Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

As for your claim that they do not communicate instantly?

I didn't make that claim. In fact I didn't mention anything about time at all. I did address that word 'communicate' as it is misleading. I addressed your 'claim' that there has to be intelligence behind entangled particles nothing more. It's like that word 'know', it's misleading.

Perhaps entangled particles are always connected and the connection is not yet understood. Seems simple enough to me. I don't feel the need to fill in gaps in our knowledge with God.

OK let's say that God created everything. Can you explain please specifically how he made animals and humans on this planet? What material/methods did he use? Has he got a bag of skin and bones lying around in his tool shed? If your answer is anything to do with "magic" then the idea of evolution is no more preposterous. If otherwise you believe it was somehow scientific in his creation methods, then you are going against your own beliefs. So please explain to me

a reply to: doorsofperception01

And God said "let the earth bring forth"

Gen 1:24

The rest is above top secret...

I like how this thread continues even though the OP was banned.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Quantum entanglement has nothing to do with invisble imaginary friends and the way you're trying to us it to prove God is wrong.

Understanding of the universe, quantum theory and evolution has advanced massively in the last 100 years and we're getting closer to a theory of everything.

As I posted before, here's your answer to quantum entanglement, no God needed.....

originally posted by: Ohanka
I like how this thread continues even though the OP was banned.

Everything they've done or saidbis now automatically discredited.

Sounds a bit authoritarian to me...

By the way how can you seen who is banned? Were they banned because of this thread?

originally posted by: doorsofperception01
OK let's say that God created everything. Can you explain please specifically how he made animals and humans on this planet? What material/methods did he use? Has he got a bag of skin and bones lying around in his tool shed?

It does sound absurd to think someone could just put together a human, yet it's even more absurd to think random chance could create a human.

God is not a human though, so to consider that intelligent design would simply be a human putting a human together is far off. The exact manner of how it was done is mysterious, and this mystery shouldn't default us to believe things came to be without intelligence.

Consider in your dreams how easily you create vast worlds and people. Think how much easier a greater Mind could create things. Atoms are mostly empty space, and they perpetuate according to precise atomic laws. A clue we get is that God spoke things into existence, very similar to the manifestation power present in our dreams every night.

a reply to: Randyvine2

This is LOLworthy, sorry. Just because you don't understand something enough to agree with it over a religion, doesn't mean it's a scam nor does it make your religion correct. This type of ignorance really needs to stop. Evolution is a fact and it's been demonstrated 1000 difference ways by evidence and experiment. Sorry that you never developed a brain. Evolution clearly didn't treat you right, I can see why you hate it.

originally posted by: Kurokage

Quantum entanglement has nothing to do with invisble imaginary friends and the way you're trying to us it to prove God is wrong.

Understanding of the universe, quantum theory and evolution has advanced massively in the last 100 years and we're getting closer to a theory of everything.

As I posted before, here's your answer to quantum entanglement, no God needed.....

Its like these people think Darwinism is still some top contender to explain evolution, and like your suggestion above we are 1000x pass Darwinism in what we know today about evolution. A really good book to read is "what Darwin got wrong".

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
Do you genuinely not understand how genetic inheritance works?

Apparently better than you...

Mutations can be passed on so no do not require trillions of simultaneous changes across the population.

A single nutation in a single organism MIGHT be passed on if said organism mates with another that does NOT possess the same mutation.

But in order for a a mutation to be propagated throughout an entire species to the point of permanency, the same exact random mutation would have to occur in millions of individual organisms (this all by itself is the definition of not random) in the same species, and said individuals would have to mate and pass it on enough times an in enough quantity for the new trait to become permanent.

When I said trillions, I was talking about the cumulative number of mutations required to change one species (e.g. cro-magnon man) into an entirely new species (e.g., homo sapiens).

If you believe it does show a source as already asked otherwise its an obvious strawman.

As already answered, the source is pure logical, rational thought. Try it sometime.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
Do you genuinely not understand how genetic inheritance works?

Apparently better than you...

Mutations can be passed on so no do not require trillions of simultaneous changes across the population.

A single nutation in a single organism MIGHT be passed on if said organism mates with another that does NOT possess the same mutation.

But in order for a a mutation to be propagated throughout an entire species to the point of permanency, the same exact random mutation would have to occur in millions of individual organisms (this all by itself is the definition of not random) in the same species, and said individuals would have to mate and pass it on enough times an in enough quantity for the new trait to become permanent.

When I said trillions, I was talking about the cumulative number of mutations required to change one species (e.g. cro-magnon man) into an entirely new species (e.g., homo sapiens).

If you believe it does show a source as already asked otherwise its an obvious strawman.

As already answered, the source is pure logical, rational thought. Try it sometime.

