Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

reply to post by stereologist


I think if you look closer to the bold "according to it's kind" quote. This might be a reference to the difference between microevolution and macroevolution.

reply to post by apoapsis


You mean that fake difference created by religious people to confuse people.

There is evolution plain and simple. The "kind of" is just a reflection on the thinking of the people that wrote the 2 myths that were incorporated into genesis.

Evolution states that simple organisms evolves into complex organisms which violates the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy which implicitly states that things that are orderly become disorderly over time and there is no transition fossil that shows part man and part beast.

reply to post by sara09

Evolution states that simple organisms evolves into complex organisms which violates the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy which implicitly states that things that are orderly become disorderly over time and there is no transition fossil that shows part man and part beast.

That's just wrong.

1. Evolution does not state that simple organisms evolve into complex organisms.
2. It is not a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
3. You are quite wrong on the fossil claim.

Have you ever thought of reading even basic material on science. It seems you are parroting the falsehoods spread by creationists. I know what they say. I have been to creationist lectures. I listen and challenge myself to find as many blatant lies as I can. If you can't find 20 or 30 an hour you aren't trying.

If evolution is false and untrue how do you explain the FACT that 30-35% of the Human population never develops Wisdom teeth? From my understanding it's due to richer nutrients in our food, and we no longer need to chew foods as well to get the most out of them. So we lose that trait/ability or whatever it's called.

Male nipples... what's that about?

The 13th Rib... Chimps and other higher primates have it. A Small portion of the Human race does as well.

Neck Rib, again useless and in a small percentage of the population.

Vomeronasal Organ. Pheromone detectors... useless but again small percantage of us have it.

I'm pretty sure there are more Useless and obsolete parts in the human anatomy, but these are all I can remember from Science class.

awesome thread here OP thanks for takin time to put it all togather. I agree with you 100%

Ok, I have to say I come from an incredibly short view on many subjects and I am not an incredibly intelligent person persay. I have traveled around the world however, supposedly some 120 times and visited and worked in over 70 countries. In my experiences, I have learned to ask two questions when observing or encompassing an idea or statement put forth by any group of people or individuals, or a set of facts to a general or specific conclusion, and I am sure most of you have heard these yourselves. "What is the intention?" and "and to what purpose?" This has served me well in my relationship to many cultures and people and in my understanding of my own faith in the Universe, and helped in the direct forward application in my work.

When reading an incredible amount of detailed facts such as I just did, my brain I recognize, is not large enough to take in all the theory and supportive argument, in the way the Universe/Mulitverse is too vast and complicated for me to encompass. So I ask, what is the intention of the author of this writing, and to what purpose do they write it, as I am pragmatic and look for it to serve an application in the present existence. The only conclusiion I come to obviously, is their intention to disclaim any theory that states that evolution is real.

The purpose therefore, must be to forward the idea that no science outside of "God's" science has merit since this is the only threatened theory I am aware of now. If it was not faith or religious based, there would be a preposition to counter it with another scientific theory or fact which I did not see. Bear with me here as I am thinking and writing at the same time, but such a purpose could only be to support a religious concept that the life of the writer feels is absolutely necessary to confirm.

From this I have to conclude that the writer must have some concept of "God's" intention or purpose and that all else is on the wrong "path", and for the reasons known only to the writer, they feel it necessary to illuminate us with what 'couldn't possibly be' since it goes against their existing belief and support system.

With only instinct to go by, as my little pea brain would have trouble with such detailed concepts of God, no God, maybe God, evolutionary theories, intrusion theories, guidance, and spontaneous existence theories, (Whew) the previous responder's question to the writer really would have to be "Who or what created God?" and to what practical purpose is there to show "scientific proof" that evolution couldn't possibly exist using an infinite concept to support a finite statement or position? In my life experience, I can say what is, but have a hard time saying what isn't as often that has come back to bite me. lol

Using scientific facts or argument, which are always subjective in nature to discredit a scientific theory does not seem practical in purpose other than to support an inflexible self serving belief system. I am not trying to be harsh, but to conclude on my own that it is difficult to say a "theory" couldn't possibly be, or doesn't support your existing position without first revealing and advancing your present position, its intention, and purpose, has to be self serving with an unknown agenda. It is easy to see the intention here, but, "To what purpose?"

