Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

a reply to: boymonkey74

Peer reviewed sources are nothing more than a Scientific version of the NIST report.

It is nothing but corruption and fraud hiding behind a facade of false credibility.

The Michael Ellner quote "everything is backwards" exposes this as well.

Remember, current scientific "truth" is defined and guarded by a committee of the most powerful people and organizations in the scientific community (it's called "peer review"). Anyone who has ever worked on a committee knows real progress under such systems is slow and painful. Real scientific progress usually comes from determined, outcast scientific rebels who are viciously attacked by old guard defenders of the current scientific community. You might recognize a few of their names: Einstein, Semmelweis, Copernicus, Tesla, and more than a few others.

modern science is ruled by conformity, not the search for scientific truth

Scientific fraud, however, is rampant amongst nearly all of the sciences and no "peer review" is immune. In fact, peer review is the problem.

This brings into question the so-called scientific process of peer review that is often cited as if it were holy writ and the end-all, be-all of truth. "It`s peer reviewed," they scream when anyone questions their research or evidence. The rejoinder should ask, "Peer reviewed by whom?"

The blame lies in the way that science is conducted with all other reasons emanating from this core paradigm change.

Peer review, however, has no such requirements. It is merely the opinion of the reviewing scientists who read the original work and give an editorial on it. No tests or double-checking of facts or methods are required. Basically, with peer review, someone writes a study paper and it is then sent to a group of scientific critics to either blast or praise it.

Professor Charlton is right. Peer review is bunk and is just editorializing in the name of science. It is because of this practice that the rampant fraud and misleading conclusions of scientific research is so prevalent today.

The Scientific Fraud Pandemic: Few Honest Scientists Remain

Despite its importance as the ultimate gatekeeper of scientific publication and funding, peer review is known to engender bias, incompetence, excessive expense, ineffectiveness, and corruption. A surfeit of publications has documented the deficiencies of this system.

How to Fix Peer Review

CircleOfDust

Here's some good info on your Religion of today called Science. From Michael Chrichton's book Next.

If we ever needed evidence that peer review is an empty ritual, this episode provides it. Many studies have shown that peer review does not improve the quality of scientific papers. Scientists themselves know it doesn‘t work. Yet the public still regards it as a sign of quality, and says, This paper was peer-reviewed,‘ or ;This paper was not peer-reviewed,‘ as if that meant something. It doesn‘t.

a reply to: Murgatroid

"I was too naive and foolish to guess what might happen:
the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape
to Luther Sunderland... Since, in my view, the tape was
obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to stop circulating
the transcipt, but of course to no effect. There is not much
point in my going through the article point by point. I was
putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record,
and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field.
I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in
particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school
curricula. In short the article does not fairly represent my
views. But even if it did, so what? The issue should be
resolved by rational discussion, and not by quoting
'authorities,' which seems to be the creationists' principal
mode of argument." (Letter from Colin Patterson to Steven W.
Binkley, June 17, 1982).

Patterson's absolutely right. Creationists like ftqz use appeals to
authority, rather than their brains, to make their weak cases. Also:

"Chelvam asserts that 'we are drowning' in evidence against
darwinism. He cites nothing beyond the remarks attributed
to me. It seems possible that he confuses two theories under
the name of darwinism, the general theory of common ancestry
or descent with modification, and Darwin's special theory of
mechanism, natural selection. If he knows of evidence
inconsistent with the general theory of common descent, he
should tell us what it is. I know of none." (Colin
Patterson in a letter to the editor, _Nature_ 332:580, 1988).

linky for citation

Using false and misrepresented information does nothing to help either side of the argument, pro/against evolution. I just thought you may want to be aware as it appears to be incorrect and is not supported by the original speaker.

a reply to: drivers1492

Yeah Murg will just ignore that just like all other things put under his nose...

a reply to: Murgatroid

The greatest mystery to me is WHY so many believe it while at the same time there is such a huge amount of evidence that shows it to be nothing more than a massive SCAM.

How is it a "scam"? Who gains from this great scam? Religion is a scam, because it seeks to gain followers and relieve those followers of their money. Science simply tries to explain things. It doesn't want your cash; it doesn't want you to build temples and worship idols and donate to the cause.

