiply and survive. The DNA developed from single strands of RNA which was multiplying and mutating slowly over millions and millions of years. The RNA probably formed from some kind of chemical interaction mixed with electricity or sommat. Maybe lighting struck a group of acids and caused the first RNA strand to form, and it just multiplied from there.

That's the unknown, and sure it's possible that some kind of creature created it, but then you have to have a genesis for the creature that did the creating. Everything that creates was created at some point. You are alive because you were creating from a combination of genes by your parents. Planets were created from combinations of gases and materials left-over from the fusions and energy of stars exploding. Who knows what was before the Big Bang. We're going into theory that is pure speculation at this point.

All we know is that we are here, and that there is observable evidence that life started simple and became increasingly complex as it slowly changed over time, and that not all changes got phased out. You can still find "primitive" adaptations in animals today, which is almost like looking into the past. They simply never bred out because they functioned.

You see, in the fossil record, which we can date based on various types of radio-active isotopes that degrade at different speeds, we can only find certain creatures. There are no serious gaps and no conflicting data. The older something is, the more simple it is, and we have been able to make a rudimentary timeline of life on Earth. It's really not a matter of belief. Everything is based on stuff we found in the ground, and how it has been interpreted. Our best interpretation based on isotope dates and stratification (location within layers of the Earth, which form at specific speeds and pressures) gives us ages and information about the environment of the time (moisture levels, vegetation, etc.)

The Bible has no logical place in science. No planet-pooping quids either.

reply to post by Varemia

Honestly, it's not based on belief. Evolution can be directly observed.

Macroevolution has never been observed only microevolution. sorry.

When it comes to slime, it was not made by anyone. It was made of a conglomeration of cells and only survived because there was no other life to consume it. The cells developed from mixtures of DNA slowly getting more abilities as they changed and worked to multiply and survive. The DNA developed from single strands of RNA which was multiplying and mutating slowly over millions and millions of years. The RNA probably formed from some kind of chemical interaction mixed with electricity or sommat. Maybe lighting struck a group of acids and caused the first RNA strand to form, and it just multiplied from there.

Which looks good on paper but it's the equelivent of 5 million tornadoes tearing through 5 million junk yards and reasembelling a car each time. I'm sorry man its just not possible.

That's the unknown, and sure it's possible that some kind of creature created it, but then you have to have a genesis for the creature that did the creating. Everything that creates was created at some point. You are alive because you were creating from a combination of genes by your parents. Planets were created from combinations of gases and materials left-over from the fusions and energy of stars exploding. Who knows what was before the Big Bang. We're going into theory that is pure speculation at this point.

Well I wasn't counting propagation. It's just easier for our feeble minds to accept some weird creature making the slime that all 5 million species evoloved from rather than thinking that same creator played with the same DNA and made many different types of life.

All we know is that we are here, and that there is observable evidence that life started simple and became increasingly complex as it slowly changed over time, and that not all changes got phased out. You can still find "primitive" adaptations in animals today, which is almost like looking into the past. They simply never bred out because they functioned.

It's like your saying we are one giant defect on top of another. Seriously, when you look in the mirror do you see an abundance of defects? Because when I think of defects I think of things being out of balance and our physical appearnce is not.

You see, in the fossil record, which we can date based on various types of radio-active isotopes that degrade at different speeds, we can only find certain creatures. There are no serious gaps and no conflicting data. The older something is, the more simple it is, and we have been able to make a rudimentary timeline of life on Earth. It's really not a matter of belief. Everything is based on stuff we found in the ground, and how it has been interpreted. Our best interpretation based on isotope dates and stratification (location within layers of the Earth, which form at specific speeds and pressures) gives us ages and information about the environment of the time (moisture levels, vegetation, etc.)

And again its just not possible that a creator ( or several for all we know) started with basic things and branced out to more complex things. Sort of like how we started with the bicycle then moved to the car and now have jet airplanes.

The Bible has no logical place in science. No planet-pooping quids either.

The bible is the only thing that has a place everywhere. It is the missing link to everything we are chatting about on here. Just think how much easier this would all be if neanderthal man kept notes about his lineage and how things were changing. Your basically saying we went from neanderthal man that had no tracable means of communication, no notes, no books, no traceable lineage to what we are now, in a flash.If neanderthal man would have been smart enough to leave behind a golden treasure like the bible, this chat would be so different. Macroevolution CANT exist. The species dies out, its been proven over and over in labs.Your fooling yourself into believing something that isn't even possible.

Trevor the giant planet pooping squid, I'm sorry to say makes a hell of a lot more sense right now than both evolution and creation. Odder yet, they could both be possible at the SAME time considering trillions of years in the making.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Macroevolution has never been observed only microevolution. sorry.

You're forgetting fossils again.

Which looks good on paper but it's the equelivent of 5 million tornadoes tearing through 5 million junk yards and reasembelling a car each time. I'm sorry man its just not possible.

No, because there is no selection process when it comes to tornadoes. The junk is not geared to take certain forms and survive, changing every now and then every few tornadoes. The analogy is bad.

Well I wasn't counting propagation. It's just easier for our feeble minds to accept some weird creature making the slime that all 5 million species evoloved from rather than thinking that same creator played with the same DNA and made many different types of life.

It's not that it's easy, it's what makes the most logical sense. Our fossil record shows no other creatures from that point, and after that point, we see similar organisms that are different, and they branch out exponentially until you have the diversity of today.

It's like your saying we are one giant defect on top of another. Seriously, when you look in the mirror do you see an abundance of defects? Because when I think of defects I think of things being out of balance and our physical appearnce is not.

