proof against evolution

i thought the conspiracy would be obvious, so i didn't mention it. Basically, evolution is taught in public schools because it is supposed to be the "scientific way, the correct undeniable way" where the evidence doesn't actually support the theory of evolution.

Either you are lieing or you know you are posting BS. Either way you've already used kevin hovid's as a reference which means you have zero credibilty. The man is a liar and a criminal and is doing time for it.

Why can't evolution be taught as a THEORY and not as fact, when there is so much information to the contrary.

See.. if you really understood science you would KNOW that there is a difference between a theory and a scientific theory. Using your own ignorance as an argument does not help it.

I'm wondering.. do you really believe humans and dinsaurs lived side by side?

[edit on 1-7-2008 by riley]

Here is a video that totally kills the evolution theory:

This is part 3/8
www.youtube.com...

I advise you to go back and watch all 8 parts. And its not a boring lecture because the guy is funny..

I stand by the belief that species do not evolve, they in fact have not been proven to evolve at all... species go extinct they do not evolve their bodies.

if they are already adaptable type creatures like cockroaches then they survive a lot of things, but most species become extinct if environments change. this does not abode well for the evolution theory IMO

Have you ever heard of The Fibonacci Sequence? when you learn about that, you may think to yourself, how can animals evolve from one thing to the next if this sequence is a necessary part of nature and life. Its so perfect a thing, that mutating creatures couldnt do it.

I dont think any of you could PROVE evolution to be right.... both concepts of creation and evolution in my opinion are nothing but Faith based .. science faith in one and Creator faith in the other.

who says that new animals are not created over time?

When the dino's died out, Perhaps it was like wiping the board clean and drawing a new landscape?

That is the beauty of believing in creation... it is not boxed in.

The Creator may be eternally creating perfect life beings, not wishy washy beings that evolve over time and mutate. Fully finished and perfect as they are from the point of creation.

I like that thought much more than being an eternally mutating thing.

I am happy enough with that 'progressive creationism' theory

Its just the flavour of the century to believe in darwinism evolution... prior to and perhaps in time to come, that whole theory will seem ludicrous and people will ask how anyone could have believed in it in the first place.

Until you show me a skeleton that is in the evolving stage, and not a fully formed skeleton then i may believe you. Is there any animal to suggest it is mutating slowly, or are all animals perfectly functioning for their environment?

drastic fast climate changes have happened several times in history..ice ages have happened before and they will happen again AND they happen fast... so does the warming up period after an ice age. These fast changes dont give enough time for creatures to evolve only to become extinct.

wooly mammoths did not become elephants and elephants would not have survived during an ice age... so how do you all explain that?


Science is the language of God...Humans therefore will discover some mathematical and scientific things about the universe etc... but to deny the existence of a creator is making the scientists God or science the God!

Its no different to believe in science as God as it is to believe in a Creator!

Its not hard for any of us to believe that science discovers amazing things about everything! but the point is science sure as hell did not Create it, something created science. At some point creation MUST have happened!

If creation did in fact happen, then is it so hard to believe it continues to happen all the time! creation may not be a single event but ongoing! Not in the form of evolution but the making of new creatures and beings at different times.

Evolution is a mutating thing... that is not perfect! Life continues to show us that imperfect life is killed or dies out. creatures must be strong to surive not mutants.

As for the biblical creation story, that is a hand down story from the Sumerians story of creation, which btw their God/creator was an alien... go figure.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
To the original poster...I am sorry but I dont agree with your theory at all...Evolution is not some event that suddenly happens...A mutant baby is born(which happens in babies enough to be noted...) and this baby is better equipped to survive in the wild...In the case of that fish you mentioned it simply had mutant babies sometimes but they survived no better or worse than the others so they didnt procreate...When you force a species to either evolve and survive or die out, it will evolve...Like someone said before look at viruses...Case closed...

As it has been pointed out, viruses are an example of MICRO EVOLUTION, as apposed to MACRO EVOLUTION. The two are practically opposites. Micro evolution has been witnessed many many times, and its generally a bunch of minor mutations that appear as a general improvement, macro evolution has never been witnessed, nor proven, even though thousands of different tactics have been implimented,(all different variations of darwins offhand comment about how he thought life came about, involving lighting and mud).

