Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
So what have we learned so far from beating this dead horse to hell and back?

After reading this discussion, Im a feeling a little verklempt, talk amongst yourselves, here, ill give you a topic; UnifiedSerenity can neither unify nor induce serenity.

Ok. I'm better.

Who knows, except the most learned formulators of past and present knowledge, and those who read and understand their works.

Originally posted by JameSimon

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
You can disagree all you want, but you have no proof. You have not offered one shred of evidence. You are using the same old "you're sources are not credible" and yet you don't want to discuss those facts presented. Typical disinformation.

Stop lying. I provided this link before and you chose to ignore it. This is pure trolling on your behalf, and if you believe what you just said (that I provided no proof) then you should seek medical care because you are delusional.

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how 2 species from the same family, Horse and Donkey, have a different number of cromossomes (exacly what happens between us and chimps).
I'm also waiting for your rebuttal on my arguments supporting evolution in regards to the human mouth. Do you want the list again?

edit on 21-8-2013 by JameSimon because: (no reason given)

I'm still waiting for the op to accuse me, again, of lack of arguments.

Originally posted by 1nf1del
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Because if it's from a creationist site it's not credible? Why don't you give me a list of credible sites to get info from!

No, it's not credible at all.
Anything which bases it's whole premise on a work of fiction cannot be considered unbiased nor truthful.

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by 1nf1del
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Because if it's from a creationist site it's not credible? Why don't you give me a list of credible sites to get info from!

No, it's not credible at all.
Anything which bases it's whole premise on a work of fiction cannot be considered unbiased nor truthful.

Isn't this that simple to understand? It's like trying to prove the existence of dragons with "The Hobbit" book.

Originally posted by 1nf1del
The Myth of Abiogenesis

Well done on citing a piece by "Welcome to Study to Answer.Net, a resource dedicated to providing a reasoned, respectful, and ready defence of the orthodox, Bible-based Christian faith!".


That whole document has been written with it's conclusion already decided and cherry-picked specific "evidence" used to "prove" it. They're also guilty of the mistakes I pointed out in Arthur's paper.
Bad science.
What they've failed to add in there is that there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that L-aminos were the only ones available. I would suggest a certain thing called evolution stuck it's hand into the pot and the proteins with L-aminos became the prevalent ones as they were more "successful".

What they've also left out is that there are plenty of biological proteins which have D-amino acids rather than L-aminos.....


It really is like talking to bricks.

Originally posted by Pardon?


What they've also left out is that there are plenty of biological proteins which have D-amino acids rather than L-aminos.....


It really is like talking to bricks.

And yet you cannot comprehend the absolute impossibility of a simple 150 chain protein coming together by chance. Yes, keep pointing our the proof of evolution, you know you can't. Just keep repeating it's proven, it's proven, it's proven and it doesn't change the truth. Put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig.

I wonder why we don't see these

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by Pardon?


What they've also left out is that there are plenty of biological proteins which have D-amino acids rather than L-aminos.....


It really is like talking to bricks.

And yet you cannot comprehend the absolute impossibility of a simple 150 chain protein coming together by chance. Yes, keep pointing our the proof of evolution, you know you can't. Just keep repeating it's proven, it's proven, it's proven and it doesn't change the truth. Put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig.

I wonder why we don't see these

No I can't comprehend the impossibility of it as it has happened.
Therefore it isn't impossible is it?
Life happened as a result of certain molecules coming together in a certain condition(s).
We base our whole understanding on life upon that molecular understanding.
If that initial molecule or molecules were different but gave rise to life our whole understanding would be based upon that wouldn't it?
Life did not begin because of life.
Chemistry made life begin and if even one aspect of that chemistry was different, then what we would know as life would be very different.

And your ridiculous photo only lends more credence to the absolute fact that your comprehension of the theory is extremely limited so as a result you deem it false. Even after being shown proof which you immediately dismiss mainly because you don't understand it but also that it would upset your belief system based entirely upon nothing whatsoever.
That, in its entirety is a problem for you and you alone.

Just to repeat myself, it's fine that you don't "get it".
It's fine that you refuse to accept it.
But when you try to argue your point to people who DO understand the complexities of it don't be surprised and upset when people take you to task over it.

We haven't heard much about Ida. The media went nuts over the discovery of "Ida" and lauded it as the most important find proving evolution. There was even a BBC documentary to push this new find, and it's all a bad science because of over eager evolutionists in their desperate desire to prove their theory. The reason I show this particular example is many in the evolutionist camp jump the gun and push out the next great find as if it proves their theory, and yet again, they were very wrong.

Evolution is far from proved.



