Evolution is a farce: Evidence

a reply to: peter vlar

The problem here is these "civilian experts" seem to think there is a grand unifying theory in science, and every theory ties into another.

Abiogenisis/proteogenisis (forgive my old fashioned education ) is a completely different field of study (its chemistry) to evolution (its genetics and paleontology). So the mechanisms involved in the first biological molecules (amino acids, and nucleic acids) being formed is much different than mutation. I could list 5 different ways that amino acids formed, and why they have a chiral bias in nature. Similarly there are are a number of reasons RNA was probably the way information was stored first, and it changed to the much more stable DNA form the majority of life now uses. However absolutely none of that involves evolution of species.

Have you noticed how aggressively insulting they are getting too, its like the "kook signal" was put up to bring them in

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: BlackManINC

Perhaps I should clue you into a couple of things neighbour.

(a) I hold a PhD in Chemistry, postgraduate qualifications in bioinformatics, and I've studied proteogenisis (aka abiogenisis)
(b) I work in the science industry
and
(c) Look at (a) and (b) they are important to the next bits I am going to say.

Many things are incorrectly called other things. The Higss particle is caleld by the media and other laypersons the "god particle" yet not a single educated individual calls it that. The name persists but it does not make it so.

How people misuses a scientific theory is no reflection of the theory itself. Indeed its a reflection of the lack of education and understanding of those people.

What you are missing from that paper you citeed (and its not a new one now is it?) is that they are talking about "pre life" a lot in there. Perchance have you actually read the whole paper? WE use a lot of words differently today than what they once meant or were supposed to be used. Here are a couple. Synergy. It really was supposed to ONLY be applied to a chemical system, yet its used all over the place. Nice used to mean strange. Gay happy. putting "pro" in frount of a word to make it imply something is "better" was also of a chemistry origin. But the language evolves.


You are really hostile neighbor, you need to chill out. You are dealing with something way above your pay grade here, and its showing.

For one, I don't care about your credentials, so please don't speak it to me as if that's supposed to make you special. Secondly, this report was released in 2004. The abstract makes it clear that this is a report about our evolution from Molecules to man from the pre-biotic level. It is abiogensis under another guise. You can spin it any way you wish with your play on words, simple logic and reading comprehension prevails over your credentials any day.

a reply to: BlackManINC

It makes me more qualified to speak to this than you neighbor. I've actually worked in the area. If you have rad the paper you will see that it is simply a hypothesis of how this might have happened. Its not even a theory, its a hypothesis, one of several.

You may think that your "logic" and "reading comprehension" may help you there, sadly for you you actually would have to have read the paper and be able to understand the chemistry involved, which clearly you have not.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: BlackManINC

It makes me more qualified to speak to this than you neighbor. I've actually worked in the area. If you have rad the paper you will see that it is simply a hypothesis of how this might have happened. Its not even a theory, its a hypothesis, one of several.

You may think that your "logic" and "reading comprehension" may help you there, sadly for you you actually would have to have read the paper and be able to understand the chemistry involved, which clearly you have not.

Hypothesis or not, the bottom line, is you are pretending that evolution has nothing at all to do with abiogenesis. If the idea is still proposed at all by any scientist anywhere, whether its from NASA or the Smithsonian, then it is obviously still of import.

a reply to: BlackManINC

I am not pretending any such thing neighbor.Evolutionary theory only deals with how one life form changes (evolves) to another. It does not even touch how life started. That is a separate theory. Just as (for example) theories on gravity have nothing to do with theories on nuclear fission. They are unrelated. I am truly sorry that these concepts are beyond your limited understanding. But this heathen seems to be able to understand the difference.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: BlackManINC

I am not pretending any such thing neighbor.Evolutionary theory only deals with how one life form changes (evolves) to another. It does not even touch how life started. That is a separate theory. Just as (for example) theories on gravity have nothing to do with theories on nuclear fission. They are unrelated. I am truly sorry that these concepts are beyond your limited understanding. But this heathen seems to be able to understand the difference.

