How to prove evolution is FAKE!!!

page: 21
21
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:23 PM
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 don't see the problem with that logic?


It is true some believe in Chance. But what is the probability for the Chance they put blind faith in?

Is it logical to conclude that design had a desginer?

Would it be logical, for example to conclude that if we found a house in the middle of a barren desert, and inside it it is fully furnished, and it has air-conditioning, and a refrigerator full of food, would it be reasonable to conclude that that house had a constructor? Or is it really illogical to conclude that if we ran across that house in the desert that someone put it there. Would you ridicule someone for concluding it had a maker?

Yet you ridicule people for observing the much more complicated and wonderful design in life and come to a logical conclusion that it too must have had someone that put it together. That is not illogical.

But let's go back to your Chance that you blindly put your faith in.

Let us take a simple illustration to really see if your accusation has any merit.

Take a pile of red beans and a pile of white beans. Mix them together thoroughly so that there are an equal part red and white beans in a jar. Now there is one more thing you should know. There are over a hundred variety of beans in the jar. So out of the red and white beans there are over a hundred different types of each one, and they are completely mixed.

Now take a scoop and dip it into the jar. What are the chances, or what is the likelihood that you will scoop up only red ones, by chance? And not only all red ones, but only twenty specific varieties of beans. And no others. But wait, also include the fact that each of these must be in a preassigned place in that scoop. That means that before you scooped them up you marked where each variety of bean would land, and already stated that all of them would be red. And you already knew that none of the other varieties of beans, and no white colored beans would by chance be scooped up.

Would it be illogical to conclude that this could not happen?

In the world of proteins, you make one mistake in the makeup and everything required to make one would fail. You couldn't have one.

Let's take this a step further to consider how logical it is to believe in Chance. What are the probabilities that even a simple protein molecule could form at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists state that the chancees are only 1 in 10 ^113 (that is 1 followed by 113 zeros). Now staticians will state that if anything that has a probability of happening that is greater than 10 ^50, is an impossibility. It could never happen.


A thinking person can logically conclude that your Chance is indeed a quasi-religious god to whom unknown and awesome powers is given.

But in a human cell we don't have just one protein. And these proteins cannot live on their own, they need the help of enzmes that help speed up chemical reactions in the cell. Without them the cell would die. Now over 2,000 (not just one as in the example above) proteins are needed along with enzyems are needed. What are the chances of all of these coming about by chance, as stated in the illustration above?

One chance in 10 ^40,000 (a 10 with 40,000 zeros after it). Can you even begin to imagine that type number? It is beyond all human power to grasp, the tininess of it.

In fact if you were to take a primordial soup, not the size of the prehistoric oceans on earth, but the size of the entire universe. An ocean the size of our UNIVERSE, the probabilities of a protein coming together by chance would take billions of times the lifetime of our present universe to get the combination right.

The simple calculations leave no chance for Chance. There is no way for it to come about by chance. A logical person is faced with no other conclusion.

To think that it is a fact that it did happen, over and over and over and over again is either a gross lack of understanding*, or a blind faith beyond all comprehension of understanding for a logical person that has become informed of the real facts.
edit on 1-2-2013 by SubAce because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SubAce
 


The thing is my friend. Some people reject that the infinite exists because that would only mean one thing.
That our finite existence is infact created.

The infinite is a constant (a mathematical constent). And they know that a constent will not change randomly by it self. That means there got to be some itenlligent present. That means that our universe and existence is actually a design by will.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



I like your style.

We have three distinct area's that are linked but people say they aren't.

The beginning of energy transformed into matter in a void of physically nothing, or Physical Cosmology.
The beginning of the first basic life on earth, or Abiogenesis.
The development of that simple life form into both man and woman, or Evolution.

Here is a question I like to put to evolutionists, at one point according to evolution all beings were asexual.
How did every single creature that now has males and females, evolve in perfect harmony so that they could magically procreate one day ? And it wasn't just one species they all did it. From the eagle to the ape to the whales. And how did they all reproduce while those biological organs where developing over millions of years ?
How did they figure to suddenly mate with another species member, who flipped that switch ?
edit on 1-2-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


I think i can answer your question. But it is only based on my theory


The infinite can only create something if it wants to by will. Becausae there are no other sources present to create changes.

