Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

There is no need to prove evolution is wrong.

Science, more precisely this theory of evolution as I see it. Is
nothing more than the latest lame attempt by man to fulfill his
belief in an outright lie. We weren't created to die because that's
not part of Gods plan. " You will not surely die" was part of the
lie/promise. Well we certainly do that now don't we? So one could
surmise that for order to remain in the universe the human and
all of creation needed to listen to the only one who had the
knowledge. To not obey the Creator was a sin and once we
sinned? Death became a part of this world.

"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

We do know both good and evil now and as far back as recorded
history goes. But we are never going to be like God. Tho he has
certainly stepped back and let us have a go at it. All we've managed
to do really, is kill each other and wreck are home trying to achieve
a promise, that was just a wicked lie to begin with. Sprung on two
innocent minds new to creation and most likely didn't have any
concept of a lie.

Everything we do in this wicked world is connected to this
moment in time. Science, evolution, the monetary system used
to enslave us, this world we've CREATED? I see right thru it all
everyday. Because indeed it was never even meant to exist.

So evolution isn't just a lie. It's a lie within the lie, that thru
science, we will be like God. So naturally people who can't
see this, or don't want to see this. Immedfiately scouff and
harass and ridicule the truth of creation at every turn. In
a chidish manner that is anything but scientific or intelligent.

No need to prove evolution is wrong, when the whole G-D
world is wrong. No man who thinks he KNOWS something.
Can be a wise man. But they sure try to be a wiseguy!
Frankly, I think we're all a bunch a ####en idiots.

a reply to: edsinger

I have not read all the replies to your post so if I am repeating someone else you will know why.
As is pointed out in No.7:

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.

While I will admit that I also have doubts about ANY organism having the ability to "make the decision" to change the number, or order, of its chromosomes, may I point out atleast one instance which shows a part of this presumption to be wrong.

Several years ago I read of two young people with downs syndrome getting married. As you know, downs syndrome is caused by, or linked to, an extra number of chromosomes with in a person's genome. ( I am not very familiar with all the medical terminology, but this is the giest of my understanding. ) As nature has a tendence to do, about a year after they were wed, they had a child. I do not know about the health of the child but it was reportedly healthy at birth.
This would seem to disprove the assumption which you posted about those with a genetic deformity not being able to mate so there could be no offspring to carry or the deformity. As I said, I do not know any more about the child except for it being health at birth. It may/or may not have inherited any type of tendancy toward downs syndrome.

I will not go so far as to say that being shown wrong on one point makes you wrong on all points, but it is a start.

originally posted by: rken2
Why do creationism and evolution have to mutually exclusive. The truth generally lies between the extremes.

Not really. You are referring to 2 sides of story. That is irrelevant with science. Evolution isn't an extreme. It's the likely scenario based on evidence. Creation could be true, but that has nothing to do with evolution. If creation is true, then evolution is part of it, as you suggested.

originally posted by: randyvs
There is no need to prove evolution is wrong.

Science, more precisely this theory of evolution as I see it. Is
nothing more than the latest lame attempt by man to fulfill his
belief in an outright lie.

Here we go again. Yeah, man just totally has a desire to not be special and to be a descendent from ancient apes. They are definitely just fulfilling their beliefs, because that's so pleasing to think about right? I'd ask you to demonstrate or show evidence of this lie but I know it won't happen. Evolution is the ONLY thing that actually has physical evidence to back it up, so yeah. Calling it an outright lie is nonsense. Human ego is the reason why religion is so big. Humans want to believe they were created in the image of an all powerful being. They want to believe in eternal life and heaven. It's the only reason they still have followers. They are good at selling the dream. Deep down inside everybody wants to live forever, it's just not realistic.

So evolution isn't just a lie. It's a lie within the lie, that thru
science, we will be like God. So naturally people who can't
see this, or don't want to see this. Immedfiately scouff and
harass and ridicule the truth of creation at every turn. In
a chidish manner that is anything but scientific or intelligent.

It's funny how asking for legitimate references to back up claims or explaining how science works is considered childish ridicule. It's funnier how you refer to that as truth based on a complete guess.

No man who thinks he KNOWS something.
Can be a wise man.

Really? It's funny how the only reasons 99% of creationists hate evolution is because they THINK they know the answers to god and the universe. In reality NOBODY does. Evolution, however, we do know because of the evidence. It doesn't require faith. So if your statement is true, then no religious person is wise.

a reply to: Barcs

Evolution, however, we do know because of the evidence.

Then you can tell me how the first organisms came together?
How were they built and life enfused? And is there any evidence
that shows how this could just happen out of nowhere?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Barcs

Evolution, however, we do know because of the evidence.

Then you can tell me how the first organisms came together?
How were they built and life enfused? And is there any evidence
that shows how this could just happen out of nowhere?

Oh come on randy, you've been in enough of these conversations to know better than to ask questions like that. We both should know that abiogenesis and evolution are two different topics, so what are you trying to do here (other than troll)?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Barcs

Evolution, however, we do know because of the evidence.

