Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

I have yet to meet a scientist that is not an evolutionist.

I have yet to meet a creationist that isn't trying to prove they are a scientist.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I have yet to meet a scientist that is not an evolutionist.

I have yet to meet a creationist that isn't trying to prove they are a scientist.

My guess is you don't know many scientists.

A simple scan of Google will reveal they do exist.

I don't believe in the Genesis account of creation, but in all honesty, your personal experiences don't really mean anything when talking about whether such people exist.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Jamuhn
What? Yes, they have, that's the only reason we are able to have science.

?? What do you mean? I'll agree that natural selection can produce the appearance of design, but I don't think that one can say that that is design. Please explain how to distinguish between the 'design' produced by natural selection and regular design.

I don't think there is a difference. The only question that remains is whether nature consciously produced this design, that is, aware of what it is doing.

it could just as easily be another law of nature in regards to biological organisms.

That seems contrary. If its a law of nature then by definition its not an intelligence. Unless we are talking about things like archetypes and organisms evolving by "approaching" perfect, but still natural, archetypes.

How can nature not be intelligent? Surely we are still trying to overcome nature and most likely we never will. We still don't know everything there is to know about nature. If anything has a superior intelligence, it surely is nature. It may well be an archetype or it may simply be a direction towards a desired organism in response to the known environment.

Perhaps nature simply knows the qualities an organism needs to be best suited to the environment. Or more likely given the evidence, nature produces effects in organisms in a sort of natural experiment.

But, even if we do take God out of the picture and just focus on nature being an intelligent agent, we can easily see that it is intelligent. After all, when an apple is thrown in the air, it most likely will fall as nature is aware that the particular apple is hanging in mid-air.

In my mind, the whole argument between scientists and those who assign God as an active agent in the universes is nothing but an argument over semantics and may be solved by a discussion of what God may really be, perhaps nature itself.

Oh the humility.

Look at the overwhelming majority of evolutionists that went to college and earned a degree in science, and changed their minds from learning of the imperical data that supports the Earth is only 7,000 years old.

How many evolutionists became creationists while earning a degree in science?

How many creationists answered their tests questions correctly, while not believing the questions were relevant?

I can imagine the test questions now ........

1) When did the dinosaurs first appear on Earth?

A. The oldest dinosaur types are known from rocks in Argentina and Brazil and are about 230 million years old.

B. The oldest dinosaur types are known from diners in Indonesia and are dated to about 7 years after expiration dates.

C. The oldest dinosaur types are known from rocks in Alabama and are about 160 million years old.

D. The oldest dinasaur types can not exceed 7,000 years, as that is as old as the earth is.


2) When developing new anti-bacterial medication it is important to re-examine sample bacteria that have been treated to note any adverse mutations because:

A. The mutated bacterium may have become immune to the treatment, negating the trial medication.

B. The bacteria may be trying to fool the medication by contorting itself.

C. It is not important to note mutations in bacteria that have adapted to certain anti-bacterial medications, because that is impossible, evolution is not real.

[edit on 08/12/71 by Esoteric Teacher]

That second question is kind of funny Esoteric, and it shows that you actually don't know much about creationism. Because if you were familiar with creationism, you'd realize that they do believe in microevolution.

But, in response to your intro, there are a lot of PhDs in scientific fields who believe in creationism. I'm not sure how they would answer your first question, they would probably say something about the unreliability of the dating methods, etc. etc. Let me find it for you!

Ahhh...the power of Google...

Carbon-14 dating of carbon buried in the same layer with dragon bones helps to confirm that they are really only thousands of years old. The myth-ions and myth-ions of years never happened; only in the past 200 years has it become fashionable to forget our true ancient history (of thousands of years) in favor of God-hating (or: "bumbling-inherently-weak-god") evolution.

www.creationism.org...

There ya go, they are disputing the reliability of dating methods, although, I'm not sure if a 2-second explanation is satisfactory.

[edit on 29-8-2005 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by Jamuhn
That second question is kind of funny Esoteric, and it shows that you actually don't know much about creationism. Because if you were familiar with creationism, you'd realize that they do believe in microevolution.

OK.

Then if creationism supports microevolution, and all macro-organisms are devised of micro-organisms, then why do creationists accept what can be witnessed under a microscope concerning the evolution of human cells, but dispute that the evolution has any effect on the macro-organism?


Are there levels to consciousness?
Are there levels to self-awareness?
Are there levels to either having intelligence, or not?

If each of my cells are ZERO consciousnesses, and ZERO self-awarenesses, and ZERO intelligence, then ..........

I'm sure we can agree that 0 + 0 = 0, right?

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + ( a Zero for each cell of the body) = 1?





If someone is told enough times, by enough people that they are ugly, they start to believe it, don't they?

If someone is told enough times, by enough people that they are stupid, they start to believe it, don't they?

If someone looks in the mirror and says/thinks there is only 1 , then are they not convincing themselves they are less than the sum of their parts?

How is consciousness defined and measured?

Can a cell integrate information about it's environment? Answer=Yes.

Can a cell have an effect on it's environment? Answer=Yes.

Do these cells produce through mitosis cells that are not genetically the same? Answer=Yes.

The neuro-peptides (small protiens produced by the hypothalmus) are delivered throughout the body and are chemical messages passing information concerning the macro-organisms current emotional state.

