How to prove evolution is FAKE!!!

reply to post by reject


Actually, creationism doesn't specify a date for the age of the Earth nor the Universe....although PROPONENTS of creationism have INDIVIDUAL IDEAS concerning the matter...all "creationism" is...is a doctrine or theory(or idea if you prefer that) that ALL MATTER was CREATED by, out of necessity, a CREATOR...whom is normally referred to as 'God'.

All semantics aside...

I personally do not have any issues concerning evolution, in particular, the cosmological side of the argument...ie the big bang theory. In fact, the big bang theory is, IMHO, a scientific description of the events found within Genesis. Evolution wherein it concerns living organisms also does not concern me. All things within this Universe obey certain laws...this is undeniable. Evolution included. It does not make "something from nothing"...it can merely act upon what is already there....what has already been created....

a2d

Just wow...really? Can they really be that naive? Mind is officially boggled, and I now feel a bit dumber having seen that.

Creationists are funny little critters aren't they?

Originally posted by karen61560
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.

What's that got to do with anything?

reply to post by definity


The best way to prove intelligent design, is with a flawless theory.
I came up with Target Food.
This is an observed phenomenon. There are several facts that have been collected from looking at dozens of diets from various species.
The first is that a species eats the same food. It's unknown how it is that they all arrive at the same decision, but they do. It would appear that intelligence has them programmed for choice.
Second there is never an experimental stage unless they are starving. We never hear about animals testing rocks or dirts to see if they like them as food, again unless they are starving.
Third, all species seem to have a designated food in mind, and when that food is not available for whatever reason, they fall into one of three catagorys of hunger.

Phase one, a species will appear to eat almost everything within a food group, as though they are searching for target food.
Phase two they might pick up a food group that they don't typically eat as a result of both the target food and phase one food missing.
Phase three is starvation, eating rocks, dirt or poo.

Target food is rare, but a good example is the abalone. It eats kelp, and that is all that it needs. It would appear that all species have an instinct or drive to look for a specific food. When this food is not available, they go on to a phase of hunger. Because there is this preprogrammed instinct, it would require a programmer, thus intelligence is required, and evolution failed at explaining these found stages of the process.

It not only appears that species knows what to eat, but they know what not to eat, they are never found in an experimental stage when they have food available, its as though they know what they are after.

Originally posted by gangstersoflove
reply to post by SpearMint

 

"I don't think religion does explain where light came from, or anything at all. "God did it" isn't an explanation. I'm sure if scientists settled for "physics did it" you wouldn't accept that as an explanation. "

So you're telling me that if God did it, you would want to know HOW he did it? Did it ever occur to you that maybe your mortal mind is not capable of understanding how God did it? I mean, there is no benchmark in anything we have ever observed of 'something' coming from 'nothing' so what makes you think it could be explained in earthly terms and you would understand it. Maybe the reason that Genesis basically says 'God did it' is because that's all our feeble minds can grasp.

Whether anyone could comprehend it or not is irrelevant. "God did it" is an effortless and meaningless excuse for an explanation. That's why scientists don't even take religion in to account, they're not biased, it's just not worth considering.

reply to post by samaka


Yeah . . . Sorry. Why do you keep using words like "random" or "chaotic" . . . evolutionary theory isn't described that way? Well, at least by biologists and other fields that study/use evolutionary theory in their daily lives. That's a creationist/ID description to make it seem like there is no rhyme or reason to it . . . have you just been indoctrinated into this culture or are you actively promoting it? I'd like to know because I don't see the point of educating someone who isn't interested in learning.

I'm also sorry about your "missing link" (again a creationist term that is not talked about or expected by those that work in the field) dilemma. But, you specifically said:

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

Yet, a transitional form doesn't satisfy "evidence for transitional species" requirement . . . so, exactly with all of your intellect and vast knowledge in paleobiology and morphology . . . please explain to me what we should expect . . . ? What is exactly is the mythical "missing link" if transitional species aren't transitional species. Please dazzle me with "all your intellect" as you put it . . . Now you are just being intelectually dishonest. Anti-truth supernatural mumbo-jumbo is show though.

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

Beyond that don't try to lecture me on this issue when you don't know the difference Cambodia and Cambrian . . . what is exactly your point. I don't have to google I know exactly what the Cambrian explosion is and no fossils don't explain the Cambrian explosion period, but this does . . . Cambrian was a period in time, not an event, for one. For the rest read here:

The Cambrian follows the Ediacaran Period, during which time the continents had been joined in a single supercontinent called Rodinia (from the Russian word for "homeland", rodina). As the Cambrian began, Rodinia began to fragment into smaller continents, which did not always correspond to the ones we see today.