Look how this was introduced to the world:

Fossil Ida: Extraordinary find is 'missing link' in human evolution Perfectly preserved fossil Ida, unveiled in New York today, provides unprecedented insight into our ancestry

Scientists have discovered an exquisitely preserved ancient primate fossil that they believe forms a crucial "missing link" between our own evolutionary branch of life and the rest of the animal kingdom.

The 47m-year-old primate – named Ida – has been hailed as the fossil equivalent of a "Rosetta Stone" for understanding the critical early stages of primate evolution.

"This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of all the mammals; with cows and sheep, and elephants and anteaters," said Sir David Attenborough who is narrating a BBC documentary on the find. "The more you look at Ida, the more you can see, as it were, the primate in embryo."

"This will be the one pictured in the textbooks for the next hundred years," said Dr Jørn Hurum, the palaeontologist from Oslo University's Natural History Museum who assembled the scientific team to study the fossil. "It tells a part of our evolution that's been hidden so far. It's been hidden because the only [other] specimens are so incomplete and so broken there's nothing almost to study." The fossil has been formally named Darwinius masillae in honour of Darwin's 200th birthday year.

source

'Eighth wonder' Ida is not related to humans, claim scientists

US palaeontologists dismiss initial claims about the 47million-year-old fossil found in Germany's Messel Pit



....when a skull was “discovered” that appeared to combine a large cranium (i.e., a large brain) with an ape-like jaw, the “brain firsters” accepted it without question and proclaimed it the “missing link” between apes and humans. Ultimately, after decades during which evidence accumulated showing that bipedalism and early tool-making preceded a substantial increase in brain size, the Piltdown skull was carefully reexamined and found to be a clever fraud.

Among the cautionary lessons to be drawn from this hoax, one of the most important is that no single specimen should, by itself, be taken as the basis for far-reaching interpretations. The small number of “hobbit” specimens from Indonesia rightly places a caveat on reaching any definitive conclusions regarding their evolutionary status, despite what appears currently to be strong evidence for their being a separate species (see “Hobbits” of Flores: Implications for the pattern of human evolution ).

Source

Adding this video for those wanting to see the BBC documentary showing such lies saying it offers proof of evolution via Lucy which we know was a knuckle walking Ape. Typical evolution propaganda



The boldness of Islam has taken on the challenge of proving creation. Muslims are not intimidated by the intellectual elitists. They have not been denigrated for generations as have the Christians. I found this video very interesting regarding the Islamic Atlas of Creation:



It seems evolutionists are losing their grip in Europe. America is another story, and while I don't believe in Islam, truth is truth no matter who is saying it.

Louis Pasteur took on the challenge and caused much trouble for the evolutionists:

Pasteur asked: "Can matter organize itself? In other words are there beings that can come into the world without parents, without ancestors? That is the question to be resolved."

Long after the idea of spontaneous generation of maggots, mice and worms had been generally discarded, scientists still clung to the idea of spontaneous generation of microscopic animals. To disprove this idea also, Pasteur boiled some broth to kill any microbes present. With special glassware, he allowed air to circulate over the broth, but prevented microbes in the air from reaching the broth. As Pasteur expected, no microbes appeared in the broth. Pasteur’s findings showed that microbes were not spontaneously generated from the broth itself. Microbes would only appear in the broth if they were allowed in with the air. He clearly showed that even for microbes, life came only from life—‘Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves.’2

source

"The claim that inanimate matter can originate life is buried in history for good."

Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose. Molecular Evolution and The Origin of Life. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1977. p. 2


What do evolutionists admit today?

Renowned evolutionist Alexander Oparin came up with the idea of "chemical evolution" at the beginning of the 20th century. This idea holds that the first living cell emerged by chance through some chemical reactions that took place in primordial earth conditions. However, no evolutionist, including Oparin, was able to submit any evidence to support the "chemical evolution" allegation. On the contrary, every new discovery in the 20th century showed that life was too complex to have originated by chance. Well-known evolutionist Leslie Orgel makes this admission: "(Examining the structures of DNA, RNA and proteins), one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means."

Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth", Scientific American, Vol 271, October 1994, p. 78

Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?

- Jeffrey Bada, "Origins", Earth, February 1998, p. 40

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

I wonder why we don't see these

If you are sincerely wondering why you have never seen a crocoduck, two things are readily apparent:

1. You do not understand evolution enough to try and argue against it.
2. You have not comprehended any of the replies to your posts.

The existence of a "crocoduck" would be evidence against evolution, not for it.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

I wonder why we don't see these

If you are sincerely wondering why you have never seen a crocoduck, two things are readily apparent:

1. You do not understand evolution enough to try and argue against it.
2. You have not comprehended any of the replies to your posts.

