Evolution is a farce: Evidence

a reply to: kayej1188

So you settle with the best understanding you can (which actually doesn't result in making any sense by itself), and now you have just explained today's religion. So I tell you this equation equals "sixteen." Would you, could you, indicate that what I'm presenting to you is surely my belief? You could, but you're out of context. If I understand it, and you don't, that doesn't constitute it being a belief, it's an understanding based on redundant facts. A belief implies that I have an opinion or a faith, you will soon realize this is nothing like that. I understand the supernatural extremely well. Of course, what this means in English is that 99.99% of the people reading, preaching, worshiping, the bible, don't understand it. Now I hope you understand why trying to label this anything other than an understanding is obviously incorrect. My goal is to open your eyes to the reality of what has happened, and what's been done to us. I will explain matters that I know you otherwise might not understand. If you or anyone you know, is highly familiar with both the supernatural and the paranormal (as they are frequently confused with one another) and don't agree with anything I'm presenting here, or If for some reason you peruse this whole website, and feel that the eighty seven or so examples that I'm presenting, are nothing more than sheer coincidence, I welcome your feedback of course. In addition, if you're just not getting something, I will respond back with a more detailed explanation.

You might wonder, why in the world would anyone try to understand the bible through the supernatural perspective. Perhaps it's the bible being prefaced as dealing with the supernatural, which actually means if you don't have that experience, your not qualified to understand it. In addition, we have no other books to compare it to. Perhaps it's the thirty four versus in the bible about aliens. Perhaps it's the Ezekiel chapter where Sky Daddy comes down from the sky's to visit us in his space craft. Maybe it's all of the activity mentioned in the bible that match with our reported alien encounters. Maybe it's the documentation of advanced technology used in the bible. Perhaps it's the mentioning in Hebrews that Earth is not our home, obviously meaning we are aliens to this planet. Heaven is a planet, not a place you end up when you die. If the bible was meant for dead people, they would have it, not us. Several years ago, while researching the Ezekiel chapter, I made contact with one of the pastors at the Union Gospel Mission, here in my town. I shared some of my findings with him, and asked him if it were possible that God was a space alien. His response revealed, that it's entirely possible.

Earth is perhaps the biggest deal breaker, in this understanding. Obviously as we are stuck on this rock, and there are some events going on here, that totally support understanding of our placement here. To start, lets agree on some basic common sense thinking. A creator is someone, or something that loves creating, and would obviously want his creations to function properly, flourish and thrive, and be healthy. So of course, this would need to include accommodations to allow each life to do so. For example, creating humans without giving them proper food, is torment, and pointless. Allegedly creating life to only torment them, and destroy them if they don't worship you, just shows how much of a creator your NOT. Look at it this way, if someone created the first car that runs on gasoline, but gasoline was never created, isn't that creation sort of worthless? The way that God treated us is NOT indicative of a creator.

If you recall Sky Daddy supplied us with every food, every plant, every animal, every herb. And, why yes, it would appear that he did just that. It was, however a giant mistake on his part, but as someone claiming to be our creator, I'm laughing at how he made all of the mistakes he did, and this was a great one. God's direction in this was probably what's referred to as "Cupboard Love," which is a milder version of conditional love. I was actually able to realize some aspects about planets with life in general, that Sky Daddy never considered. Recapping, you can't combine or eliminate life from the planets, as you will upset that natural balance each planet was intended to have. Clearly abducting all of the food, animals, plants, and herbs from other planets, only to combine them here together on Earth, will not work. This life was intended for specific planets, and surely will not work together. Just to prove my point, our planet is now in the early stages of what's referred to as the 6th largest mass extinction.

