Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by littlebunny

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Evolution is gradual.
No, let me restate that, Evolution is astronomically gradual.
There wasn't just a day when a fish decided to get out of the water and grow some legs, it was amazingly gradual.

Ok, but you're still missing the point... If that is true, and it happened 50 million years ago, and its now... 50 million years later, where is it happening? If it happened then, then it must be happening now... but it doesn't happen, it has never ever been observed... That is monster huge! The Earth hasn't stopped aging, nor has life stopped existing on this planet... If evolution is true then it must be a continuous process that happens all the time… all the time... Yet it has never been observed.


Now you can believe it happened one hundred million years ago if you want... But I refuse to be duped... I want just one creature after millions of years of creating only after its kind, to create something other then its kind... in our time. If evolution is even remotely true that is exactly what should be happening... Because if it happened millions of years ago, and its now millions of years later, if evolution is even remotely true... it must happen now... in our time... But its not! And that is a major flaw in the theory, major... Science is demanding everyone believe evolution was real… but now its stopped… it only happened way back then... And there is zero evidence that evolution has happened in our time… and oh by the way… won't start up again until we are all dead... Yet believing a God created everything is just silly, because evolution is pure science...


YET.... You are asking everyone to believe evolution only happens in secret, and when it did happen 100's of millions of year ago... That… just because it happened hundreds of millions of years ago... now people… that doesn't mean its happening now... Really??? You don't consider that broken logic? For me... the absolute fact that evolution is not happening proves the theory is completely wrong. And we need to start looking for real answers.


The FACT that not one creature has ever created another creature outside of its kind... in our time while the whole world is paying attention... to me means... evolution is dead wrong. It truly is that simple... and I do not see how any reasonable person doesn't feel the exact same way.


Everyone keeps saying the fossil records will prove it... yet the most obvious answer isn't in the fossil records, that ridiculous... its been millions, even billions of years after the fact according to the theory and not one new creature has created anything outside of its kind in 150 years. Yet we are told we must ignore that very simple scientific fact.


If it happened hundreds of millions of years ago, and its hundreds of millions of years later, and no new anything from another kind as ever been observed... yet evolution is still true... then damn, it don't take hundreds of millions of years, it takes billions of years for life to continually evolve. Because its already been hundreds of millions of years later, hell according to the theory we are living billions of years after the fact... if evolution is true, it MUST be happening now… everywhere, all over the world... but its not... And your answer is, we just need more time... Wow... 4 billions years isn't enough time to create a new kind from another kind... in our time... even though you want everyone to believe it happened millions of times for billions of years before our time... And that's supposed to be science and not a belief system?


Remember I didn't create the theory of evolution, I'm only trying to follow the logic, and history proves evolution cannot be true... because if it were, we would see evolution happening... were one kind of something, creates another kind of something... it has never been observed... so we are only left with two options... either evolution is wrong, or evolution only happens in secret.


--Charles Marcello


[edit on 7-3-2010 by littlebunny]

How long have we been actively monitoring animals?
Do you think that compares to 50 million years?

Your question is misleading. Perhaps we have only been actively monitoring animals for a small amount of time comparatively, but we have studied millions of years worth of archeological evidence via the fossil record. What have we found?

1. The first is that the fossil record shows species originating abruptly. This contradicts the predictions of Darwin's hypothesis. His hypothesis calls for very many intermediate forms gradually grading from one species to another. But instead the record shows the opposite - species arise abruptly.

2. Secondly, the geologic record shows that species do not change significantly through time. For millions of years they remain constant - with only minor and random change. This also contradicts the predictions of the hypothesis of Darwin.

3. The "Cambrian explosion" represents a period in which most of the current phyla all appeared in a very short geological span of time. This also seriously contradicts the hypothesis of Darwin.

reply to post by edsinger


Chap you need to research evoluation a little bit more my friend.

#1 These birds were better off not flying. Humans have parts that are absolutey useless including some rib bones, some glands, body hair.

#2 Species without a link can be invalid but if one specific species or even subspecies is segregated from others for long enough and in an environment not native to its family it can evolve very unique and different traits where it seems a link is needed but truely isnt.

#3 Scientists have been able to create viri for years...H1N1 was actually suspected of being man made. Anthrax is actually a living thing, it isn't "poison"

#4 The two Xs are not identical nor are the X and the Y of a male otherwise if they had two childs of the same sex they'd be identical. X and Y have to do with sexing, not specific genes.

