Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

Personally, logic leads me to find colonization of Earth a more practical theory than evolution.

Originally posted by FactFinder
Personally, logic leads me to find colonization of Earth a more practical theory than evolution.

Ok but if you feel the theory of evolution can not account for the origins of life on the earth (which BTW it makes no attempt at doing)than how did it arise elsewhere? Ya know what i mean? Who "colonized" our "colonizers".

If your position is that an origins theory based in metaphysical naturalism is incapable or inadequate to account for life from non-life (BTW i agree with that statement) than how did it create the "aliens" that created us? You've simply passed the buck if you know what i mean?

[edit on 12-12-2005 by Rren]

We are alone ok. why we dont get contect

ther have ben a moment we mey have resive something form outher space called WOW-singnal scientist dont knowe what it is but they hav a small hope of it is the real thing

and it dont take 10sec to get contact. it may take 100 of years or 1000 to get the real thing. and if are alone why is the univserse so bigg?

and Evolution is imposible. how did we came here. a god create us thats is Bull $h1t

this is so idotic you just have to laught those religious peolpe try to find stuff do use agenst the Evolution theory,

Get over it. Hhe religious belivs of creation to life is proven wrong

Originally posted by HDD09
We are alone ok. why we dont get contect

I wouldn't say i know we're alone. As far as contact....there's been none. Argue that any way you want...but it's a factual statement.

ther have ben a moment we mey have resive something form outher space called WOW-singnal scientist dont knowe what it is but they hav a small hope of it is the real thing

About The Wow! Signal It's still a mystery so far as i know. There are "normal", ie., not E.T., explanations. Did you have a reason why you think it proves extraterrestrials exist?

and it dont take 10sec to get contact. it may take 100 of years or 1000 to get the real thing. and if are alone why is the univserse so bigg?

Good question. The poster suggested that aliens 'seeded' earth. It's a seperate question from do aliens exist in the "greater" universe.

and Evolution is imposible. how did we came here.

Evolution doesn't make any statement what-so-ever about how we got here. It says we're here (a given) now what happens...understand?

a god create us thats is Bull $h1t

Brilliant ...so well stated, and backed up. I wouldn't dare argue such a lucid position, it'd be suicide. You're just too good.[/heavy sarcasm]

this is so idotic you just have to laught

those religious peolpe try to find stuff do use agenst the Evolution theory,

Get over it. Hhe religious belivs of creation to life is proven wrong

See above...dang you're good. ..oops....meant this:

HDD09, you're being just a bit mean there.

however, you can't show intelligent design as plausible. there'd have to be an intelligent being that just popped out of nowhere, so it isn't science.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
HDD09, you're being just a bit mean there.

however, you can't show intelligent design as plausible. there'd have to be an intelligent being that just popped out of nowhere, so it isn't science.

You don't have to identify the designer or whether or not he "popped out of nowhere" to answer the question: Is design detectable? I have a couple ID threads around here if you'd care to elaborate on your position. So we don't hijack this thread...anymore than i already have.

Great questions. I can honestly say I have no idea who colonized Earth or how they may have been created, but in "my view" the concept of "tribal" style colonization would be more believable than evolution.

I also have a problem with people professing to be devotely religious while simultaneously supporting the evolution theory unless, of course, you are worshipping a monkey or a half-fish, half lizard-like creature emerging from the ocean for its first breath of air.

At the moment, I cannot recall (could be wrong- haven't read it for a while)a single specific reference to evolution in either the old or new testaments, but there are numerous references to "angels" or creatures with four faces.

As I said before, I think it is far easier to believe our origins are from a distant, pre-existing civilization that felt compelled to plant their seed elsewhere to propogate their species than it is for me to believe we oozed up from the ocean millions of years ago, or we were created by a super-alien we call GOD.

I am sure my comments will get some of you going............

Originally posted by FactFinder
Great questions. I can honestly say I have no idea who colonized Earth or how they may have been created, but in "my view" the concept of "tribal" style colonization would be more believable than evolution.

Fair enough, but you will admit that having to acknowledge the designer's designer is an issue/problem for your theory, yes?

I also have a problem with people professing to be devotely religious while simultaneously supporting the evolution theory unless, of course, you are worshipping a monkey or a half-fish, half lizard-like creature emerging from the ocean for its first breath of air.

I don't think it's fair to say that evolutionists are "worshipping a monkey..." their are many evolutionists whom also have a faith/belief in a higher power or creator...Darwin comes to mind. All evolutionists are not atheists, by a long shot and i say that as an old-earth creationist myself. Perhaps the opposite, all atheists are evolutionists, is true but i'm not even sure about that.

At the moment, I cannot recall (could be wrong- haven't read it for a while)a single specific reference to evolution in either the old or new testaments

Depends on what you mean by evolution i guess. Most creationists, myself included, don't believe in universal common ancestry (young or old-earthers). Here's a decent page you may want to take a look at.