In the past 540 million years there have been five major mass extinctions. According to Endangered animal Author, George, S Fichter, "We are currently looking at a loss of over 98% of documented species that are now extinct." Sky Daddy had, what anyone (including myself) would have thought was an excellent plan to afford us with everything possible, however you can't do that. He probably missed this as we have only been able to realize what's going on through mass research of fossil records, which have occurred over millions of years. He had a great idea, it just wasn't researched. Scientists are currently baffled as to why we are losing life at the absurd rate that we are. Their first mistake is they are assuming that all of this life started, and belongs here, together. They will never figure this out. Evolutionists actually believe that this loss of life is normal and consistent with what they refer to as the chaos theory. Trust the idea that life is not created to live short and die, or live in torment. Looking at the overall picture, life on our planet will be seriously thinned out in the future. Evolution explains why life is dying out, which makes no sense as to how we have, or at least had so much of it to begin with. There was clearly purpose, and now there isn't.

a reply to: kayej1188

of course there was no talking serpent,if you use a little common sense, you would realize that since God had the ability to be invisible, it was just him all along. Again, you just don't get it.

I wasn't ever aware that the bible wasn't suppose to be taken literally. Can you show me where it says it's tales?

a reply to: Barcs

What makes you so sure that your multi verse idea is true? I do generally agree with many of the concepts, but there really is no actual evidence for it. Scientists do not study our spiritual nature, because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest a spirit or spiritual dimension exists.

Just visualise for a moment the problems facing science.

A scientist rolls up his sleeve and reaches into a dark room through a hole in the wall. He grabs a handful of data and starts to analyse it. he sorts data out and places it all into pigeon holes, this goes with this theory and that goes with that.

Science intelligently arrives at a hypothesis based on the information available, he makes presumptions to fill any holes and then makes predictions to test his theory. He continues to reach into the dark room grabbing whatever data is within his reach and then sorts, pigeonholes and continues to refine his theory.

Eventually he discovers that new data is harder to discover and logically determines that this is as much as he has to go on for the time being.

What he can do, is intensely study the data and start to settle his hypothesis into theories.

What he can’t do is know what is behind the wall and what information is beyond his grasp.

The information that clarifies all the presumptions, clears up all the mysteries, and unifies all the disparate information into a holistic understanding of his reality, lies in the dark room outside of his reach.

He has no concept of how large the room is, that he is reaching into. He knows it is larger than his arm can reach, but will only ever be able quantify it by opening the door and entering the room.

The problem is he doesn’t have the key. Science now needs to find the key to progress any further.

What I propose he will find upon discovering the key and entering the room, is a massive warehouse of information that will complete all the puzzles. Even answers to questions he didn't know existed.

Evolution theory is an example of how science is picking up scraps of data pigeonholing it, analysing it and fitting it into an incomplete jigsaw puzzle. The whole solution of which lies behind the door.

It is time for science to prioritise its search on finding the key. Quantum Physics and consciousness IS the key, it is this area of study more than anything else that needs to be settled.

As hard as it is, as illogical as it is, regardless of how challenging it is to understand, it will ultimately reveal the answer to every mystery.

Hylozoics is an ancient knowledge that describes the nature of reality at a quantum level. It describes everything science understands to date about our quantum reality and predicted it thousands of years ago and described everything we understand today about Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry, Geology etc

As new discoveries are made, they will be in perfect accord with hylozoics.

Hylozoics predated string theory, supersymmetry, the assumption that atoms where the smallest part of matter. It predated concepts of the multiverse, dark matter, dark energy, consciousness, every field of study.

it explains entanglement, spooky action at a distance, protons, neutrons, electrons, exotic particles strong and weak forces, gravity, the physics behind the spin and spiralling of the monad(string) , It is all covered and beautifully describes how it all dovetails together in a unifying whole.

It is all conceptual at a theoretical physicist level of understanding. For now it cannot be worked out into a theory, It is however the best hypothesis to date. How can I make this statement?

Because science does not have a hypothesis of the unity of everything.

Hyloziocs provides answers, not just from the quantum aspect but also for our complete understanding of the reality of life. It is completely in accord with scientific knowledge and is non contradictory. If scientists would just look at it and understand it, It could change everything of our view of science, our view of spirituality and how we relate to each other.

* for “he” please read he/she his/her

a reply to: Barcs
Barcs this very post proves that you have left the realm of science and are working off of faith. Don't feel bad though. People usually get edgy when their religion is threatened.
I am not threatening it however. I just would like you to understand that most of what you take as fact, in all actuality is not. There is absolutely no proof that macro evolution occurs to the point of one phylum becoming another. Nor that we decended from a common ancestor with apes or bananas. No proof besides some claiming "we see the small changes so that means we are absolutely right about everything else".