The first dimention/space must be infinite and absolute empty. That means it consists of just one single void.
This dimension created our universe/existence with a purpous and a goal. We dont know what the purpous is or what the goal is. But we are a very big part of it all. Since we are a part of the creation.

When God said: let there be light. We tend to forget what creats this light. It is not God that is shining. It is compressed finite matter that creates the light. It is the firmament that now has become our expanding universe.

Science call this event the Big Bang Theory. It is tottally the same thing. But with different authors.

Within this firmament/singularity all the ingredients for all life are allready present. All life will accure when the condition for life is set for it to appear. (this is what our fosil records actually show). This means that the firmament/singularity must expand and make the right contitions first. This is something that we all should know. But tend to forget


We say that life appeared by chance. Life didnt appear by chance, it was already preplanned and made to happen. Life was already in the firmament/singularity waiting to spring out.
Our universe expands out wards, On a large scale, all life on earth is effected by it.



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



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by reject
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.


Im not arguing I am asking questions. Big difference... I am not affiliated with any religion.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 





Science call this event the Big Bang Theory. It is tottally the same thing. But with different authors.


I agree the "Big Bang" is essentially a conversion of pure energy into sold matter that never existed before in what you call the void. Thus that energy had to have a source, it is the source of that energy that confounds the skeptics, because it only through atomic channeling of energy that the universe began. Thus the question who controlled it; and who is the source of it?
edit on 1-2-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


No matter what to say evolution is fake is just wrong. It is most definitely a theory.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   

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


Either there is an eternal component to reality or we're faced with something came from nothing.

Both propositions appear impossible after rumination. I find the intellectual surrender that follows both sad and beautiful.

Personally I am betting on an eternal (alpha and omega) Physical Universe that goes through endless cycles of Big Bangs and Big Crunches.

I don't need complicated religions to instil a point behind that though. The Universe is awesome, and nothingness sucks. That's reason enough for 'the meaning'


We often apply that thinking to the individual. What's the meaning of my life? To live a good life. Why not on the macro level as well... what's the meaning of the Universe? To live a good Universe



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SubAce
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...


I'm sorry, but everything you wrote is absolutely false. This and everypost after clearly show you know nothing about evolution and less about biochemistry. It's also clear you took most of the language for your argument from the document that I already stated bastardized science. Sorry to be so blunt, but I knew your argument was theististic bs by the ninth sentence in the opening paragraph. How? You brought up chance. The second oldest, and thoroughly debunked, argument next to "man ain't no monkey".

Nothing in evolution is thought to come about by mere "chance". Evolution doesn't claim it's chance, only theists. It's a strawman . . . doesn't exist in evolution, so can't be argued as a reason for it to be wrong. In fact, if you were really interested about learning the truth on that matter, you could have easily googled and found plenty of responses to this argument.
Is evolution random chance?

At this point, I don't know how to proceed. Since you are using such a tired and falacious claim against evolution, you are either naive to the history of this debate or you are a big fan of Stephen C. Meyer and the Discovery Institute where this idea of genetics disproving evolution comes from (on the contrary, everything ever discovered about DNA and Genetics backs evolution). If you are the former, I should be nice and educate. However, if you are the later . . . you should be ripped. I'll take the middle ground. I'm not going to point out the exactly how the psuedo-science is wrong, as I don't think you'll get the technical discussion and it would take too much time. So, let's stick your fallacious premise.

Your whole argument is a conflation of three fallacies actually . . . Strawman, plea to incredulity, and plea to emotion. More over, your exact argument (Chance and Complexity) had it's day in a court of law. Every ID/Creation propagandist was given a chance to testify for the defense . . . only two agreed. No Stephen Meyer, no Ken Ham, no Hovind. Only Behe and Fuller agreed to testify and not only did they intentionally tried to misrepresent the finding of studies to prove their points, but they were admonished by and admitted to the court after trial for this deceit (which is a matter of public record). You may want to read the transcript or what the linked video for more information:
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
PBS site for doc


As far as the strawman of chance . . . please actually read up on what evolution actually says. Your entire premise is a lie. If you follow the link I provided before you can read things like this:


Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which some variants survive and others do not, is not random.

