How to prove evolution is FAKE!!!

page: 20
21
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
As far as i know we need very intelligent people to understand how life was formed.

And if we one day were to become intelligent enough, i bet we might be able to create life.
But to day we are far from intelligent enough.

Science and research is for intelligent people. Random people will never havethe intelligence needed to create life, even if they had the material right in front of them.

Most of you people are arguing about each others intelligence. So i gues what ever created life is a lot brighter than we are.




posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


This I fully agree with this, if you change, intelligence to knowledge.

It's not a problem of intelligence that we do not know how life formed on this planet . . . it's simply knowledge. And only two sides of the three-sided coin claim to "know" how life started . . . hint: gods and aliens.

Science poses guesses based on current knowledge (hypotheses), but do not claim to "know" and don't have to use the works of other disciplines (supernatural, paranormal) to make their claims seem believable.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquesence
It would reallybe nice if, for those who might not be able or want to watch a video, you (and others who do the same thing) could post a short summary of the video and some of the arguments used to disprove evolution instead of just posting a video with a single comment, "this is good."


This gets tedious.

Then i wouldn't have to waste my time opening a thread that gives me no information, and forces me to comment not on the subject at hand but on the presentation.



The video confuses evolution with the origin of life. They are two separate issues, being conflated into one. It basically says that since life does not spontaneously generate, then evolution is impossible.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ted4d

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
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



disagreed by Christians at least (i.e. God is Omnipresent)


Maybe so in at the very least One Divergent Universal Reality.

But the MATH NEVER LIES.

There has never been a case in Human History where the Math dictated something to be so...and it was not.

If the Math dictates something will either be or not be and in this case the Math is telling us it will be both but just in differing Universal Realities...then that is what the Reality is.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by gangstersoflove
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


You've got to be kidding right. Evolution is virtually opposite to what Genesis describes. Have you heard the saying "God means what He says and says what He means" ? Which is another way of saying that Genesis is to be taken literally. 7 x 24 hour periods.


Well...Two things.

First of all I was talking about QUANTUM EVOLUTION which is responsible for GENESIS.

If you either do not know or understand what Quantum Genesis is...I will tell you but only if you ask as it is complex and a bit of typing.

Secondly...the Earth did not always rotate in 24 Hours and our rotational speed has slowed down. Just a 100 Million Years ago...which is a Blink of an eye as far as the age of the Earth...an Earth Day was almost 23 Hours long.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by gangstersoflove
 


The process of Evolution and ones belief in a GOD are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE and they have NO CONFLICT with one another.

As far as your knowledge of the History of our Reality goes...you are sorely lacking.

I am an Agnostic and the reason for this is that as of yet there is no proof that there is either a GOD or that there is NO GOD. Because of this fact I will not believe in either.

This has it's roots in the Scientific Method which is simply a process to allow us to determine what is and what is not as well as what can be, what something can do or not. It is basic Logic.

What you describe as Proof is not any viable proof at all nor could you provide any concrete proof. Therefor you are just stating beliefs or opinions.....NOT FACTS.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by gangstersoflove
 


Your lack of knowledge or your desired belief system is what drives you to talk about things that you neither have even the tiniest bit of knowledge or understanding as well as refrains you from at the very least taking the time to research such things.

I understand why you are like this and it is not really your fault as you have been indoctrinated probably since birth to believe the things that were told to you.

However I would suggest for your own benefit....and I am NOT asking you to give up your beliefs...to at least take the time to research, learn and understand the many things that one could know if they were so inclined.

If your Faith is strong then it should not be an issue for you to just obtain a little knowledge. Even if such knowledge goes against what you believe...Faith in GOD is not conflicting with finding out FACTS.

If you either believe that learning such knowledge would be dangerous to your belief system...then what would that say about your Faith?

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by gangstersoflove
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 

For starters, maybe you should study the Bible before you make claims about it. The ark was big enough to easily house more than 70,000 critters. Look into it genius. Also, there is a lot of geological evidence for a global flood. Look into that also, and try to listen to both sides of the story.


I am not an expert but I am versed in both the Old and New Testaments as I was raised Christian.

NO...The ARK was not even CLOSE to being large enough to carry the Multiple MILLIONS of animal species...never mind the Plant Species that would die due to Salt Water Exposure had this event occured.

It is a Scientific FACT that even if all the Ice on both the North and South Poles as well as all and any Ice locked in Greenland or upon any Mountain or Glacier Melted...that this WOULD NOT be enough water to cover all of Earth's Land Masses.

