Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Darwinism; What a Fake

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Ok, As the title says, Darwinism is a fake.

But let's take a step back, what is Darwinism?

Well, Charles Darwin is the man who said the following.




Survival of the fittest!



The march of improvement consequent of the introduction of Christianity throughout the South Seas probably stands by itself in the records of history.



If evolution has taken place, there will its marks be found; if it has not taken place, there will be its refutation.


Now, we are taught in school that This is the only way to accept the world as it is today, right? Wrong.

During my studies, I came across a book called, "The Forbidden Secret By Johnathan Gray." Studying this book, things stood out that I thought to be impossible.

Then what made me really question Darwin's train of thought and how many took his idea such as the Globalist, Nazi Germany, and Communist is the Laws it violated. It violates 4 laws, as stated;



1. FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: Energy or mass are
neither created nor destroyed. Energy and mass cannot originate
from nothing, by natural processes. The universe could not have
begun itself. EVOLUTION SAYS matter and energy created
itself from nothing.



2. BIOGENESIS: Life comes ONLY from life. This tells us that
life cannot and never did originate by natural processes.
EVOLUTION SAYS life originated from non-life.



3. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: With time, a
closed system (like our universe) will become more random and
disordered. Things wear out and break down. Ask any engineer
or home owner. EVOLUTION SAYS the universe began as
disorder (the big bang) and became orderly over time.



4. CAUSE AND EFFECT: An observed event can be traced to
an event that preceded it. EVOLUTION believes in NO ‘First
Cause’ for the universe.


4 laws ignored by a man of... somewhat character.

But if this is true, then this would mean a lot of things, such as "Human race wasn't a late comer"?

But in a nutshell, those that have this kind of mindset, are people that believe there was no beginning. This would also include something like free-murder, free-rape, free-plundering, free in a respect that there are no consequences.

To me, it's a lie.




posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I forget the part about proving creation as it's a faith thing.

But evolutionists, being 'scientific' have to prove something they can't or accept that it's a faith. So lets examine this......

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang!


So to believe in evolution, you have to believe that everything we are and see came from a single microbe in a pond after the earth cooled from molten rock and that that microbe 'evolved into all we have and see on this earth. And without even going back to the universe being formed from nothing this one thing ensures those that believe in evolution without using their head to think it rough have more faith than all the religions of all the world over all time.

Hilarious considering what they accuse creationists of aye! .
edit on 16-7-2013 by MadMax7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


Hate to blow your well thought out Thread in the First Post, but, someone had to.

In a recent trip to Fort George , i was a little Surprised when going through the Barracks.

All the Beds were no Longer than 5 Feet Long.

I asked the Guide why the Beds were so short.

"People were Shorter back then " was her answer.

In just a short 2 hundred Years , Mankind has gotten Taller, EVOLVED if you will.

Now, how old is the Earth ?



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   
What if the Big Bang is the origin or starting point of the 3rd dimension as we know it ? This is just a theory, but if there was nothing prior to 14 or 16 billions years ago, this is the only possible way I see it according to the first law of thermodynamic, nothing comes out of nothingness, 4th dimension is something therefore something from the 4th dimension pierced or collided through the 3rd dimension (Big Bang).

I could be wrong, but when I read your OP it appeared very wide and clear inside of my mind being as such.




Just my two cents,



Thruthseek3r



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander

4. CAUSE AND EFFECT: An observed event can be traced to
an event that preceded it. EVOLUTION believes in NO ‘First
Cause’ for the universe.

4 laws ignored by a man of... somewhat character.

But if this is true, then this would mean a lot of things, such as "Human race wasn't a late comer"?

But in a nutshell, those that have this kind of mindset, are people that believe there was no beginning. This would also include something like free-murder, free-rape, free-plundering, free in a respect that there are no consequences.


For us there was a beginning...the big bang. What was before that has little consequences since it was outside of our universe. We started with mostly hydrogen, like 99.9 percent, Element 1.... there were very massive, very short lived stars that in their super nova the other 92 elements were made. Element 6 is us with 6 electrons 6 neutron 6 protons...666...quite easy to make in the process....

We are related to all living things, we even share DNA with grass...

With all this said I'm missing your point...


edit on 16-7-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)


+9 more 
posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
3. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: With time, a
closed system (like our universe) will become more random and
disordered. Things wear out and break down. Ask any engineer
or home owner.



Let me just pick on this one for a moment.

It would be nice, just once, to see a creationist who actually knows what the hell they're talking about when it comes to the second law of thermodynamics.