Then you can tell me how the first organisms came together?
How were they built and life enfused? And is there any evidence
that shows how this could just happen out of nowhere?

this article is from 2012 about the possibility of chemically created life
www.slashgear.com...
this is from 2014...interesting read about the basic chemical structures of life
www.newscientist.com...

a reply to: jimmyx

Kudos for answering the question instead using an old stand by
like, " Abiogeneis and evolution are two different subjects ".

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Barcs

Evolution, however, we do know because of the evidence.

Then you can tell me how the first organisms came together?
How were they built and life enfused? And is there any evidence
that shows how this could just happen out of nowhere?

The biologists don't say that they know that abiogenesis happened on Earth, but it could have.

Various clays and minerals can act like scaffolding because of their structure. Large molecules, like proteins or nucleic acids could form on clays in aqueous solution.

Cell walls are lipids. Lipids can and often do form into droplets. A lipid droplet can have any chemicals inside of it that were in the water when it formed. Any droplet that formed with protein, DNA, or RNA (RNA is the most likely) inside of it could make copies of itself.

Chemicals making copies of themselves in an environment separate from the outside world, that is, inside of a droplet, could lead to the beginning of life.

Biology has a phenomenon called an "Emergent Property". Like all bugs have 6 legs and Kangaroos have pouches. Life and intellect could be emergent properties that happen when all of the prerequisite organization is present.

Language and civilization are emergent properties of the human mind.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Thank you for the reply.

The biologists don't say that they know that abiogenesis happened on Earth, but it could have.

So how is abiogenesis defined by science, is it fact, theory based on fact,
speculation? If they don't know it happened on earth, how do they know it
happened at all?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Thank you for the reply.

The biologists don't say that they know that abiogenesis happened on Earth, but it could have.

So how is abiogenesis defined by science, is it fact, theory based on fact,
speculation? If they don't know it happened on earth, how do they know it
happened at all?

Humans don't know or understand exactly how reality works. All science is approximation or a model.

Science is like intuition or having a hunch. If you are going to do something that would require abiogenesis, then you would use the theory and, incidentally, find out how much truth is in it. If the abiogenesis theory closely models reality, then your project will probably be successful.

Science doesn't say -- "this is true", it says, this is a way to do something or try something.

Science is real when it is used to do stuff. Science doesn't prove anything, it only strongly suggests a better way to proceed.

Everybody should be using science, and talking about it.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

That was an explanatiion I can understand. I'm good with that.

a reply to: randyvs

So how is abiogenesis defined by science,

It's a hypothesis -- that life could have arisen as a result of the conditions present on the primordial Earth.

is it fact,

No, a hypothesis is different from a fact. A fact is an objective and verifiable observation. By way of example, one that's relevant to the discussion, if you mimic the conditions present on Earth around 4Bya and add energy, you get amino acids, nulceotides, RNA precursors, and such... the building blocks of life. That's one of the facts -- it is objective and verifiable -- that supports the hypothesis.

theory based on fact,

Depends on the context you're using the word theory in. If you mean a scientific theory, no. A hypothesis never becomes a theory after a certain amount of evidence is collected. A scientific theory is an overarching explanation that seeks to explain facts, laws, and hypotheses. If you're using theory in a more colloquial sense, you mean...

speculation?

Given the number of experiments that have been conducted over the last sixty or so years with results that support the concept of abiogenesis, I think we're well past calling it speculation.

If they don't know it happened on earth, how do they know it happened at all?

They don't. But all of the available evidence collected thus far says it could have. I'm not aware of any empirical evidence for any competing hypothesis of the origin of life.

a reply to: iterationzero

Thanks you guys

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Barcs

Evolution, however, we do know because of the evidence.

Then you can tell me how the first organisms came together?
How were they built and life enfused? And is there any evidence
that shows how this could just happen out of nowhere?

I'd be happy to, as soon as you explain what this has to do with evolution. When in doubt, change the subject, move the goal posts. It's funny how often people resort to those type of tactics.

a reply to: Barcs

I already have two good explanations, from people who didn't
puss out and tenderize the word funny thanks.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Barcs

I already have two good explanations, from people who didn't
puss out and tenderize the word funny thanks.

Yes, they are good people and went out of their way to provide an explanation for you and others reading the thread. I applaud them for that, however, you still changed the subject. The post that you responded to mentioned absolutely nothing about abiogenesis or the origin of life. You responded with a non sequitur. I'm sorry that you don't like me calling that out, but that's a fact! Abiogenesis does not prove evolution right or wrong. It has nothing to do with it.

a reply to: Barcs

All I care about is a decent answer to the question
for cripe sakes Barcs.

And yes they're good people and so are you.
Now what?

Nice post, but it begs the same old question.

Why work to debunk evolution? Are you trying to strengthen the theory of evolution by closer examination or are you trying to destroy it? If it's the latter, what is the alternative to evolution? There has to be an alternative theory, right? If it's creationism? What does that mean to you? And are you talking about Christian Creationism of the new earth variety? Lot's of questions.

a reply to: rken2

Why do creationism and evolution have to mutually exclusive. The truth generally lies between the extremes.

When discussing matters of opinion, this may be true. When it comes to matters of fact, splitting the difference between misinformation and information is still misinformation. There is credible evidence for evolution, an astounding amount of it; there is no credible evidence for creationism.