It's only crazy to people that either can't understand it, or don't want to understand it, or are to busy with something else clouding their minds. We already have a historical document telling us that what I'm telling you is correct. Hate to tell you, you are wrong.

Can some of you genius Evolutionists explain to me why it is that primates didn't hold on to our language, or why we didn't hold onto any of their language? I'll give you a hint, because evolution never existed.

originally posted by: Barcs
But again, the Greek, Roman and Egyptian gods were written about by witnesses as well. Why are they not valid while your compilation book is? I'd like to get a legitimate answer on this.

Sorry the bible isn't proof. Otherwise, the Koran is proof of Allah, and the book of the dead is proof of the ancient Egyptian gods. Are you suggesting that all of these gods exist? They were all written about by witnesses in historical documents as well. You are seemingly trying to say there is proof beyond faith, but howso? Please explain your proof and why it counts more than other documented gods.

I would also like some legitimate answers.

a reply to: josehelps

So it's become apparent to me that you are complete lost hope. The world in which you live, and the beliefs you use to form your world view, are sadly not based on any type of reality. The most discouraging part about it is that you seem to be completely unaware of just how far off the deep-end you are. It's one thing to believe something based on faith--that at least can be justified in same way shape or form. Whether it's logical to believe based on faith is another story, but nonetheless, faith is apart of human nature. HOWEVER, you've made it abundantly clear that none of what you believe is based on faith, but instead based on "fact."

It's extremely hard for me, as I am sure it also is for every single other person who has read your posts, to even fathom how you could actually even begin to think that your claims are based on facts. It's literally like you read parts of the bible, thought about it a little bit, and suddenly decided that everything contained in the bible is tied to the supernatural/god is a space alien. Once you came up with this just utterly ridiculous idea, you proceeded to mold as much as you could find in the bible into this weird supernatural/alien idea. And that was it..you were convinced, and there was nothing that was going to change your mind. Are you going to teach your children this?

You make this statement: "..explain to me why it is that primates didn't hold on to our language, or why we didn't hold onto any of their language?" WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? How would primates have held onto our language?? We come after them on the evolutionary tree. Why didn't we hold onto their language? Well that can be explained by evolution. The ability to form language is one of the key elements that set humans apart, and has a lot to do with the fact that those who were able to communicate via language held an evolutionary advantage over those who didn't. As humans evolved, our brains grew in surface area, thus allowing for increased complexity and higher intelligence. It's one of the beauties of evolution. You seem to have just about no knowledge on genetics and how DNA works. This is not a jab at you--you are not the only one. I suggest you do a little bit of reading on DNA and genetics, you'd probably find it quite interesting.

a reply to: kayej1188
So are you saying that humans have "devolved"? Our brains have actually gotten smaller from the time of the Neanderthal.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Barcs
Barcs this very post proves that you have left the realm of science and are working off of faith. Don't feel bad though. People usually get edgy when their religion is threatened.
I am not threatening it however. I just would like you to understand that most of what you take as fact, in all actuality is not. There is absolutely no proof that macro evolution occurs to the point of one phylum becoming another. Nor that we decended from a common ancestor with apes or bananas. No proof besides some claiming "we see the small changes so that means we are absolutely right about everything else".

You can only repeat the same point so many times. It's really getting old now. Are you ever going to explain why, or do you just think you know more than everyone else, including hundreds of scientists that actively work in the field today? Do you think we should all just blindly believe YOUR version of evolution because you say so? I just can't fathom the level of arrogance it must take to denounce science whilst offering no counterpoints, and no explanations at all of where it's wrong. Nobody's trying to be edgy here, promoting ignorance is bad and I won't allow it.

If you leave a cup out in the rain, it eventually fills up. Similarly if your genome experiences X amount of mutations per generation, logic would state that in 10 generations there would be 10x the mutations. If you are coming from some different school of math or logic, I'm interested in what formulas you are using to suggest mutations stop adding up at a certain point. There has to be SOME explanation. Just repeating over and over again that they are difference doesn't help your case.