So where does this argument from chance come from . . . As soon as Mendel discovered heredity and models could be built, we were able to apply mathmatical models that cleary showed ther would be some "random" variations, if evolution were true. We still didn't have the tech to see these genes or "mutations" of them. Well, a well held ecumenicle belief that the hand of god is what brings order to the universe is easily emotionally swayed by a process that is "random". I mean without god everthing is . . . say it with me . . . random chance and chaos . . . a roll of the dice. However, random in genetics simply means not pre-determined by the organism, nothing to do with chance. Natrual selection and evironmental factors negate the "chance" factor. Looks like I'm running out of room . . . so much that has nothing to do with evolution in your posts.
edit on 2/2/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Also . . . stop conflating "genesis" with evolution.


Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)

Misconceptions about Evo

It's late . . . I don't have time to delve into further why theists want to continually make it about chance, eventhough, evolution doesn't state that. Or every other error with your argument. If you want to read up and try again and if you are really interested in learning . . . we can try again. But, I'm betting this is more about the agenda than learning. Good night.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
How does he know that there is no new life in the Peanut Jar?

Any such thing would be very simple, more simple than a virus. Can you see a virus without a microscope?

If you eat the darn thing before its had a few million years to evolve into something you can see, how are you going to demonstrate that it is there or not?

This straw-man argument is ludicrous. 6 year old children can spot the holes in it.

edit on 2/2/2013 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 





(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)


I strongly disagree with this, as it just conveniently avoids a very important subject that is inextricably linked.
It is intellectually dishonest as well.

However some are in the camp that looks at the opening scene of ``Prometheus`` and thinks, yeah something like that. Yet even then there is some level of intelligence that got the ball rolling. So I am addressing those that think there was zero chance intelligence was behind abiogenesis. I think those people have cognitive dissonance happening, for whatever reason.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


You can disagree, with what ever you like . . . but, you cannot show anything in Evolutionary Theory that suggests it is based on how life was created. Whether you preferred method is aliens, gods, the highly reactive carbon atom, etc . . . once that life was created it is a fact the method used for diversity and survival is evolution.

I don't claim to know how life first appeared on this planet, but kind of partial to panspermia. With that, I don't have any evidence to show this happened . . . just a hypothesis. The same as theist and extra-terrestrial proponents. It's not cognitive dissonance to ignore something that has no evidence to support it, outside of hearsay and mistranslation (Sitchin). That's called reason.

Also, what is more intellectually dishonest . . . Evolutionary Theory stating "we don't know" when it comes to genesis. Even though there are hypotheses, based on best available evidence. That it cleary claims it is the mechanism by which life thrives . . . nothing more. Or . . . Theist/ID theories that intentionally lie and misrepresent findings/facts to show how a theory, which stands in no opposition to aliens or gods, is "fake" or a "sham". All of this propaganda campaign in order to make it seem like their theory is dominant, in spite of having no physical evidence to back any of their up? Intellectually dishonest . . . pffft . . .



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 





It is intellectually dishonest as well.


LOL! Just because creationists have no intellectual integrity doesn't mean that no-one else does. How does the old saying go? a thief believes everybody steals.




So I am addressing those that think there was zero chance intelligence was behind abiogenesis. I think those people have cognitive dissonance happening, for whatever reason.


There is plenty of evidence that things do happen naturally. Whenever we find out the causes of anything, it turns out to have been caused by some real thing and not a ghost, a god, or a magic pixie dust.

I take the view that life was preceded by some earlier system that allowed a possible path for life to evolve out of spontaneously occurring chemistry. It has been observed given the right conditions, molecules just spontaneously react on their own. Its all according to physical laws. Biology is just complex chemistry and chemistry is just complex physics. There's no inventing or thought process, shi# just happens.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Actually...when you start talking about the Creation of Life or GENESIS...is not Biological Evolution but is actually...QUANTUM EVOLUTION.

Quantum Evolution is the process by which Quantum Particle/Wave Forms which completely comprise all Matter and Energy...will by their very nature...allow the Matter that they make up to continually arrange itself into more complex forms.

Thus after the Big Bang there existed a massive amount of Hot Hydrogen Gas as a Plasma. This Hydrogen through Gravitational effect collected and formed Celestial Bodies such as Stars which started the process of Fusion as Hydrogen was fused into Helium.

