How to prove evolution is FAKE!!!

Originally posted by winofiend

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.

Now you just hold on there! lol I said he had a point. I didn't say the whole thing was valid. You must have read the rest of my post, so I stand by my point that it is not inconceivable for more than one living cell to have formed from non-life. Nowhere in nature is there ONE thing. People, trees, rocks, planets, stars...

So when the earth environment was right for making one living cell, then it was right for making trillions of them. Of course those conditions are no longer right, so life will not form in a jar of peanutbutter.

Say I'm right. Saaaaaaaaaaaaaay it!

reply to post by jiggerj

So when the earth environment was right for making one living cell, then it was right for making trillions of them. Of course those conditions are no longer right, so life will not form in a jar of peanutbutter.

Say I'm right. Saaaaaaaaaaaaaay it!

I bet some will argue against you. But i would say you are spot on.

reply to post by Infi8nity


you actually argued against creationism because according to it the world isn't even 10,000 years old. Religionists are proponents of "young earth theory."

when something evolves, they branch into another species. Whatever is more adapted to the environment thrives.

reply to post by definity


Gee I thought an OP needed to have some content and say what you want us to consider. All I get from your OP, if I dont open the vid, which I never do, is that you're depressed. Go get a tissue and then blow your nose and go outside and play. You will feel better. Or perhaps you want to elaborate on your feelings about the vid. i AM SURPRISED YOU HAVE NOT BEEN CALLED OUT BY A MOD FOR THIS.

reply to post by SpearMint


The Higgs Boson adds mass. Its a particle but a particle only exists if it is observed otherwise its just a wave. Higgs does it without any help unless there is even more at even smaller levels but plank is it in smallness isnt it? Its physics and physics doesnt need God. or physics is God.

reply to post by luciddream


I don't need an explanation of a theory because I know what it means. Any idea which attempts to come up with an explanation for creation or a reason behind it is and always will be theory unless by some mystical act we meet with an entity that was present.

We were not present during creation. Therefore, for humans to assume that anything is fact when it comes to the creation of ALL life on our planet is the biggest tantamount to human arrogance that has been manifested in this world.

I don't know if there is a deity that created us, and I, and everyone else, sure as hell doesn't know if we were a product of evolution. If it were so cut and dry and the the process was simply science principle, then it could be recreated as ALL other science principles have been done my man. Show me this and I will believe in your evolution, until then I will consider it just another "theory".

reply to post by karen61560


The thing I don't like about the video is that it mixes the creation of the simple cell with the fossil records of evolution. They are separate things but go hand in hand together with creationist.

What evidence does show is that there was a time of simple life and as time progressed life became more complex.

What the evidence doesn't show is that evolution comes about through RANDOM events of mutations without any integration of intelligent design, it merely just happen through coincidence of improbable events, This is a loosely foundation that was extruded from a consensus of scientist with similar beliefs and conventional education and it was based off of assumptions and poor understanding of the atomic level of the universe.

Evolution shows that species arose out of nowhere with fully working biological systems, with no evidence of transitions between one species to another species. It strikes me odd that conventional scientist with all their intellect power don't question the fact that out of MILLIONS of fossils found we have no evidence of a transitional species and continue on with a belief of random mutations of natural selection.

If you ask me in my opinion with simple logic, the fossil evidence shows humans/animals are intelligent designed through the means of evolution.

How is our reality conformed with constant laws that are the properties of sub atomic particles abide by but act in such chaotic, random ways that some how created a FULLY working environment that is capable of harnessing life all by RANDOM chaotic events? How does this make sense to anyone especially to anyone with a scientific background...

reply to post by jiggerj


Who says that living cells have to be close to each other, why can't they be separated by trillions of miles of space?

You bring up stars, which are separated by light-years in space, and so are planets that are in different star systems, so why not living cells?

Originally posted by gangstersoflove
reply to post by luciddream

 

"You could be changing right now."

Well, doesn't evolution require that I pass that change onto the next generation? Is there any evidence that a mutation is passed onto its progeny?

At any rate, the only change that is happening to me is negative. No human being becomes physiologically better in any way as he gets older. Why should we assume it happens with other life forms?

Every time DNA is copied, there's a very small mutation. You won't see changes for a long time. Your kids won't have magically different skin after the first generation. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

reply to post by samaka


Thank you Samaka! I could not have said it better myself. You pretty much summed up my personal research and thoughts on the subject.

If I could give you a million thumbs up I would. But here are three for you.

Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by karen61560

 

The thing I don't like about the video is that it mixes the creation of the simple cell with the fossil records of evolution. They are separate things but go hand in hand together with creationist.

