Science against evolution

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





But it HAS been proven that genetic defects can cause people to not be able to have children.
Exactly that it doesn't mean that anyone that is unable to produce children is because of genetic defects.




There's a huge chart of genetic causes for infertility. Please read it before spouting more lies.
And each one of those causes proves that evolution is not the reason.




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 





But it HAS been proven that genetic defects can cause people to not be able to have children.
Exactly that it doesn't mean that anyone that is unable to produce children is because of genetic defects.




There's a huge chart of genetic causes for infertility. Please read it before spouting more lies.
And each one of those causes proves that evolution is not the reason.


What are you trying to say? Nobody's saying every single time a person is infertile that it's related to genetics. There's various other factors as well, but the genetic reasons are proven 100%, so gene changes CAN cause infertility. Sorry Tooth, unless you've got science to present this point stands.

No. Genetic mutations = evolution, so you can't lie and claim its not part of the reason. Are you going to provide anything of substance, or just keep rambling and making things up?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I'm getting that feeling of deja vu, Hasnt every single false statement being made on these pages been addressed before?

Oh yeah...now I remember...400 plus pages here[url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread755323/pg1].

radix.....save yourself a whole heap of head aches and read as much of the linked thread as poss.

As a reminder to those who have entered into a debate with this bottomless pit of ignorance...remember these!

Pg43
“People don't like to hear they are wrong, but even worse they don't like to be proven wrong.”
“It takes 3 seconds to radio someone on the moon and 4 hours to someone one on pluto”
I didn’t even know there were people on Pluto, surely it would be better to just ask Mickey to pass on a message.
“Only using 10% of our brain, or at least 10% of it’s capability, means we are missing 90% of it’s function.”

Pg48
“It’s so bad that we honestly would have been better off staying primates”
“Our health is in constant check from the moment we are born, to the degree that we would die without medical intervention”
“Why do we have to double kill most things we eat?”
“We have vestigial organs which evolutionists seem to believe is in there favor, when it’s actually the opposite. If we left unused organs behind, it means we once again failed in evolving by not getting rid of them.”
“In a twisted way it appears that Adam and Eve might have been abductees.”
“Adam and Eve seemed to have no memory of being abducted and it is well known that aliens have had the ability to erase memory.”
“There is no solid proof, and there is no excuse for not having proof being it should be here”
Pg50
“No other species including primates smiles when they are happy, no other species I know of”
Images were duly provided.
“Why can't I procrreate with primates?”
I don’t think this actually was a cry for help.
“Where are the bones and fossils ????????????????”

The difference between intervention and evolution, is that evolution has a tad to many holes.”
Pg51
“Actually I read books after deciding this. The books just happen to match”
“We don't evolve, we adapt. The two can easially be confused for one another and you might even be able to say that adapting is evolving and evolving is adapting.”
“The only difference here is we have some not so accepted proof of evolution, otherwise it would be unanomouse.”
“You can't start a race with two people, it's incest, A race has to start with hundreds or hundreds of thousands of people.”
“WHERE ARE THE BODIES?”
Pg52
“The reason why it has human mtDNA is proof that this aliens creation was through a process known as a zygoat.”
“There is no way in hell that thing is human. You can tell just by looking at it.
It doesn't even have standard eye sockets.”
Pg53
“One of my favorite arguments on here is how the other guy only wanted to accept information from books.

However he was quick to exclude the bible, sitchen, von daniken, and pye, all which offer books.”

