Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

originally posted by: TzarChasm
one more thread disproving evolution by demonstrating that they dont know what evolution actually is. where is phantom423, i hear s/he has put up a pretty good site for that kind of thing.

I would not venture from my home to visit another where there is only one didactic point of view offered (someone might convert and hold me hostage). I cannot imagine a better web site existing than this one for open discussion. One separate from this? I never leave my home.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: TzarChasm

one more thread disproving evolution by demonstrating that they dont know what evolution actually is. where is phantom423, i hear s/he has put up a pretty good site for that kind of thing.

One separate from this? I never leave my home.

dont worry, i wont tell.

a reply to: TzarChasm

it is not they who have a hard time explaining, it is you who prides yourself in refusing to listen.

I listened hard at first. Over and over and over so
many times i don't have to listen anymore. i'm convinced
evolution doesn't happen in the way you personally try to
make it happen. I see your disdain for a Creator as the reason
you persist. And that's not a good thing. You're dark and negative
in most every post you describe a personal obsession against the
best explanation for existence there is. Constantly critical of others
beliefs because they differ from your own mundane wish. Well you
can wish in one hand and crap in the other one. See which one fills up
first. And put that in your petri dish.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Krazysh0t

funny how you always respond as if I am a complete dumbass.

The method they used does not concern me but what does concern me is the fact that some scientist managed to force millions of so called evolutionary yrs into a few weeks of work.

Your second paragraph sums up PERFECTLY why I respond as how I do. The method is ALWAYS important.

Now if you can see that is much evidence that other processes out there unknown to you or I could be used to force so called evolutionary process.

I see that the evidence you are presenting isn't saying what you think it is saying because you don't understand the methods and theories that the experiment was based around.

at the end of the day they are all guesses unless we were there during the changes happening to species on earth but if we listen to others they claim case closed and it shows there willingness to further a set of guidelines that some quack laid out yrs ago.

At the end of the day, a guess is as good as the evidence behind it and evolution has quite a bit of evidence behind it. Just because you can label it a guess doesn't mean it is wrong.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
please refer to any dictionary or scientific manual for a definition of Darwinism. It is a term used to consolidate Darwin's differing theory's of evolution of the species through natural selection.
Please refer again to my first post. While your argumentative prowess is quite exceptional it doesn't change the fact that in no part of my original post is a strawman argument presented.
Please stop making things up. It's childish.

To be honest, whether Darwinism is a real word or not is irrelevant. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is out of date and isn't used with modern evolutionary theory. Some concepts from Darwin's ToNS are in Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (like Natural Selection), but the theory is MUCH more expansive than Darwin's theory. Like I already told you, the only people who still care about Darwin are Creationists looking to build strawmans to attack evolution. And I'm not making things up.

And please... to try and define a difference between Darwin and Evolution is ludicrous at best. Even if such a separation did in fact exist it would not change the fact that even the mechanism of Speciation is heavily reliant on the organisms reaction to the local environment making my original point still true and relevant.

For accusing me of making stuff up, you do a marvelous job of it yourself.

Modern evolutionary synthesis

The modern evolutionary synthesis (known as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis, millennium synthesis or the neo-Darwinian synthesis) is a 20th-century synthesis of ideas from several fields of biology that provides an account of evolution which is widely accepted. [1]

The synthesis, produced between 1936 and 1947, reflects the consensus about how evolution proceeds.[2] The previous development of nineteenth century evolutionary ideas by Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel and others and the population genetics, between 1918 and 1932, was a stimulus, as it showed that Mendelian genetics was consistent with natural selection and gradual evolution. The synthesis is still, to a large extent, the current paradigm in evolutionary biology.[3]

The modern synthesis solved difficulties and confusions caused by the specialisation and poor communication between biologists in the early years of the 20th century. At its heart was the question of whether Mendelian genetics could be reconciled with gradual evolution by means of natural selection. A second issue was whether the broad-scale changes (macroevolution) seen by palaeontologists could be explained by changes seen in local populations (microevolution).

