How to prove evolution is FAKE!!!

Evolution has evidence...... ?????


Where. I've seen a form of mathematics that goes, 1...4.....10.

That's not evolution.It's putting something together based on what you want to happen.

There is no gerontological evidence of evolution. No one has ever been able to put something together that step by evolutionary step, shows evidence of what the master said was a theory.

If you believe evolution you have to go all the way... and it requires more FAITH than I have.

Once again I stand in awe of the faith of evolutionists.

reply to post by pacifier2012


You didn't read anything.. Faith and evidence are different... i don't know why i am repeating.

lol OK you win.... here is you prize!!

I have always accepted evolution. If I had to categorize myself as such I would pick atheist.

But just recently, in the past few months, I have come to realize that this theory does not pass the BS test. Mainly because we simply haven't observed it in the 2000 years of recorded history. Sure it can take thousands of years, but it seems illogical to assume everything evolves at the same time. With millions of classifiable life out there surely something should be ready to morph at any given time.

Viruses mutate but they always remain viruses. Their adaptations simply further define what a virus is.

Dogs and plants are bred into new species but that is due to our influence which equates to creationism.

So when I think for myself it simply does not work. I have trouble coming to terms with this as an atheist. My current belief is that evolution and creation are both false. The real answer comes from the universe. We can see how genes can mutate almost instantly due to environmental stimuli. I believe that as our galaxy flies through the universe our planet is subjected to such stimulus and live adapts accordingly.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Evolution has evidence...... ?????


Where. I've seen a form of mathematics that goes, 1...4.....10.

That's not evolution.It's putting something together based on what you want to happen.

There is no gerontological evidence of evolution. No one has ever been able to put something together that step by evolutionary step, shows evidence of what the master said was a theory.

If you believe evolution you have to go all the way... and it requires more FAITH than I have.

Once again I stand in awe of the faith of evolutionists.

Yes, it does have evidence. Quite a lot more than creationism does.

Evolutionists act just like the Christians do when you tell them that god isn't real.

reply to post by Templeton

millions of classifiable life out there surely something should be ready to morph at any given time.

Do you seriously know how evolution works?

You could be changing right now...

Dogs and plants are bred into new species but that is due to our influence which equates to creationism.

That is not creating... its forced environmental change we push upon them, causing them to find option. Not all hybrid dogs men created can reproduce, some even die, you know that right?

In fact, you should be taking about how we forced a wolf like hunter into a docile domesticated pet. The Dog is not the same anymore, we did not create it, we simply forced a evolutionary change on it, which made it become whatever it is now, less aggressive(due to giving food) and weak(pamper) animal.

Plants can cross breed in nature, without humans. maybe Bees are god?

You'll never win. I think evolution is hilarious. BUT... I do applaud you. You have far more faith than I do

You are exactly right. Since you will only see things from your point of view, everyone who tries to convince you about anything that goes against your point of view will always lose. Doesn't mean that the other person is wrong. It's just that you accept the world as one thing, and they, another.

So, are you willing to answer my questions from my previous post? "Here is a question for creationists: If God made Adam and Eve, what race were they? And why in the human species do we have visibly and genetically different races? Did the Bible lie about Adam and Eve or was there an Adam and Eve for each race? And if we don't 'evolve' or 'change' how do we have different races?"

Also, to make creationism valid, it must be done through God, but which God? Do you go with popularity, worshippers current and/or through history? And a blanket statement that they are all the same God won't work. You have extreme expectations for evolution, we have extreme expectations for creationism.

reply to post by definity


That is the funniest thing I have ever seen in my life. Wow what a moron (bunch of them). Have they never had canned food spoil? I agree wait a few million years and we'll see about that. But the world is on'y 6,000 years old so.

So peanut butter collects together because Jesus told it to, that's why folks.

Oh I'm sorry I almost forgot:


Blahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

reply to post by luciddream


I think you inadvertently corroborated my point. We did force environmental changes. Are you suggesting that if left alone the wolf would have domesticated itself? If so then why are there still feral wolves?

I have to agree with you though that my understanding of what evolution means might be off. But remember, I have always accepted it as a fact until I thought for myself. I am not commenting as a creationist. Nor an evolutionist.

I might well be changing now, lets assume I am. Is it because some god wants me to? Is it because it is time for me to advance? Or is it because our galaxy is passing through a unique region in space exposing me to exotic new elements and bacteria?

Originally posted by Templeton
reply to post by luciddream

 

I think you inadvertently corroborated my point. We did force environmental changes. Are you suggesting that if left alone the wolf would have domesticated itself? If so then why are there still feral wolves?

You do understand that not every wolf in the world was domesticated? A great majority were left to nature and are therefore still feral wolves. And what about the evidence we have for every species that has ever existed? Are they just failed experiments? And when a species dies out, does God or the Universe say 'well that didn't work, how about we make this creature instead'? How often does God or the Universe just create new species for whatever reason?

reply to post by milkyway12



I have to say this to someone on every friggin evolution thread. Please educate yourself from other threads before spewing such nonsense. The only thing you have proven is that you have never done any research to know if evolution exists or not, because you are too busy with your nose stuck in a fairy tale book.