The Noah's Ark story came from a time when the area of land that at one time seperated the Black Sea from the Mediterranean Sea. COLLAPSED and the sea water from the higher sea level of the Med. rushed in and flooded the whole surrounding region that is now the shores of Greece and Turkey the country where Mt. Ararat is located and the mountain supposedly where the Ark landed.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by gangstersoflove
reply to post by SpearMint
 


"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."

For starters, you condescending pustule, don't talk down to me. The FACT is that small changes leading to bigger ones - i.e. one species to another HAVE NOT been proven or shown to have happened ANYWHERE. Just because you say so does not make it so. And why should I provide anything of value. You are the genii that are saying evolution is true, NOT US! The onus of proof rests on you.


Can you live for millions of years? No? Then you're not going to observe large changes. We can observe small changes, and using the very basic logic that most of us learned before pre-school it's obvious that small changes add up to big changes. "Micro" and "Macro" evolution are the same thing, the only way you can see larger changes is through fossil records. People dismiss this, but where's even a slight hint of evidence supporting creation? There isn't any. People that disagree with evolution have no point, they have no case, no evidence exists. Any educated person can see that evolution does in fact happen, and results in species branching off in to new species over millions of years. You can not observe a species changing in to another unless you solve the first problem presented in this reply, using this argument is just stupid, use your brain instead.

"And why should I provide anything of value."

Because my side is drowning in evidence that anyone has very easy access to. Yours has Zero. None. Nothing to imply that we were created or evolution is false. This is why no one except people with your same fallacies will take you seriously, until you provide something of value.
edit on 31-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by gangstersoflove
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 

For starters, maybe you should study the Bible before you make claims about it. The ark was big enough to easily house more than 70,000 critters. Look into it genius. Also, there is a lot of geological evidence for a global flood. Look into that also, and try to listen to both sides of the story.


Haha, 70k? 2 of each, that's 35000 species. There's more species of spider than that alone. Where did all the millions of other species come from? I guess they evolved at a super-accelerated rate.

No there is not evidence for a global flood, there's not even enough water on Earth.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by SubAce
infinity,

I don't have much time to answer this question directly. But since you asked sincerely, I thought I'd share these with you:

The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking

and:

Was Life Created?

These are meant for sincere people looking for truth, so I thought you would find them useful in starting to answer your questions.


Sincere people? Yeah aslong as your a Christian right?

Two documents presenting themselves as scientific, but then attempt to shape and squeeze that science into a bronze age story book.

This is dishonesty of the highest order, and it only feeds the delusions of those already deluded. And that's exactly what you have attempted to do.

Sincere.....


No, you don't have to be Christian to be sincere. To be sincere is to be honest in wanting to know the truth.

There are many who may believe a certain way because that is what they have been taught. For example evolution is taught as a fact in school to children from an early age. In godless households these people may grow up wanting to know more, yearning to understand why they exist, if there really is a Creator.

Just because they don't know, or aren't Christians, doesn't mean they are not sincere. I am not here to debate, rather share information that may open sincere peoples eyes.

There are people who are not worth debating or arguing with. No matter how much proof or facts you give them, they will none-the-less refuse to believe. The words of God are quite fitting for them. Even he understands that his invisible qualities are quite evident in his creation, so that anyone who after taking a careful examination of the facts, without him literally telling them, it was him who did these things, should come to the logical conclusion that God does exist. That is why he inspired this scripture:

(Romans 1:20) . . .For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;

There is no excuse at that point.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SubAce

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by SubAce
infinity,

I don't have much time to answer this question directly. But since you asked sincerely, I thought I'd share these with you:

The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking

and:

Was Life Created?

These are meant for sincere people looking for truth, so I thought you would find them useful in starting to answer your questions.


Sincere people? Yeah aslong as your a Christian right?

Two documents presenting themselves as scientific, but then attempt to shape and squeeze that science into a bronze age story book.

This is dishonesty of the highest order, and it only feeds the delusions of those already deluded. And that's exactly what you have attempted to do.

Sincere.....


No, you don't have to be Christian to be sincere. To be sincere is to be honest in wanting to know the truth.

There are many who may believe a certain way because that is what they have been taught. For example evolution is taught as a fact in school to children from an early age. In godless households these people may grow up wanting to know more, yearning to understand why they exist, if there really is a Creator.

Just because they don't know, or aren't Christians, doesn't mean they are not sincere. I am not here to debate, rather share information that may open sincere peoples eyes.