And yet everywhere I look I see attempts to marry the two together, by your fellow evolutionists themselves, so you have no point.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Those attempts are usually made by non beleivers and deniers who wish to use the first hypothesis as a way to discredit the theory of the second. You are yet to produce evidence from "evolutionists" (and by this I mean academics who specialize in evolutionary theory) to do this. You will not find any such papers. Papers on evolution will be from geneticists, gemomicists, and paleontologists. Abiogenisis will generally be talked too by chemists, and biochemists.

Like I said, you are talking to things well above your pay grade neighbor. You are struggling, and its got to be causing you some distress, perhaps even some questions of faith.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: BlackManINC

Those attempts are usually made by non beleivers and deniers who wish to use the first hypothesis as a way to discredit the theory of the second. You are yet to produce evidence from "evolutionists" (and by this I mean academics who specialize in evolutionary theory) to do this. You will not find any such papers. Papers on evolution will be from geneticists, gemomicists, and paleontologists. Abiogenisis will generally be talked too by chemists, and biochemists.

Like I said, you are talking to things well above your pay grade neighbor. You are struggling, and its got to be causing you some distress, perhaps even some questions of faith.

If you wish to spin it that way Mr. PHD. I'm not struggling at all, I don't feel "distress", nor is my faith being put into question. However, you might want to look into a mirror because you may be projecting these feelings of "distress", "struggle", you are having with your faith in evolution onto me. Meanwhile, I am quietly laughing in the back of my head watching you run around like a chicken with your head cut off.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Question to the creationists, inspired by my wife (veterinarian) :

How do you explain the development of antibiotics resistant strain of bacteria’s after a couple of generations ?

a reply to: BlackManINC

Just gonna leave this here:

www.skepticblog.org...

Evolution is one of, if not THE most robust scientific theories out there.
However, for a dyed in the wool creationist to accept this theory is impossible as it contradicts an extremely deep-set belief.
It doesn't matter one iota what evidence is presented to them nor how compelling an argument is, they will not accept it.
They can't.

I'm happy to accept that's what they believe but at the very least they should accept it for being a belief and as such it cannot form any part of the scientific method.

So please don't try to justify your belief by attempting to use science to "prove" it as it will never, ever work.

a reply to: Pardon?

At the very first page of this thread I posted this :

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: TechUnique

When was the last time in our everyday life that you needed to have an answer (whatever it may be) about the question of evolution ?
Probably the last time you needed to convince yourself of the validity of your superstitions.

I was well inspired to do both question and answers because, when you ask something conflicting with the dogmatic belief system of YEC, you don't get any answer.
Since no creationist wished to add a correction to that statement, I consider they too, agree with it.
So here is exposed the whole purpose of this thread.

Even a blind man has a better vision than you on the subject :

a reply to: BlackManINC

Yes I meant by adapting. I never said mutations, whereabout a particular species changes into another, I said adapting. Gradually changing over time, but remaining as the original.

Hinduism? Me. No.

The rest of what I wrote about clinging to life or whatever' I was going on about. Was something else there and it came out wrong. My post wasn't very well written or thought out on that one. I was thinking about something else entirely.

Not really sure I could write a proper post about it, to express my views to be understood. Maybe because I was educated in Britain as well and we were taught scripture at school and evolution. Like I said, I don't really understand the argument to begin with.

In any case I most certainly don't worship or base any of my theories on pagan gods!

A spiel about creationists from Aron Ra some may find rings true.

A lot of it really hits the nail on the head imo.

From the The Unholy Trinity Tour 2014.

a reply to: violet

And with that, you can see how disingenuous the evolutionists are when they twist the real meaning of adaptation to mean one kind of creature changing into another. To these people, everything is evolution. If the skeletal remains of the giants spoken of in the Bible were put on display, they will find a way to fit it within the evolutionary paradigm. This is nothing more than the old Hindu belief in reincarnation applied to biology and its quite laughable and insulting that this garbage is called "science".

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: violet

And with that, you can see how disingenuous the evolutionists are when they twist the real meaning of adaptation to mean one kind of creature changing into another. To these people, everything is evolution. If the skeletal remains of the giants spoken of in the Bible put on display, they will find a way to fit it within the evolutionary paradigm. This is nothing more than the old Hindu belief in reincarnation applied to biology and its quite laughable and insulting that this garbage is called "science".