The case is regretfully not closed, but anyone with an unbiased mind will note that the theory of evolution does not explain much. Nothing of physics, reality, and very little biology is included, and no proof of pre-stages of animals and plants or humans exist anywhere.

People like yourself(and i dont mean this in a derogatory way) are holding onto a theory so strongly that now the facts are being changed to fit the theory.

Hello. I have a Masters degree in Cybernetics and I don't laugh at the idea of computers improving their code and 'evolving'.

You obviously know nothing at all about the various AI's that have been designed and built, or ever the most basic neural networks that will learnt to solve problems without anybodies input.

Is learning a problem or classifying elements within an enviornment through it's own internal process not evolutionary at all in the OP's eyes? Should have taken that evolutionary computation course then I could have come in here with some resounding points of how your analogy falls appart for not only being completely rubbish as an anology, but compoletely incorrect in it's view on computers.

What I believe you are missing here is not that computers don't evolve new code, it;s that they can create their own scenarios within their own environment. A computer program I saw years ago, which was quite literally about evolution was beautiful to watch. By starting with basic agents withn an environment that could move and see to varying degrees and knew they had to eat food that could be found in the environment, the system was run. After each epoch (a period of time) the best agents in the environment would mate using a genetic algorithm to produce offspring. Over time you could clearly see the population evolve to create the best and strongest agents to take advantage of the environment.

Bottom line, you don;t have to add new code to evolve beyond what you start as...

Your analogy is a bad one...

Originally posted by melatonin
Bleugh...

Why this again? Why don't people just do a little research rather than spout the stuff they read on unreliable creationist websites? It's tedious. Whenever you rread anything on those websites, your BS meter should be imploding.

The living coelecanths are not the same as the fossils. These species are not even found in the fossil record, others in their immediate family are but there are many other even less immediate coelecanth fossils.

Even wiki will tell you this.

Au revoir.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by melatonin]

This issue i have already addressed, and i would give you the same advice to not spout information untill you have read all of the posts.

The coelacanths that are said to be around 400million years ago had all the dna coding in their genes to make different sub species possible, just like dogs. This would be an example of entropy, which, of course, defies evolution.

Originally posted by wheresthetruth
I read all the way down to were you compared humanity to computers. Then I heard the ducks calling your name.

But, if you do want to make such a fantastical leap...are you sure that humans are not programmed with each new generation? If you think about it, a couple of people who had no tools found items that could be used as such and taught others the technique. The common knowledge use was improved upon and this was taught. And so began the evolution of man and society. Every tool we use today is the brain child of the first person to pick up a rock or stick and use it in a creatively new fashion to improve their survival and surroundings. Since then, people have been "programming" other people to continue making advances in every aspect of humanity.
There is a basis for your comparison, if you STILL want to make.

What you are saying doesn't have much to do with the topic, but since you brought it up...
The programming i was refering to is the genetic information and patterns in our dna, not knowledge, and furthermore, humans do not genetically pass on learned traits and information through dna. A computer program cannot write itself, therefore, the same information that we have cannot have written itself.

Originally posted by astralprogger
Doesn't matter if you don't "believe" in evolution. It's happening all the time. You can't stop evolution, only delay it. I'm sure everyone's mind in this forum has evolved since childbirth with the accumulation of knowledge and adaptation to different environments. Evolution is progression. Frogs are a great example. They start off as tadpoles living in water and eventually develop lungs and breath air. That to me is evolution. Everything would be horribly stagnant without evolution.

OK... i guess you haven't noticed the differences between micro evolution, and macro evolution, one is the product of darwins reasoning, the other is a form of adaptation to enviorments, but the dna coding has to have the possibility to adapt before it can. (humans will never beable to live freely in space without the help of artificial life support).

Tadpoles do not evolve, they merely follow the code that their dna has. they are born in water, live from a couple weeks, to a few years in water, then they grow legs and leave. Tadpoles have all the genes to be a frog in them, their bodies just grow.