There are people who are not worth debating or arguing with. No matter how much proof or facts you give them, they will none-the-less refuse to believe. The words of God are quite fitting for them. Even he understands that his invisible qualities are quite evident in his creation, so that anyone who after taking a careful examination of the facts, without him literally telling them, it was him who did these things, should come to the logical conclusion that God does exist. That is why he inspired this scripture:

(Romans 1:20) . . .For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;

There is no excuse at that point.


The problem is that those documents are not sincere . . . they misrepresent, misstate, and underexplain almost every topic brought up from geology and biochemistry. They do so intentionally. For if it is not intentional, they obviously don't know enough about the subject to write a booklet on why evolution, genetics, geology, and cosmology is "taught" wrong and thus . . . "ask yourself what does the bible say about this"? That is akin to me making a booklet that makes up things, claim it's what the bible really says (interpretation), and then saying that is why science is right? Again . . . if there was any substance to creationism or ID, they could stand on their own merits. There is reason religions have tear down others to prove their point . . . it's based on emotion and not evidence. So, they resort to saying why others are no good . . . so, that must make us right.

For instance on the transitional species . . . The argument about the fossil record was always "there are no missing links or transitions" . . . Once people got wise to this lie and started throwing transtitonals into the argument, the anti-evolution crowd moved the goal posts. Now, the argument is small animal got bigger or big animals got smaller? Really. Wow, some scientists they had hashing out this doc? So, during the Carboniforous, dragonfly's were 4ft long and 7ft wide (with wings) . . . yet today they are tiny? How did that happen? According the Jehova's Witnesses . . . it can't? Because once an animal reaches a certain size they can't change . . . so, I don't get it.

There is more than genetics that go into size of creature . . . oxygen levels, CO2 levels, carnivore or herbivore, diet, predator or prey, Apex or bottom feeder, etc . . . etc. But, you would only know that if you knew how evolution, morphology, and biology worked and understood the time the creature lived in . . . Ice Age, Swampy, dry, one land mass, many land mass, etc . . . etc.

Those rags don't teach science . . . the cherry pick things out of context that help them make a case for a god. If this god is so powerful . . . why do his followers have to lie to make it seem like he is responsible?
edit on 1/31/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Ah yes, genetics. I am glad you brought that point up. You say that sincere-hearted ones must tear down to teach truth. But does that statement really stand up to the facts? Let's talk about genetics really quick. You did mention them. Let's go further. How important are they, in say human life? Let us take a look at the human cell and how probable it could come about by chance. And if really the chance evolutionists believe in is not really a quasi-religious god of theirs, better written as Chance. For all of the powers that they attribute to their quasi-god are ones that can only be provided by a real God...

Let us take one look at one simple thing then that is actually very complex and see if the odds add up.

The Human Cell

Life could not exist without the teamwork of certain key components within a living cell. In order for a cell to exist and propagate you need protein, and nucleic acid molecules, which are known as DNA or RNA.

Protein molecules within our bodies, and their ribbionlike strips of ammino acids are bent and twisted into various shapes. But why mention these patterns within a protein molecule? Well, firstly, most of the body is made up of them, and secondly the complexity of these molecules.

It is thought that there could be over 50,000 different protein molecules within the human body. What is the chance of just one of these folding upon itself correctly without intelligent intervention? It has been estimated by scientists that for an average-sized protein, made from 100 amino acids, solving the folding problem by trying every possibility would take 10 ^27 (a billion billion billion years.

Yes, in order for one protein to fold upon itself correctly by chance you would imagine that it could take many more life-times than our universe for it to happen correctly. Yet not just one protein, no not just one, rather over 50,000 of them happened to fold upon themselves correctly all in the exact manner, in one instant in time.

This is what proponents of blind Chance propose.

But let us not stop there. In order to have a working cell all components must be functioning perfectly from the very outset or else it could not exist or propagate.

The instructions to build these proteins necessary for life a blue-print is needed, and it is found within the DNA molecule. In the ladder of the DNA genes are stored ( a digital book made of of four letters, A, G, C, and T). This digital book contains information enough to fill the Grand Canyon from top to bottom with volumes of information. And it not only is there, written information in digital code, of the most compact kind, but it also is able to replicate itself, as we will see.)

So the blue-print of proteins are in the DNA. How to get to them? Well, RNA is needed. Similar to DNA, there are several forms of RNA to do this task. In the nucleus, the DNA ladder starts to unzip (by a mechanical process much to long to explain here) allowing RNA letters to link to the exposed DNA letters of a DNA strand. So, while this process is much more complicated than explained here, the DNA is transcribed onto the RNA. After which the RNA peels away and through mechanical processes already put into place the DNA then zips itself back up.