The neuro-peptides "dock" with the thousands of receptors on the outside of a cells membrane. The messages can actually change the nucleus of a cell. And, if more of one neuro-peptide is sent over years, eventually the cell will have far more receptors for the specific neuro-peptide the cell has become addicted to, and far less for other emotional input, as well as far fewer receptors for taking in the nutrients it needs.

This is aging. This is evolving. The micro-organisms that comprise us undergo evolution, but we supposedly do not?

What is instinct?

Where has that information come from?

When GOD created Adam and Eve who were immortal, GOD instilled in them fear of heights?

Why is it when you point a gun at a dog who has NEVER seen a gun, it cowers? Was that instilled in it instinctively thousands of years before guns existed?

Earning a degree to battle the standards of earning the degree is what I see creationists doing, the four I know/knew.

To me, it is like going to school and having Satan as your proffessor to argue against Satan about how wrong Satan is using the diploma you earned from Satan as your main support of how right you are.

Creationists are Religious.
Historically, organized Religion has not been sciences greatest ally.

Then if creationism supports microevolution, and all macro-organisms are devised of micro-organisms, then why do creationists accept what can be witnessed under a microscope concerning the evolution of human cells, but dispute that the evolution has any effect on the macro-organism?

The same reason there are two words concering processes of evolution, microevolution and macroevolution. I didn't even bother reading a lot of your post, because, quite frankly, I'm not going to do all your research for you.

If you want to keep complaining about Creationism, fine, but at least learn about the damn subject first!

Originally posted by Jamuhn
The same reason there are two words concering processes of evolution, microevolution and macroevolution. I didn't even bother reading a lot of your post, because, quite frankly, I'm not going to do all your research for you.

If you want to keep complaining about Creationism, fine, but at least learn about the damn subject first!

Evolution is False and Impossible

Actually, my schedule is too busy to learn much about the subject, I'm trying to see what the current day candle power of star MC113-181 is, but seeing as how it's going to take the light from that star 40 million years to reach us, I guess I've got some free time.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Actually, my schedule is too busy to learn much about the subject, I'm trying to see what the current day candle power of star MC113-181 is, but seeing as how it's going to take the light from that star 40 million years to reach us, I guess I've got some free time.

Years....is that a 360 day year? A 365 Day year? An eon? an era? do we really know?

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


3117. yowm, yome; from an unused root mean. to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether lit. (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or fig. (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adv.]:--age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.

[edit on 30-8-2005 by edsinger]

Genesis account?

Genesis Chapter 1, verse 3:

"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. (4) God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. (5) God called the light "day," and the the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning -- the first day."

?

Genesis Chapter 1, verse 14:

"And God said "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, (15) and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. (16) God made two great lights -- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. (17) God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, (18) to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. (19) And there was evening, and there was morning -- the fourth day."

Why did God create light and create day and night and separate the light and the darkness on day four, when God had already accomplished it on day one?

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I have yet to meet a scientist that is not an evolutionist.

Just for a point of relivence, How many scientist with degrees in biology do you personally KNOW?

Tim

I'dd love to see someone who believes this creationism theory" explain this to me:

if SOMETHING intelligently designed all life, then who or what designed that something ? (and don't tell me, it's god, he's always been there...)


sorry had to post this, i know this is not the place to be funny but...it's so appropriate:

[bill hicks]Ever noticed how people who believe in creationism look realy unevolved ?[/bil hicks]

Originally posted by ghost

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I have yet to meet a scientist that is not an evolutionist.

Just for a point of relivence, How many scientist with degrees in biology do you personally KNOW?

Tim

4 PhD
16 Master Degrees

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by ghost
Just for a point of relivence, How many scientist with degrees in biology do you personally KNOW?

Tim

4 PhD
16 Master Degrees

Only 4 PhDs!!!!!! You realize that is not that many, right?

if evolutionary theory is to be authenticated, how come we aint dissimilar to our ancestors of the time around 10BC.

No evolution over 2000 years, a bit strange.

We are a bit larger than the people of those times. They were usually not more than 5 1/2 feet in those days.

And also significant changes take at least tens of thousands of years, not 2000.

Originally posted by TheBandit795
We are a bit larger than the people of those times. They were usually not more than 5 1/2 feet in those days.

Mainly due to diet, not evolution.

Originally posted by la2
if evolutionary theory is to be authenticated, how come we aint dissimilar to our ancestors of the time around 10BC.

No evolution over 2000 years, a bit strange.

A a general rule evolution is a process that can take several million years of gradual changed, 2000 years isnt a long enough period of time for such changes to be noticeable.

Originally posted by la2
if evolutionary theory is to be authenticated, how come we aint dissimilar to our ancestors of the time around 10BC.

No evolution over 2000 years, a bit strange.

As a matter of fact we are changing, although over a much longer time frame. 2,000 years is not long enough. Here's something I just found on the BBC: news.bbc.co.uk...

It looks fascinating.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by ghost
Just for a point of relivence, How many scientist with degrees in biology do you personally KNOW?
Tim

4 PhD
16 Master Degrees

Fair enough! You just boosted your credibility in my book! I might not agree with all of your conclusions, but I will defenatly take them more seriously. Thanks for the answer.

Tim