Evolution is a farce: Evidence

"informed creationist"

ox·y·mo·ron
ˌäksəˈmôrˌän/Submit
noun
a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g., faith unfaithful kept him falsely true ).

Origin

mid 17th century: from Greek oxumōron, neuter (used as a noun) of oxumōros ‘pointedly foolish,’ from oxus ‘sharp’ + mōros ‘foolish.’

a reply to: BlackManINC

Translation: In other words, all you have is another mans biased unjustified soup to man interpretations on the evidence who, declaring themselves to be wise, became fools.

At least there is evidence.... all you have is a book who people claim is "inspired" by god, yet proves itself to be nothing more then ramblings of an ancient tribe of sheepherders...

No evidence in the least... Just a book based on regurgitated myths

So this is the best you can do, hey? Not good enough, we either evolved by random acts of chance mutations or we were designed as separate and complete beings form the start. There is no in between.

Most intelligent people call that an assumption...

What we observe in nature are created beings, we see no logical reason at all to believe in evolution by common descent. If you can't even provide a mechanism for your theory, then your theory has no legs to stand on to begin with, period.

Except your theory has no legs either.. or evidence for that matter.... just a book... witten millennia ago by.... well no need to go over that again

and to top that its a pretty messed up book at that...

You apes have been mocking creationists since this thread was first started. Ridicule levied against the OP for having the audacity for merely posting a different world view than yours is all I see, and of course as always, backed up with no real evidence as I have shown time and again.

I've seen your posts for quite a while now... You don't show evidence at all... you make a claim then call it proof, and get defensive when people tear it to bits... don't hand me that crap lol

Its always you creatures that start it all, as this thread shows, but you can never finish it against an informed creationist.

Sigh... then to top it off you start insulting everyone who disagrees with you... its actually shocking you haven't been banned yet... but give it time...

Oh by the way... theres no such thing as an informed creationist

a reply to: Barcs

They don't appear to be working out too well? By all means, give us examples of some scientific models that aren't working out. LMAO.

please don’t LYAO too much because you are likely to reduce your ability to communicate, as is the case with many of the armchair scientists here.

I would suggest that cosmology will seriously need to be revised in the near future given that the dirty snowball explanation for comets is just about dead. This will lead to a better understanding as to what exactly is happening and why. The electric universe is probably a closer representation of reality although I am not entirely convinced that it encompasses the entire picture.

Newtons law of gravity and Einsteins theory of relativity fails to explain gravity beyond observation (one of those “and then magic happens” moments. A consequence of the curvature of spacetime !!! seriously! That is about as nebulous as a belief in a deity.

The theory of gravity is akin to asking how a car works and being told “well you just turn this key and it starts". We have empirical evidence because it does the same thing every time and we can even predict it.

The model for spacetime is another example of groping in the dark with insufficient data to explain this cornerstone of cosmology.

The entire premise of the big bang theory has so many holes in it that science created dark matter, another TMH (then magic happens) to get around the fact that the theory doesn’t actually add up.

I am serious when I state that just about every theory proposed by science, is little more that hypothesis. Every aspect of each theory viewed in isolation to the other, groping around in the dark until a loose representation is accepted. The synergy between different forces at work, some of which have not even been detected let alone explored, will one day provide science with a unified theory.

String theory is close, but rather than strings, Pythagorus suggests monads, the smallest indevisible part of matter which permeates all of what we call space. Everything is conscious matter in motion (energy) Some people call it God.

What irritates me most is when armchair scientists hit the boards with absolute confidence in their comprehensive knowledge of the universe, when in reality, all they have is a loose comprehension of a real scientists concepts, which in turn is little more than a nervous representation of what they think may be happening.

Not one of you has applied even a fraction of the depth of thought that has arrived at these conclusions and yet you make such bold statement that you know how this or that works. The truth is you only comprehend what you have been told to believe( I am being generous) although there is a chasm between comprehension and knowing.

Science is very smart but not smart enough to figure it out yet. The scientific method forces scientists to be myopic, simply because they cannot see the engine that drives the laws, they cannot detect the legs beneath the duck.