Love some of your quotes there! Notice how most of the people you quote were born in the 19th century? What does that tell you?

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." ~ Dr Ambrose Fleming, President, British Assoc. Advancement of Science

Would that be the same Ambrose Fleming (born 1849) who was a devout Christian and a creationist?

"It is good to keep in mind ... that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micro mutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted." ~ Prof. R Goldschmidt PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif.

Born 1878.

"The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove." ~ Dr Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize winner and eminent scientist

... and son of a minister, born in 1868

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge." ~ Dr A Fleishmann, Zoologist, Erlangen University

Now we are really scraping the academic barrel. I can't even find anything out about this guy other than "After the turn of the century, and for years to come, Albert Fleischmann, an obscure German zoologist at the University of Erlangen, stood alone as the only biologist of any repute to oppose evolution." (source)

"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency."~ Prof. J Agassiz, of Harvard

Jean Louis Agassiz (1807-1873). Agassiz wrote that “evidence of the existence of a Creator, constantly and thoughtfully working among the complicated structures that He has made” is found throughout the natural world. He concluded that in the living world “is clearly seen the intervention of an intelligent Creator” and that when we evaluate the living world we can see “the mental operations of the Creator at every step.” Yeah - he sounds balanced and not at all brainwashed by religion!

Why, it's almost as if the 20th century never happened! Still, shouldn't be too surprised. When you base your life on a 2,000-year-old myth, 19th-century science is pretty daring and new-fangled stuff!

a reply to: Rob48

I bet he just googled "quotes saying evolution is wrong from scientists" and didn't look at the dates lol.
Cool find.

So Murg 1st we show your Paterson quotes were wrong and taken out of context and now we show you that your so called scientists were probably dead a 100 years ago and they were Christian creationists anyhow.
Just Lol.

originally posted by: drivers1492
Using false and misrepresented information does nothing to help either side of the argument, pro/against evolution. I just thought you may want to be aware as it appears to be incorrect and is not supported by the original speaker.

Thanks for the heads up...

I would NEVER stoop to citing known false information.

It's just not my MO.

Evolution on the other hand is based on nothing BUT false information and deliberate fraud.

The only way to ignore this fact is to remain completely out of touch with reality, which in turn points us towards the primary agenda behind it.

The so-called science of evolution contradicts several known scientific laws, it plays fast and loose with the facts, it is dominated by figures who quash dissent and ridicule critics, it offers no scientifically valid basis for testing or falsifying its theories, it has been riddled with fraud and deception from the start, it never admits its mistakes, it has never produced a single piece of irrefutable evidence to prove its claims, it is contradicted by massive gaps in the fossil record, it is plagued by in-fighting and disagreement among its adherents, it has never been observed (even in a laboratory under carefully controlled conditions), and it purports to explain the staggering complexity of the natural world purely on the basis of an almost endless series of fortuitous accidents (not one of which has ever been observed). And they have the audacity to call it a science! By now it ought to be obvious to all but the most obtuse readers that Evolution is not a science but a scam.

The Shameless Fraud known as EVOLUTION

a reply to: Murgatroid

The only way to ignore this fact is to remain completely out of touch with reality, which in turn points us towards the primary agenda behind it.

And what primary agenda would that be?

Can it be any more sinister than the agenda of religion which has been seeking to subjugate and brainwash humanity for centuries, and keep us all in the dark ages squabbling with one another?

originally posted by: wonderworld

No, are you retarded? Cant you do a little better than childish nonsense? Lets debate science! Not looney toon pics.

Do you want to know what "childish nonsense" is?

When someone makes a post pointing out that "evolution is not 100% flaw-free scientific law" (thank you, Einstein!) and then thinks that Creationism, the fantasies in a 2000 year old book are a better alternative.

The OP (or at least the tiny bits I overflew) was nothing than the usual stuff which keeps on being rehashed over and over by those opposing science.

The OP listed countless points aka "there is no scientific evidence for this...or there is no scientific evidence for that".