#5 This is implying that all technology is 100% correct which means that us and apes and even mice are very closely related based on DNA....

#6 Chimps have been known to form cliques and even kill others. Most species have an alpha male or alpha female which means

#7 If a species was isolated enough they could develop a new chromosome through the need for new survival traits or even something like cancer, cancer can actually alter dna.

#8 If something can come from nothing than where can "God" or "Gods" come from? He/She/It/They had to come from nowhere. They are more complex and have more power than natural occurances which mean it'd require something more complex to create them than a random universe.

#9 This is very illogical. People can keep their house perfectly clean and have a fly, roach, mice, rat problem while some people can have a filthy house and have no pests. There are a lot more things that go into it, amount of sunlight over a given period (some planets spin slower than others on their axis), do/did all of the conditions require occur at once, how protected is its atmosphere, were all of the elements required for life present On Mars it is no...the atmosphere isn't good for it to exist.

#10 Light is the fasted traveling thing known. If objects are light years away that means it will be 100s of radio years away....we have not been trying to send waves for that long which means they havent even reached other planets yet for them to be able to even respond if they were at the same technology level as us and trying to receive messages.

reply to post by FredT


Tell me this - where did evolution come from, given that nothing can come from nothing?

reply to post by catwhoknows


For more information on evolution
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by catwhoknows


That is why most of science isn't a law it is a theory. Religion is a Law from the rules of life affecting destiny to diversion in beliefs...all Christians Jews and Muslims truely believe in the same god but have different laws that is why they are always at it.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by edsinger
Now before the Mods delete this,

Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell.

This is utterly irrelevant to how life, once it exists, does evolve.

Actually, no its not. Because even if someone were to create a living cell from nonliving chemicals in a laboratory setting, this would point to intelligence, not random chance.

Why do people keep bumping this thread with the exact same arguments that have been refuted over 35 pages? Back in the day, Meltonin pretty much demolished all creationism arguments (with myself providing a minor amount of support as a new user).


reply to post by followtheevidence

Originally posted by followtheevidence
reply to post by PieKeeper

 

Actually, a scientific theory proper (or even a hypothesis for that matter) is both observable and testable. A theory can not be proven, but is either supported or falsified by experimentation. Neither creationism or evolutionary theory are testable, so in truth calling either a theory is really a misnomer.

"Testable" doesn't mean it has to be tested through experimentation, it can be tested through observation, collection of evidence, and other forms of scientific inquiry.

Oh, and evolutionary theory is actually testable and observable. Here's one of my favorite pieces of evidence to use in these threads. It's probably already in this thread a dozen times, but why not make it a baker's dozen?

Creation is not taking place now, so far as can be observed. Therefore, it was accomplished in the past and thus is inaccessible to the scientific method.

I'm sorry, but that is blatantly false. The scientific method can examine events that occurred in the past via their consequences and products. The "product" of creation would be life on this Earth, so there would be a way to trace it. We would examine what would have to be the consequences of such an event and what the products would be.

If evolution is taking place today, it operates too slowly to be measurable, and therefore, is outside the realm of empirical science.

Fruit flies. We use them for evolutionary experiments.

The evolution of one kind of organism into a higher organism would presumably take millions of years and no team of scientists is equipped to make measurements on any such experiment.

...there is no evolution into a 'higher organism'. Only an evolution from one organism into another. More evolution doesn't make an organism better, it just makes it better suited to survive in that environment under those selective pressures.

Instead, creationism and evolution should be considered tentative scientific models. It is proposed that these two "models" be used as systems for predicting data, to see which one does so more effectively based on observation.

Evolution. It wins hands down.

Ultimately however, since neither "model" can be tested, they are not verifiable using the scientific method which means that accepting either model as true requires an element of faith (belief in the absence of proof).

Again, they do not.
Aside from the glaringly obvious fact the evolution posits nothing extra to the world while creation would posit a creator being which would then have to be verified separately, it has been used to make predictions and it has been examined via tests and observations.reply to post by followtheevidence

Originally posted by followtheevidence
Your question is misleading. Perhaps we have only been actively monitoring animals for a small amount of time comparatively, but we have studied millions of years worth of archeological evidence via the fossil record. What have we found?

Paleontological evidence. Archeology refers to the study of human artifacts.