What evidence does show is that there was a time of simple life and as time progressed life became more complex.

What the evidence doesn't show is that evolution comes about through RANDOM events of mutations without any integration of intelligent design, it merely just happen through coincidence of improbable events, This is a loosely foundation that was extruded from a consensus of scientist with similar beliefs and conventional education and it was based off of assumptions and poor understanding of the atomic level of the universe.

Evolution shows that species arose out of nowhere with fully working biological systems, with no evidence of transitions between one species to another species. It strikes me odd that conventional scientist with all their intellect power don't question the fact that out of MILLIONS of fossils found we have no evidence of a transitional species and continue on with a belief of random mutations of natural selection.

If you ask me in my opinion with simple logic, the fossil evidence shows humans/animals are intelligent designed through the means of evolution.

How is our reality conformed with constant laws that are the properties of sub atomic particles abide by but act in such chaotic, random ways that some how created a FULLY working environment that is capable of harnessing life all by RANDOM chaotic events? How does this make sense to anyone especially to anyone with a scientific background...

Evolution is not a random process. There are "intelligent design" flaws by the way. Example....your throat...why do we eat and breath through the same tube? Seems to go against intelligent design, since you can choke and die. And, evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life. That's abiogenesis.

The man in the video does not appear to be very intellectual.

He's comparing conditions in the world from 4 billion years ago, to the conditions in the world we live in now, which is not very smart because of the fact that, if life was to form now, it might get eaten by other organisms, or, perhaps, it is, in fact, forming and we just don't know what to look for.

To add to that, he is essentially saying that since life hasn't formed in the last 100 years, then life starting without a creator is impossible.

Now here is the problem with his argument:
Earth was created around 4.5 billion years ago,
the earliest evidence of life dates back to about 3.5 billion years,
and if life did start around 3.5 billion years, and conditions on Earth weren't right for, say,
the first billion years of the Earth's history, that would still mean that it took around 500 million years for life (assuming life began around 3.5 billion years ago), to begin... and he's using 100 years an proof that life couldn't exist? Get real.

reply to post by samaka

Evolution shows that species arose out of nowhere with fully working biological systems, with no evidence of transitions between one species to another species. It strikes me odd that conventional scientist with all their intellect power don't question the fact that out of MILLIONS of fossils found we have no evidence of a transitional species and continue on with a belief of random mutations of natural selection

That's not true about transitional fossils or how species arose . . . sorry. There are plenty of examples of transitional species, the question is do you agree with the scientists who spend their lives classifying them as such. Most in the ID/Creationist don't . . . so I'm not sure what you want as proof to your false claim. If you won't take the word of paleontologists or biologists on transitional species, then who is credible to determine what constititues "transitional"? If you are are looking for a "crockaduck" or some other 5050 hybrid, that would actually be proof against evolution, you'll be waiting a long time. In fact, a hodgepodge hybrid would be something that would support ID.

Here are two, but google is your friend:
Archeopteryx
Once thought to be more reptile than bird, now thought to be more bird than reptile . . . direct decendent of raptors and T-rex - Dino to Bird transition

Tiktaalik
Transitional form between fish and amphi-reptile, first large animal to prop itself up on bony fins and waddle out of the ocean. - Fish to Amphi-reptile

Really, people should really stop getting their info on science from biased, religion driven youtube videos and websites. If you want to know what evolution really states and the evidence there are many actual biologists that would talk to you, or take a class at the local JC, or just get on the internet and go to sites run by university biology depts . . . noone is being denied access to what evolution states or the evidence for it.

Originally posted by blahxd67

Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by karen61560

 

The thing I don't like about the video is that it mixes the creation of the simple cell with the fossil records of evolution. They are separate things but go hand in hand together with creationist.

What evidence does show is that there was a time of simple life and as time progressed life became more complex.

What the evidence doesn't show is that evolution comes about through RANDOM events of mutations without any integration of intelligent design, it merely just happen through coincidence of improbable events, This is a loosely foundation that was extruded from a consensus of scientist with similar beliefs and conventional education and it was based off of assumptions and poor understanding of the atomic level of the universe.

Evolution shows that species arose out of nowhere with fully working biological systems, with no evidence of transitions between one species to another species. It strikes me odd that conventional scientist with all their intellect power don't question the fact that out of MILLIONS of fossils found we have no evidence of a transitional species and continue on with a belief of random mutations of natural selection.

If you ask me in my opinion with simple logic, the fossil evidence shows humans/animals are intelligent designed through the means of evolution.

