Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

I don't understand how I've been making double posts lately but DOUBLE POST. Think it's me puder.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs

 

You keep on repeating the word "accident", as if that's what astronomers and cosmologists claim. They say the universe is a product of natural laws, not that it was an accident. We might not fully understand everything, but there's ZERO credible evidence hinting at divine intervention...and you claiming "god did it" is nothing but a prime example of god of the gaps.

Without God there can be no law. How is it you place limitations on God ? A God of the gaps is a God of necessity is a God of creation is a God of existence etc.

Well, in the absence of objective evidence for the god hypothesis it's only logical to assume natural laws are responsible for things...especially if we already know they're responsible for so many things.

I've been round with you about your repetition of "With out objective evidence" before. If there was objective evidence there wouldn't be any fools claiming there is no God. The Bible says there would be in these times of the end. Ask Japan if they think it's the end times, if you have any doubts about that. I don't mean that as an ad -hominem. I truly belive it is foolishness if you can't figure it out all by your lonesome without the objective. It means absolutely nothing to you that you need this evidence but I as well as the bigger part of the population on this planet do not.

I have yet to witness an experiment, design, magic show or creation happen without a scientistdesignermagiciancreator = God. I think the notion is completely perposterous. I have to say it's just stupid. I mean how in the hell do you make sense of non belief ? Without belief NOTHING HAPPENS ! EVEEEEER ! I really do mean to rant I guess.

reply to post by randyvs

I have yet to witness an experiment, design, magic show or creation happen without a scientistdesignermagiciancreator = God.

That's an argument from ignorance..

Originally posted by topherman420
What you have said is the general consensus, it is also said he was still reading from the bible on the beagle. I think in the long run darwin was trying to find some answers the bible didnt provide for him.
Another common myth is that he cursed god or religion on his death bed. Some info on darwin myths for any that would like to take the time to read.
conspiracies.skepticproject.com...

I was just trying to make the point that attributing his publishing of On the Origin of Species solely to the death of his daughter and his "being angry at God" makes no sense given the timing.

reply to post by randyvs

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
Abraham Lincoln

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by topherman420
What you have said is the general consensus, it is also said he was still reading from the bible on the beagle. I think in the long run darwin was trying to find some answers the bible didnt provide for him.
Another common myth is that he cursed god or religion on his death bed. Some info on darwin myths for any that would like to take the time to read.
conspiracies.skepticproject.com...

I was just trying to make the point that attributing his publishing of On the Origin of Species solely to the death of his daughter and his "being angry at God" makes no sense given the timing.

And im just adding to the convo by giving some information on some of these stories that people might not be aware of. Alot of people know darwins work and such but they dont look at his personal history. And alot of people when refuting his work and preaching to likemind individuals on religion, like to use those myths as a crutch for why evolution should be considered incorrect. I quoted you only since it was a relevant topic and opens it up to learning more on darwin as a person more then just a theory.

Again, fantastic thread!

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs

 

I have yet to witness an experiment, design, magic show or creation happen without a scientistdesignermagiciancreator = God.

That's an argument from ignorance..

Isn't that what I just said about your arguement ?
What is left for me to say ? You're more of it ?
Come on X..... Really?

Iteration

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

Ya I see your point.

reply to post by randyvs

Isn't that what I just said about your arguement ?
What is left for me to say ? You're more of it ?
Come on X..... Really?

I don't claim stuff to be true even though it hasn't been proven...so no, it's all you falling back on the argument from ignorance

reply to post by randyvs


"No U" isn't a valid argument either. You are arguing that your personal ignorance is a point in favor of your position. This is, as MrXYZ pointed out, the argument from ignorance. It's a known and frankly arrogant logical fallacy.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by randyvs

 

"No U" isn't a valid argument either. You are arguing that your personal ignorance is a point in favor of your position. This is, as MrXYZ pointed out, the argument from ignorance. It's a known and frankly arrogant logical fallacy.

I'm sorry I thought the only ignorance involved with this whole thread, was the suggestion of knowing everything about the universe, by the claim that God does not exist. No one has proved that and no one ever will. I predict.
No matter. Ignoring the possibilities is your biggest fallacy. I have my evidence, sorry about your luck but hey,
you won't be able to say no one tried to tell you.

God exists and I don't need full knowledge of the universe to make that claim. Sorry but I don't. But if you want to say he dosn't? I think you better know what you're talking about because apparently there are consequences for that stupidity. Round and round we go. Have your last word so you can sleep tonight. You two arn't even worth talking to anymore.