The key to the whole enigma is consciousness, and for those who think that my posts are not related to the topic of evolution then please prove it to me, using your own intellect rather than spouting half baked theories.

Abiogenesis is tripe in the sense that science understands it. However it is fundamentally true from the perspective that all matter is conscious to some degree. Minerals are the first of the natural kingdoms and over the course of consciousness evolution the monad consciousness evolves and expands until it requires a new organic shell within the plant kingdom and then through the animal kingdom on to the human kingdom and beyond to the essential kingdom to eventually be free of the physical world to join the divine kingdoms. The process takes billions of years, which is no time at all put in the context of eternity.

Funny, though, how you have your doubts about evolutionary science (a field that has been established with evidence over the past 150 years) because science changes over time, yet believe a hypothesis in its infancy like string/m theory where we haven't even touched the surface yet and you admit is just an opinion. That sounds like a huge double standard to me.

Lets us rewrite this paragraph to state “a hypothesis in it’s infancy that once completely understood, will change everything we think we know about the laws of physics”

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” Socrates

originally posted by: Akragon

Except your theory has no legs either.. or evidence for that matter.... just a book... witten millennia ago by.... well no need to go over that again

My evidence for my God is in the things that are made and in the complete lack of evidence for a purely naturalistic origin of life, not in a book. Your so called "evidence" for your belief in common descent is in an event you believed happened in the past, for which you have provided neither god nor any other mechanism for it to occur. So in actuality, Akragon, your belief requires more faith than mine.

a reply to: kennyb72

You call the theory of gravity into question then give support to the Electric Universe Theory? I'm also curious as to what criteria you use to determine the validity of a theory or not. You disbelieve the Big Bang theory despite the cosmic neutrino background and cosmic microwave background serving as great evidence that it is true, but believe dubious pseudo-science like the Electric Universe Theory (which has pretty much been debunked) and Pythagoreanism.

a reply to: flyingfish

And how exactly are you able to disprove these lies?

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: Akragon

Except your theory has no legs either.. or evidence for that matter.... just a book... witten millennia ago by.... well no need to go over that again

My evidence for my God is in the things that are made and in the complete lack of evidence for a purely naturalistic origin of life, not in a book. Your so called "evidence" for your belief in common descent is in an event you believed happened in the past, for which you have provided neither god nor any other mechanism for it to occur. So in actuality, Akragon, your belief requires more faith than mine.

See heres the funny thing about assumptions... They only make the one assuming look like the fool...

I did not state my beliefs... or which side of the debate I am on... Rather, I simply made a statement that your beliefs are based on a book... where as the opposite side is based on educated study, and theory that has yet to be proven... but there is evidence.

I say your belief is based on a book because, IF it wasn't for that book, you would not have your beliefs, and science would still be here... trying to find evidence of such things... as opposed to setting up camp, shutting off the logical part of the brain and getting defensive

As far as my beliefs on the matter go... I do believe God created the world and the universe, and everything in it...

Billions of years ago

I don't side with evolution... because it hasn't been proven, but I favor it....

I don't side with biblical creationism... because frankly... its moronic to believe such nonsense, when something doesn't add up, I don't shrug and say "god did it"... but to each their own...

And I don't usually involve myself in these debates because the fact is, It does not matter either way...

the argument is a waste of time... because even if one side eventually proves itself... the other won't believe it...

and the fact remains.... this world is still a F***D up place to live in

hows that for a reply

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I read through the wiki definition of pythagoreanism which totally misrepresents him and does not even mention Pythagorean hylozoiics. However esotericism can explain this lack of information.

Regarding your other questions, please refer to may later post to Barcs.

a reply to: kennyb72

Well I'm not surprised it is lacking. Not many people still believe it is a valid belief of the universe. I still want to know what makes it so compelling that you think it is true.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You don't understand do you? cosmic neutrino background and cosmic microwave background are just meaningless words to you because you have no understanding of what it actually means or what their implications suggest.

Please go and have a chat with the scientist who are trying to figure it all out, perhaps you could elucidate them a little. They need all the help they can get. And stop posting links to things you don't understand. Please explain to me why YOU think the detection of particles or radiation in deep space has any relationship to the Big Bang fallacy.