Pg58
“Cute, I'll bet science just blows your mind and leaves you clueless. Even according to Von dankin, there was advanced technology in the bible, so get a clue man.”
“We can't even live past puberty without medical intervention”
Pg59
“Occam's razor would suggest that intervention is the correct answer ...”
Pg62
“Evolutionists really win on the tail, not that Im convinced. I wonder if in our intended design maybe we actually have tails.”
Pg63
“Evolution is never mentioned in the bible, and if evolution is so possible why was it never brought up in biblical times.”
Pg65
Answer to claiming snakes can talk as per the bible.
“But if the DNA was reworked to make one talk, and have vocal cords, then it's possible just like the four headed creature in the bible of lion ox eagle and man.”
“I'm still looking for holes in intervention, I'm open to any question and await one that lands in a hole. There are no holes in intervention.”
Pg66
“but there is one thing I have learned in the over 30 years of studying reports about alien contacts. You cant trust aliens.”

Again, referring to the starchild skull,

“Remember that just because it's different doesnt mean its deformed.

If this thing had eyes I would have liked to seen how far out his eyeballs hung because he has very little socket depth where ours are very deep. What are the chances of this thing not being an alien versus and actually being a mutation with no obvious defects. It is by far another species.”

Pg72
“Your asking trivial things that were taught in first grade. Everyone knows most of the earth has signs that it was under water at one point. Are you seriously in doubt of this?”
Pg80
“Just yesterday a coworker of mine was telling me that his wife of 12 years freaquently complaints about nightmares from an abduction experience she had when she was 20. Of course I asked him how her mental state is, and he says shes fine.”
Pg82
“IMO you have to be closed minded to think evolution is possible over intervention.”
“I estimate that in order for evolution to be allowed i



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Pg82
“IMO you have to be closed minded to think evolution is possible over intervention.”
“I estimate that in order for evolution to be allowed in the amount and severity we are looking at trillions of years. Problem here is earth isn't that old. So what do you think that means?”
Pg83
“Notice how I don't shun anything out in my belief. Evolution is possible.”
“Actually I pulled it out of my @$$, but ok. It just seems like common sense to me.“
(in reply to -Typically from radiation? Once again, you’re making assertions with zero evidence to support them. From your own favorite source, Wikipedia)
“I'm not the one with the odd belief here.”

Pg84
“I'm not ignoring evidence, I'm ignoring theory.”
“Well science has only been blind to this because there are still a vast majority that refuses to believe in the supernatural”
“Tell me about a primate that needs medical attention to live past puberty because if we don't get our shots, we die.”



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


The real problem with Evolutionist is they have used the same word to explain adaptation and speciation. These two concepts have been brought together under one word and therefore when science explains adaptation they have essentially proven Evolution by the definition they have given the word.

No, evolution can occur below the species level. It's why evolution isn't the same thing as speciation, but speciation is part of evolution. I could draw you a Euler diagram, but I'm lazy. It's easy to envision -- there's a big circle (evolution) and a smaller circle (speciation) completely contained within the big circle.

I mean, if the crux of your argument against evolution is that you don't like the way it's defined because you think it's tautological, all I can tell you is that Ann Coulter tried to make the exact same point a year or two ago and looked really stupid when people came out of the woodwork to do two things:

1. Explain to her what a tautology was, because she obviously had no clue.
2. Explain to her why evolution is not tautological, because she obviously had no clue.


Since speciation is speculative at best it simply something that cannot be proven.

Except speciation has been observed. Multiple times.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





What are you trying to say? Nobody's saying every single time a person is infertile that it's related to genetics. There's various other factors as well, but the genetic reasons are proven 100%, so gene changes CAN cause infertility. Sorry Tooth, unless you've got science to present this point stands.
So your admitting that speciation is not proof of evolution?




No. Genetic mutations = evolution, so you can't lie and claim its not part of the reason. Are you going to provide anything of substance, or just keep rambling and making things up?
I don't need to make anything up, your doing that all by yourself. Speciation is not proof of evolution, anymore than saying that gametic isolation or even reproductive isolation proves evolution.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 





For those who claim this website because the OP made a statement about abiogenists and evolution. The website has hundreds of articles covering abiogenesis, evolution, and the age of the earth.