Correct. Because science (and with it evolution), or cosmology or any OTHER science is well aware that some theories can only be "as good as our knowledge allows", hardly any science theory claims 100% infallibility. The Big Bang, for example is also not "100% scientific law", it's a THEORY. This is was science does, come up with plausible theories. Those can also be changed and revised comes more insight and knowledge. (For instance, 10 years back we didn't really know there are 1000s of earth-like planets.). SCIENCE and knowledge is an ongoing thing, it's dynamic.

So..in conclusion, what is the OP's point? Saying that evolution as a theory has holes...THEREFORE: GOD...since the myth of Creation of everything by a deity WOULD in contrast allegedly makes so much sense?

a reply to: Rob48

I would love to know this also Murg what agenda do all scientists who study evolution have?. What have they to gain?.

originally posted by: Rob48
And what primary agenda would that be?

Can it be any more sinister than the agenda of religion which has been seeking to subjugate and brainwash humanity for centuries, and keep us all in the dark ages squabbling with one another?

Preaching to the choir but thanks anyway.

The agenda is plainly exposed in the posts above.

I find it interesting that BOTH of us agree on one thing...

Religion and evolution serve the same purposes and both share identical sources.

What baffles me so much is WHY so many see the lies behind religion but refuse to see the massive lies hiding behind Darwinism.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Having read his links, the "scam" appears to be:

1) Refute Christianity

2) ?????

3) Profit!

To which my response would have to be "Well, duh!"

Which shall I believe, a theory that best fits countless observations of the natural world, or a big book of myths, folk memories and garbled Roman-era history written by a motley collection of scribes almost 2,000 years ago?

Let me just think about that for a couple of seconds.

What baffles me so much is WHY so many see the lies behind religion but refuse to see the massive lies hiding behind Darwinism.

Perhaps because scientists are not presuming to tell people who they can and cannot marry (for example), or telling people that they are going to burn in eternal hellfire, or preying on vulnerable people and brainwashing and/or molesting them, or asking for money to go into the pockets of phoney "pastors", or killing other scientists for daring to believe in a slightly different version of the same basic story?

That is why I have a problem with religion but not with science. Among other reasons.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Rob48

I would love to know this also Murg what agenda do all scientists who study evolution have?. What have they to gain?.

Scientists are used as hand puppets the same way our fearless leaders are.

They are completely insulated and unaware of the agenda.

Politics, religion, MSM, education, all of them are used the same way for the SAME exact agenda.

The agenda is to keep all of us completely out of touch with reality.

Threads such as this make it VERY obvious that they have succeeded.

a reply to: Murgatroid

"Thanks for the heads up...

I would NEVER stoop to citing known false information.

It's just not my MO.

Evolution on the other hand is based on nothing BUT false information and deliberate fraud. "

I would hope that's true, but, after you say that's not your MO you immediately spit out a fabrication. It's very disingenuous of you. No one with any merit will deny that there have been scientific fabrications as well as errors. The same can be said of anyone with merit would say the same of those against, in this case evolution, have done the same. Neither side gains anything from the bickering I see in these threads especially the outright lies. I do try not to get involved in the proverbial mud slinging since it seems to be of no real benefit to anyone. So I will simply ask for your opinion. Do you honestly feel that there is a worldwide conspiracy concerning mans origin as well as life? It would mean every esteemed field of science is in cahoots. I can find no reasonable way or reason for this to be the case.

originally posted by: Murgatroid

The agenda is to keep all of us completely out of touch with reality.

Threads such as this make it VERY obvious that they have succeeded.

Posts such as yours make it very obvious that they have had some success, yes.

originally posted by: drivers1492
I would hope that's true, but, after you say that's not your MO you immediately spit out a fabrication. It's very disingenuous of you. No one with any merit will deny that there have been scientific fabrications as well as errors. The same can be said of anyone with merit would say the same of those against, in this case evolution, have done the same. Neither side gains anything from the bickering I see in these threads especially the outright lies. I do try not to get involved in the proverbial mud slinging since it seems to be of no real benefit to anyone. So I will simply ask for your opinion. Do you honestly feel that there is a worldwide conspiracy concerning mans origin as well as life? It would mean every esteemed field of science is in cahoots. I can find no reasonable way or reason for this to be the case.