World climates were mild; there was no glaciation. Landmasses were scattered as a result of the fragmentation of the supercontinent Rodinia that had existed in the late Proterozoic. Most of North America lay in warm southern tropical and temperate latitudes, which supported the growth of extensive shallow-water archaeocyathid reefs all through the early Cambrian

Also during the Cambrian, the oceans became oxygenated. Although there was plentiful atmospheric oxygen by the beginning of the period, it wasn't until the Cambrian that there was a sufficient reduction in the number of oxygen-depleting bacteria to permit higher oxygen levels in the waters. This dissolved oxygen may have triggered the "Cambrian Explosion" — when most of the major groups of animals, especially those with hard shells, first appeared in the fossil record.

Cambrian

Really . . . you send me to google . . . you don't even have a reason it shouldn't happen or is impossible . . . you just scream in incredulity and ignorantly at that. You really need to stop getting your information on science from non-scientific sites . . . bad for your brain.

Unless of course your agenda is just to misimform . . . Deny Ignorance, right?

Originally posted by gangstersoflove
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Enough of your 1+1=2 - how many times do you think you have to repeat it? It's not that we don't understand, its that it just doesn't happen in the natural realm. It's inadequate, over simplified and well, plain dumb. What you are saying couldn't possibly cause any new information to come into the genome. It might cause a mutant to have three legs instead of two, but it would NOT cause a wing to grow, for example, where one never existed. NO ONE HAS EVER proven that one species evolved into another. The fossil record is woefully bankrupt of any indication that something even slightly changed into another species of creature. Furthermore, all this dating business has been over and over again shown to be virtually useless. Your answers were so condescending, yet your dumb analogy just did not fit. A better one (although not adequate) would have been apples + oranges = bananas, because that's just what evolution is trying to dupe everyone into believing.

Well actually the person I was talking to didn't understand it, and apparently you don't either. Tiny mutations add up to make larger changes, it's REALLY simple, yet some how too complicated for you. Funny how you're all for criticizing something you don't understand but won't provide anything of value for your side.

Originally posted by gangstersoflove
reply to post by SpearMint

 

And tell me, how long do you think it would take for a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being? How many generations? Are you seriously going to tell me that just a few million years is long enough? Think about it.

Billions of years. Our last common ancestor with modern apes was about 10 million years ago. I didn't say it would take a few million years... Do some research on the subject before trying to fight it.

Originally posted by samaka

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...

Please . . . dazzle me with this "sub-atomic" theory. Where can I read some papers on it? Do I need a subscription/association credentials to read them and if so, how much do they charge? Who are the leading researchers in this field? I'm not aware of any work done here and I'd like to look up their credentials.

Thanks for all your help and look forward to reading into a new field of study in Evolutionary Theory. I just hope you have a better grasp on this subject than evolution, because you continually misrepresent what evolutionary theory states . . . although, once again, I'm sure it's not intentional.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by definity

 

The best way to prove intelligent design, is with a flawless theory.
I came up with Target Food.
This is an observed phenomenon. There are several facts that have been collected from looking at dozens of diets from various species.

Yeah, this thread just died for me . . . Now we get to talk about completely made up "theories" with no research, no data, based on "observation" but can't be repeated (oh yeah that's right it's self evident) . . . and of course it is "Flawless". Not to mention, once again, completely fabricated by tooth in is bedroom, 'cuz he just can't stand that evolution is fact. Delusional thoughts from Fantasy Island.

I'm pretty sure everyone should listed up . . . You're reading the next Nobel Prize winner in Life Sciences for his ground breaking work in "Target Food" . . . don't bother googling it . . . Tooth hasn't had time to author a wiki, it's that new. In fact, when you google "target food" this is what comes up:
Target Food

No lie. Sad I know. But thrifty shoppers have to eat too . .

Bring out your dead . . .

reply to post by milkyway12


You are completely and laughably, functionally incapable of making any coherent sense. You sidestep and misinterpret everything said to you and your poorly construed air of self-held superiority and arrogance (Over the Internet nonetheless) was actually so outrageously hilarious, reading over your bumbling, baby-horse-learning-to-walk-for-the-first-time posts provided excellent entertainment for all 6 of the people sitting with me.