1. The first is that the fossil record shows species originating abruptly. This contradicts the predictions of Darwin's hypothesis. His hypothesis calls for very many intermediate forms gradually grading from one species to another. But instead the record shows the opposite - species arise abruptly.

The problem here is that you're expecting the fossil record to have an instance of every generation of every species. That's the only way we can see the gradual changes between species.
Fossilization not being a certainty doesn't prove your point.

So again, your attack on Darwin's theory doesn't hold.

2. Secondly, the geologic record shows that species do not change significantly through time. For millions of years they remain constant - with only minor and random change. This also contradicts the predictions of the hypothesis of Darwin.

No, it doesn't. Darwin's theory never put forth the idea that all animals change all the time, they only change through selective pressures.

The great white shark is a 'great' example. It has changed relatively little over millenia. Why? Because there isn't any selective pressure upon it to change. It is an apex predator. Any changes to it would be through genetic drift. There are no mating or survival pressures for the great white, it's not having any problems at all.

3. The "Cambrian explosion" represents a period in which most of the current phyla all appeared in a very short geological span of time. This also seriously contradicts the hypothesis of Darwin.

I'm sorry, how does it contradict Darwin's theory?



The "Cambrian explosion" argument is one of the reasons some people laugh at creationists.

And why do you keep attacking Darwin? He may have been the founding scientist of evolutionary biology, but that doesn't mean that all evolutionary biologist take his word for gold. Evolutionary theory today is far more refined and has far more supporting evidence than Darwin could have ever dreamed of.

reply to post by catwhoknows

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by FredT

 

Tell me this - where did evolution come from, given that nothing can come from nothing?

Evolution doesn't have to come from anywhere, it's simply the name we give to a natural process. It isn't a force of the universe, it's just a biological function. And where do all biological functions come from? The consequences of living beings.

Evolution is valid so long as we have living beings, it's been observed and tested.


reply to post by followtheevidence

Originally posted by followtheevidence
Actually, no its not. Because even if someone were to create a living cell from nonliving chemicals in a laboratory setting, this would point to intelligence, not random chance.

Evolution isn't random chance. It's the nonrandom survival and reproduction of living beings which then pass on random mutations.

Originally posted by UofCinLA
There is no doubt science is only as good as the research that goes into it and for me at least the science is so far better than a "god" did it....

For example, if a god, especially the perfect one so often claimed by most of the fervent bible thumpers was behind it all how come the god does crappy work at best - to wit:

1. Unstable planet - Earth is geologically unstable and subject to wild temperature swings (warm periods/ice ages) and volcanism that often leads to wiping out the handiwork..??

2. Sun will go Red Giant in ~4.5 billion years, taking the Earth and all the handiwork with it..??

3. Galaxy will collide with M31 (Andromeda) kinda causing a mess of things..??

4. Gave the Earth and solar system with a cosmic pinball quality - comets and things tend to run into the handiwork..??

And those are just the biggies....

Believe what you want about evolution, but to throw down and worship that kind of craftsmanship is beyond crazy - it's just plain and simple brainwashing and without any critical thought.... Heck - I want a refund for the shoddy work or at least be able to file a warranty claim against the entity/god/alien. Anyone have that number or address..??

Your argument is only valid if you assert that the Creator is finished with His creation.

reply to post by followtheevidence

Your argument is only valid if you assert that the Creator is finished with His creation.

That makes no sense to me. If the Earth is a place where a creator places individuals and it is so unstable that it destroys man by hundreds of thousands via earthquakes and storms and volcanic eruptions and droughts what difference does it make if the creator is not done?

Are you suggesting that, "oops, there goes another 200K in Haiti" is part of process? Why does the creator need to get a learner's permit in universe making? Why not get it right the first time instead of allowing the brutal deaths of millions per decade?

Making excuses for a creator seems well - awkward.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i've always been asked what's wrong with accepting the concept of a designer to explain something in science.

it leads to bad science.
there is no scientific evidence of a designer, and if you say ID is, then you're going in circles. you're saying we know the designer exists because we've seen what it designed.

accepting a designer means that we accept that a being outside our realm of understanding (due to the fact that it did not need to be designed itself, unless you want to keep going on like that forever) and therefore outside of science, is part of science.

it's a way to bring religion into a classroom, and nothing more.

My opinion - I think people often confuse the evidence for intelligent design with the implications of intelligent design.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by followtheevidence

 

Your argument is only valid if you assert that the Creator is finished with His creation.