While you are at it please explain in some detail why YOU think that the electric universe should be debunked. No cheating now, don't go parroting someone else's understanding and pass it off as your own.

a reply to: kennyb72

Actually, I'm not going to do that at all since you haven't reciprocated your knowledge at all. I've provided my insights and beliefs while letting others explain them for me (since they are better at it), but you have just scoffed at all of it and said that your beliefs are correct without any supporting commentary on why. Did you even read the link I provided from an actual scientist on why the electric universe is s#y science? By the way, I don't need to reword it for you to understand it. I am perfectly capable of reading it and understanding it quite fine.

I don't think you are well studied in science by the way.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I still want to know what makes it so compelling that you think it is true.

Firstly I have studied the subject in depth, I challenge any scientific mind to do the same and they will soon discover that as a working hypothesis it provides a logical, elegant, non contradictory unified theory of everything.

a reply to: kennyb72

See, this is what I'm talking about, "You're wrong. I'm right, but I'm not going to tell you why."

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: flyingfish

And how exactly are you able to disprove these lies?

Are you kidding?

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: Akragon

Except your theory has no legs either.. or evidence for that matter.... just a book... witten millennia ago by.... well no need to go over that again

My evidence for my God is in the things that are made and in the complete lack of evidence for a purely naturalistic origin of life, not in a book. Your so called "evidence" for your belief in common descent is in an event you believed happened in the past, for which you have provided neither god nor any other mechanism for it to occur. So in actuality, Akragon, your belief requires more faith than mine.

See heres the funny thing about assumptions... They only make the one assuming look like the fool...

I did not state my beliefs... or which side of the debate I am on... Rather, I simply made a statement that your beliefs are based on a book... where as the opposite side is based on educated study, and theory that has yet to be proven... but there is evidence.

I say your belief is based on a book because, IF it wasn't for that book, you would not have your beliefs, and science would still be here... trying to find evidence of such things... as opposed to setting up camp, shutting off the logical part of the brain and getting defensive

As far as my beliefs on the matter go... I do believe God created the world and the universe, and everything in it...

Billions of years ago

I don't side with evolution... because it hasn't been proven, but I favor it....

I don't side with biblical creationism... because frankly... its moronic to believe such nonsense, when something doesn't add up, I don't shrug and say "god did it"... but to each their own...

And I don't usually involve myself in these debates because the fact is, It does not matter either way...

the argument is a waste of time... because even if one side eventually proves itself... the other won't believe it...

and the fact remains.... this world is still a F***D up place to live in

hows that for a reply

So you believe God created the universe and everything in it millions and Billions of years ago hey? Well, this only shows how uninformed you really are about recent scientific discoveries. It is completely illogical to believe that anything existed millions of years ago based on what we know about DNA life. According to the religion of evolution, dinosaurs came on the scene about 230 to 65 million years ago. If this had any truth to it all, then we wouldn't be finding DNA in dinosaur bones at all, for even under the most favorable conditions, the DNA would be completely wiped out after only 6.8 million years.

WHAT'S THE HALF-LIFE OF DNA?

DNA is a sturdy molecule; it can hang around for a long time in fossilized plants and animals. To find out just how long, an international team of scientists decided to determine its rate of decay—the length of time it takes half of its bonds to break.
First, the scientists extracted and measured the amount of DNA in 158 tibiotarsus leg bones of extinct moa, 12-foot, flightless birds that once roamed New Zealand. Next, they used radiocarbon dating to calculate the ages of the bones, which ranged from about 650 years old to 7,000 years old. With that data, the scientists calculated the hereditary molecule's half-life: about 521 years.

The rate, however, isn't slow enough for humans to take blood from an amber-encased mosquito and clone dinosaurs, like in Jurassic Park. "We believe this is the last nail in the coffin," of claims that scientists can get DNA from million-year-old fossils, says Morten Allentoft, a scientist from Copenhagen's Natural History Museum who worked on the project. Even in ideal preservation conditions, the scientists calculated that every single DNA bond would be broken at 6.8 million years: The youngest dino fossils are 65 million years old. And because scientists need long stretches of DNA to replicate it, they estimate that the oldest usable DNA will actually be one to two million years old. The record holder right now is DNA found in ice cores, at 500,000 years old.