Originally posted by Morrigan

Have you ever heard of The Fibonacci Sequence? when you learn about that, you may think to yourself, how can animals evolve from one thing to the next if this sequence is a necessary part of nature and life. Its so perfect a thing, that mutating creatures couldnt do it.

Okay, finally something new to talk about in this boring, dead ass thread...

Please, explain how the Fibonacci Sequence has anything to with life or evolution.

I dont think any of you could PROVE evolution to be right.... both concepts of creation and evolution in my opinion are nothing but Faith based .. science faith in one and Creator faith in the other.

Here we go again, using the word faith for both sides, but not using the same definition of the word...classic.

who says that new animals are not created over time?

The Bible did apparently. I don't remember it saying anything like God reserves the right to create new creatures a couple thousand years later.

The Creator may be eternally creating perfect life beings, not wishy washy beings that evolve over time and mutate. Fully finished and perfect as they are from the point of creation.

Seriously, if you think we are perfect, then I don't know what to say. And if you think that after making a perfect being, God would let a lesser being, ie. Satan, ruin his perfect creation...hmm

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


If you do ever come across proof that evolution doesn't exist as a force of nature I will be more than happy to hear it, but your argument is weak to say the least. You are simply assembling half truths in order to see what you want to see. I personally don't care if in the end it ends up being evolutionists or creationists who win this endless, pointless battle, but you are really going to have to try harder than that Mr. Bob.

Originally posted by Pro-genetic
I cant believe no body has spoted the fact that the op states that the dinosaur bone was dated to a minimum of 10,000 years ago, yet the earth was only created 6000 years ago (aparantly)! so there goes that one out the window.

I know the op and everyone here has a right to there opinion but god damn ignorance just boils my blood. EVOLUTION IS REAL! DEAL WITH IT.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Pro-genetic]

Find in the bible where it says the earth was only created 6000 years ago.
It isn't in there, no date, or reference to a date is given.
You cannot base your ideas on faulty reasonings of other people, then try to debunk creationism with thoes ideas.

I think some people are talking about adaption NOT evolution.. evolution entails changing physical appearance... adaption is the ability to learn new things and fit into new environments .. am i wrong?

Originally posted by riley

i thought the conspiracy would be obvious, so i didn't mention it. Basically, evolution is taught in public schools because it is supposed to be the "scientific way, the correct undeniable way" where the evidence doesn't actually support the theory of evolution.

Either you are lieing or you know you are posting BS. Either way you've already used kevin hovid's as a reference which means you have zero credibilty. The man is a liar and a criminal and is doing time for it.

Why can't evolution be taught as a THEORY and not as fact, when there is so much information to the contrary.

See.. if you really understood science you would KNOW that there is a difference between a theory and a scientific theory. Using your own ignorance as an argument does not help it.

I'm wondering.. do you really believe humans and dinsaurs lived side by side?

[edit on 1-7-2008 by riley]

I do believe that humans and dinosaurs lived together at the same period, its not that hard to believe. As for the forementioned bs, its obvious that it is true. The fact is that evolution is taught in schools WITHOUT the children being taught or told that there is a counter theory that even has more evidence.

I do not see how my credibility is at stake for the actions of another, you of all people should know, being an evolutionist, that science speaks for itself. And btw, the carbon dating that was done on the allasaurus was done by a lab that supported evolution, yet if they were told what the bones were, they would not have allowed the test to be done, because it would defy evolution, and that is unacceptable in their minds.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Pro-genetic]

Find in the bible where it says the earth was only created 6000 years ago.
It isn't in there, no date, or reference to a date is given.
You cannot base your ideas on faulty reasonings of other people, then try to debunk creationism with thoes ideas.

It doesnt say that, but it does say how old people were when they died all the way back to Adam & Eve. I think the earth is under 10,000 years old, not millions. Just think how many people would be on earth if we were millions of years old. The earth would be overpopulated... But its not..

Originally posted by furiousracer313

It doesnt say that, but it does say how old people were when they died all the way back to Adam & Eve. I think the earth is under 10,000 years old, not millions. Just think how many people would be on earth if we were millions of years old. The earth would be overpopulated... But its not..