I'm not sure you understand what you're actually writing.
Can you explain what your understanding of both adaptation and evolution is please?

And if you can explain how reincarnation and evolution are connected that would be great.
Thanks.

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: BlackManINC

I am not pretending any such thing neighbor.Evolutionary theory only deals with how one life form changes (evolves) to another. It does not even touch how life started. That is a separate theory. Just as (for example) theories on gravity have nothing to do with theories on nuclear fission. They are unrelated. I am truly sorry that these concepts are beyond your limited understanding. But this heathen seems to be able to understand the difference.

And yet everywhere I look I see attempts to marry the two together, by your fellow evolutionists themselves, so you have no point.

Prove it. Post some links of "everyone attempting to marry the two together." Because I've only seen Creationists do that.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: peter vlar

The problem here is these "civilian experts" seem to think there is a grand unifying theory in science, and every theory ties into another.

Abiogenisis/proteogenisis (forgive my old fashioned education

) is a completely different field of study (its chemistry) to evolution (its genetics and paleontology). So the mechanisms involved in the first biological molecules (amino acids, and nucleic acids) being formed is much different than mutation. I could list 5 different ways that amino acids formed, and why they have a chiral bias in nature. Similarly there are are a number of reasons RNA was probably the way information was stored first, and it changed to the much more stable DNA form the majority of life now uses. However absolutely none of that involves evolution of species.

Have you noticed how aggressively insulting they are getting too, its like the "kook signal" was put up to bring them in

Wow your words are a magic trick, 5 different ways amino acids formed, what from rocks and water?
Where did the chemicals come from, magic, like your tricks.
Why was information stored, what for ..... then and how did it align, for what purpose, just fun.

You think Christians are kookie. Mirror mirror on the wall.

I can not believe you believe that, yes creation is a stretch but what you believe, thats amazing

Its insulting that you think information just stumbled in to a storage area. Magic?

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: BlackManINC

Perhaps I should clue you into a couple of things neighbour.

(a) I hold a PhD in Chemistry, postgraduate qualifications in bioinformatics, and I've studied proteogenisis (aka abiogenisis)
(b) I work in the science industry
and
(c) Look at (a) and (b) they are important to the next bits I am going to say.

Many things are incorrectly called other things. The Higss particle is caleld by the media and other laypersons the "god particle" yet not a single educated individual calls it that. The name persists but it does not make it so.

How people misuses a scientific theory is no reflection of the theory itself. Indeed its a reflection of the lack of education and understanding of those people.

What you are missing from that paper you citeed (and its not a new one now is it?) is that they are talking about "pre life" a lot in there. Perchance have you actually read the whole paper? WE use a lot of words differently today than what they once meant or were supposed to be used. Here are a couple. Synergy. It really was supposed to ONLY be applied to a chemical system, yet its used all over the place. Nice used to mean strange. Gay happy. putting "pro" in frount of a word to make it imply something is "better" was also of a chemistry origin. But the language evolves.


You are really hostile neighbor, you need to chill out. You are dealing with something way above your pay grade here, and its showing.

For one, I don't care about your credentials, so please don't speak it to me as if that's supposed to make you special. Secondly, this report was released in 2004. The abstract makes it clear that this is a report about our evolution from Molecules to man from the pre-biotic level. It is abiogensis under another guise. You can spin it any way you wish with your play on words, simple logic and reading comprehension prevails over your credentials any day.

You should pay attention to his credentials, with out them he has nothing.
With them he is respected and accepted by his peers.

Peer pressure and acceptance at an academic level in any field is more important than the field or research.

Sadly some people have no choice but to accept, I have seen Christians do the samen thing

a reply to: borntowatch

Credentials imply knowledge in that field. They aren't just random pieces of paper that they give to people who tow the line. They earn them for YEARS of study that you haven't even come close to. What you are doing is the equivalent of scoffing at a master blacksmith telling you how to finely craft a blade because he has that fancy "master" title.