How is our reality conformed with constant laws that are the properties of sub atomic particles abide by but act in such chaotic, random ways that some how created a FULLY working environment that is capable of harnessing life all by RANDOM chaotic events? How does this make sense to anyone especially to anyone with a scientific background...

Evolution is not a random process. There are "intelligent design" flaws by the way. Example....your throat...why do we eat and breath through the same tube? Seems to go against intelligent design, since you can choke and die. And, evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life. That's abiogenesis.

edit on 30-1-2013 by blahxd67 because: (no reason given)

I wasn't mixing evolution wtih Origin life and specifically stated that in my post.

Evolution is a random process, do you understand the amount of improbable mathematics calculations just for ONE event to manifest?

Your idea of design flaws are base off of your opinion and hold no ground in the scientific community, unless you can prove to me that there sincere experiments supporting your idea. And whose to say we have finished evolving? Perhaps one day idea through some "miracle" your idea of the flaw manifest and magically get corrected.

reply to post by samaka


Nope . . . Not random. Genetic variation can occur randomly, but evolution is not a random process. Also, there are other factors to consider, such as evironment pressures that act as a catalyst for change/survival.

Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment.

PBS - Evo FAQ

The link is some good light reading on the basics, so as not to add to your confusions on what Evolutionary Theory states . . .

So tell me. Have you met this "God"? Oh you read a book about him. Well I read a book about the god pokemon called Arceus. Therefore Pokemon are real and Arceus is god. We just can't see them/it. Arceus is up there somewhere, watching over us

Oh btw to you supporters of this video...

Evolution has the nothing to do with the creation of life. Evolution is about how life changes over time

Originally posted by Kuroodo
So tell me. Have you met this "God"? Oh you read a book about him. Well I read a book about the god pokemon called Arceus. Therefore Pokemon are real and Arceus is god. We just can't see them/it. Arceus is up there somewhere, watching over us

Well, I'm sorry you are wrong . . . The holy church of Charizard quite clearly states that Arceus was a false prophet sent to confuse us and keep us from Lord Charizard's light and love. We both know you are going to Jigoku for such blasphemy.

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by samaka

 

Evolution shows that species arose out of nowhere with fully working biological systems, with no evidence of transitions between one species to another species. It strikes me odd that conventional scientist with all their intellect power don't question the fact that out of MILLIONS of fossils found we have no evidence of a transitional species and continue on with a belief of random mutations of natural selection

That's not true about transitional fossils or how species arose . . . sorry. There are plenty of examples of transitional species, the question is do you agree with the scientists who spend their lives classifying them as such. Most in the ID/Creationist don't . . . so I'm not sure what you want as proof to your false claim. If you won't take the word of paleontologists or biologists on transitional species, then who is credible to determine what constititues "transitional"? If you are are looking for a "crockaduck" or some other 5050 hybrid, that would actually be proof against evolution, you'll be waiting a long time. In fact, a hodgepodge hybrid would be something that would support ID.

Here are two, but google is your friend:
Archeopteryx
Once thought to be more reptile than bird, now thought to be more bird than reptile . . . direct decendent of raptors and T-rex - Dino to Bird transition

Tiktaalik
Transitional form between fish and amphi-reptile, first large animal to prop itself up on bony fins and waddle out of the ocean. - Fish to Amphi-reptile

Really, people should really stop getting their info on science from biased, religion driven youtube videos and websites. If you want to know what evolution really states and the evidence there are many actual biologists that would talk to you, or take a class at the local JC, or just get on the internet and go to sites run by university biology depts . . . noone is being denied access to what evolution states or the evidence for it.

edit on 1/30/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/30/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

Again those fossils are linked by scientist under the assumption, that EVOLUTION occurs through random chaotic mutations. Do you know what does look like to me? Those look like fully working biological systems and in no way represent the missing link. I don't care how long they've been studied, when there studies are based off old conventional education, There's many creditable scientist that say evolution is totally bunk and needs to be updated.

Can thoses fossils explain the Cambodia explosion? Google is your friend...

Until evolutionist can explain their theory at a sub atomic level, then its HUGE leap of faith to say evolution occurs at random events. This is 2013 now not 1955....

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by samaka

 

Nope . . . Not random. Genetic variation can occur randomly, but evolution is not a random process. Also, there are other factors to consider, such as evironment pressures that act as a catalyst for change/survival.

Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment.

PBS - Evo FAQ

The link is some good light reading on the basics, so as not to add to your confusions on what Evolutionary Theory states . . .

Ummmmm this based off conventional understanding, dna/mutation, chemical reactions again... not a sub atomic explanation... you're not getting that. Micro evolution and macro evolution are not the same, one is repeatable and another is not...