What planet do you live on? The last time I checked, there are too many people on the planet, as evidenced by the insufficient amount of food to feed them all. And therein lies the answer to your statement. The Earth takes care of population control all by itself. It's a self-regulating system. And pretty soon, it's going to self-regulate again unfortunately. It's all just a matter of time...

Originally posted by Vector J
Hello. I have a Masters degree in Cybernetics and I don't laugh at the idea of computers improving their code and 'evolving'.

You obviously know nothing at all about the various AI's that have been designed and built, or ever the most basic neural networks that will learnt to solve problems without anybodies input.

Is learning a problem or classifying elements within an enviornment through it's own internal process not evolutionary at all in the OP's eyes? Should have taken that evolutionary computation course then I could have come in here with some resounding points of how your analogy falls appart for not only being completely rubbish as an anology, but compoletely incorrect in it's view on computers.

What I believe you are missing here is not that computers don't evolve new code, it;s that they can create their own scenarios within their own environment. A computer program I saw years ago, which was quite literally about evolution was beautiful to watch. By starting with basic agents withn an environment that could move and see to varying degrees and knew they had to eat food that could be found in the environment, the system was run. After each epoch (a period of time) the best agents in the environment would mate using a genetic algorithm to produce offspring. Over time you could clearly see the population evolve to create the best and strongest agents to take advantage of the environment.

Bottom line, you don;t have to add new code to evolve beyond what you start as...

Your analogy is a bad one...

How many times do i have to say it? To quote yourself "You obviously know nothing at all about the various AI's that have been designed and built, or ever the most basic neural networks that will learnt to solve problems without anybodies input."

THE PROBLEM ISN'T WRITING A SYSTEM THAT CAN OPERATE BY ITSELF(that would be the humans in my analogy), the problem is that the code had to be WRITTEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. The writer which you have mentioned would be God, even you see the logic so undeniably, that you unconsiously use it when speaking. A computer cannot write its own programming from nothing, in the same way that our universe and dna could not create itself.

The point is that it takes a creator(yourself or someone versed in computer languages) to have a computer code. Is it that hard to believe that since they need creators, that we needed a creator?


[edit on 1-7-2008 by Bob Sholtz]

Originally posted by Osiris1953
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

If you do ever come across proof that evolution doesn't exist as a force of nature I will be more than happy to hear it, but your argument is weak to say the least. You are simply assembling half truths in order to see what you want to see. I personally don't care if in the end it ends up being evolutionists or creationists who win this endless, pointless battle, but you are really going to have to try harder than that Mr. Bob.

I regret that you do not see the evidence that has been given. The carbon dating, entropy, data writing itself, ect. I, however, find it mildly amusing that you would bring up me trying to see what i want to see, when evolutionists refuse to use carbon dating when it doesn't fit their preconsieved notion.

Evolution exists, we have living proof in science labs, but it doesn't mean we weren't created. The problem is some people who believe in evolution also deny creationism, when the two actually can go hand-in-hand.

Yes we evolved from apes, but how did those apes get here, that's the real question. Were those apes created, or did they come from some giant explosion. We will never know, and both reasons are just theories.

Evolution should be taught in school, but big-bang should not. Neither should creationism. The only things that should be taught in school are things are know for sure.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by OrangeAlarmClock]

Originally posted by furiousracer313

It doesnt say that, but it does say how old people were when they died all the way back to Adam & Eve. I think the earth is under 10,000 years old, not millions. Just think how many people would be on earth if we were millions of years old. The earth would be overpopulated... But its not..

The earth is 4-5 billion years old. Basic geologic principals show this to be true. Humans have not been around since the formation of the earth.

As for the population figures, not true. Up until the last couple centuries, with the improvement of medical practices, personal hygiene, and diet the life spans of humans was a lot shorter. Improvement in water purification removed a large majority of the epidemic illnesses from the developed countries, such as cholera.

Originally posted by Evil Genius
Anyone want to start a pool to see how long until BigWhammy and Ashley D show up?

"Form arms and legs!"

"Form body!"

"And I'll form the head!"

"Now form Voltron!"

Conclusive Proof Evolution is False!

[edit on 7/1/2008 by Bigwhammy]