It is, believe it or not, a law about *****THERMODYNAMICS*****

It relates to the distribution of heat, and not at all even slightly to the "things wear out and break down".

Its a thermodynamic law. Its not a messy bedroom law.
Its a thermodytnamic law. It not a law about things getting broken.
Its a thermodynamic law. it is about HEAT ENERGY and distribution thereof, and nothing else.

Rule 1: If people dont know (or lie) about the second law of thermodynamics, then anything else they say cant be taken seriously.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


I have no clue what you're trying to say in you OP. Are you critical of evolution? If so you're doing a poor job in explaining why you disagree about evolution. But if this is not the case I would like to understand what you're talking about. I'm looking to debate!



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero


What was before that has little consequences since it was outside of our universe.

edit on 16-7-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)


I think we have to be cautious with making such claims because the origin of the big bang could lead us more closer to the origin of all creation which means not necessarily simply a big explosion, but something scientists would not even dare to imagine or understand considering our current level of understanding of this matrix as it is.

What would be the consequence of such revelation is a whole another debate, but sometimes, going farther than we thought we could can lead to incredible discovery e.g. discovery of the Americas more than 500 years ago.





Thruthseek3r
edit on 16-7-2013 by thruthseek3r because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MadMax7
 


Evolutionist, Believe that the big bang was real. Now, as we are told by the evolutionary theory, the earth’s foundation granite rocks formed as hot magma slowly cooled from liquid to solid over millions of years.

But let's take a step back, what happens when you freeze water that has Alka-Seltzer in the works? The bubbles freeze.

Now take the idea of granite rocks and combine it with Polonium-218, which has a half-life of 3 minutes.

What do you get?



You get halos from radioactive materials inside granite rocks that solidified in 3 minutes.

Robert Gentry was the one who founded such a discovery. In other words, this world, our home, just appeared by thought.
edit on 16-7-2013 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix267
 


state your stance, Phoenix.

I only provided little, open for debate on anyone's account.
edit on 16-7-2013 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by thruthseek3r

I think we have to be cautious with making such claims because the origin of the big bang could lead us more closer to the origin of all creation which means not necessarily simply a big explosion, but something scientists would not even dare to imagine or understand considering our current level of understanding of this matrix as it is.

What would be the consequence of such revelation is a whole another debate, but sometimes, going farther than we thought we could can lead to incredible discovery e.g. discovery of the Americas more than 500 years ago.



I don't think you fully appreciate what the term outside of our universe really means. People naturally want to know what caused the big bang, and the simple answer is nothing: not because there was a mysterious state of nothing before the big bang, but because time itself began then – that is, there was no time "before" the big bang.


+2 more 
posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander




1. FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: Energy or mass are
neither created nor destroyed. Energy and mass cannot originate
from nothing, by natural processes. The universe could not have
begun itself. EVOLUTION SAYS matter and energy created
itself from nothing.



2. BIOGENESIS: Life comes ONLY from life. This tells us that
life cannot and never did originate by natural processes.
EVOLUTION SAYS life originated from non-life.



3. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: With time, a
closed system (like our universe) will become more random and
disordered. Things wear out and break down. Ask any engineer
or home owner. EVOLUTION SAYS the universe began as
disorder (the big bang) and became orderly over time.



4. CAUSE AND EFFECT: An observed event can be traced to
an event that preceded it. EVOLUTION believes in NO ‘First
Cause’ for the universe.




To me, it's a lie.



You have an extremely poor understanding of what the theory of Evolution is even about. That's a poor position to try to debunk something from.

1. "EVOLUTION SAYS matter and energy created
itself from nothing." .......No....no it doesn't. Evolution is " the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." Wiki

2. "EVOLUTION SAYS life originated from non-life." again....No, it does not. Evolution is not a theory about how life arose, but rather it is about "the change in the inherited" ...(etc. see number 1)

3. Our solar system is not a closed system. Things become more disorderly UNLESS there is an influx of energy...In our solar system that energy is the Sun. Modern cosmological thought does suggest that the most likely end to our Universe is death by entropy (however this is far in the future....and really has nothing to do with the theory of Evolution anyway)

4. "EVOLUTION believes in NO ‘First
Cause’ for the universe." No, that's simply wrong....Evolution does not address the "first cause". Evolution only addresses (Yep...read the definition in number 1 again.)
edit on 16-7-2013 by bhornbuckle75 because: Guess what.....Chickenbutt



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   
I don't understand what's so complicated about the theory of evolution. Also the law of thermodynamics has to do with heat transfer not reproduction and mutations.