A mutation is not a defect. A mutation is a change. It can be one of three types: good, bad, and neutral. Most mutations are neutral, and do not affect survivability unless you count the occasional sexual selection issue, where for example a man with red hair will not get laid, basically. Animals can be picky. Every human is born with mutations. It takes around a hundred thousand generations for a major mutation to really take hold because most mutations get swept under the rug by the swamping of "regular" genes. This is why evolution takes a long ass time. The genes have to slowly gain more prominence in a population for various reasons. This is also why evolution can be seen far more rapidly when a population faces a near extinction event. The gene pool is reduced, and the mutations come out far stronger.

And again its just not possible that a creator ( or several for all we know) started with basic things and branced out to more complex things. Sort of like how we started with the bicycle then moved to the car and now have jet airplanes.

You are basically saying that a creator facilitated evolution, but you forget that the natural mechanism is already present. Macro-evolution is only micro-evolution multiplied exponentially. Since you believe in micro-evolution (due to being able to observe it within a human lifetime), you must automatically accept macro-evolution. It is the next logical step given time ad-infinitum.

The bible is the only thing that has a place everywhere. It is the missing link to everything we are chatting about on here. Just think how much easier this would all be if neanderthal man kept notes about his lineage and how things were changing. Your basically saying we went from neanderthal man that had no tracable means of communication, no notes, no books, no traceable lineage to what we are now, in a flash.If neanderthal man would have been smart enough to leave behind a golden treasure like the bible, this chat would be so different. Macroevolution CANT exist. The species dies out, its been proven over and over in labs.Your fooling yourself into believing something that isn't even possible.

I'm really not sure where you're getting your facts here. Humans have been expressing themselves in different ways over the years, with evidence of cave drawings dating back almost 200,000 years if I remember correctly. If they used other means of communication, we can't know. Technically, our voice box was developed by then, so we were talking, and if we were writing or anything, the evidence has degraded beyond being recoverable. The reason we advanced so fast recently is because we developed agriculture and began to gather in extremely large numbers in small areas. In order to survive, we had to select those with intellect to breed and remember how to do the things which we now relied on for survival, growing crops and taking care of society. Invention became the mode of human survival. There is nothing biblical about it.

Trevor the giant planet pooping squid, I'm sorry to say makes a hell of a lot more sense right now than both evolution and creation. Odder yet, they could both be possible at the SAME time considering trillions of years in the making.

edit on 1-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

Trevor the squid would still have had to come from somewhere. It is no more logical than saying that God just poofed everything the way it is, putting fossils and things that refer to a history of the planet as tricks to make us think that things evolved naturally through time.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Using your tornado in a junk yard analogy and the bible if you like, explain the information in the link supplied.

en.wikipedia.org...

You appear to, but wont commit to admitting you believe all animals were created as is so I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the issues brought up in the article/wikki.

reply to post by Varemia

You're forgetting fossils again.

Well the problem here is that we have never been able to prove any precieved connection to them. Aside from DNA overlap, as far as we know the fossils could be aliens.

No, because there is no selection process when it comes to tornadoes. The junk is not geared to take certain forms and survive, changing every now and then every few tornadoes. The analogy is bad.

I'm sorry but I could never be sold on genetic mutation driven by intelligence. It basically sounds like a creator but at the RNA level. Maybe I'm wrong and thats our creator.

It's not that it's easy, it's what makes the most logical sense. Our fossil record shows no other creatures from that point, and after that point, we see similar organisms that are different, and they branch out exponentially until you have the diversity of today.

And this just seems to once again prove we aren't related.

A mutation is not a defect. A mutation is a change. It can be one of three types: good, bad, and neutral. Most mutations are neutral, and do not affect survivability unless you count the occasional sexual selection issue, where for example a man with red hair will not get laid, basically. Animals can be picky. Every human is born with mutations. It takes around a hundred thousand generations for a major mutation to really take hold because most mutations get swept under the rug by the swamping of "regular" genes. This is why evolution takes a long ass time. The genes have to slowly gain more prominence in a population for various reasons. This is also why evolution can be seen far more rapidly when a population faces a near extinction event. The gene pool is reduced, and the mutations come out far stronger.

The problem is that these types of changes die out in a species leading to no change. The only way for it to work is in microevolution which simply means it would take trillions of years. The problem here is that your giving all the definitions of a creator, at the micro level.

You are basically saying that a creator facilitated evolution, but you forget that the natural mechanism is already present. Macro-evolution is only micro-evolution multiplied exponentially. Since you believe in micro-evolution (due to being able to observe it within a human lifetime), you must automatically accept macro-evolution. It is the next logical step given time ad-infinitum.

And I do, but within trillions of years.

I'm really not sure where you're getting your facts here. Humans have been expressing themselves in different ways over the years, with evidence of cave drawings dating back almost 200,000 years if I remember correctly. If they used other means of communication, we can't know. Technically, our voice box was developed by then, so we were talking, and if we were writing or anything, the evidence has degraded beyond being recoverable. The reason we advanced so fast recently is because we developed agriculture and began to gather in extremely large numbers in small areas. In order to survive, we had to select those with intellect to breed and remember how to do the things which we now relied on for survival, growing crops and taking care of society. Invention became the mode of human survival. There is nothing biblical about it.

Well none of what your explaining IMO applys to us. I don't think we advanced recently without proof. I do think we gathered to survive because evolution faild us. Having both is a contradiction.

Trevor the squid would still have had to come from somewhere. It is no more logical than saying that God just poofed everything the way it is, putting fossils and things that refer to a history of the planet as tricks to make us think that things evolved naturally through time.

There isn't anything I have seen that leads me to believe evolution has occured to humans so I don't know.