That makes no sense to me. If the Earth is a place where a creator places individuals and it is so unstable that it destroys man by hundreds of thousands via earthquakes and storms and volcanic eruptions and droughts what difference does it make if the creator is not done?

Are you suggesting that, "oops, there goes another 200K in Haiti" is part of process? Why does the creator need to get a learner's permit in universe making? Why not get it right the first time instead of allowing the brutal deaths of millions per decade?



Making excuses for a creator seems well - awkward.

Because if there were no possibility of pain, destruction, and death there would be no platform for free will.

reply to post by followtheevidence

Because if there were no possibility of pain, destruction, and death there would be no platform for free will.

So you are saying that the creator had to produce a world purposely killing off people in large chunks of the population at once? So destruction such as Tangshan and Haiti and Krakatoa and the Indonesian tsunami are purposeful actions of the creator to allow free will?

Aren't these situations a bit extreme for free will?

You need to rework your statement to read:
Because if there were no possibility of large scale horrific pain, large scale horrific destruction, and large scale horrific death there would be no platform for free will.

I simply don't buy your argument. The events are way beyond anything required for your claim.

For nostalgia's sake I was going through the older posts on here and realized that this should be stickied and retitled: "Pretty much every creationist argument that's ever been on this forum can be found here and has been thoroughly refuted here"

And I can't believe I didn't used to capitalize things properly.

this must have gotten so annoying those people who had to read what i wrote. i can only imagine how stupid i looked because of it. and now i teach english as a foreign language, who'd a thunk?

But seriously, if you have an argument to bring forth, check here to see if it's already been refuted.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by undo
A few random and very simple thoughts of my own:

1. Why did different sexes evolve and what came first, the female or the male?
If the female, then how did she give birth to a male without a male? If hermaphroditic, then why the need for separation of the hermaphrodite into 2 distinct donors of one set of information, when the the higher form of evolution would be that both sets of information are maintained hermaphroditically and different sexes are not necessary as they waste energy?

Sexual dimorpism allows greater variation in offspring compared to "cloners". This enables a better response to environmental threats such as parasites/disease.

Maintaining hermaphroditism may be more costly than having sexually dimorphism - but some species are hermaphrodites, so obviously it works for their situation. Some species have the ability to change sex according to social cues, again it works for them.

I have a question (not a challenge). Evolution doesn't have foresight...so how could the process of sexual dimorphism develop gradually? Said organism had an efficient process for reproduction, so to abandon this process for a more wasteful one seems dubious. Sure now its clear that such a change has proven advantageous, but what if it hadn't? Hmmm. I really am struggling with the wording in this one. Sorry.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by followtheevidence

 

Because if there were no possibility of pain, destruction, and death there would be no platform for free will.

So you are saying that the creator had to produce a world purposely killing off people in large chunks of the population at once? So destruction such as Tangshan and Haiti and Krakatoa and the Indonesian tsunami are purposeful actions of the creator to allow free will?

Aren't these situations a bit extreme for free will?

You need to rework your statement to read:
Because if there were no possibility of large scale horrific pain, large scale horrific destruction, and large scale horrific death there would be no platform for free will.

I simply don't buy your argument. The events are way beyond anything required for your claim.

Free will with limitations simply wouldn't be free will. Why we've declined to such horrific depths and abused the liberty of free will so heinously is a question best directed at ourselves. I mean, really what sort of free will would it be if there were lines drawn? You're free to do as you wish until God say's you've crossed the line and then what? He strikes you down in that moment? It is my understanding that with freedom, it must be all or nothing. Yes, freedom comes at a grave cost as it always has - I in no way mean to diminish the necessary pain many feel in the service of freedom.

reply to post by followtheevidence


I understand why free will requires tolerating suffering caused by humans, but why hypothetical god allows suffering which is not caused by humans exercising their free will (earthquakes, diseases, floods.. evil caused by nature)? Removing this suffering would not breach anyones free will. So either god cannot remove it (then he is not omnipotent), or he does not want to (then he is malevolent). Which is it?

Belief in a god (or multiple gods) is nothing but a lack of knowledge, it's a god of the gaps. A lot of people need to fill crucial gaps (why are we here? what's our purpose? etc.) to feel good because let's face it, reality can be harsh.