And I have never suggested we have it all absolutely 100% right, but we are heading in the right direction based on the evidence and the picture keeps getting clearer and clearer as more fossils and discoveries are made.

So are you saying that humans have actually "devolved"? Our brains have actually gotten smaller from the time of the Neanderthal.

Nothing devolves. Things slowly change over time. Human brain to body ratio is almost the same as Neanderthal, so bigger brain doesn't necessarily mean more intellect.

a reply to: Barcs
I am glad to see that you are coming back to the science. The post of yours I linked had me wondering. At least now you admit that we know nothing 100%.
Lets look at the logic of your last post. By your reasoning everything should be evolving at the same rate.
Do we see that in nature? How about the horse-shoe-crab just as a quick example?
Your reasoning does not help macr-evolution become anymore than faith and wishful thinking.
Who is to say we have "x" mutations a generation? Perhaps we have zero mutations for x amount of generations. It is taken on faith that we have evolved (mutated) to the point that we have.
It would be like me telling you that I had 4 apples that I sold for a quarter each. I can show you the dollar that I have now but how do you actually know that apples were sold? I have the dollar so surely apples were sold
How do you know those mutations ever occurred? All you have to go by is what you observe now. "I am here so surely those mutations occurred". That is not proof. That is not science.

a reply to: josehelps

At this point, you have stated far too many claims for it to be worthwhile going through each one and explaining why they have no basis in reality. You've demonstrated zero understanding in basic science, nor the desire to learn about it. However, since I would actually be doing you a disservice if I didn't attempt to help you understand things that are actually based on reality, I am intent on making a couple things clear to you, and I'm not going to quit until this is achieved. First, I'm going to help you acknowledge the fact that all of these ideas of yours ARE indeed your beliefs. They, by definition, require faith because you don't have any direct, substantiated, objective proof. What your ideas are NOT include objective facts, proven truths, falsifiable claims, or evidence-based. Now, it's important for you to realize that I'm not saying your ideas are wrong (although they clearly.....nevermind). What I'm trying to help you understand has nothing to do with the whether or not your claims are actually true or not. I'm trying to get you to realize that they are beliefs which do require a leap of faith. You have interpreted the contents of the bible in a unique way which you feel coincides with some of the things you have read about the supernatural. However, you were not present when the bible was written. You have never met anybody mentioned in the bible. You have not physically witnessed any events which occurred in the bible. You have no direct proof that the supernatural exists. You have no direct proof that aliens exist and have visited earth. What you have are a collection of testimonies/polls by people, opinions by various authors, interpretations of physical phenomena, interpretations of a very old book, and ideas about how these things all relate. This is a very typical example of what a belief is, one based on a leap of faith.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Actually, they haven't. In terms of the brains size, the actual mass and volume are not what determine the complexity. As I mentioned before, it's the surface area--the convolutions of the cerebral cortex of the brain. You'll notice that the human brain has an enormous amount of grooves and fissures, making it looks like an extremely complicated maze. So although neanderthals brains had a larger volume, they didn't have nearly as much surface area/volume ratio as current humans' brains do. Increased surface area allows for more connections between neurons. Our highly developed cerebral cortex, specifically areas including the frontal/temporal/parietal lobes allowed us to employ more advanced and complex ways of thinking and problem solving, as well as the ability to form complex language and social structure. Neanderthals had bigger areas responsible for vision and body control--which makes perfect sense considering these are the things that would have given them an evolutionary advantage during their time. It's also important to take into consideration that neanderthals had bigger bodies than humans do, so naturally their brains in terms of mass and volume will reflect that.

a reply to: kayej1188
Interesting. But how do we know?
Sounds a lot like Franz Gall, the founder of phrenology. He made some "assumptions" about women based on the shape of their skulls as well.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Could you phrase your question differently? How do we know what specifically?

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Barcs
I am glad to see that you are coming back to the science. The post of yours I linked had me wondering. At least now you admit that we know nothing 100%.
Lets look at the logic of your last post. By your reasoning everything should be evolving at the same rate.

Genetic mutation is just one part of evolution and it varies from species to species. I did not suggest in any of my posts that the rate of evolution should be constant. The "speed" of evolution is dictated by the environment. There are ups and downs throughout the various periods on earth. The only thing constant is the rate of mutations, and even that varies from species to species.