The existence of a "crocoduck" would be evidence against evolution, not for it.

You really don't know when a joke is being made do you?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Have you answered this post yet? I'd really like to see you answer it. Or this post. They both make much more sense than anything you've posted here. Essentially, you're using the exception to falsify the rule. That doesn't work; the exception is the exception for a reason. But apparently, you hate the rule just enough to want to discredit it using every exception we have on record.

Which just so happens to be comparatively minimal in contrast to the amount of established evidence supporting the rule itself. You know, the stuff that isn't the exception.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
So, while it is all interesting, it does not show how the code of DNA is anything but intelligently designed.

If by "code of DNA" you mean the genetic code(s), its organization screams that it evolved over time instead of having been designed. I made a thread about this in this very forum. Feel free to refute (you can't). It's right here..

UnifiedSerenity is so dishonest that he called me a liar with no arguments and simply ignores every argument I presented that disproves his delusions. Amazing

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

You really don't know when a joke is being made do you?

I should just assume that every post of yours is a "joke" then? That will not be difficult.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by Pardon?


What they've also left out is that there are plenty of biological proteins which have D-amino acids rather than L-aminos.....


It really is like talking to bricks.

And yet you cannot comprehend the absolute impossibility of a simple 150 chain protein coming together by chance. Yes, keep pointing our the proof of evolution, you know you can't. Just keep repeating it's proven, it's proven, it's proven and it doesn't change the truth. Put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig.

I wonder why we don't see these

You can't say its impossible, but you can say its improbable... You still haven't learned, after 54 pages, you cannot prove something is impossible without seeing the entirety of time and space. We are only aware of a spec on a spec.

Say "it's improbable", you'll look like you're aware of facts more, thus looking like you have a smidgen more credibility. You can't argue science without understanding the roots of logical analysis.

Evolution happens when life already exists, it doesn't explain life's origins, we still haven't solved that yet. Have you done any research into sub cellular "life"? Interesting stuff. Somatids are reproducing "things" that don't have DNA or RNA.

Lets review (for simplicity and understanding, not condescending)

True or false:
1. You can prove something is impossible without proving all that is possibile.
2. Evolution explains where the origins of life came from.

Answer Key:
1. False
2. False

I just love you all accusing me of ignoring your comments, when I have addressed them over and over. I do hope you enjoy the last vestiges of a theory proved wrong. It seems the tide is turning around the world against this unscientific theory of evolution.

I hope those really looking for truth will avail themselves of the evidences I have presented and do their own thinking. Amazingly, a child can understand this stuff, but you all can't because it goes against your humanist religion of evolution.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
I just love you all accusing me of ignoring your comments, when I have addressed them over and over. I do hope you enjoy the last vestiges of a theory proved wrong. It seems the tide is turning around the world against this unscientific theory of evolution.

I hope those really looking for truth will avail themselves of the evidences I have presented and do their own thinking. Amazingly, a child can understand this stuff, but you all can't because it goes against your humanist religion of evolution.

If a theory is backed by 1,000 facts and you prove 20 of them wrong, then you didn't prove the theory wrong, just those 20 facts.*

The numbers expressed are only used in a figurative sense and not to be confused with any number of facts presented.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

I do hope you enjoy the last vestiges of a theory proved wrong.

I must have missed something, because I do believe evolution is still standing tall and strong. It takes more than an armchair expert on a conspiracy forum to disprove a theory that's been developing over the course of centuries.

Amazingly, a child can understand this stuff, but you all can't because it goes against your humanist religion of evolution.

hu·man·ism noun ˈhyü-mə-ˌni-zəm, ˈyü-

Definition of HUMANISM

3
: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason

Your tone suggests that if it came to war, you would not be fighting for the human species. You would not be fighting for your brothers and sisters, family and friends. You would not be fighting for yourself. You would be fighting for the contempt of everything that is human. You would be fighting in the name of self-disdain.

I actually pity you for that. If you truly believe that humanity is something to despise, is a reason to strive to be greater and more powerful and more perfect, that the human condition is the curse you are fated to die trying to escape from...I pity you. And I hope you will someday realize the truth: the human condition is the most educational condition you can be in for this world. And if you are ungrateful, then you have missed every point. Every point.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
I just love you all accusing me of ignoring your comments, when I have addressed them over and over. I do hope you enjoy the last vestiges of a theory proved wrong. It seems the tide is turning around the world against this unscientific theory of evolution.

I hope those really looking for truth will avail themselves of the evidences I have presented and do their own thinking. Amazingly, a child can understand this stuff, but you all can't because it goes against your humanist religion of evolution.

You are delusional and a liar, because (and other posters) you ignored most of my comments.