The synthesis included evidence from biologists, trained in genetics, who studied populations in the field and in the laboratory. These studies were crucial to evolutionary theory. The synthesis drew together ideas from several branches of biology which had become separated, particularly genetics, cytology, systematics, botany, morphology, ecology and paleontology.

Julian Huxley invented the term in his 1942 book, Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. Major figures in the modern synthesis include Ronald Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, J. B. S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, E. B. Ford, Ernst Mayr, Bernhard Rensch, Sergei Chetverikov, George Gaylord Simpson, and G. Ledyard Stebbins.

Just because you can't be bothered to understand the theory thoroughly enough to tell the difference between the two concepts doesn't mean that a separation doesn't exist.

Blah blah blah. Respond to me with some links and evidence backing up your bs and maybe I'll concede a point. Until you do I don't care about your strawmans and (with this most recent post) ad hominems.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Please refer to the fact that there is no such thing as "Darwinism". It is a made up term invented by creationists to discredit evolution with a strawman.

Is evolution dependent on abiogenesis or creation? I ask because
as you said, evolution does not and can not explain how life began.
If it doesn't include how life began it is then dependent on that
explanation. So evolution discredits itself just fine without
creationists because creationism is dependent on nothing. Creation
in all truth is intolerable to evolution, so that leaves abiogenesis.
And abiogenesis faces all the impossibilities that evolutions believers
avoid in the way you just did.

Neither. Evolution starts with the premise that life already exists. So your reasoning here is flawed because you are relying on a false premise. Ie a strawman.

So now that we have that all pinned down tell me this shot.
Did the mind create time or did time create the mind?

I don't care in the context of this thread.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Crux of the matter; life existed before the idea of evolution began its diabolical plan. How did that initial life form begin; was created and continue on the path creating thousands of animated specie (reptile, mammal) from one salt water amoeba? No one has adequately explained the reason for the plant/flora or multitude (REASON) for 1.5 million insect species to exist; other than bees that have the job to pollinate (even they hate the human and sting us).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I really like the way that you keep avoiding the issue... You're quite exceptional at.

Could it be, that in spite of your phenomenal knowledge and exceptional intelligence that you are in fact unable to explain to me the mystical force that drives the mechanisms of evolution to produce more complex organisms for no apparent reason?

Yup.

Seems legit.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Crux of the matter; life existed before the idea of evolution began its diabolical plan. How did that initial life form begin; was created and continue on the path creating thousands of animated specie (reptile, mammal) from one salt water amoeba? No one has adequately explained the reason for the plant/flora or multitude (REASON) for 1.5 million insect species to exist; other than bees that have the job to pollinate (even they hate the human and sting us).

Science thinks Abiogenesis did it, but the two don't rely on each other to be true though. Mostly because Abiogenesis is a hypothesis and Evolution is a theory.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

There are many forces that contribute to cause an organism to evolve. Environment, natural disasters, mutations, climate change, etc. As for what causes it, I couldn't tell you. Science doesn't presume to answer all questions. It just answers the questions that it built the evidence for. If you are trying to try me in a gotcha question here by saying that evolution is false because -I- can't answer your one nagging question about evolution then you are doing it wrong.

This will so get buried and ignored, but hey.

There is a conundrum that I'd like answered by creationists.
It has been mentioned on here rightly, that evolution does not exclude a creator. As Boymonkey has explained very well, any creator [you call him god] could have just set the program and pressed 'start' and watch evolutionary laws either work or fail.

So my first question is:
"Do creationists completely disagree with this notion?" [Please, I'd really like an answer]

If so, there is only one other way to create everything and that is to make everything individually.

Every human cell, every animal cell, bones and birth defects, mental illness and every single bacteria [billions] that lives in the guts of living beings.
That said, apparently also every rock and blade of grass, every atom and other smaller particles. Every time something comes into existence, every little aspect has to be pre planned and then made.