The real problem with Evolutionist is they have used the same word to explain adaptation and speciation. These two concepts have been brought together under one word and therefore when science explains adaptation they have essentially proven Evolution by the definition they have given the word.
It always threw me out there too. It's like which is it, adaptation or speciation. It's almost like they are saying that speciation is adaptation, if course they can't be.

Evolutionists have been kindly awarded a small section in wiki under the definition of adaptation. Of course this section is also written by a biased evolutionist, and I think the spot was freely offered simply because evolutionists claimed it was part of the evolutionary process. The funny part is there is not one iota of infomation that is ever shared that proves this. Evolutionists simply assumed that the ability to adapt is one of the many splendors that makes evolution work.

The problem is that adaptation is an ability to circumvent a problem when evolution fails, in other words, they might as well claim that the evolutionary process has multiplied and made babies because it now appears to have offspring.


Adaptation is NOT part of evolution, it was only assumed into the definition, probably because neutral partys looked at it like, hey this is your religion, we assume you know what your talking about and let them have it. Adaptation would only be necessary when evolution has failed. Unless you believe that your unmanned religion just so happens to have double redundancy protection.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by theophilus40
 


Your original post is about Abiogenisis NOT evolution.

Evolution is about what happens after life exists. Obviously the people you got your information from are not to smart.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Let me throw something in here...

I'm not interested in genetic mutations causing infertility. It is to be expected that a code being damaged causes dysfunction. I am interested in genetic mutations causing superior function. That is the key here.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


It's funny.....usually on these threads, the evolutionists back their arguments with a few more flimsy facts then then the ignorant Creationists.


However, this creationist has busted out the Charmin and has cleaned a$$ on the monkeys kin folk


You have been highly articulate and have backed your statements with substance. Whereas the evolvers(new word
) have pretty much responded with insults and vain speculations.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


Haha! Those are great! Gotta love the endless hours of entertainment.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by radpetey
 


I just wish they would start backing up some of their claims.

Every site an evolutionist has sent me to, makes it clear that evolution is nothing more than speculation. And when I point that out, they always try to say that I don't know how to read.

Whats funny is I apparently don't know how to read any of their sites.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Haha! Those are great! Gotta love the endless hours of entertainment.
Thank you for recognizing my hard efforts, now you just need to get yourself up to speed so that you understand how clear they are.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Whats funny is I apparently don't know how to read any of their sites

That's not funny. That is the problem with all Creationists. They have their fingers in their ears screaming nonsense phrases such as target foods or some bronze age fairy tale told me so.

What I got out of this thread so far is:
1. creationists have no idea what a scientific theory is
2. creationists have no idea what a species is
3. creationists have no idea how well established evolution theory is
4. creationists have no intention of learning



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by radpetey
 


I just wish they would start backing up some of their claims.

Every site an evolutionist has sent me to, makes it clear that evolution is nothing more than speculation. And when I point that out, they always try to say that I don't know how to read.

Whats funny is I apparently don't know how to read any of their sites.


Your the one makeing claims without any evidence to back it up and useing lame tactics of ignoring, denying, or misrepresenting any evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
What rubs people the wrong way is when you say things they know are false, and you don't appear willing to learn where you are wrong.
Every scientific hypothesis must pass a trial by fire of observation, hypothesis forming, experimentation, conclusion and communication.This is very different from the environment that creationists are coming from where their ideas are not challenged as long as they ahdere to orthodoxy. In science, there are no sacred cows. Every idea is up for debate.
If you have any specific claims that are not being backed up then please do share.




posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 

And here's a criticism to you, even though I'm not a creationist:


For instance, Darwin hoped we would discover transitional precursors to the animal forms that appear abruptly in the Cambrian strata. Since then we have found many ancient fossils – even exquisitely preserved soft-bodied creatures – but none are credible ancestors to the Cambrian animals.

Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.1 "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.