There is no support or experience that says evolution does not exist scientifically, unless you first prove and confirm the counter argument that God, or this unknown position, exists scientifically as well. As it is impossible for a finite mind to confirm an infinite existence, (It can only theorize) the purpose of your counter argument that evolution cannot exist is irrlevent and does not hold merit. It has no practical purpose and it serves nothing or no one in application outside of a faith based theory. (I have never written so many words in my life lol) Therefore, based upon a philisophical argument of exposure, I cannot give credence to your thoughts that evolution does not exist, or that it has been "proven" scientifically based upon this argument. Just a thought. I'm willing to be corrected here. lol

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by sara09

 

Evolution states that simple organisms evolves into complex organisms which violates the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy which implicitly states that things that are orderly become disorderly over time and there is no transition fossil that shows part man and part beast.

That's just wrong.

1. Evolution does not state that simple organisms evolve into complex organisms.
2. It is not a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
3. You are quite wrong on the fossil claim.

Have you ever thought of reading even basic material on science. It seems you are parroting the falsehoods spread by creationists. I know what they say. I have been to creationist lectures. I listen and challenge myself to find as many blatant lies as I can. If you can't find 20 or 30 an hour you aren't trying.

So what you're saying is that we should throw out the whole idea that we all evolved from this first cell that came into being by naturalistic processes, because we are much more complex than that first cell, and since evolution does not state that simple organisms evolve into complex organisms, we can not state that any animals today evolved from that first cell.

How your post has multiple stars is beyond me.. Not really actually... People who claim to be critical thinkers on here are simply propagators and repeaters of consensus. And if you don't agree you're seen as someone who just flew a plane into a WTC building. The irony is staggering.

Originally posted by Engafan
If evolution is false and untrue how do you explain the FACT that 30-35% of the Human population never develops Wisdom teeth? From my understanding it's due to richer nutrients in our food, and we no longer need to chew foods as well to get the most out of them. So we lose that trait/ability or whatever it's called.

Male nipples... what's that about?

The 13th Rib... Chimps and other higher primates have it. A Small portion of the Human race does as well.

Neck Rib, again useless and in a small percentage of the population.

Vomeronasal Organ. Pheromone detectors... useless but again small percantage of us have it.

I'm pretty sure there are more Useless and obsolete parts in the human anatomy, but these are all I can remember from Science class.

Well, pheromone detectors aren't useless. There's a reason we girls like to wear your t-shirts to bed, and there's also good reason why some body sprays and perfumes are infused with pheromones nowadays.

Originally posted by vasaga
So what you're saying is that we should throw out the whole idea that we all evolved from this first cell that came into being by naturalistic processes, because we are much more complex than that first cell, and since evolution does not state that simple organisms evolve into complex organisms, we can not state that any animals today evolved from that first cell.

Yes evolution DOES state that simple became complex. The modern cell is not the same as it was 2 billion years ago. Evolution is a slow, long process. People expect to see sudden changes, but it's not going to happen.

reply to post by vasaga

So what you're saying is that we should throw out the whole idea that we all evolved from this first cell that came into being by naturalistic processes, because we are much more complex than that first cell,

I never stated what you posted. Evolution does not state that simple organisms evolve into complex organisms. If that does happen then that is the process evolution did take. That is not the purpose of evolution or a goal of evolution.

and since evolution does not state that simple organisms evolve into complex organisms, we can not state that any animals today evolved from that first cell.

That is really terrible logic. In fact, that makes no sense at all. Your comments are Lamarckian.

There is no goal in evolution to make jaws or to become air breathers or anything in particular. The end result is whatever survives. If any trait promotes survival then it survives. The development of the traits is not directed or goal oriented. It is random.

The traits we see from the evolutionary process are dependent on survival and just because that process ends up at an unplanned condition does not mean that the process does not exist.

reply to post by Barcs


Actually evolution does not have a goal in mind such as increased complexity. Evolution is about survival. If complexity increases survival, then that is what happens.

If what you say is true, then how come there are animals with lifespans of only a day?

reply to post by vasaga


Please provide an example of an animal with a life span of a day.
Also provide an idea of why you think this is unusual or inexplicable or whatever your position is.

If I told you how it all works you would never belive me.

reply to post by buddha


Go ahead try us. Why not post something other than a meaningless few words.

How do you think evolution works?