My second question is:
"Is this what creationists think or is there an in-between 'theory', I'd really like to hear about it [no sarcasm].


With all of that in mind, science has made strides in finding the smallest particles that make our universe. There are called Quarks. Here is a nice easy to understand video about them: www.youtube.com...
They have no brain, they just have 'spin' and make up every atom in the universe.
Atoms make matter and matter is attracted to each other because it has no other choice. Life IMO has no choice not to exist. Life WILL develop somewhere at some point, it is an inevitability of our laws of physics and chemistry.

Now, here is the conundrum:

If god is a 'being', I.e, it exists; then it is also made out of Quarks. Unless it exists outside of our reality. Bare with me.
If god 'makes' things, it HAS to interact with them. So a creator MUST be of our universe and hence be made out of Quarks.

In that case science could one day prove that a god exists. So why hate in science?

If the creator is in another dimension however, the only way to create life has to be by manipulating our laws of physics from the 'outside'. This HAS to lead to 'creation' on a non-individual basis but on a 'here are my parameters - let's hope for the best' scenario.

Either way would still be creation by a conscious entity.
Only problem is that you can't have both. If the bible means physical creation of every neuron and DNA, often leading to hereditary diseases, then this god would also KNOW all of the consequences, so it would KNOW that humans will invent science and try to explain to their best knowledge the mechanics of evolution.

I can't get my head around the fact that creationists can ignore science, especially if there is a good chance, it has been planted into us by a creator? And if it hasn't, how is it possible for a creation to go 'wrong' when it has been created bit by bit [and then gets punished, if it does what it has no choice of ignoring]?
This makes individual creation logically impossible unless god's are bastards.

Life 'given' as a formula to develop by itself however would be a very mature alternative. To ignore this alternative, as all creationists seems to be just stubborn and close minded. Plus you are throwing away a very good argument FOR a creator.

You can't have it both. If you say you can, I'd like a scientifically acceptable theory for that. Not quotes from a 2000 year old book.

originally posted by: randyvs
I see your disdain for a Creator as the reason
you persist. And that's not a good thing.

Actually, it's a brilliant thing. It means they, like others, have moved from the caves into the modern world. If you want to believe in a Creator, they that's fine. But it has NO PLACE in science or the evolution of the many animals on this planet.

You're dark and negative
in most every post you describe a personal obsession against the
best explanation for existence there is. Constantly critical of others
beliefs because they differ from your own mundane wish.

That's a subjective remark and arguably, I could say the same about your posts -- dark and negative, living in a cave of ignorance until the end of your days -- which is fine.

Well you
can wish in one hand and crap in the other one. See which one fills up
first. And put that in your petri dish.

Wow. So negative and dark. I thought a person of Christ would be filled with joy and good wishes.

Basically, the thread OP was arguing against evolution by using incorrect scientific references and by using them wrong, argued against them. It doesn't work like that.

I can go to a laboratory, donate my blood and have results which show me where my ancestors came from, who I'm more related to and so on. That isn't derived just by looking in a book written by someone 2000 years ago. It comes from an empirical process that can be repeated by others with the same results. THAT"S how science differs from Creationism. Science allows you to change your belief when new information comes along to refute a previously held belief.

Creationism/religion does not. It dies when anything that proves it wrong is discovered. Hence why people like you are so anti-science and anti-knowledge.

a reply to: noonebutme

Wow. So negative and dark. I thought a person of Christ would be filled with joy and good wishes.

You mean like a ferry?
Sorry, if I'm more human than you expect. You might as well
get use to it and I thought you would be by now. I never have
fit the profile you refer to and most likely will have to answer
for it. Besides, we were only instructed to turn the other
cheeck during the time of the gentiles. That time has passed.