One thing I will admit to. Neither one of you godless pups messed around when it came to your education.
But even with the superior knowledge you both possess over me. I remain an unmoved stationary obstacle.
Not because of stubborness.
Because of faith in the spiritual part of man. We arn't just biological machines. I hope you both realise that some how someday. For your own sakes. Like or not, there is plenty of objective evidence that things are getting Biblical these days. When your world is crashing down around you by the book, as it has so obviously began to do. You will be so alone. And yes you will pass into something you have refused all your lives. Not good boys.
Not good at all. My hope is atonement through the blood of Christ. But you insist there is no hope.

Unacceptable

Randyvious

reply to post by randyvs

Originally posted by randyvs
I'm sorry I thought the only ignorance involved with this whole thread, was the suggestion of knowing everything about the universe, by the claim that God does not exist.

Look, it's a stupid old straw man argument, you're really beefing up on your logical fallacies lately. Nobody is claiming that a specific deity doesn't exist, merely that there is no evidence to show that there is one. That which is presented without evidence is dismissed without evidence.

Furthermore, I wouldn't need to know where every particle on Mars is if I needed to disprove that deity...so absolute knowledge isn't required.

No one has proved that and no one ever will. I predict.

...extraordinary prediction there. And guess what? Nobody needs to do so.

No matter. Ignoring the possibilities is your biggest fallacy. I have my evidence, sorry about your luck but hey,
you won't be able to say no one tried to tell you.

*facepalm* I'm not ignoring possibilities. I'm just not considering them unless there's a good reason to.

God exists and I don't need full knowledge of the universe to make that claim.

Hey look, another straw man. When did anyone say you did. You just need some evidence of that claim...and you don't have any.

Sorry but I don't.

Well, I don't make the claim that you do.

But if you want to say he dosn't?

Well, I'm not saying that your deity doesn't exist...merely that there's no good reason to believe it does.

I think you better know what you're talking about because apparently there are consequences for that stupidity.

Attempting to show me as ignorant when you're the one who's misrepresenting my position? Classy. And an odd Pascal's wager.

Where's your evidence that Allah or Baal aren't the true deity? I've heard there are consequences for not accepting them.

Round and round we go. Have your last word so you can sleep tonight. You two arn't even worth talking to anymore.

It's not about having the last word, it's about trying to show the people who actually care about their beliefs conforming to reality that there is a counterargument to the fecal matter that is spewed from your keyboard.

One thing I will admit to. Neither one of you godless pups messed around when it came to your education.
But even with the superior knowledge you both possess over me. I remain an unmoved stationary obstacle.

Stubbornness and ignorance.

Not because of stubborness.

No, because you're stubborn and ignorant.

Because of faith in the spiritual part of man.

I believe in something like 'spirituality'. We can have 'transcendental' experiences even in a purely material universe. I revere the universe and it's insane vastness with a sense of awe and wonder. I find beauty in the celestial dance of the solar system. I take a look at all of this material universe and find grandness not described in even the most profound statements of nature's beauty from the pen of even the greatest poets.

We arn't just biological machines.

Citation needed.

I hope you both realise that some how someday. For your own sakes. Like or not, there is plenty of objective evidence that things are getting Biblical these days.

Citation needed. How do you know it's not Ragnarök that's coming?

When your world is crashing down around you by the book, as it has so obviously began to do. You will be so alone. And yes you will pass into something you have refused all your lives. Not good boys.
Not good at all. My hope is atonement through the blood of Christ. But you insist there is no hope.

Unacceptable

So veiled threats from your high horse? I'm sorry, but I have hope...but my hope is in that which is demonstrable. Human progress.

We are more intelligent, knowledgeable, healthier, just, successful, and aware than at any point in human history. There has never been a more peaceful and prosperous time in human history...unless you can show differently.

reply to post by randyvs


And more examples for the argument from ignorance

Look, no one's forcing you to present proof of god's existence...but as long as you can't do that, it's hard to take you serious when you attack proven scientific concepts just because they go against your belief

Originally posted by Nygdan*Snip*

Bravo

I'd also like to just comment about the mars statement Ed made.

Mars MAY have been suited for life, billions of years ago it MIGHT have been a blue planet. We haven't been to mars, we do know that it's not suited for life now, meaning if there WAS life on mars, there would of had to be an ELE.

Last time I checked, we haven't sent any archeological dig team to the surface of mars... there very well maybe fossils of large animals trapped in the layers of the planet. Our exploration of mars has consisted of observing it from orbit, and sending little remote control cars to drive on the absolute surface of the planet... needless to say they obviously haven't even seen the surface of the entire planet through the eyes of these robots...

Really, we have no idea what is actually on mars, and we won't know if it actually had life until we can get there and conduct actual digs.

Pretty much the rest of everything Ed said was not fact at all.... hell most of the things he talks about have absolutely nothing to do with Evolution at all.

With respect,
Laokin.

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by Nygdan*Snip*

Bravo

I'd also like to just comment about the mars statement Ed made.