Stars that exploded violently as Supernovas created the Heavier Elements and as all this matter collected by Gravity into Solar Systems and of course Planet Earth...the huge number of Comets that were also created and are basically Frozen Water...collided with Earth over Millenia to create our oceans.

These oceans helped create part of our atmosphere as H20 when bombarded by Solar Radiation and UV-Light will chemically split into H2...a Hydrogen Elemental Molecule...and O...O2 and O3 or OZONE...an Elemental Molecule of Oxygen and O would immediatly fall back to O2...as Oxygen tends to exist naturally as O2. The other 81% of our atmosphere is 80% of the whole as Nitrogen and 1% as various trace gases.

Once all this happened then it was just a matter of time and condition that Quantum Evolution by Chemical Reaction would arrange Atoms into larger and longer Molecules until it formed DNA. Now DNA IS NOT SPECIFIC TO JUST LIVING THINGS...DNA exists on Earth as a NON-LIVING MOLECULE...as an example...A VIRUS IS NOT ALIVE YET HAS DNA.

The VIRUS is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of how Quantum Evolution was able to create DNA that was not part of a living thing and for those of you who did not know a VIRUS was non-living...check how the Men who won the Nobel Prize for VIROLOGY did so in the CHEMISTRY CATAGORY as since a Virus is not alive they could not win in the BIOLOGY CATAGORY.

Just as QUANTUM EVOLUTION created the VIRUS so did it create the DNA that is specific to LIFE thus created LIFE ITSELF.

There are many experiments and a few are waiting verification in a wide area of research facilities located all over the World in Universities, Colleges, Corporate Labs and International Think Tank Research facilities that claim to have found the exact enviromental conditions and exact elementa and molecular combinations as well as Solar Radiation, Lightning Discharge and Ocean Salt contend that was present when LIFE first was created through QUANTUM EVOLUTION on Planet Earth.

It is just a short matter of time before one of these research teams has been verified as being the ones that found the right conditions for LIFE to be created.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


I don't know if this response was intended for me, as I hold the position that genesis is not part of evolution or chance.

I can agree with your premise and look forward to reading up on any new findings.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   


Watch maker argument OVER AND OVER AND OVER!!!!

You creationists need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better argument, because its been destroyed time and time again. We recognise design because it is contrasted with nature......
edit on 2-2-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


I was not directing it at anyone in particular.

I am talking about GENESIS as a result of QUANTUM EVOLUTION.

This is completely different from Biological Evolution as the Quantum aspect details how Quantum Particle/Wave Forms which are VIRTUAL Particles and seem to exist in more than one Universal State of Reality...will force the existing Universal Matter to continually grow more and more complex until DNA and LIFE form.

There is a great deal of evidence to support this.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Honestly, did not even bother watching the video till the end.

That guy reminds me of Kent Hovind. He know how to sell an idea to less-educated public (did not mean to offend anyone with this sentence).

99 % people know pretty much nothing about evolution or creation of life, except the general idea, which is taught at schools.

What the guy does, he takes the general idea, puts it into completely other context, leaving out basically all the other details and shows that the idea does not make sense (Kent Hovind does the same, he just says: "It is stupid") What that does, it puts the people think about the case. As they do not know about the specifics about the idea, then that idea starts to go against the rational mind. Very common tactics of persuasion...

On this context : The guy takes the general idea : heat + matter can create life (if I remember correctly from the video) and leaves out all the deatils surrounding it. Then he takes a peanut butter and brings the question: "Why it does not happen?". For people who do not know any details it really starts to not make sense anymore. Why?

And that is how it works


I personally also do not know the details of the theory, but what I know is that creation of life needs really specific mix of aminoacids which is definetely not inside peanut butter jar


edit on 15-2-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


I tend to agree with him, more along that lines of why shouldn't life be able to start in a jar of peanut butter. Evolution claims to be responsible for creating over a billion species, it doesn't sound like we are short of the necessary elements here to make life. Granted a jar of peanut butter is not found naturally in the wild but still, it has must contain some of the necessary elements, after all its made from natural elements.

I think its more directed at the idea that life is suppose to just magically appear, like it seems to have done all through out evolution, and thats just not going to happen, because evolution never really happened.

I have always considered the bible to be more of a general source for history, while some of the things written can't be proven, it is still considered to be a historical document, and shouldn't just be excused because you don't understand it or don't want to believe in it.





new topics
 
21
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join