Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

reply to post by vasaga

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.

You need to examine where you are making mistakes. What you consider logical is not at all. Look up material. Your guess that mayflies live a day is wrong.

Science examines what happens and asks questions to understand what is observed. You make obviously wrong guesses and then you suggest that the world is not like your bad guesses.

Traits can be good and they can be bad. What is successful for an organism at one point in time may be detrimental later on.

These issues are complex and if you apply yourself I am sure you can learn more about these issues.

Wow ! In all mine endeavors to this site, thru the concurance of many days posting I have yet to see it all. What a fantastic thread I've missed here. Truly epic. I thank who so ever it is that has revived this absolute truth.

Wow. Now I remember why I refrain from discussing these topics. People can't see their own contradictions and fallacies..

reply to post by vasaga


Everyone can see that you pointed out no fallacies other than your own.

The fact is that evolution is not goal directed. The existence of complexity or any other trait does not support or detract from evolution. Misrepresenting mayflies as living only 1 day has no bearing on evolution.

Evolution is change and species do change over time. Evolution is a fact. The mechanism for evolution is the issue.

I am going to respectively stay out of this conversation.

Due to the terms and conditions on this site, I would be swiftly banned if I posted my full, uncensored opinion on this subject.

Originally posted by edsinger
((Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is Wrong, False and Impossible))


Now before the Mods delete this, I would like to explore this as I am doing so in the wrong threads, so please bear with me. Please do not delete any of this as I want folks to at least read it, if you must, fine me points if necessary, but let me keep the text as I have presented it please.


The scoffers will immediately dismiss the source, but some who would like to discuss this would maybe like to dispute the information presented. If the source is absolute bunk then the brilliant minds here should be able to dismiss these 'theories' outright no?

I would like to do it this way if you don't mind, Pick a number and then discuss only that number in your reply. Please title each of your responses with the number so readers can follow.

I will post mine first.........as a reply to another thread with BH. It was brought up that evolution is only theory but supported by Science and that no Creation can be supported as such....so lets see.

Please lets keep it civil, (ME INCLUDED)


The body and soul of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates.

I like your style.

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong


Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.


The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer.

Yes because most birds don't look like Tweety bird. I thought you'd go for a Bambi pic next.

The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment.

This is only backwards when because the OP ignores the history of the planet in favor of our species' ego. Species, such as homo sapiens, whom have a tendency to isolate and/or manipulate the environments of species other than themselves, have existed on Earth in many time lines- past our perceived memories. We are so blind we might call other species we don't know anything about "aliens"; ignoring the fact that we don't know much, in scope. Why do you think we have stories about fairies?

Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection.

According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly.

This opinion comes out of only seeing One path within a network of trees. Natural selection could produce many different paths, given time.

Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

You have not identified something that makes no sense; you have clarified that you lack the necessary sense to make an educated judgment.

Continued on next post

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

It's not that they're "made up creatures". If you won't acknowledge something because of it's label. Christians have a hard time telling the story of Lucy. Once again, you are not showing PROOF. Just a thesis.

Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.

"Proven to be immature to... what degree? Come on, this part is simply fallacy. A modern laboratory creating a living cell is rarely going to recreate the possible happenings of nature over time.

Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

Small changes which affect the offspring in an evolutionary chain doesn't mean changing the chromosomes, as suggested. The OP has simplified and generalized a very complex subject. New genetic traits are easily shown in a species' DNA chart.

Gregor Mendel's Punnett square proves that.

Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong


The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Ask yourself... why would DNA ever "attempt to change"?

Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.

All of the OP's "facts" are distorted. What we see as organization is just a divine chaotic path. Evolution is not only a valid theory, it can be witnessed simultaneously in the microcosm and macrocosm.

Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

Mutations do occur, in which extra chromosomes appear, or chromosomes are missing. These mutations are successfully passed down genetic lineages, as proven by our blue-eyed Caucasian friends. Many defects become strengths in changed environments.

I love your passion, but your points lack insight.

Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.

I personally believe in an "ether". The ethereal realm holds the potential for anything to exist, given time and the right environment. A realm which directly affects the way a physical world manifests.

Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Really? Clutching at straws. Reports of planets within habitable zones are filing in constantly. Our technology hasn't caught up to the point where it would even be able to sense extra-terrestrial life, but even if it could and we just haven't found any yet... how can the OP make these assumptions as fact?

If I was grading the research in this OP, I would fail it. The logic is misguided on many points, which makes it hard for me to take the OP seriously.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by vasaga

 

Everyone can see that you pointed out no fallacies other than your own.

The fact is that evolution is not goal directed. The existence of complexity or any other trait does not support or detract from evolution. Misrepresenting mayflies as living only 1 day has no bearing on evolution.

Evolution is change and species do change over time. Evolution is a fact. The mechanism for evolution is the issue.

Pretend all you want.

First of all, I never said that evolution is goal directed. That's what YOU pretend that I said, and as such that is a strawman argument, and thus is fallacious.

Whether mayflies live for one day or weeks is irrelevant to the discussion, since the point obviously was about long lifespan vs short lifespans. You are pretending me to be wrong on something that is irrelevant. That's a red herring. And for the record, quote from wikipedia:

The adults are short-lived, from a few minutes to a few days depending on the species. click

Defining evolution as change is an incomplete definition. Not to mention selective. You're defining it as the thing that exactly will suit your purpose. That's called equivocation.

Now you can stop pretending that I've used fallacies and acknowledge your own. You didn't show nor explain any of my fallacies, but simply pretend that I used fallacious arguments, and repeat it indefinitely as if it's true. Repeating something a million times does not make it true. I just showed you where yours are. Where does that leave you?

And oyeah, your first line... "Everyone can see that you pointed out no fallacies other than your own". That's a fallacy in itself. It's called appeal to the masses. And it can even be argued that it contains a semi appeal to ridicule argument.

Good luck.

There's a lot of disinformation on this thread...

The facts are- this is a second line.

reply to post by vasaga

First of all, I never said that evolution is goal directed. That's what YOU pretend that I said, and as such that is a strawman argument, and thus is fallacious.

It took you a long time to state that. Grasping at straws to shore up your failed claims and bad logic?

Whether mayflies live for one day or weeks is irrelevant to the discussion, since the point obviously was about long lifespan vs short lifespans. You are pretending me to be wrong on something that is irrelevant. That's a red herring. And for the record, quote from wikipedia:

The adults are short-lived, from a few minutes to a few days depending on the species.

So now you are stooping even lower by misrepresenting mayflies and the article you reference.

They are aquatic insects whose immature stage (called "naiad" or, colloquially, "nymph") usually lasts one year in freshwater.

I've already stated that they live about a year although one phase may be very short. The animals live for a year, not a day.

Defining evolution as change is an incomplete definition. Not to mention selective. You're defining it as the thing that exactly will suit your purpose. That's called equivocation.

So let's have your definition.

Now you can stop pretending that I've used fallacies and acknowledge your own. You didn't show nor explain any of my fallacies, but simply pretend that I used fallacious arguments, and repeat it indefinitely as if it's true. Repeating something a million times does not make it true. I just showed you where yours are. Where does that leave you?

You lied about the life span of mayflies. You used horrible logic - repeatedly.

Your claim is that there are animals that live only a day. I am still waiting for you to name one.

And it can even be argued that it contains a semi appeal to ridicule argument.

It's not ridicule you feel. It is embarrassment at your mistakes.

Originally posted by stereologist
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.

Agreed. I was just stating that overall if you look at the process on a grand scale, it does show that simple did eventually become complex. It's not apparent or necessary in every single case, however. It's funny that people bring up the human eye, when there are plenty of animals out there with much better eye "design" than our own.

anyone who lives in the real world will tell you
If you poison some cock roaches, some always survive
then you hit em again then more survive
hit em again and after a few generations they can't live without it

THATS EVOLUTION BABY an INESCAPABLE TRUTH
PERIOD.

Just ask THE intelligent design GODS MONSANTO

The weevils love the new man made GENETICALLY MODIFIED (no god about it) pesticide corn, they can't get enough of it

whats MERSA again ?
little ge(R)ms that after several generations of not being wiped out now are so tough nothing basically kills them
WHAT EVER DOESN'T KILL YOU ONLY MAKES YOU STRONGER

darwinization is upon us sheesh!

reply to post by Barcs


Agreed.