Anytime someone is sexually attracted to someone and is interested in a particular feature they are participating in evolution. Sex and reproduction = evolution. It's changes over time that occur when creatures reproduce and mutations occur.

Here is an extreme example of evolution in a population that happened as a result of inbreeding:

www.atlasobscura.com...



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by thruthseek3r

I think we have to be cautious with making such claims because the origin of the big bang could lead us more closer to the origin of all creation which means not necessarily simply a big explosion, but something scientists would not even dare to imagine or understand considering our current level of understanding of this matrix as it is.

What would be the consequence of such revelation is a whole another debate, but sometimes, going farther than we thought we could can lead to incredible discovery e.g. discovery of the Americas more than 500 years ago.



Maybe there was time, but who knows? The thing which is responsible for the big bang but maybe before this event which happened many billions years ago time existed but was not necessarily calculated the same way as it is right now here on earth.




Thruthsek3r

I don't think you fully appreciate what the term outside of our universe really means. People naturally want to know what caused the big bang, and the simple answer is nothing: not because there was a mysterious state of nothing before the big bang, but because time itself began then – that is, there was no time "before" the big bang.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


Alright! Well, as I mentioned I do disagree with you because in your opening post you didn't express in a good way why you disagreed with evolution and mentioned bad examples like the laws of thermodynamics to disagree with evolution. Another post of yours is very interesting. The one you included with the picture. I'm skeptical, but I would like to know what you believe to learn about beliefs and what not.

Currently I'm not organized to debate, but I'm ready then ever. As I mentioned before about the laws of thermodynamics and why I disagreed with that is because creationist have misinterpreted it to disagree with evolution. In the link it includes a rebuke of creationist claims against evolution that I feel will break the ice in our debate. Since I haven't looked up anything about evolution in a good while it will take time since I can become more familiar with it, the criticism, and what not.

Second law of thermodynamics



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by thruthseek3r

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by thruthseek3r

I think we have to be cautious with making such claims because the origin of the big bang could lead us more closer to the origin of all creation which means not necessarily simply a big explosion, but something scientists would not even dare to imagine or understand considering our current level of understanding of this matrix as it is.

What would be the consequence of such revelation is a whole another debate, but sometimes, going farther than we thought we could can lead to incredible discovery e.g. discovery of the Americas more than 500 years ago.




I don't think you fully appreciate what the term outside of our universe really means. People naturally want to know what caused the big bang, and the simple answer is nothing: not because there was a mysterious state of nothing before the big bang, but because time itself began then – that is, there was no time "before" the big bang.


Maybe there was time, but who knows? The thing which is responsible for the big bang but maybe before this event which happened many billions years ago time existed but was not necessarily calculated the same way as it is right now here on earth.




Thruthsek3r



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by thruthseek3r

Originally posted by thruthseek3r

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by thruthseek3r

I think we have to be cautious with making such claims because the origin of the big bang could lead us more closer to the origin of all creation which means not necessarily simply a big explosion, but something scientists would not even dare to imagine or understand considering our current level of understanding of this matrix as it is.

What would be the consequence of such revelation is a whole another debate, but sometimes, going farther than we thought we could can lead to incredible discovery e.g. discovery of the Americas more than 500 years ago.




I don't think you fully appreciate what the term outside of our universe really means. People naturally want to know what caused the big bang, and the simple answer is nothing: not because there was a mysterious state of nothing before the big bang, but because time itself began then – that is, there was no time "before" the big bang.


Maybe there was time, but who knows? The thing which is responsible for the big bang but maybe before this event which happened many billions years ago time existed but was not necessarily calculated the same way as it is right now here on earth.




Thruthsek3r


Okay, I am a little confused - which one of your postings came first? Stop using the time-machine, man!
*scnr*



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:54 AM
link   


Thermodynamics is a branch of natural science concerned with heat and its relation to energy


....


Should I be laughing or crying right now?
edit on 17-7-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Oh, look, yet another person trying to refute evolution without even knowing what it is.



I am shocked.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
Now take the idea of granite rocks and combine it with Polonium-218, which has a half-life of 3 minutes.



Wow, Gentry's polonium haloes.
Hadnt heard of that old argument since the 1990's.
Personally, I thought it was abandoned as soon as it was discovered his PRIMARY source of backing for the polonium halo mechanism came from an article published in 1917.






new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join