You said evolution does not claim that simple lifeforms evolve into complex organisms. I said that contradicted the story of how we came here. You then claim that it's terrible logic, but fail to explain how and why.

The reason for me bringing the short lifespan in this is, that you claimed that evolution promotes any trait that promotes survival. It's only logical that animals with a longer lifespan have a larger chance for survival than those who have short ones. So, why are there animals with lifespans of a single day? And btw, although it's completely irrelevant to my point, an example of an animal with a lifespan of a day is the mayfly.

I will end this discussion here. I have no interest in things that will not extend my knowledge or wisdom. Especially when you start talking about Lamarckism as some sort of attempt to ridicule, and are using red herring all over the place.

Originally posted by vasaga
You said evolution does not claim that simple lifeforms evolve into complex organisms. I said that contradicted the story of how we came here. You then claim that it's terrible logic, but fail to explain how and why.

The reason for me bringing the short lifespan in this is, that you claimed that evolution promotes any trait that promotes survival. It's only logical that animals with a longer lifespan have a larger chance for survival than those who have short ones. So, why are there animals with lifespans of a single day? And btw, although it's completely irrelevant to my point, an example of an animal with a lifespan of a day is the mayfly.

I will end this discussion here. I have no interest in things that will not extend my knowledge or wisdom. Especially when you start talking about Lamarckism as some sort of attempt to ridicule, and are using red herring all over the place.

edit on 11-12-2011 by vasaga because: (no reason given)

Because it's not the survival of the organism that matters most. It's the survival of the species. A mayfly can afford to have a lifespan of a day because the rate of reproduction is through the roof.

Even if we had a lifespan of a thousand years, the Law of Chance will at some point make it likely that you won't reach your full lifespan potential. An accident or a disease will get you sooner or later. And you'd have a longer lifespan, but at what cost? Not long ago, most people didn't live past 40 or 50. Now that they are, what's happening? Diseases of old age like Alzheimer's, CHD, severe arthritis, reproductive and other cancers.

reply to post by HappyBunny


That's fair, but, there is a problem. When is something beneficial, and when is it not? Because in this case, long life-span is both beneficial and not beneficial. So it seems like you can explain away any trait without any science to back anything up.

reply to post by vasaga

You said evolution does not claim that simple lifeforms evolve into complex organisms. I said that contradicted the story of how we came here. You then claim that it's terrible logic, but fail to explain how and why.

I explained it. I will elaborate. Your comments are Lamarckian. Look up Lamarck and see that he was an evolutionist that thought animals changed to meet a goal.

Complexity is not a goal of evolution. The issue is survival. Traits that lead to survival are the traits that become part of a species. For example, consider jaws. There is no goal in evolution to have a jaw. Jaws exist because they led to survival. The existence of jaws does not mean that evolution is wrong because jaws are not a goal of evolution. Consider breathing air. There is no goal in evolution to be an air breather. Breathing air exists because it led to survival. The existence of air breathers does not mean that evolution is wrong because air breathing is not a goal of evolution.

Now consider complexity. Complexity led to survival. Just because complexity is not a goal of evolution does not mean that evolution is wrong.

Your suggestion that

because we are much more complex than that first cell, and since evolution does not state that simple organisms evolve into complex organisms, we can not state that any animals today evolved from that first cell.

This is faulty logic. Do you understand your mistake now?

The reason for me bringing the short lifespan in this is, that you claimed that evolution promotes any trait that promotes survival. It's only logical that animals with a longer lifespan have a larger chance for survival than those who have short ones. So, why are there animals with lifespans of a single day? And btw, although it's completely irrelevant to my point, an example of an animal with a lifespan of a day is the mayfly.

I thought you would point out something like the mayfly. The lifespan of a mayfly is much longer than a day. A mayfly lives about a year. Only 1 part of its life cycle is short.

It is not logical that animals with longer life spans have a greater chance for survival. You really need to reconsider your thinking. The issue is whether or not the species survives to reproduce. Mayflies are a successful form of insect that has been in existence for hundreds of millions of years. Its methods are successful.

I will end this discussion here. I have no interest in things that will not extend my knowledge or wisdom. Especially when you start talking about Lamarckism as some sort of attempt to ridicule, and are using red herring all over the place.

Please take the time to learn something before making more trivial errors.