When I recently suggested this disconnect publicly, I was vigorously challenged. One person recalled my use of Wilkins and charged me with quote mining. The proof, supposedly, was in Wilkins's subsequent paragraph:

"Yet, the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing. More and more issues in biology, from diverse questions about human nature to the vulnerability of ecosystems, are increasingly seen as reflecting evolutionary events. A spate of popular books on evolution testifies to the development. If we are to fully understand these matters, however, we need to understand the processes of evolution that, ultimately, underlie them."

In reality, however, this passage illustrates my point. The efforts mentioned there are not experimental biology; they are attempts to explain already authenticated phenomena in Darwinian terms, things like human nature. Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.

Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs.


Source



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


Lots of words, but not much substance, hardly anything about the actual theory of evolution. It reads like it's just some random guy rambling about evolution and biology, who is not a scientist or familiar with those fields. What is this about Buddhism being substituted for the word evolution in a science paper?
I'd break it all down point by point like I usually do, but I know you'll just ignore it, deflect the topic and post a youtube video. It's like clockwork for you.

It's not about Darwin or "darwin's theory". It's about modern synthesis, which is much more detailed and involved. People that refer to Darwin are usually promoting an agenda. Yeah, he came up with the original idea, but it has evolved long past him. You are seriously claiming there are no precambrian fossils? God forbid we haven't found every creature to ever live in the history of earth, going back 2-3 billion years.

This:


Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.

This was the one part that actually referred to evolution, and it's wrong. Natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with being self centered or aggressive. It's about surviving environmental changes. End of story. Humans are intelligent and have found that living in a cooperative society is beneficial to survival, although not everybody does. Also, men ARE eager to spread their seed. The first thing the majority of all males want to do when they hit puberty is have sex. Sex is pleasurable, and difficult to resist when given the opportunity. That doesn't mean that all responsibility goes out the window or that there aren't consequences to actions, especially today where you usually have to pay child support if you spread your seed all over the place. That mini paragraph is dead wrong and nothing they claim as contradictory actually is, because ... Surprise surprise! the guy doesn't understand natural selection.

Anyways the thread is called science against evolution, so if you have any please post it, but please keep the conjecture out of here.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
It's almost as-though the page was linked and quoted, but not actually read....

edit on 18-1-2013 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





That's not funny. That is the problem with all Creationists. They have their fingers in their ears screaming nonsense phrases such as target foods or some bronze age fairy tale told me so.

What I got out of this thread so far is:
1. creationists have no idea what a scientific theory is
2. creationists have no idea what a species is
3. creationists have no idea how well established evolution theory is
4. creationists have no intention of learning

1Nor does evolutionists know what a scientific theory is. If they did, they would know it fails the litmus for being presented as such. Evolution fails the requirement of falsifiability. It's not a scientific theory.
But this is a good example for you to open your eyes and realize just how much evolutionists and its followers will bend and stretch the truth because they want so bad to have something to believe in.
2Neither does evolutionists. Your assuming diversity based on appearance and that is NOT proof. Relative appearance doesn't prove evolution anymore than it proves creation.
3Evolution is only established through acceptance. Just like a lot of people accept religion.
4Well one thing is for sure, assuming the things that you do in your new found religion is not going to help anyone else learn them when you fail at producing any tangible evidence.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Your the one makeing claims without any evidence to back it up and useing lame tactics of ignoring, denying, or misrepresenting any evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
What rubs people the wrong way is when you say things they know are false, and you don't appear willing to learn where you are wrong.
Every scientific hypothesis must pass a trial by fire of observation, hypothesis forming, experimentation, conclusion and communication.This is very different from the environment that creationists are coming from where their ideas are not challenged as long as they ahdere to orthodoxy. In science, there are no sacred cows. Every idea is up for debate.
If you have any specific claims that are not being backed up then please do share.
No everything is backed up. Our DNA has proof of tampering, which proves that the punishments weren't BS in the bible. Target food backs up the proof of us not being from this planet, as do dozens of other things.



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join