Mars MAY have been suited for life, billions of years ago it MIGHT have been a blue planet. We haven't been to mars, we do know that it's not suited for life now, meaning if there WAS life on mars, there would of had to be an ELE.

Last time I checked, we haven't sent any archeological dig team to the surface of mars... there very well maybe fossils of large animals trapped in the layers of the planet. Our exploration of mars has consisted of observing it from orbit, and sending little remote control cars to drive on the absolute surface of the planet... needless to say they obviously haven't even seen the surface of the entire planet through the eyes of these robots...

Really, we have no idea what is actually on mars, and we won't know if it actually had life until we can get there and conduct actual digs.

Pretty much the rest of everything Ed said was not fact at all.... hell most of the things he talks about have absolutely nothing to do with Evolution at all.

With respect,
Laokin.

Fossils trapped in the layers of mars... interesting...
same principles apply tho for the theory on how hydro-logic sorting works being that Mars has a canyon that makes grand canyon look like a housefly compared to a baseball. (a little over exaggerated but you get the point). There is very little to no water on mars and the just that fact alone demands that the canyon was formed in a short period of time. that along with other facts about the planet really make you scratch your head a moment.

as far as evolution goes... i dont side with it because it relies on things you have to assume and science actually proves day in and day out that the scope of what evolution has to offer includes many things outside of the scientific realm. creationism or ID on the other hand (after THE creation of the world and all life, since you evolutionists want to leave out abiogenesis --- to be fair about it) is consistent with science. we see exactly what it predicts, so why is that being ignored or claimed to be false? and even on a simple level of thinking... creation, broken down to even complex thinking still holds true to science and to itself.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs

 

And more examples for the argument from ignorance

Look, no one's forcing you to present proof of god's existence...but as long as you can't do that, it's hard to take you serious when you attack proven scientific concepts just because they go against your belief

even these proven scientific concepts admit to much fault in the theory of evolution (sometimes very subtle and sometimes outright) from everything ive read, it goes something like this "this is how it would have worked, but we cant explain how it was possible to even occur".. ok well thats more for theories like the big bang theory. but as far as evolution - they just state it like its fact and people just suck it up as it its true while ignoring other facts.
how do you date fossils? and/or the rock they are found in? while both dating methods are accurate to the chart that charles lyell created before the days of radiometric dating (the geologic column) radiometric dating in itself (concept and all) has flaws that make dating anything inaccurate... and you bash creationism/ID like for its faith and assumptions? give me a break

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
We are more intelligent, knowledgeable, healthier, just, successful, and aware than at any point in human history. There has never been a more peaceful and prosperous time in human history...unless you can show differently.

intelligent? no just more advanced, intelligence is not directly related to our advancement in technology or medical practices. If we were on an intellectual incline... then we shouldnt have this many problems in the world. since all are very solvable.

knowledgeable? ah yes, but like i said above, without the intellect to go with that... we are still dumb.

healthier? haha we may have found proactive practices to take part in to sustain a comfortable lifestyle but healthier? seriously? our lack in intellect has caused us to bypass many things that can be keeping us in a healthier state... for example: bread used to go bad every few days, until we took out the ingredients that caused it to go bad. this caused bread to last way longer thus saving the producer and the consumer money - but now heart attacks are much more common. thats just one example, there are plenty more out there. just gotta look in the right places.

aware? dude I live under a rock and can tell you that America by themselves are the most wool eyed people in the world. aware.. lol i laughed out loud at that.. we chose to live our lives with this so called awareness you speak of yes we wonder why our world is so eff'd up... its called lack of awareness. --- otherwise we would know, and we would be healthy enough and smart enough to actually do something about it.

peaceful? well, i can see it from that perspective but I would go with the term tolerance. this world is not at peace, its simply tolerant, holding their tongues and keep their swords to their sides since we really dont know what else to do and all else has failed. QQ more

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
"In fact evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes Biology 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers p.974

you do realize that no one is arguing this fact. even creationism/ID agrees with this statement.
the part where these two views split off is that point is the distance that frequency change can take an organism. how far it branches off in the tree of life. (going from a whale to a cow or vice versa --- or from ape like-creature to human). Evolution relies on faith at this point where creation implies that these instances can't even occur and is so far scientifically accurate by the definition of science. testable, demonstrable, observable, etc. Evolution takes it on faith that the fossils we find in the ground are 1. related to each other based on similar structures, 2. can have that much of a gene frequency shift in order to 'evolve' that organism. 3. able to repeat this process over a time frame which is too wide to actually observe or demonstrate these assertions

reply to post by Methuselah


No faith is required. You're merely positing that there's a non-existent barrier that would prevent changes from accumulating.