I figured you were correct.

One of the eyes that amazes me is the eye of the horseshoe crab. It can change its light detection capability something like 1 million times from day to night using multiple techniques. It is a truly amazing eye on a completely separate evolutionary tract.
www.biolbull.org...

The eyes of Limulus also exhibit a remarkable circadian rhythm: they become nearly 1,000,000-fold more sensitive at night, accommodating for the roughly 1,000,000-fold decrease in ambient light

Now if you want to see how evolution screws up eye design then look no farther than the human eye. The blood supply is in front of the light sensitive cells blocking some of the light.

reply to post by stereologist


Another list of a bunch of fallacies.. And even worse, people give you stars for it.

Tell me where this is horrible logic...

You said:

Originally posted by stereologist
1. Evolution does not state that simple organisms evolve into complex organisms.

I said:

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.

Where is that illogical?

Then, YOU started about evolution having a goal and whatnot. THAT is the strawman here. I never strawmanned anything. Stop being so goddamn hypocritical.

This is why I dislike arguing with people about this. They always pretend the other is making a bunch of bad claims, why they themselves are completely inconsistent, and the sheep that agree will give stars to bull# comments. And no matter how long it takes to state something, the truth is still the truth. Look at yourself instead of constantly pointing the fingers at others, and spare me the "irony" comments...

Originally posted by vasaga
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.

Where did I ever claim that a longer life span was beneficial? And that's why we don't live that long. Our genetic material--DNA--doesn't last forever and the risk of "harmful" mutations increases with age.

Long life spans also increases the population, especially if the reproductive life span doesn't change. Aging reproductive systems make it more likely that certain genetic diseases (like Down's syndrome, autism, and schizophrenia) will be passed on. Keeping our reproductive life spans shorter decreases the risks for these problems getting into the wider population.

Originally posted by prepared4truth
Gregor Mendel's Punnett square proves that.

Something I remember doing in 9th grade biology.

reply to post by HappyBunny


You didn't, but isn't it a logical conclusion, that longer lifespan means a higher chance of survival for the species? And even if what you say is true regarding DNA and mutations, there are animals which have what is called negligible senescence. It basically means, they don't age and don't lose any proper function. Here's an example. Hydra are also considered biologically immortal.. So.. Every argument that I see seems to have some kind of exception, and if there is an exception to a rule, well, then the rule is probably not valid. Or am I wrong in this?

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

You didn't, but isn't it a logical conclusion, that longer lifespan means a higher chance of survival for the species?

Not if the birth rate doesn't change.

And even if what you say is true regarding DNA and mutations, there are animals which have what is called negligible senescence. It basically means, they don't age and don't lose any proper function. Here's an example. Hydra are also considered biologically immortal.. So.. Every argument that I see seems to have some kind of exception, and if there is an exception to a rule, well, then the rule is probably not valid. Or am I wrong in this?

Aging is not inevitable, though. I don't think I said it was--it happens because of biological damage to DNA and the cells themselves. Old age is never listed as a cause of death--there's always some proximal cause. So it is with hydra and other species. It happens to us but again, the longer you live, the greater the chance you'll die of an accident or disease. In the case of hydra, you could get eaten.

And yet the turtles are not immortal. They haven't changed much in all the millions of years they've been around. Did you know that the turtles are one of the most durable creatures on Earth? They've survived every mass extinction on record. If mammals hadn't filled the niche left by the dinosaurs, we could well be ruled by turtles.

Originally posted by vasaga
This is why I dislike arguing with people about this. They always pretend the other is making a bunch of bad claims, why they themselves are completely inconsistent, and the sheep that agree will give stars to bull# comments. And no matter how long it takes to state something, the truth is still the truth. Look at yourself instead of constantly pointing the fingers at others, and spare me the "irony" comments...

Then why bother arguing? I understand it's frustrating when you make invalid claims and people post scientific evidence to prove you wrong, but if you aren't providing evidence yourself to demonstrate your hypothesis, then you have no right to tell people they are wrong. Unfortunately your version of "truth" has no evidence behind it, while evolution has a crapload. That's the bottom line no matter how you look at it or what your personal beliefs are. If you have scientific facts, lets see them. Subjective evidence proves nothing.