But it doesn't change the fact that we have ZERO proof for the existence of a god, and a lot of the things people attributed to god in the past, have now been explained rationally through science. We now know meteorites aren't signs of god, there are no talking snakes, we didn't come from a single couple but evolved from ancestor we share with today's monkeys, the earth is not flat, we didn't roam the earth with dinosaurs, and burning bushes aren't a sign of god.

Give it another 200yrs or so and being a "believer" will be like doing yoga. People will realize it can have some good effects, in the same way meditation can be good for you, but taking things literally is just plain stupid. Use the base message, but accept that the "stories" in scriptures are merely a way to convey the underlying message. Just like the story of Santa's used to teach children to be good.

If the human species wants to progress, they need to accept reality and not try and fill gaps with pure wish belief or guesswork.

Epic lulz in this thread - good job, OP!

I guess evolution wasn't such a hot idea after all. What ridiculous creationist website did you copy and paste this from? Can you even summarize what evolution by natural selection is - or are you just another Ben Stein nutswinger? You do realize that if evolution is wrong, then the only alternative is Buddhist Reincarnationism, right?

And I think it's reasonable to believe that evolution is directed, after all, gravity on earth directs objects down.

I'll agree, I was being to unspecific, natural selection can provide 'direction', unitelligently.

I disagree. For starters gravity doesn't act in a specific direction, it is an attractive force which acts in all directions, between all objects that have mass. The strength of the force is determined by the size, density and distance of the object. When the moon is overhead it's gravitational field is pulling you upwards, but the earth's is pulling you down a lot harder. Also, your gravitational field is pulling the earth up towards your feet and the moon down towards your head, but it is such an unimaginably weak force that it has no effect whatsoever. Gravity is the weakest of the four forces, by a considerable amount. The point is that it's hardly a wonder that you don't understand evolution when you don't even properly understand a relatively simple concept like gravity.

Evolution is not directed. The mutations occur at random and environmental factors will determine whether the mutation has a positive or negative effect ( if any effect at all) on an organisms chances of survival. For instance, imagine you take two sample groups from the same species and put one in an environment in which there are many predators, and the other in an environment in which there are very few predators. In the predator rich environment you might expect the duller coloured organisms ( or the least conspicuously coloured or patterned) to have a better chance of survival becasue they are less likely to attract the attention of any predators. They would be more likely to live long enough to reproduce and pass on their genes than their more brightly coloured counterparts. As generation after generation pass the 'dull gene' becomes more and more common in the gene pool and the brighter organisms are killed off. At the same time the predators that have now wiped out the brightly coloured organisms may be having difficulty catching enough prey to survive, and they might find that individuals within the predator population that have better eyesight ( for example), are now at an advantage. The gene for good eyesight might then spread through subsequent generations pushing the prey organisms to develop more and more sophisticated camouflage, and so it repeats on and on.
In the predator free environment however, things would probably be the opposite. There the issue would not be survival, it would be reproduction, and the brighter and more elaborately decorated individuals become, the more likely they would be to attract a mate with whom they can reproduce and pass down the gene for elaborate decoration. While this is happening the dull coloured organisms would be dying out within the population because they are unable to find a partner to mate with. This is just an example to make a point, but studies along these lines have been conducted and these kinds of changes within a population have been observed, often in a shorter time frame than expected.
The ( rather drawn out) point I'm making this time, is that members from the same species can evolve in completely opposite directions at the same time if they become isolated from one another in separate and differing environments. They could evolve in any number of directions. This is how new species come into existence. Individuals from within the same species take a divergent evolutionary path until their genes have become so different that they can no longer interbreed.
One final brief point, again about environmental factors. What about climate change? The climate on our planet has changed frequently and dramatically throughout it's history and animals have had to adapt to this. When the world heats up animals who are able to dissipate the heat will be at an advantage, and when it cools down again the animals who are able to retain heat more effectively will be at an advantage, and then the world heats up again... Characteristics which once were an aid to survival can become detrimental and vice versa, so if you're going to talk about evolution and direction you could say that sometimes it goes backwards ( I certainly wouldn't say that personally). Evidence suggests that life started in the ocean, moved onto land, returned to the ocean and then back onto land again. I don't believe that evolution moves in a particular direction in the slightest. It's as random as the mutations that spark it and the circumstances that 'select' it ( or not).

Wow this post is 5 years old!!

35 pages !!!


Im not reading though 35 pages so if anyone already said this...my appoligies...

Anyone ever consider evolution and creationism could co-exist?

Perhaps they're the same thing?

God can't evolve?