If i choose to be a hostile instead of a gentile remember it's
a choice. A choice I make in return for insults and hostility
recieved. Your own condescending, arrogance and pathetic
rhetoric is a joke. I speak the truth as I know it to
be. No one should fall victim to your hate because of that
and I'm not one to just lay down and take it. Behind a key
board or not.

originally posted by: randyvs
No one should fall victim to your hate because of that and I'm not one to just lay down and take it. Behind a key
board or not.

Very true. Did you know I am still awaiting trial at the Hague for my crimes against humanity? I'm a very naughty boy

I still say Creationism has no hope of explaining the diversity of life on this planet, nor why we have so many failings, biologically speaking.

Your God should have created us perfect or, at the very least, with better visual equipment than we currently have. And that is a very telling piece of evidence for evolution -- it isn't perfect or even right. It could very well be that one mutation in a specific generation, while not advantageous, promulgated to the next as some other specific adaption allowed it to continue. And by that I refer to our eyes. Why are they so poor in the dark? Why do they not see harmful xrays, UV, gamma, etc? Because no sentient thing created us - we evolved.If I created a new lifeform, i would give it EVERY conceivable physical advantage I could think of. Why make it deficient? That implies either :

a) Your creator is stupid
b) Your creator is incompetent
c) Your creator didn't do it because he/it doesn't exist.

Until you have some genuine evidence which can be proven and replicated, I opt for c).

a reply to: noonebutme

Well why didn't we evolve with your super duper eyesight then?
The way I understand it we should have.

Look noone scrap all the BS we've said to each other
as far as I'm concerned. Because without obligating you in any
way, truth be told, I do like you. Because you believe you're right.

As I also do and here's why. Because the same way you are with
science and I am not, I am with the Creator, as you are not.
Where you stop at C)

c) Your creator didn't do it because he/it doesn't exist.

I move on to D) and accept it as good reason.

D) God did make us perfect but because of sin and contrary to
evolution. We have degenerated from that immortal being God
created in the beginning. God didn't make anything to die and
he warned us about the wages of sin. But you aren't willing to
go to the next level and consider all the answers that could be.
How is that scientific? It isn't. It isn't fair to yourself or in a
debate either.

Also you can't say objectively or subjectively that you know
God doesn't exist and expect to be taken seriously. But I can
say subjectively I know for a fact God does exist. And not give
a damn who takes me seriously.

Very true. Did you know I am still awaiting trial at the Hague for my crimes against humanity? I'm a very naughty boy

Most likely your crimes against humanity aren't anything humanity
wouldn't subject itself to at some point anyway. But if you torture
defenseless animals? You might see me go to work on your nieghbor
hood with a pair of pliers and blow torch.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: Krazysh0t

vhb: Crux of the matter; life existed before the idea of evolution began its diabolical plan. How did that initial life form begin; was created and continue on the path creating thousands of animated specie (reptile, mammal) from one salt water amoeba? No one has adequately explained the reason for the plant/flora or multitude (REASON) for 1.5 million insect species to exist; other than bees that have the job to pollinate (even they hate the human and sting us).

Krazyshot: Science thinks Abiogenesis did it, but the two don't rely on each other to be true though. Mostly because Abiogenesis is a hypothesis and Evolution is a theory.

Who is Science. Those that created the 'Science Oven' (microwave). You realize Abiogenesis as a hypothesis and Evolution as a 'theory' is unproven just as creationism is a 'wild guess' faith based. Back to square one as it is a little bit of all of these ideas that no one will consider. One has to appreciate the actual power of polarizing factions which seem always to result in the negative result of non-communication.

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: randyvs
I still say Creationism has no hope of explaining the diversity of life on this planet, nor why we have so many failings, biologically speaking.

You are speaking of the human only; because the rest of the flora and fauna here appear to be perfectly adapted to their ecosystems and seem to get along just fine with each other, one exception: the human is woefully out of place within these systems (a bad fit).

noonebutme: Your God should have created us perfect or, at the very least, with better visual equipment than we currently have. And that is a very telling piece of evidence for evolution -- it isn't perfect or even right.