Again you are completely wrong there is no need for in to happen millions of times at all. (And certainly not simultaneously as you claimed)

Entire species do not evolve the same way, that is not how evolution works. If it was evolution wouldn't explain the different species at all.

The reason you can't provide a source as it's an obvious strawman.

a reply to: tanstaafl


I checked back on where you said Trillions.

Trillions of identical RANDOM variations occurring SIMULTANEOUSLY in a large number of the same species

So no you weren't talking about cumulative changes.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Its like these people think Darwinism is still some top contender to explain evolution, and like your suggestion above we are 1000x pass Darwinism in what we know today about evolution. A really good book to read is "what Darwin got wrong".

Yeah because Darwin himself wouldn't believe his own theory in light of new discoveries in microbiology and the interdependence of all aspects of the body from the micro to the macro scale

"If it could be demonstrated than any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
-Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

originally posted by: Toothache
Evolution is a fact and it's been demonstrated 1000 difference ways

Show one example of a population of organisms that have evolved into something distinctly new. Even a bacteria becoming a different kind of bacteria. Should be simple if there was 1000s of demonstrations of evolution

I'll save you time... there is no such thing. It relies on faith

originally posted by: cooperton

Show one example of a population of organisms that have evolved into something distinctly new. Even a bacteria becoming a different kind of bacteria. Should be simple if there was 1000s of demonstrations of evolution

I'll save you time... there is no such thing. It relies on faith

You keep wanting to compact 10 million years of micro changes into big leaps over short periods of time, and then say that is your proof.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Every time I read your posts like this it tells me you really have no clue, and you don't want to, so why bother? There will be the fastest, biggest, strongest, smartest... Who says we are the smartest...

So again, your opinion, and the opinions of evolutionists must be true and anyone else must be wrong just because you say so.

Have you ever heard of the law of probability? No? In order for the simplest life form to exist it needs over 400 proteins that are essential to life. The law of probability tells us that for just ONE protein that is essential for life to exist it would occur 1 time in 10>104.

The law of probability also tells us anything which occurs in over 1 in 10>104 will never happen, and again in order for the simplest life form to exists it needs over 400 proteins which is impossible for it to occur naturally, or "by accident."

Similarities between life forms does not mean a common ancestry. What's more, your own argument makes zero sense. If evolution existed making all species better, "more evolved" then the human body, and every other life form, would have evolved to become "more efficient," better, and stronger. The fact that the human body did not evolve to be more efficient, better, or stronger is actually proof of creation, and not evolution.

Life on Earth supposedly started 3.7 billion years ago. That should have been more than enough time for "evolution" to make the human body "more efficient", stronger, and better But that did not happen. So tell me, why hasn't "evolution" made human bodies, and the body of every other living being, more efficient, better, stronger? Why do human bodies have so many flaws? By now our human bodies should have "evolved" to be better, not worse if "evolution" was real.

In fact, apes are much stronger than humans. But humans did not evolve to become stronger. Yes, we are smarter, but evolution should have made us smarter as well as stronger. Instead, humans are weaker than apes. So we did not evolve from apes.

What's more, the "Law of Cause and Effect" tells us the cause is always greater than the effect. This would mean that the universe should contain less energy now than it did during the "Big Bang." This law also tells us that "the BELIEF in evolution" is wrong, because according to evolution it should have made every life form better, stronger, more efficient life forms. But the Law of Cause and Effect tells us the opposite. Every life form should become more flawed with time.

Heck, have you ever heard of the second law of thermodynamics? No?... This law states that in any given system entropy must increase in disorder. Which means any given system, such as the human body, with time winds down until it functions no more. The BELIEF of evolution says the contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. Evolution means, and I quote:

evolution

Definitions
noun A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
noun A result of this process; a development.
noun Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. The mechanisms of evolution include natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, mutation, migration, and genetic drift.
...

evolution

Evolution falsely states that every living organism must evolve to become better, more efficient, stronger. But real science tells us the opposite.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

When I said trillions, I was talking about the cumulative number of mutations required to change one species (e.g. cro-magnon man) into an entirely new species (e.g., homo sapiens).

As already answered, the source is pure logical, rational thought. Try it sometime.

Just compare humans today to humans of 1000 years ago, some rather big differences. Keep going back and at some point we can not breed anymore with each other once the difference reach a certain point.

All evolution is about is making offspring. What goes into that and affects it is a rather massive list, but evolution stops at the child birthing years. Look at sickle cell disease in Africa. It protects them from malaria but shortens their life span by a good deal, but since that shorter lifespan is past child bearing years it does not matter with evolution, and so it will not improve.

If we made babies lets say into our 70s then we would not have as many issues we see after 40 right now as offspring that are born much later on would slowly fix those issues or die out and not have offspring into their 70s.