And for that we thank you.

reply to post by solomons path


I am sorry I'm not going to describe the sub atomic level nor could I or anyone else for that matter. If you don't know understand that the sub atomic scale "is" (could be) the bases of our universe how everything starts there.... then really there's not a whole I can say to help you grasp it. But I will say this, to help define my statements of chaotic or random.. My computer mouse, without me it's just a computer mouse and my pencil is just a pencil without me. But with my intellect and awareness my computer mouse can help create the most sophisticated software, my pencil , with me it can help me write the most beautiful poems or illustrations... the same with the dna, by itself it's just dna or a blueprint that does nothing with out anything animating it so what animates molecules? chemical reactions.... a very very precise algorithm of mathematical calculations of chemical reactions that no one has a way of supplying evidence for... yet. Science as of today can understand the jest of atoms bonding and interacting but we have no clear algorithm to define the chaotic mess, In order for these particles to interact and causes the molecule to mutate is a very precise event, an event that would have to be mathematically occurring at sub atomic level with a huge amount of variables that adds more complexity, that happens over and over and over again with no cause or purpose and it works in favor evolution with no intelligence. To take a simple cell and it evolves over a short time (cosmic wise) to complex designs would take an astronomical algorithm to follow which is seems improbable.

So ask yourself, does it seem more probable that we were consciously design or chaotically design? Because mathematically speaking a world ruled by flying dolphins and dragons is mathematically possible.... so is intelligent design.

reply to post by solomons path


Well thank you.

All I did was the same thing that evolutionists did with the exception that all of my findings are evident and not a hypothesis.

Target Food is very much observed in real diets, and I challenge anyone to prove it wrong. Not by simply saying that its wrong, but to come up with something tangible that proves it wrong. It's been over a year and I'm still waiting.

This observation is the same thing like that of evolution based on the fact that it's observed. The only difference is mine has no assumptions. There is redundant reason that proves Target Food to exist.

The breaking facts that I would just love anyone to disprove are as follows...

All units of a species eat within the same diet, this is proof that they are directed to a specific food source. Not that their choice is correct, but probably the closest to it given the choices. To prove this wrong all you have to do is come up with something tangible that shows all units within a species DONT eat the same foods, geographicly permitting of course. If you move an elephant to southern CA, he surly wont have food to eat, thats not an excuse to prove why hes not eating his regular diet.

No units of a species are ever found to be in an experimental stage for food. We never read or see animals randomly trying food until they find one that they like, providing they aren't starving of course, so to prove this wrong, all you have to do is come up with several diets that do show an experimental stage. You also have to account for domesticated animals as we predict what they eat, and often times we even manufacture food for them. This however is NEVER target food.

Using the squirrel diet as an example, you can see that he has a back up diet when his phase one diet is out of season. It's evident that he has moved on to phase 2 of hunger. This can't be proven wrong because the only other choice is death. A species is either going to eat, or its not. When the regular food is no longer in reach, it will normally look on to other food, but will always want food that is closer to the Target food. This is why the squirrel will ALWAYS go back to his phase one diet when it comes back into season. This is also why he doesn't just stick to the phase 2 diet after using it. He might revert back when phase one is out of season, but he has to have something to eat.

Originally posted by samaka
reply to post by solomons path

 

I am sorry I'm not going to describe the sub atomic level nor could I or anyone else for that matter. If you don't know understand that the sub atomic scale "is" (could be) the bases of our universe how everything starts there.... then really there's not a whole I can say to help you grasp it.

I didn't ask you to explain particle physics to me, I have a basic understanding. We were talking about evolutionary theory, not quantum mechanics, yet you kept referencing the "sub-atomic' level. I thought you had something new and exiciting that I hadn't been exposed to. Now that I know you are trying to commingle physics and biological evolution . . . I can honestly say that you don't understand either. Nothing in particle physics invalidates any part of evolution, so I fail to see any point in bring them together.

Science as of today can understand the jest of atoms bonding and interacting but we have no clear algorithm to define the chaotic mess.

We don't just have a "jest" we have a very clear picture . . . if we didn't understand every principle of attraction within the standard model, there would have been no prediction and subsequent finding of the Higgs Boson. Bosons were predicted based on the knowledge that there had to be something missing to account for mass and the movement of baryons and quarks, when the nucleus is split. Claiming the physicists only have a "jest" is akin to saying "What The bleep Do We Know" wasn't a new-age creationism corruption of quantum mechanics.

Here I'll pay for you to take a class at MIT on particle physics, since you have the basics down, I'll provide Particle Physics II. However, you may just want to start at the beginning based on your assumptions about we do and don't know, in this field.
MIT - Particle Physics II

the same with the dna, by itself it's just dna or a blueprint that does nothing with out anything animating it so what animates molecules? chemical reactions.... a very very precise algorithm of mathematical calculations of chemical reactions that no one has a way of supplying evidence for... yet

Also not true in the least . . . there is a reason you can get a doctorate in Chemical Engineering. We know full well how to synthesize protein strands quite well. We can also predict and speed up these reaction by introducing recombinant DNA . . . if we didn't know have knowledge or couldn't explain the reactions, biotechnology would be impossible.