[Evolution; God's Greatest Creation]

Macroevolution describes the development of taxonomic groups above the species level which are created through a series of microevolution events. Evolutionists know macroevolution happens primarily due to the evolution of the Biblical kinds into all these new genera of new species we find today. However, God also created groups of similar organisms at the beginning. He created a group of birds, mammals, reptiles, etc which are more similar to each other than the other groups. Because God and evolution both create groupings, it is difficult to determine which groups are original and which are new. The evolutionary process which creates these natural groupings is being credited for higher taxonomic levels than is appropriate, but macroevolution does occur none the less.

However their are many Christians who have no issue with evolution theory on any level.

Theistic Evolution - One Christian's Perspective

I am a Christian who accepts the scientific theory of evolution. This is an essay describing what I believe. You will have to sort out and determine what you believe. There is a lot of nonsense out there about the theory of evolution: that it denies the Virgin Birth, that it denies the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Hopefully this essay will at least dispel some of those false statements.

You could find more examples of Christians who support evolution, i could name several prominent evolutionists whom are also Christians if you'd like.

I am sure my comments will get some of you going............

Usually true, but i'm not that guy. I don't have a need or desire to disprove evolution in order to confirm my faith. Their are plenty of creationists who do for sure, but i don't and i actually enjoy the debate...when it's civil (rare occurance nowadays it seems though). My acceptance of the Christ as my Lord and Saviour has nothing what-so-ever to do with my creationist beliefs (i'm still open for debate), but that's just me. Rren is the spirit and not the body, so if i truely share a common ancestry with the great apes or the original single celled life.....so be it, i ain't mad at 'cha.

Regards,
-Rren

[edit on 14-12-2005 by Rren]
(edit)keep putting an "o" in ancestry for some reason....i put an extra "l" in naturalistic too most of the time.

[edit on 14-12-2005 by Rren]

evelution is a fact look around you every thing is always evolving into something........

but you also cant evolve from nothing...something has to cause the spark......this is why there will always be a god vrs evelution arguement....if there is (and i believe there is) a supreme creater who started the ball rolling and im shure drops in time to time to make knew things ..then why would he not include evelution.....

to me its kinda absurd to think that we can evolve from nothing or that we have been here all this time without evolving in one way or another.....

Originally posted by FactFinder
Personally, logic leads me to find colonization of Earth a more practical theory than evolution.

but where did they come from??? were they colonized too?????if so where did they come from?????

do embrios not evolve into children, children into adults...evelution is real look around..........

Originally posted by plague
evelution is a fact look around you every thing is always evolving into something........

You're confused Plague, again

Wikipedia entry for micro-evolution

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.

These changes may be due to several processes: natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift.

Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Ecological genetics concerns itself with observing microevolution in the wild. Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance.

Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution; which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies, in a population, over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of lots of microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into evolution.

Because microevolution can be observed directly, creationists agree that it occurs, though they tend to make a distinction between microevolution, macroevolution, and speciation.

(emphasis Rren)..getting it yet?

but you also cant evolve from nothing...something has to cause the spark......

That's an origins question not an evolution question, you're confusing the two i think. The Theory of Evolution makes no attempt at describing how we came to "be". The field of abiogenesis research is still wide open with no generally agreed upon theory. Have you even read any of the posts?

this is why there will always be a god vrs evelution arguement

The debate is between universal common ancestry (macro-evolution if you prefer although not entirely accurate) and the Biblical creationist position/interpretation that there's a "kind barrier", ie., no universal common ancestry. Proof of a LUCA wouldn't disprove GOD, only the creationist interpretation of Scripture (Genesis specifically)....which btw is not shared by all Christians.

....if there is (and i believe there is) a supreme creater who started the ball rolling and im shure drops in time to time to make knew things ..then why would he not include evelution.....

Many believers share that belief. The question is: Did every living thing on the planet evolve from one organism or from several 'kinds'. Seriously man read, atleast, this thread or, atleast, my last post and follow the links....i'm not sure who you're arguing with here.

to me its kinda absurd to think that we can evolve from nothing or that we have been here all this time without evolving in one way or another.....

You haven't stated anything in contradiction with the creationist position...welcome to the team.

[edit on 14-12-2005 by Rren]

the problem with creationism as science is that you say "we don't know how it could have happened so god did it"

i have nothing against it as a personal spiritual belief. this has a lot of basis in faith (ie the existence of god), so why should this belief be taught in schools?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
the problem with creationism as science is that you say "we don't know how it could have happened so god did it"

I don't know of the creationist position that states "we don't know how...so GOD did it". I've heard that said of ID theorists, but i would disagree with that as well. As far as the creationism(kinds) -vs- evolution(LUCA) it's a scientific debate based on data and evidence and the interpretation of it.

i have nothing against it as a personal spiritual belief. this has a lot of basis in faith (ie the existence of god), so why should this belief be taught in schools?