So much for Jurassic Park.

Source: www.popsci.com...

Yeah, so much for the age of the earth. You are welcome to continue to bow down to the religion of evolution if you wish in light of the mountain of evidence that continues to debunk it. If you believe in God, then I can assure you he will have a bone to pick with you about it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The reason I jumped into this thread was as support for a creationist viewpoint of evolution. I have tried to point out that our particular species has yet to evolve it's consciousness capacity to have access to the data required to understand evolution of organic lifeforms on this planet.

I have explained my viewpoint over numerous posts, which have attracted nothing but derision by people, who to be honest haven't got a clue about the physics they espouse to be knowledgable in. It is more a case of "I believe that bunch of clueless people over this bunch of clueless people" because they have more dubious credentials than the others do.

For Gods sake! Whoops, just sit down and figure it out for yourself, I am not talking about the high science that requires great mathematical genius, I am referring to Theoretical Physics which everybody is qualified to do, conceptual thinking. Arrive at your own conclusions and compare your concepts with theirs. At this level your understanding is as good as theirs.

originally posted by: BlackManINC
So you believe God created the universe and everything in it millions and Billions of years ago hey? Well, this only shows how uninformed you really are about recent scientific discoveries. It is completely illogical to believe that anything existed millions of years ago based on what we know about DNA life. According to the religion of evolution, dinosaurs came on the scene about 230 to 65 million years ago. If this had any truth to it all, then we wouldn't be finding DNA in dinosaur bones at all, for even under the most favorable conditions, the DNA would be completely wiped out after only 6.8 million years.

this is the most illogical thing I've ever read... How does science saying that the dinosaurs existing 230 million years ago disprove that the universe is billions of years old? Do you even know what these numbers mean?

Also, are you aware of how dinosaur bones are even dated?

Source: www.popsci.com...

Yeah, so much for the age of the earth. You are welcome to continue to bow down to the religion of evolution if you wish in light of the mountain of evidence that continues to debunk it. If you believe in God, then I can assure you he will have a bone to pick with you about it.

How do scientists determine the age of dinosaur bones?

Radiometric dating

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

See, this is what I'm talking about, "You're wrong. I'm right, but I'm not going to tell you why."

Struggling! seriously.

no, seriously.

a reply to: kennyb72

Another fluff post with no substance backing up your views.

If you have a creationist view of evolution, fine (there really isn't any proof to say you are wrong), but you aren't doing anything to change my mind that you aren't as knowledgeable about science as you claim.

Also, my derision (if you can even call it that, I'd rather call it impatience) didn't start until you didn't produce any evidence or explanation to back your views. I was being perfectly reasonable towards you.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: BlackManINC
So you believe God created the universe and everything in it millions and Billions of years ago hey? Well, this only shows how uninformed you really are about recent scientific discoveries. It is completely illogical to believe that anything existed millions of years ago based on what we know about DNA life. According to the religion of evolution, dinosaurs came on the scene about 230 to 65 million years ago. If this had any truth to it all, then we wouldn't be finding DNA in dinosaur bones at all, for even under the most favorable conditions, the DNA would be completely wiped out after only 6.8 million years.

this is the most illogical thing I've ever read... How does science saying that the dinosaurs existing 230 million years ago disprove that the universe is billions of years old? Do you even know what these numbers mean?

Also, are you aware of how dinosaur bones are even dated?

Source: www.popsci.com...

Yeah, so much for the age of the earth. You are welcome to continue to bow down to the religion of evolution if you wish in light of the mountain of evidence that continues to debunk it. If you believe in God, then I can assure you he will have a bone to pick with you about it.

How do scientists determine the age of dinosaur bones?

Radiometric dating

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

The links you provided are exactly the methods the scientists in the article used to date the fossils, and they found that even under the best conditions,the DNA in the bones will barely last a million years. So whats your point? Are you trying to dispute the evidence because it refutes the long age of the dinosaurs? Obviously you are, typical. Continue believing the lie if you wish.