400,000 thousand years is not nearly enough time to evolve Hawk or Cat eyesight, Bloodhound smell, wings; perhaps in the next decade or two everything will ramp up.

noone: It could very well be that one mutation in a specific generation, while not advantageous, promulgated to the next as some other specific adaption allowed it to continue. And by that I refer to our eyes. Why are they so poor in the dark? Why do they not see harmful xrays, UV, gamma, etc? Because no sentient thing created us - we evolved.If I created a new lifeform, i would give it EVERY conceivable physical advantage I could think of. Why make it deficient? That implies either :
a) Your creator is stupid
b) Your creator is incompetent
c) Your creator didn't do it because he/it doesn't exist.

You would (as God creator) recreate the human to be a better form. Where were you when needed in the first place to HELP. You speak of others 'creator' being somehow different than yours. Begs this question, who created you?

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
You are speaking of the human only; because the rest of the flora and fauna here appear to be perfectly adapted to their ecosystems and seem to get along just fine with each other, one exception: the human is woefully out of place within these systems (a bad fit).

Yes I was specifically referring to humans only as thats what I know best. And I would argue that the flora and fauna are not perfectly adapted. I say they are much BETTER adapted than we are. But nothing is perfect.

400,000 thousand years is not nearly enough time to evolve Hawk or Cat eyesight, Bloodhound smell, wings; perhaps in the next decade or two everything will ramp up.

Yes, I know. That's what I'm arguing. That evolution ISNT perfect and that due to our many imperfections, we're evidence OF that imperfect process. Had we been created by a God or some other creator, I contend It would have made us MUCH better than the current sloppy, imperfect, fragile little human bodies we have now.

You would (as God creator) recreate the human to be a better form. Where were you when needed in the first place to HELP.

No idea. A twinkle in the milkman's eye perhaps? If I were a God or some other such being, I would have created "humans" far, far better. And again, that's my point -- if it was intelligently designed, why is our design so f**ked up?? Why wouldn't you create a being to have better healing, better intelligence, better senses. Why make it like it was some long, drawn out process of trial and error over millions of years?

You speak of others 'creator' being somehow different than yours. Begs this question, who created you?

My mummy and my daddy did. Through hot, rampant sex. Full of sin and seduction! All the things that make good Christians wince and pull the covers over the heads.

originally posted by: randyvs
But if you torture defenseless animals? You might see me go to work on your nieghbor hood with a pair of pliers and blow torch.

Hang on. *IF* I tortured animals (which I don't as I hold animals above humans in most respects), you'd..."go to work" on my neighbourhood with a pair of pliers and blow torch?

Are you saying you'd maim and torture innocent people because of the evils deeds I *may* have done?

Hell's bells. Sounds bloody brilliant! Win-win for me then!

originally posted by: noonebutme
originally posted by: vethumanbeing

vhb: You would (as God creator) recreate the human to be a better form. Where were you when needed in the first place to HELP.

noonebutme: No idea. A twinkle in the milkman's eye perhaps? If I were a God or some other such being, I would have created "humans" far, far better. And again, that's my point -- if it was intelligently designed, why is our design so f**ked up?? Why wouldn't you create a being to have better healing, better intelligence, better senses. Why make it like it was some long, drawn out process of trial and error over millions of years?

It was no where near millions of years (3 at best at its first discovery), the hominid creature suspected human prototype. The last 40,000 years of human evolution could compete with the 170 Kennel Club (recognized dog breeds) created by SOMEONE. Am I to believe humans did this all by themselves (of course they did) just as a higher being manipulated human DNA. Here is the rub, did not want us to have the same superpowers they did; result? we are handicapped. Why do we not have something similar: or The Human Breeds of Hominids AKC Human Kennel Club, Westminster; Madison Square Garden venue.