The biggest jump in evolution was caused by the start of the predator and prey scenario. For billions of years life was rather stagnate in evolution since there were little reasons to cause change then some simple lifeforms found a way to get energy from other lifeforms and the arms race started at a massive level of offence and defense with a rather huge change cycle driven by being eaten or not, or being able to eat or starve out. Back and forth in a never ending dance that has pretty much caused all we see in life around us today.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

You keep wanting to compact 10 million years of micro changes into big leaps over short periods of time, and then say that is your proof.

73,000 years of microbial generations is equivalent to 1.5 million years of hominid evolution. To detect no noticeable transition into another organism after that amount of time indicates that these mechanisms for changing an organism into something else does not exist.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

So again, your opinion, and the opinions of evolutionists must be true and anyone else must be wrong just because you say so.

We are not discussing intelligent design here. We are saying either life changes or it does not. Is all life forms stuck in some bubble of zero change? What happens when species die out as what seems to happen over and over, do new ones just magically appear in the 10,000s to replace them? Or did earth instantly start with a million other species than what we have today and they slowly died out over time? You tell me...

Have you ever heard of the law of probability? No? In order for the simplest life form to exist it needs over 400 proteins that are essential to life. The law of probability tells us that for just ONE protein that is essential for life to exist it would occur over 1 time in 10>104.

Why do you take me for a fool when you show it right here with yourself in this post above. The probability that humans would happen is 100% since we did. The problem with your (1 time in 10>104) is you are looking from the beginning forward and trying to predict some exact lifeform to happen from the start which I agree is your number in chance, BUT if you said some life form will exist then you chance is 100% correct. We just happened to be one of trillions of lifeforms to come and go over billions of years with zero predicting of any one of them, so in each case the chances were 100%.

If I took BB and fired it at mars and asked what are the chances it would hit this exact single grain of sand I picked out the chances would be much along the lines of your number (1 time in 10>104), but the chances of it hitting any random grain of sand is 100%. Can you finally see how your use of probability is used incorrectly here?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Life on Earth supposedly started 3.7 billion years ago. That shoud have been more than enough time for "evolution" to make the human body "more efficient." But that did not happen. So tell me, why hasn't "evolution" made human bodies, and the body of every other living being, more efficient, better, stronger? Why do human bodies have so many flaws? By now our human bodies should have "evolved" to be better, not worse.

God is perfection, evolution is being just good enough to propagate That there is enough to tell you in your post above that evolution has been in play. Life as we know it today started less than 600 million years old. Before snowball earth life was a lot different. If our eyes were a TV then the electrical cord would go right through the front glass tube of the TV. Why can simple humans make TVs right, but God totally F'ed up our eyes?

I could go on and on with so many things that God totally F'ed up with life in general that we humans can not only see and understand they were a F up, but we can even improve on those God flaws. Why couldn't God just make better life?

As I said before, evolution isn't about perfection, its about being just good enough to have offspring to continue the process. Just as my story about sickle cell disease in it is just good enough to keep people alive through their child bearing years even though it cuts their over all life span by decades.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Just compare humans today to humans of 1000 years ago, some rather big differences. Keep going back and at some point we can not breed anymore with each other once the difference reach a certain point.

All evolution is about is making offspring. What goes into that and affects it is a rather massive list, but evolution stops at the child birthing years. Look at sickle cell disease in Africa. It protects them from malaria but shortens their life span by a good deal, but since that shorter lifespan is past child bearing years it does not matter with evolution, and so it will not improve.

If we made babies lets say into our 70s then we would not have as many issues we see after 40 right now as offspring that are born much later on would slowly fix those issues or die out and not have offspring into their 70s.

The biggest jump in evolution was caused by the start of the predator and prey scenario. For billions of years life was rather stagnate in evolution since there were little reasons to cause change then some simple lifeforms found a way to get energy from other lifeforms and the arms race started at a massive level of offence and defense with a rather huge change cycle driven by being eaten or not, or being able to eat or starve out. Back and forth in a never ending dance that has pretty much caused all we see in life around us today.

Literally everything you claimed above goes against "evolution."


You claim "evolution was stagnant for billions of years." But that's not what evolution claims.

You admitted that sickle disease have shortened the lifespan of people in Africa. Evolution should have made them stronger and able to live longer.

You claim that because of evolution if we go back in time there would be a point in which humans could not breed. But actually, the opposite is what has happened and it is what science tells us should happen. Now a days humans, and in fact men, have less sperm and men and women are having more and more problems giving birth. The male sperm count has become lesser than it used to be.

Sperm Counts Continue to Fall

Real science and observation tells us this is true, entropy is working as it should. Humans are not becoming "better, more efficient, or stronger." Meanwhile the fairy tale of evolution tells us our bodies should have become more efficient, better at making offspring.