Do we see that in nature? How about the horse-shoe-crab just as a quick example?

What we see in nature is big changes occurring when big environmental changes happen. I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the horseshoe crab.

Your reasoning does not help macr-evolution become anymore than faith and wishful thinking.

I don't need it to help macro evolution. I agree with evolution, genetic mutations and natural selection. There is no difference between micro and macro. You simply can't fathom what 1 million years is like, so you don't get it.

Who is to say we have "x" mutations a generation?

www.genetics.org...

Oh nobody, just the scientists that actually mapped and studied the genomes of various creatures.

Perhaps we have zero mutations for x amount of generations.

That would be an assumption. If you believe this, you need to prove that this has ever once happened. Every single creature that has ever been studied on the genetic level has shown genetic mutations from generation to generation. No creature is a perfect genetic copy, that's impossible with 2 parents combining genes, and I'd bet extremely rare in asexual reproduction. You'd have to demonstrate a single creature that hasn't had genetic mutations compared to its parents. Good luck proving that one.

It is taken on faith that we have evolved (mutated) to the point that we have.

I knew you'd repeat this lie in there somewhere. No faith necessary. You leave a cup of water in the rain, it will eventually fill, just like mutations add up. When you wake up in the morning and see a full cup of water, did it fill with rain or is that blind faith in a random guess? Does that make me a rainist because I believe the obvious?

Science makes predictions that work. That's one of the important things. Evolution is applied in medicine in that way. We know the earth's cycle of seasons, I can predict that it will be cold in the winter and warm in the summer in the northern hemisphere, every year. Likewise scientists can predict certain mutations and prepare for them to help fight disease.

It would be like me telling you that I had 4 apples that I sold for a quarter each. I can show you the dollar that I have now but how do you actually know that apples were sold? I have the dollar so surely apples were sold

I know they were sold because I found the receipt. Evolution is the same way. It's backed up by documentation. You only have issues with the parts of evolution that you don't understand. Your analogy is deeply flawed as we were talking about something that is proven to happen, continuing to happen for years, not guessing whether you sold apples. There is no guessing in evolution. We have the fossils, we have studied genes that show the same exact thing, we have documented research papers that extensively study on a level deeper than you or even I can comprehend.

How do you know those mutations ever occurred?

Again, they have been mapped and measured. The only way to possibly deny genetic mutations is to claim the entire scientific field of genetics is in on some massive conspiracy that would require thousands of scientists who's job is to be objective, going against everything they stand for to work in a corrupted field, yet not one single person has spoken out.

All you have to go by is what you observe now. "I am here so surely those mutations occurred". That is not proof. That is not science.

That isn't even remotely close to "all you have to go by". I posted the proof. Either all biologist are lying and covering up a massive conspiracy, or genetic mutations do indeed occur and are part of evolution. Denial of genetic mutations is even sillier than pretending macro evolution is a separate process from micro evolution. You might as well start arguing the earth is flat or hollow at this point, because there is as much evidence for a round earth as there is for evolution, and by that I mean it's confirmed, but we are working out the details.

originally posted by: josehelps
It's only crazy to people that either can't understand it, or don't want to understand it, or are to busy with something else clouding their minds. We already have a historical document telling us that what I'm telling you is correct. Hate to tell you, you are wrong.

Can some of you genius Evolutionists explain to me why it is that primates didn't hold on to our language, or why we didn't hold onto any of their language? I'll give you a hint, because evolution never existed.

Are you saying that primates could talk? Based on what evidence again? And what correct historical document? The bible?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

They can sign if taught .
Oh man that guy is funny lol.
Btw jose we have proved we share a common ancestor with chimps through genetics.
You arguing with genetics?.

a reply to: Barcs
Barcs, the very link you provided (and others like it) is why many in the ID camp do not take evolution seriously. It's not so much the site as it is those who push this information as "proof" for evolution. Those who worked on the experiments did a good job I am sure, yet if you read through it, you see that most of what they base the research on is assumptions and speculations.
I am not surprised, such is the "proof" for evolution.