Please stop spewing uneducated rhetoric from evolution debunkers 101.

The fact that people gave you stars shows that ignorance abounds.

A scientific theory is NOT the same as a standard theory.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

wiki

reply to post by milkyway12


Once again, get off the creationist skeptic 101 site and do some research.


Microevolution IS evolution. The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is time.

Here is a controlled study of e.coli where after 30,000 generations, the e. coli, on its own, evolved to grow on a citrate substrate, which previously e. coli was never able to do.

Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli

reply to post by SpearMint


Maybe we should create a hypothesis and test it on the evolution of internet trolls.

Originally posted by milkyway12
Evolution is nothing but a theory any how. Take it as a grain of salt. Some how, the T-Rex is now the chicken breast I eat for dinner from KFC.

People call creationist crazy, but at least I don't believe T-Rex transformed into a chicken.

What if the chicken gets really really angry and the genes mutate with radiation and it turns into a giant man eating bird we call a Raptor?

Wait, maybe a couple of Hulks will spawn through human beings to combat the man eating chickens AKA raptors.

Thank ..... Nothing that radiation and gas spawned randomly in the universe somehow and the humans mutated into hulks to better survive the chicken, I mean, Raptor onslaught.

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

You'd be correct, a T-Rex didn't magically become a chicken. Evolution is the process of adaption, when you introduce any species to a new environment that species adapts to it; this was the basis of Darwin's findings in the Galapagos. Different birds on different islands had features which allowed them to better survive on said island; the birds living on an island densely populated with fruit had developed flat beaks which allowed them to eat the fruit easier, and the birds living on other islands, who relied on insects as a food source, had sharper, pointier beaks.

Evolution isn't a magical overnight process, and the T-Rex died off some millions of years ago, along with other large dinosaurs. Is it possible, however, that smaller dinosaurs evolved into chickens, roosters, peacocks, etc over a process that took millions of years? Yes.

Ignorance of a subject doesn't equate to that subject being universally wrong. There is proof of evolution, you can even search for it yourself if you wish to do so.

ETA:
Even as humans we are evolving now; more and more people are missing wisdom teeth, in that they are born without them and never develop them, we are becoming less hairy, and we are losing our need for an appendix because our diet no longer requires us to digest rocks or raw meat.

reply to post by Templeton


See my post ten spots down from this response about observed adaptations in E. coli.

Also, the flu is evolution in progress.

IT is occurring in humans as well. Human evolution is speeding up. Tibetan mothers with higher oxygen consumption are having healthier babies. People who can tolerate milk is an adaptation. As humans are not supposed to drink milk.

The past 10,000 years have seen rapid skeletal and dental evolution in human populations and the appearance of many new genetic responses to diets and disease (4).

recent acceleration of human adaptation

reply to post by nixie_nox


Yes, I love that research by Lenski about the E.coli. The best thing about it was when Andrew Schlafly, the guy behind that mighty tower of truth, oops sorry, drivel, Conservapedia, heard about and demanded access to the results so that he could see it for himself. Not that Schlafly would have understood it. Lenski destroyed him.

reply to post by ObservingTheWorld



I am confused on your side of this! On one hand you point out that wolves were domesticated because of our involvement and since there are still feral wolves it means we created the sub species (creationism). Then you sarcastically ask how often god or the universe tries new species which leads me to infer you support evolution!

The distinction I make is that evolution is an 'intrinsic' property of life. Creation is the 'intentional' outside influence. I can agree that both of these are appealing. It is easy to say that we walked out of the ocean 100 million years ago because we needed to get to the food on land so we grew feet. It is also easy to say that 6000 years ago some god bestowed upon us our feet and the food we need to survive. I see both as a cop-out.

It is much like asking if the chicken or the egg came first. (BTW, If a snake laid an egg and a chicken came out, was that egg a chicken egg or an snake egg?) The creationist would say that something intentionally modified the egg to produce chickens, and that is that. The evolutionist would say that it took thousands of years for this to happen, and that is that. I always tended toward the latter myself, but I am not satisfied with 'that is that'. There must have been an external influence at play also. We simply have never seen a new stable species pop out of an egg. For me, that external influence was introduced just like every element we see today was introduced, through the cosmos.

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. If life began once by natural causes, why would it be so hard to fathom life beginning naturally twice, or ten times, or a million times? When that first cell came to life, surely the environmental conditions were ripe for millions of new cells to form - not just one cell. Wouldn't ya think?

reply to post by nixie_nox


Thank you I look forward to reading your link. I do not pretend to know the answer and welcome more information.

I think that viruses are a great example. Probably the best we have. BUT it is not my belief that virus evolve because of an intrinsic tendency, but rather due to external stimulus (new drugs). If we introduced the new drugs then they seem to be the same thing here, don't they. Life adapts.

The topic of new human advancement has the same problems. Are we changing because of a thousand year process or has new stimuli been introduced. Again I am not a creationist. I believe new stimulus has been introduced, but I do not believe there is a 'god' introducing it. Believing either of these theories as fact prevents us from looking for the true source.