Hell, evolution is supported by genetics all on its own.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


The denial of the idea that the barrier does exist raises the question, implies that the changes can take place over long periods of time. This is faith/assumption based. No one has tested, demonstrated, or observed the extreme outcomes darwinian evolution implies because it simply happens too slowly and and requires too much time for us to actually DO science with. therefore we just assume it happens since it seems to match our fossils which btw we cant prove are related in any way other than similar bone structure.

Genetics proves that change over time can/does occur. I have no problem with that statement. Id like to modify that statement by adding that the changes are limited to vary within the genetic frequency range of compatibility for offspring and yes sometimes creatures "evolve" to such a genetic distance that they are no longer compatible to produce offspring. but that process will not produce what Darwin predicts, the science done so far has shown that it cannot and will not. change is limited.

Evidence from Genetics that change over time can occur... sure I can agree with that but like i said above, its limited.
Evidence from Fossils - hydro logic sorting kinda knocks this one in the dirt a bit. in the event of a regional flooding you are very likely to get exactly what is claimed to be found in this so called fossil record.

reply to post by Methuselah

how do you date fossils? and/or the rock they are found in? while both dating methods are accurate to the chart that charles lyell created before the days of radiometric dating (the geologic column) radiometric dating in itself (concept and all) has flaws that make dating anything inaccurate... and you bash creationism/ID like for its faith and assumptions? give me a break

No you don't get a break, because you obviously don't know what you're talking about

Take the age of the earth for example:

These have returned age dates of 4.54 billion years with a precision of as little as 1% margin for error.

Source

If you'd have that certainty for other statistical analysis, for example in economic analysis or medicine, you would throw a giant party. Saying radiometric dating isn't accurate is complete and utter nonsense

But who cares about facts if they go against your belief, right?

reply to post by Methuselah

In order for your belief to hold up, you have to assume something exists in spite of the evidence. Sort of like my pink unicorn hypothesis, except the evidence for the existence of a pink unicorn in orbit around the sun is mounting, while absolutely zero evidence has been found that betrays a restraining mechanism on evolutionary change. You assume there is a mechanism that stops species from changing to a certain degree, when in fact we've observed many instances of species changing into novel forms we designate as new species, just not with "higher" organisms due to the constraints of time, as you mentioned. Regardless of these constraints, we have acquired enough evidence to assert, with more certainty than are current notions of gravity, that there is no mechanism that keeps a population tethered to an 'essence'. Selection acts on populations spanning millions of years. It would be impossible to pinpoint the moment of speciation, and it can only be done retrospectively anyway, unless you can tell us what future animal a "rabbit" will turn into. Its a continuum of change

For your belief to be true, there would have to be some property of a molecule that can assess the value of a resource, so the proper direction of morphological change can be ascertained and carried out. Which would mean the electron has foresight.


Why make such an assumption?

("Hold on there fruit fly, you've undergone enough change...oh wait a minute, nm lol you can keep changing, you have a short life cycle. Where's an apex predator? Hey Lion, get over here, lol I have to make sure you stop changing")

reply to post by Methuselah

Originally posted by Methuselah
The denial of the idea that the barrier does exist raises the question, implies that the changes can take place over long periods of time.

I'm sorry, but where's your evidence of there being a barrier? I've heard all sorts of creationists claim there is one, but I've never seen a single piece of research to support that claim.

This is faith/assumption based. No one has tested, demonstrated, or observed the extreme outcomes darwinian evolution implies because it simply happens too slowly and and requires too much time for us to actually DO science with.

Well, we've done enough to observe speciation, which is much further than any creationist would care to accept.

therefore we just assume it happens since it seems to match our fossils which btw we cant prove are related in any way other than similar bone structure.

Seems to match our fossils? We can and have made predictions for future fossil finds based on the theory of evolution. We expected to find tiktaalik and we ended up finding it several years after that prediction was made. We expected to find feathered raptors...and we did. We expected to find microraptor...and we did.

Genetics proves that change over time can/does occur. I have no problem with that statement. Id like to modify that statement by adding that the changes are limited to vary within the genetic frequency range of compatibility for offspring and yes sometimes creatures "evolve" to such a genetic distance that they are no longer compatible to produce offspring.

Alright, demonstrate the limitation.

but that process will not produce what Darwin predicts, the science done so far has shown that it cannot and will not. change is limited.

Where is the science that proves this? Show me a single peer reviewed document that demonstrates this.

Evidence from Fossils - hydro logic sorting kinda knocks this one in the dirt a bit. in the event of a regional flooding you are very likely to get exactly what is claimed to be found in this so called fossil record.

Not really. Hydrologic sorting wouldn't account for creatures being unsorted by body density and mass...hell, we should expect to see a few bunnies in the precambrian if that idea were true. Seriously, the hydrologic sorting thing was old when NephilimFree was spouting it off on YouTube. I'd suggest watching a lot of these videos about geology from an actual geologist.