This type of RNA, a message carrier can then move from the nucleus to a protein-production facility where the letters are decoded by much more complicated machinery designed for the task. Each set of three RNA letters form words, that call for specific amino acids. Another type of RNA will look for these amino acids, and with the help of certain enzymes, it is towed to the protein facility and the construction site of the protein. As the RNA sentence is read and transcribed a growing chain of amino acids are produced. This chain will curls and fold into the unique shapes talked about above.

So just one simple look at a very complex design in the body reveals that to believe in Chance, well, you have to have more blind faith than believing that was the product of intelligent design. All of these components need to exist for the cell to live. At the exact same time. So you tell me, what chance for your Chance?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by SubAce
 


Smells like the argument from irreducible complexity.....
edit on 1-2-2013 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by SubAce
So you tell me, what chance for your Chance?
Whatever the chance is, it's greater than the chance of an infinitely more complex infinitely powerful creator appearing out of pure chance.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by SubAce
So you tell me, what chance for your Chance?
Whatever the chance is, it's greater than the chance of an infinitely more complex infinitely powerful creator appearing out of pure chance.


Not if the infinite is the creator. Which you would have a very very very hard time of proving wrong.

Becaue you know that the infinite exists. And that it must be the only source of finite existence.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 

The argument you are using is basically saying, something that complex couldn't have happened by chance.

You apply it to a cell.

Then you imply that something else even more complex must have played a role.

What you have done with that argument is added the problem of introducing something even more complex, and now you have to explain where that came from, because using your argument, something that complex couldn't have happened by chance, so something must have created the creator. What was it?

You don't see the problem with that logic?

This has nothing to do with the existence of God, but rather the use of a faulty argument to try to prove his existence.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by spy66
 

The argument you are using is basically saying, something that complex couldn't have happened by chance.

You apply it to a cell.

Then you imply that something else even more complex must have played a role.

What you have done with that argument is added the problem of introducing something even more complex, and now you have to explain where that came from, because using your argument, something that complex couldn't have happened by chance, so something must have created the creator. What was it?

You don't see the problem with that logic?

This has nothing to do with the existence of God, but rather the use of a faulty argument to try to prove his existence.



No-one created the infinite. The infinite created the finites possible for our existence. There are no other possebilities present. And you know that to.

It is not very complicated to understand this. But its rather complicated to accept, because some people dont really understand what they read. Or they preach about something they have never ventured much into. You have to agree to that to.

Life happened by evolution. There is no doubt about that. But all the finite/ingrediens for life were created by the infinite at a point in time. It took at least few billion years for the finite to expand and evolve, to make life possible.

We have a Big Bang Theory to try and cover this aspect. And many others.

All finites are created. You know that to. Science like to call it; pop into existence. That arguement is about as good as when God said : Let there be light.



edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
No-one created the infinite. The infinite created the finites possible for our existence. There are no other possebilities present. And you know that to.


You can't even prove that "the infinite" exists. We don't know the universe is infinite, that's just one of many hypotheses.


All finites are created. You know that to. Science like to call it; pop into existence. That arguement is about as good as when God said : Let there be light.


Please cite some resources on this and show me where science says things like "pop into existence" or that all finites where created. Good luck. Big bang suggests the universe expanded after it was condensed, not that it just popped into existence.

edit on 1-2-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by spy66
No-one created the infinite. The infinite created the finites possible for our existence. There are no other possebilities present. And you know that to.


You can't even prove that "the infinite" exists. We don't know the universe is infinite, that's just one of many hypotheses.


All finites are created. You know that to. Science like to call it; pop into existence. That arguement is about as good as when God said : Let there be light.


Please cite some resources on this and show me where science says things like "pop into existence" or that all finites where created. Good luck. Big bang suggests the universe expanded after it was condensed, not that it just popped into existence.

edit on 1-2-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



Our universe is not infinite. Science say that our universe was created by a Big Bang some 13.7 billion years ago.
Our universe started out as a singularity. Much smaller than our universe is today. So i dont realy have to prove that our finite universe is infinite, it never was. It is bloody obious. But there is a space that is infinite
and our finite universe exists within it.

Dont confuse our universe with the infinite space.

Do i realy have to site some wikipedia links for you, to make you see the point?.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
21
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join