How to prove evolution is FAKE!!!

reply to post by SpearMint

You missed the point. I wasn't talking about what we are not, but pointing to something else, that we really are, whereby subject/object dualism within a purely materialist construct, is no longer tenable either as an explanation for the phenomenon of human being (self conscious awareness and the possibility of free choice) and the unique qualia of our human experience, or for the whole enchilada that we inhabit as if standing on a mountaintop of a very very long process of cosmic evolution, right next to the Godhead as it were.

But if the object of the materialist is to reduce us, materially, and deny the existence of the subtle body (as distinguished from the gross or the material body), where do you start, and how low are you prepared to go..

Listen to Kenn Hamm he will explain it well. I was there!
youtu.be...

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Word, you pulled that out of where the sun doesn't shine. Basically evolutionist and creationist would refute you. At least from the articles I have seen and what my professor has taught.

edit on 29-1-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

Couple of points:

(a) Cite the articles. That is the correct thing to do.
(b) One reason we've not see this so called "macro evolution" is TIME SCALE.
and
(c) One needs small steps to make big steps (eg if you must stick to micro and macro, one has to have micro evolution before one gets macro.

never mind

Wait, did we all come from peanut butter? Maybe evolution is why some people find bugs in their food sometimes. I am not really even going to address the claims that evolution is false any longer. Anyone who does is just spinning their wheels so to speak, even though all it would take is one counter-example to disprove evolution...a theory with multiple parts, although that never seems to get addressed.

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
With enough random nonsense posts, I am hoping to create a spaghetti monster.

So there I was at an archaeological dig in Borneo, when suddenly up came professor Tutrlesworth, and he looked angry. He had heard that I was attempting to uncover the mysteries of life, the universe and everything, and in doing so, would ruin his reputation as the world renowned leading expert in Evolution and God, and also the author of "Life, why did god bother?".

It was almost noon, and as he stormed towards me, I realised that in my back pack I had the very Fossilised proof that would change the world. He drew closer, the whiskers up his nose, twitching as he stomped his large hefty boots in the mud.

"What the HELL do you think you're doing?" he yelled.

"I, I .." I stammered unable to form a sentence in his presence. But I remembered the fossil, and as I pulled my back pack from the table, the zipper had opened.. As I reached in, my spaghetti fell out and entangled itself all over me pants and shoes. I was so embarrassed I suddenly dropped to the floor, crying like a little baby.

I never worked at an archaeological dig ever again.

reply to post by milkyway12


Actually, reading all of your posts thus far in this thread, I can see why religion holds so much value to some people.

Makes perfect sense.

The inability to distinguish one thing from another, and the ability to ignore facts in favour of wants.

Cool beans.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by chrome413

Originally posted by SpearMint


I can't tell if you're joking or being serious. Just because the word "theory" is used, it doesn't mean it's just a theory, that is not what it means in the scientific world.

Ummmm. . . yeah, that is what theory means. You see, this is how science works: First you have a Hypothesis, then a Theory and once that theory is rigorously tested again and again it becomes a Law. They teach us this in second grade- along with the scientific method.

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".
Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

I recommend burning down the school you went to second grade at.

I would not recommend the burning of any schools... I would however recommend revisiting the second grade and review the lessons on laws vs theory.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.

A scientific law explains things, but they do not describe them.

A good example is Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

reply to post by SPEZNA1


Cool aid? ha... toxic slime..

speaking of toxic slime..

I see OPS peanuts and raise him, a cola!

So if a comet/or even meteorites comes from outer space on to the planet having water on it, which by a small chance have some dormant bacteria on it, and survive from the impact of landing on the planet. Wouldn't that be like someone opening a jar of peanut butter, and a foreign organism just moved in. And over time u get a simple life form, and for even longer periods, more complex life forms.

P.s: we are what we eat.

Originally posted by WarriorOfLight96
Surely if evolution happens at some point in our human existence we should be able to see some sort of evolution take place in some species, their millions of years could have surely expired by now.

