How to prove evolution is FAKE!!!

reply to post by SpearMint


You still haven't caught on to the Sarcasm have you? Damn. I would hate to be you. Google can lead to good sources of information, but I prefer actual class room time. By the way, my assumption on your education comes from your non existent textbook view of evolution. You would know Micro and Macro evolution is one of the most basic concepts in a class room. If you do not understand the most basic concepts of evolution, how do you have any credibility when I gauge you by the textbook?

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by SpearMint

 

You still haven't caught on to Sarcasm have you? Damn. I would hate to be you.

Objectively speaking as an observer of this conversation, the sarcasm isn't up to much as it is hard to discern from your apparent views. Why not ditch the sarcasm and provide the proof that you claim that you can and as has been requested of you multiple times.

reply to post by spacedog1973


I've posted this before and no answer.

---

In the early stages of life, proteins could not have formed because it would be no way for the Amino Acids to exist in a non pure state of liquid. Obviously, lots of things were occurring on Earth, and the oceans / water would have been ... not very pure. So, how do Amino Acids link up to form proteins if the earth's heat, electrical discharges, and solar radiation destroy the protein products many times faster than they could form?

Rocks that we believe were in existence before have very little carbon. You would need a very toxic carbon-rich environment for life to have evolved. Today, the atmosphere is only 1/80,000 of the carbon that has been around since the first fossils formed. Why is that?
-------

I didn't want to post this because it will take the head further off topic. I can only point out flaws, I cannot prove anything. Only that the Theory of evolution, which should be more of a Hypothesis IMO, is flawed, dearly.

Google, google, google away!

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by SpearMint

 

You still haven't caught on to the Sarcasm have you? Damn. I would hate to be you. Google can lead to good sources of information, but I prefer actual class room time. By the way, my assumption on your education comes from your non existent textbook view of evolution. You would know Micro and Macro evolution is one of the most basic concepts in a class room. If you do not understand the most basic concepts of evolution, how do you have any credibility when I gauge you by the textbook?

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

So prove anything I've said wrong. I don't claim to be an expert, but I've spent a lot of time studying evolution and have quite an in-depth understanding of how it works. You imply that you do as well but it's not reflected in anything you've said. Your conclusion that I don't know much about it is based on your own lack of knowledge, you're stubborn in your misunderstanding and therefore I appear wrong. Trust me, anyone that knows the basics of this subject will not go on about micro and macro evolution as you do, for reasons I've mentioned two or three times in this thread.

It would be nice if you actually made a reasonable argument based on something other than your personal belief.

reply to post by SpearMint


I could have sworn we already had this argument and it just died out mint because flaw after flaw was pointed out. You just stated it is an incomplete science. Which it is.

I don't want to go through another dead end argument where we agree to disagree again.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by spacedog1973

 

I've posted this before and no answer.

---

In the early stages of life, proteins could not have formed because it would be no way for the Amino Acids to exist in a non pure state of liquid. Obviously, lots of things were occurring on Earth, and the oceans / water would have been ... not very pure. So, how do Amino Acids link up to form proteins if the earth's heat, electrical discharges, and solar radiation destroy the protein products many times faster than they could form?

Rocks that we believe were in existence before have very little carbon. You would need a very toxic carbon-rich environment for life to have evolved. Today, the atmosphere is only 1/80,000 of the carbon that has been around since the first fossils formed. Why is that?

Im not a scientist, nor I believe are you. In this instance, what I generally do is defer to the experts, I read the expert testimony, I consider expert opinion etc. The scientific community in large part accept the theory and associated theories of evolution. To counter the overwhelming opinion, an opinion that is equally scrutinized needs to be presented. Its not something that can simply be argued away. The questions that you have regarding this would best be put to scientific experts who can advise you as to the answer. Just because you can't get an answer here doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

If an answer doesn't exist for your question, no doubt you will conclude that the theory of evolution doesn't hold up. I would ask you a question in return - do you believe that you have information that thousands of accomplished scientists have either overlooked, don't have an answer for or are deliberately masking? And what is your opposing theory?

reply to post by milkyway12


That's completely off topic. The origin of life is not the same as evolution. I am no expert on the subject, but I do know there's different theories on how amino acids formed, one of them is chemical reactions caused by meteors hitting the Earth. That's about as much as I can say on that topic, but if you research it I'm sure you'll find some good answers. Also remember that life, or the building blocks of life didn't necessarily form on Earth.

Even if there is no answer currently that doesn't disprove anything, discovering chemical reactions that happened billions of years ago is so much harder than saying "God did it". The lack of knowledge in a particular subject doesn't disprove or prove anything, it simply means we don't know yet. Evolution is something that we do know a lot about though, because it's happening now.

reply to post by spacedog1973


Well, I do have my degree in Number Theory and Computer Science

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by spacedog1973

 

Well, I do have my degree in Number Theory and Computer Science

Ok, thats nice. Congratulations.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by SpearMint

 

I could have sworn we already had this argument and it just died out mint because flaw after flaw was pointed out. You just stated it is an incomplete science. Which it is.

I don't want to go through another dead end argument where we agree to disagree again.

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

It's not much of an argument, an argument is two sided and you haven't made a point yet.

reply to post by SpearMint


Yes I have, Evolution is a flawed theory which is accepted as fact.

We need to make more lego dinosaurs so we can have more KFC chicken.

And peanut Butter doesn't need to evolve anyway. I am sure it could if it wanted to.

Besides, that is what free will is anyway. I have a 3rd degree black belt in Darwinism.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by spacedog1973

 

Well, I do have my degree in Number Theory and Computer Science

Then it's even more surprising that you haven't seemed to grasp the concept of 1 + 1. Those degrees are completely irrelevant by the way.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Yes I have, Evolution is a flawed theory which is accepted as fact.

I'm waiting for you to provide something to back this up... until then what you've said is worthless.

With enough random nonsense posts, I am hoping to create a spaghetti monster.

reply to post by SpearMint


Lol. Now the argument has deteriorated for the worst >.<

I'm tired, it's 5:30 am. Night.

By the way, I'm not the guy saying Micro + Macro = 2. I cannot understand your logic.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Lol. Now the argument has deteriorated for the worst >.<

I'm tired, it's 5:30 am. Night.

By the way, I'm not the guy saying Micro + Macro = 2. I cannot understand your logic.

How convenient. You still have not provided anything of value, that's always the way with these threads though.

Micro + MICRO = macro.

Small + small = big.

1 + 1 = 2.

This is painful.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Yes I have, Evolution is a flawed theory which is accepted as fact.

Its widely accepted that it is unfinished and there remain questions yet to be answered. However, I don't think there are legitimate questions that could put the whole theory into question. Nor is there an opposing theory that carries any worth nor has been substantiated in most areas as has the theory of evolution. So the Theory of Evolution is the only real show in town.

reply to post by SpearMint


The word theory within science is so complicated and wage you need to spend thousands of dollars on a lawyer to interpret the exact meaning.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by SpearMint

 

The word theory within science is so complicated and wage you need to spend thousands of dollars on a lawyer to interpret the exact meaning.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Or look at wikipedia.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

(Cited from the National Academy of Sciences)

There are some key words in there that should be paid attention to.