Not sure what fabrication you referring to...

I do agree 100% about the mud slinging, it is a HUGE turnoff and basically destroys all credibility in my opinion.

Do I honestly feel that there is a worldwide conspiracy concerning mans origins?

Absolutely, and it is way beyond just a feeling.

I've seen enough evidence to completely convince me.

Just in a few short years I have gone from suspicion to believing to knowing.

This is why I do not hold back on subjects such as this.

I don't have a single iota of doubt about the things I write on ATS.

If I did, I would be open and honest by saying I BELIEVE thus and so.

I have seen so much evidence up until now that I no longer just believe this, I know it.

Concerning your comment about every field of science being in cahoots...

Eustace Mullins said that ALL conspiracies are connected.

There is really only ONE super-conspiracy that ties all of the others together.

"After forty years of patient study of the crises which faces humanity, I arrived at a very simple conclusion-all conspiracies are Satanic! " Eustace Mullins

"In fact, I point out that all the conspiracies in history - especially during the last 5000 years - are actually different aspects of the same conspiracy. Some people fixed on one aspect of the conspiracy, and say this is the problem, others say another thing, but the thing is all the conspirators work together. All the conspirators are part of the same operation. And this is what people find very reluctant." - Eustace Mullins

BTW, your last question would make for a killer thread topic as well.

a reply to: Murgatroid

I dunno man. That seems awfully convenient for all conspiracies to be connected. Sounds like a Hollywood plot or something. My experience with reality shows that things are NEVER that convenient.

So I guess the new tactic is if the science proves you wrong declare all scientist and anybody who has a degree in biology as part of a giant conspiracy? Brilliant idea. Millions of people from hundreds of nations across several generations are all part of a vast conspiracy to fake evolution. Why that makes perfect sense. That way we can ignore science completely and blame everything on Odin, God, The Wind Spirit, aliens, or Zeus maybe.

There is only ONE proven scientific type of evolution. Micro-evolution...changes within a KIND. Science HAS proven this. It IS observable...i.e. Dogs have many changes within its KIND, but ALWAYS have and ALWAYS will breed DOGS. Thats it....outside of this, evolution has nothing...unless we now count a BELIEF as science?

Just picking out SOME of the points...

*** No life on Mars proves evolution is wrong?

Well...thank you for confirming my suspicions that many creationists WILL indeed get a shock once life on other planets will be discovered. It's sad to see people being real fearful of this happening (which it WILL, given enough time & technology).

What happens then? Will your entire religion and belief crumble...because we might find life on other planets? Sad...sad if people limit themselves in such ways...so sad...

*** We come up with a blank slate in regards to more complex organisms as soon as we dig deeper than 1 ml

Yes, possible. Possibly because organisms started out LESS complex and EVOLVED into more complex ones? What exactly is the question?

*** Assumptions and Cats & Dogs evolving into other species

WHY would a cat evolve into another species? Respective, what tells you that a species you observe RIGHT NOW is actually not an intermediary species which will have evolved into something entirely different in, say, 1, 5 or 10 millions of years? I bet with you any amount that for example humans will look different in 10 millions of years, so we do IN FACT see "intermittent" stages right now since evolution is on-going. Your fallacy is to look at a species RIGHT NOW and assume it's "complete". In evolution, there is no such thing as "complete"...there is however the best adaption to a current environment.

*** Evolutionist

The word "evolutionist" as such doesn't even exist. It's a bogus word-creation which found its entrance into our dictionary only rather recently. It's a made up word by Creationists. An "evolutionist" is simply a scientist or a person who ponders and spends his life/work about how life may have developed on this planet based on SCIENCE and knowledge, not on the bible. Calling someone an "xxxx-ist" simply they don't agree with the Bible is rather absurd.

*** Transitional forms (again)

Evolution doesn't produce flawed, "transitional forms" which would have difficulties surviving. Because of that you do not see "impossible" animals. As simple as that. That being sad, transitional animals DO exist unless you put your head in the sand and deny what any kindergartner can look up on Google. Archaeopterix, early reptiles which had bird-like features etc.