Dear god - pun intended - grasp the theory before you denounce it.

There is NO time frame. It's based on the environment. A stable environment means stable life. No need to evolve. No changes to adapt to. No reason a longer neck works better than a shorter neck, to eat from tall trees.

You guys would deny the existence of eye balls if you were to realise what caused them to come into existence. It'd be all "Oh so eyes just pop ouyt of no where aye, yeah likely.".. and no rational thinking.

reply to post by Shenten


I agree...some people tend to look at science as some Alien Concept that is trying to redefine their beliefs and reality.

All Science is defined as is the search for FACTS by using the Scientific Method which includes...Observation, Experimentation, Logic and Deduction based upon these things.

It is a process to determine FACTS and if there is not enough PROOF to determine if something is a fact it is labeled as a THEORY.

Evolution has gone well beyond a Theory as we now have practicle applications. It is now a FACT...and a provable one.

Split Infinity

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
You all realize you all are wrong on both the 'creation' and 'evolution' arguments. We are just computer simulations. Prove me wrong. You can't. It doesn't matter what books you want to read or even your so called physical evidence, they are just part of the simulation. So your so called science and your so called god are just a bunch of hooey.

So now that you know both 'creation' and 'evolution' are both false, what do you have to say?

Ok so you know we're a pc program.

What language does the programmer use?

I bet it's owned by google too,

reply to post by pacifier2012


Ignorance in it's finest form.

Thank you for showing me how not to act.

*I need all the help I can get*

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by definity

 

Come on youtube! I'm waiting ten minutes for this 2 minute clip. It better be worth it!

Well, I hate to say it, but the guy has a point.

Oh dear god.

I'm ashamed that I'm not surprised. I should be. It's just inconceivable that anyone could watch that utter bollocks and come away thinking any part of it was valid.



I mean it's not even a well thought out piece to start with, even if I disagree with the topic, if it were well thought out and considered, then I'd have no option but to argue the facts.

The persons in that video prove that do not understand the concepts they are denouncing.

And sadly, so many people on here, have shown the same lack of understanding. Either on prupose to continue their giggles, or because it's not in the bible. Or the new one, because we're programmed.

Professor Turtlesworth would be so proud.

After watching the video and trying to read this thread . . . I can't even comment on the discussion, but I have learned a few things.

1. Never accept a peanut butter sandwich from a creationist/ID proponent.
2. Never let my son go to a university in Mississippi.
3. Never hire anyone who went to a university in Mississippi.
4. America is heading for future fit for a Mike Judge movie.
5. Never hire someone who went to a university in Mississippi.
6. Never let my son go to a university in Mississippi.
7. Don't administer medicine to the dead.

reply to post by solomons path


What I don't understand is why so many Creationists will not realize that there is absolutely NO CONFLICT with the fact of Evolution and the possibility of the existence of GOD.

They are both mutually exclusive and any GOD would have used both Quantum Evolution and Biological Evolution to create the Universe and Life.

It is like a person who lived before there were Airplanes and before Man could fly and then live from the turn of the 19th to the 20th century till a time when there were planes in the sky that they could just look up and see...but for some reason they refuse to look up and keep saying...Man can't fly and there is no such thing as an Airplane!

Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


Perception clouds all . . .

If you were raised to and still believe that there is a supernatural force in control of every movement of the universe, you would think you would just absorb every new idea into that perception (evolution happens . . . well then said supernatural force is responsible for evolution). Seems logical, but the initial perception isn't logical, so the works of the supernatural force have to be illogical too . . . or cognitive dissonance creeps in.

It's the same way denial works with addicts.

Or, religious parents and gay sons/daughters.

reply to post by solomons path


Well here's the thing...it is highly probable we live in a Multiversal System and because of this every possible form of reality and possibility MUST EXIST.

Thus there is a 100% Probability that in one Divergent Universal State GOD must exist.

There is also a 100% Probability that in one Divergent Universal State GOD will NOT exist.

Such is the logic and reality of the Multiverse.

Split Infinity