All the functions of DNA depend on interactions with proteins. These protein interactions can be non-specific, or the protein can bind specifically to a single DNA sequence. Enzymes can also bind to DNA and of these, the polymerases that copy the DNA base sequence in transcription and DNA replication are particularly important.

Another MIT class for you . . .
MIT - Biological Chemistry II

Your incredulity doesn't negate the fact that evolution is observed and predictions have been verified. Maybe you should strengthen your case for ID, so it doesn't rest in on a plea to emotion . . . which is what your tired, old, creationist analogy of the machine and the design . . . been debunked before ID became a fad. You can search on your own for that one.

Probable or possible . . . doesn't matter either way. Stop trying to dazzle me with new age rhetoric that makes no sense to anyone that has studied science at a formal level. You may be able BS your friends on facebook, but if you want to commingle different fields of science with new age philosophy . . . you better bring some actual science that is congruent with what we already know and observe or you just show yourself to be in need of a lot of reading.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Yep . . . still waiting for any of the data you collected to back up your self-evident, observational, supernatural, extraterrestrial theory that you will only expose ATS too . . . I guess the rest of the world isn't good enough for your ground breaking research?

No reference for target food outside of this forum.
No reference for phases of hunger, outside of the diet center websites.
Phases of hunger
No reference to diet phase or phases of diet outiside of diet center websites.
Phases of diet

Yet . . . this revolutionary hypothesis not only, "disproves" the entire theory of evolution . . . but, also proves intelligent design?

You should charge admission to this forum . . . this is the only place that Creation/ID propoants can get actual proof of their claims . . . And they'd never know about unless you showed up. You are a very important man. I sure hope you taken steps to protect yourself from that evil cabal of scientists out to get you and "kill" this movement. When they come after you with their TI-85s, give me call . . . I know where the power source is.

Enjoy you medicine . . . only dose you'll get from me, infecticon.

reply to post by solomons path

Yep . . . still waiting for any of the data you collected to back up your self-evident, observational, supernatural, extraterrestrial theory that you will only expose ATS too . . . I guess the rest of the world isn't good enough for your ground breaking research?

No reference for target food outside of this forum.
No reference for phases of hunger, outside of the diet center websites.
Phases of hunger
No reference to diet phase or phases of diet outiside of diet center websites.
Phases of diet

Yet . . . this revolutionary hypothesis not only, "disproves" the entire theory of evolution . . . but, also proves intelligent design?

You should charge admission to this forum . . . this is the only place that Creation/ID propoants can get actual proof of their claims . . . And they'd never know about unless you showed up. You are a very important man. I sure hope you taken steps to protect yourself from that evil cabal of scientists out to get you and "kill" this movement. When they come after you with their TI-85s, give me call . . . I know where the power source is.

Enjoy you medicine . . . only dose you'll get from me, infecticon

Of course your not going to find any reference about Target Food, I made it.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by solomons path

 

Yep . . . still waiting for any of the data you collected to back up your self-evident, observational, supernatural, extraterrestrial theory that you will only expose ATS too . . . I guess the rest of the world isn't good enough for your ground breaking research?

No reference for target food outside of this forum.
No reference for phases of hunger, outside of the diet center websites.
Phases of hunger
No reference to diet phase or phases of diet outiside of diet center websites.
Phases of diet

Yet . . . this revolutionary hypothesis not only, "disproves" the entire theory of evolution . . . but, also proves intelligent design?

You should charge admission to this forum . . . this is the only place that Creation/ID propoants can get actual proof of their claims . . . And they'd never know about unless you showed up. You are a very important man. I sure hope you taken steps to protect yourself from that evil cabal of scientists out to get you and "kill" this movement. When they come after you with their TI-85s, give me call . . . I know where the power source is.

Enjoy you medicine . . . only dose you'll get from me, infecticon

Of course your not going to find any reference about Target Food, I made it up.

Fixed it for you...

Just take all of the creationists and make them live in the Galapagos islands.
They can live peacefully among-st the splendors of their own denial.

At 1:30 he opens peanut butter and says, now aren't you glad you don't find life under here, yet there is clearly something else on the peanut butter (looks like red jelly) rofl

But it could be life who knows, and I think my i.q just slipped a bit after watching this


Also anyone else notice the peanut butter was already opened before he peeled it back ? lol

Does the OP honestly believe that a 2 minute creationist youtube video made by people that have no clue about the fundamentals of science is going to debunk an entire field of scientific study?

Somebody posted this on another site and its hilariously ridiculous. The definition they post of evolution is a complete strawman. OMG No new life when you open canned foods. It's funny that people actually promote this stuff as if they are making some giant revelation that scientists never thought about.