That being said, it is not necessary that ONE species would "become" an entire different species. If life evolved it makes much more sense that life developed in different ways, simultaneously. Even if we assume that in fact there is no species which ever developed into an entire different species - how would that disprove evolution? It doesn't. On that note, Man did also not "evolve" from Apes, eg. Apes didn't become a different species --> Man. There were common ancestors but no transition from one species into another.

*** All living things are exquisitely engineered or "designed".
Correct. Because nature is very good at that, and it's also not stupid.

For example, why would nature (== evolution) put animals who breathe air under water or why would it have fish grow wings? Oh wait! It doesn't. See above "impossible species". Because flawed and wrong species would not survive. There is no logical outcome but that species who live now MUST have adapted perfectly, and sometimes they do this amazingly well. Otherwise they would not exist.

Saying "evolution says design is only an illusion" I can only call a lie...since every halfway serious scientist will agree about the amazing wonders of life and how everything is perfectly adapted and in often breathtaking ways. However, saying there can only be one explanation, it must've "designed" like that from early on is rather naive, especially since this will also require to willingly ignore that species indeed change, adapt, evolve. And it would also mean to willingly ignore (see above) that species including ourselves might look entirely different in millions of years. There is no "ultimate perfectionism" which is achieved at one point and then evolution "stops".

*** Why would a bird evolve wings?

It is my understanding that birds evolved from reptile-like species which at some point got lighter bones and early variations of a more "feather-like" fur. Purpose: They could jump AWAY FROM PREDATORS, stay in the air longer, jump farther. Wings have developed over billions of years until at some point those early "birds" evolved from jumpers/gliders who escaped scavengers into birds with full-blown wings.

This theory is perhaps not shared by all "evolutionists", HOWEVER it's a plausible theory and can be grasped by a little kid. When this is so easy to understand, why then has a a creationists a problem with this theory?

*** Progression from monkey to man

Didn't happen. Nonsense. And you are correct "Man could not evolve from a monkey". If a creatonist had this misconception, their problem.

** Origin of matter and stars

This is not an area for evolutionists. It's the field for cosmologists, quantum physicists etc.. Big BanG and the assumption "everything came from nothing" is just a theory, not even a good one. Leave that to quantum physics, Higgs Boson particles, Stephen Hawking etc. to find out WHETHER there was one, only one BB or have them develop and explain other theories. There are plenty. Very few (if any) of the modern cosmological models imply "something came from nothing".

*** Radio silence and the entire universe

I don't think you have an idea about the size of the universe if you think the failure of SETI to detect radio signals means there is no life in the universe. SO..as we had in the beginning, IF there is life in the universe, what happens then? Is Christianity coming to an end then? Rather weak.

** Archaeology proves evolution is wrong.

A rather confusing point where you list the pyramids and some other structures which are a few thousand of years old. I guess you never heard of the fact that men did live many 100s of thousands years ago, example for this Blombos cave where artifacts were found and dated 80.000 - 100.000 BC. But let's just ignore all this, right?

*** Statistical mathematics

With them I can prove that it is literally "statistical" impossible that this posts exists since the odds of this post to appear, with all its words and letters, in exactly this way, BEFORE I wrote it, are statistically/mathematically more or less impossible. YET, this post exist.
When I smash a glass on the ground and it forms a very unique pattern which sure would only exist ONCE in this world, existing of 1000s of individual pieces and shards in a very particular and unique arrangement, it's also "statistically" impossible that such a pattern would even exist. The key here is to look at it from the right side. You don't smash the glass down, look at the pieces and THEN conclude what you see is impossible. Ironically, this is the same "logic" creatonists often use.

Mind you, the above two examples do NOT mean that things happened "by chance", not even remotely. It's just examples of how math/statistics are often used in bogus ways, eg. to "disprove" something since it supposedly is not possible according to statistics.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree, it does sound just like a Hollywood production.

I believe there is a very good reason for this.

Hollywood is just another huge part of the scam.

Hollywood is a HUGE jedi mind trick, all of us here know that.

It's also another very effective mind control tool just like Darwinism is.

You're also right about being awfully convenient.

For those in control it is VERY convenient.

They have honed their "Hollywood production" skills down to a SCIENCE...