I don't advocate that it should be taught in the public schools (the Genesis interpretation that is) and you'll have a hard time finding creationists who say otherwise. The school debate deals with Intelligent Design and/or a more critical look at Darwinian evolution (what it is and is not capable of producing). The common ancestry debate most definately belongs in schools imho...it is possible to remove the creationism over-tones and just deal with the science...again imho.

Originally posted by Rren
You don't have to identify the designer or whether or not he "popped out of nowhere" to answer the question: Is design detectable? I have a couple ID threads around here if you'd care to elaborate on your position. So we don't hijack this thread...anymore than i already have.

What a neat way to avoid the can of worms ID opens. Naturally, an opponent to ID will say, "well, who and what is the nature of the designer? Moreover, what designed the designer?" So, you claim that, "we don't have to prove or identify the designer."



Wow, that's funny. What's even funnier is that little "phylogenetic tree" you posted. Hold on, I need to see that thing to properly point out the flaws in it...

Originally posted by truthseeka

What a neat way to avoid the can of worms ID opens. Naturally, an opponent to ID will say, "well, who and what is the nature of the designer? Moreover, what designed the designer?" So, you claim that, "we don't have to prove or identify the designer."

Actually, if you'd read anything about ID, you'd realize that's the major premise of the theory. It's actually very similar to the hypotheses put forth by SETI. SETI is under no obligation to identify the designer of the 'signal,' why should IDT be?

Wow, that's funny. What's even funnier is that little "phylogenetic tree" you posted. Hold on, I need to see that thing to properly point out the flaws in it...

This should be... interesting.

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by Rren
You don't have to identify the designer or whether or not he "popped out of nowhere" to answer the question: Is design detectable? I have a couple ID threads around here if you'd care to elaborate on your position. So we don't hijack this thread...anymore than i already have.

What a neat way to avoid the can of worms ID opens. Naturally, an opponent to ID will say, "well, who and what is the nature of the designer? Moreover, what designed the designer?" So, you claim that, "we don't have to prove or identify the designer."

No matter how many emoticons or irrelevant comments you want to attach to your pointless commentary. You can't answer philosophical questions with science....you really need to get a clue guy and quit with the "snippets" of ideas you post. State your case, make a point do something...i'm already familiar with the talkorigins talking points kid.

Wow, that's funny. What's even funnier is that little "phylogenetic tree" you posted. Hold on, I need to see that thing to properly point out the flaws in it...

That "tree" is accurate by any scientific definition...you wish to connect all the branches to the same "trunk" without evidence to back it up. Your LUCA isn't falsifiable...point out the flaws by all means...i'm dying of curiosity

First off, your tree doesn't include dogs anywhere in it. It also doesn't include the canines that artificial selection on foxes will give rise to (a team of researchers has attempted to reproduce the artificial selection that produced dogs from wolves using foxes. After many generations, they have produced descendants of foxes that, similar to dogs, exhibit pedomorphism, exhibit phenotypic variation not seen in wild foxes, exhibit tail curling, which is also not seen in wild foxes. Thus, these organisms (fogs, I guess:lol are showing traits similar to that in the domestic dog.

Moreover, the jackal branch should be placed near the wolf and coyote branch, as these are wolf-like canids. And, the most laughable part is that hyenas are even included. They're more closely related to cats than dogs.

My fault, but don't post ridiculous phylogenetic trees like that. My bad, that's not even a phylogenetic tree; it looks like a tree some creationist made up...

Aww...

You mad because I pointed out a major flaw with intelligent design? Too bad, it's the ID people that brought that factor into the equation. How can you say that something designed ALL the life forms seen on Earth, and not expect people to ask about the designer?

And as for idea snippets, what does that mean? As for science not being able to speak on God...so what? Science can't explain everything, and doesn't claim to. But, it's funny to me that religion CAN explain everything...

Originally posted by truthseeka
Aww...

You mad because I pointed out a major flaw with intelligent design? Too bad, it's the ID people that brought that factor into the equation. How can you say that something designed ALL the life forms seen on Earth, and not expect people to ask about the designer?

And as for idea snippets, what does that mean? As for science not being able to speak on God...so what? Science can't explain everything, and doesn't claim to. But, it's funny to me that religion CAN explain everything...

Actually, IDT isn't in opposition to either the tree posted by Rren, or the one you describe. Of course you would know this if you had even a shred of familiarity with the theory.

i still don't see how evolution is impossible. improbable maybe, but its also improbable that if you flip a coin 100 times, you'll get heads more than 50. impossible means it simply couldn't have happened. and i still don't see where it's been proven false.