Evolution Officially Debunked!!!

You all could go on for years.... you know why?

There is no book or manual or website or movie or video that has THE FACTS OF HOW WE BEGAN

all science has is theories based on facts.

so the theory of evolution could be wrong.... we could be reading our facts incorrectly.

it also could be right... but could be way off....

Time will only tell. It is easy to "debunk" any theory because every theory has holes... because its a theory.

I could attempt to debunk any theory out there and look right... you just attack the holes.

to sit there and say evolution is debunked is just REDICULOUS. because when you debunk evolution you are usually saying it to backup the opposite. that we just existed.

and the theory that we just existed and didnt evolve can also be attacked and debunked.

its called a theory for a reason. The fact that you guys are arguing back and forth about theories is just so stupid.

theories are used to get closer to absolute truth. which we do not have yet. so no one knows which theory is going to be right in the end.

the only thing we know is that the theory of evolution is the most popular right now because it answers the most questions.

so everyone arguing back and forth is just stupid. You can always find new holes in eachother's theories and its a never ending battle to talk about it on a forum.

so either A: become a scientist and start studying stuff to help find the truth

or B: shut the fu#$ up and read your daily science feeds online and be entertained by the discoveries they make.

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369

Evolution is not a fact. Adaptation is a fact. There's not one single shred of evidence that proves evolution to be anything but unproven theory.

umm adaptation isnt a fact its far from it

adaptation is only improvment, but all the data shows that really isnt the case

mutations are show to be good bad and indifferent so mutations are proven fact, that life breeds with variance is proven fact, that all life is subject to death and subject to enviromental factors that increase or decrease thier chance of dying is also fact

and thats exactly what evolution is

I hate to tell you, but you can't sit there and laugh at religion without doing the same to evolution.

we really can

we can laugh at anything we like

but while laughing at one with a large amount of supportive evidence could be considered idiocy laughing at one with out any cant

Both are religions.

when was the last time you were told to repent your sins natural selection is comming?

when was the last time your were told to get on your knees and pray to random mutation?

they clearly are not both religeons

Take your pick: either blindly believe in an omnipotent being or blindly believe in what a bunch of guys in white lab coats blow down your throat for if people don't catch the crap they fling, they lose all their funding and their jobs.

ummmm nice but wrong

its not blindingly believeing those sceintists becasue you yourself can go put on a white coat and check what they say is true, and as many other scientists do this for us already infact they encourage people to check thier work its not really blindly following anything

The difference between God and evolution: both are unproven,

except for evolution which is failry well documented and observed ..and proven

but a belief in God is actually called "faith." Do you know what "faith" is? Faith is a belief in something when there is no proof.

or dispite the proof

Both are unproven,

faith and god ? yepp

but only evolution claims to be what it is not.

really i dont see how a theory can do this it expolains how things work and shows the evidence for itself

it cant claim to be anything other then what it is

Evolution is nothing more than faith-based, but it proves to be something factual.

well if its factual it isnt faith based if its factual it has evidence which means it CANNOT BE FAITH

Guess what? There ain't any fact in evolution.

except all the piles of them that litter scientific literature

You're just blindly believing in men in white coats whose job depends on your belief.

well they dont really care what we think, thier job relise on them finding uses for what they understand, science is often self funding, it discovers somthing finds an application for it that will more then cover the cost of the research and fund the next lot, its practicaly communistic when the more financially able branches help fund research in those that arnt

they dont relie on us believing in them any more then sun relise on us believing it will rise in the morning to actually make it rise

I would like to say that if you take a minute and look evolution disproves itself,if we evolved from a lower or sub species then that sub species would no longer need to exist but there are clearly still apes ,although we can change to adapt to some degree to our surroundings because we are intelligent creatures and must do so to exist .

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


Proven fact?? What insanity this all is. I have never EVER been shown a text book or lecture anyhting in link form to show 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. It's always 1 and then hey look it's now 17 so it evolved from 1. It's all crap and takes more faith than creation.

Can anyone show me all the slight changes from an ameoba to a monkey to a human. NO! Anyone evr guess why thats the case?

Blind faith in what's taught at school as fact. I never believed it. It was all too absurd to be believeable.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I would like to say that if you take a minute and look evolution disproves itself,if we evolved from a lower or sub species then that sub species would no longer need to exist but there are clearly still apes ,although we can change to adapt to some degree to our surroundings because we are intelligent creatures and must do so to exist .

well that just proves you dont understand evolution

take another minute and think about how its driven by enviroment so when ape ancestors split towards seperate species by living in 2 different enviroments youll end up with 2 different apes adapting to different pressures

we split from our common ancestor and the enviroment we lived in was different to that the other half of the split (that formed chimps) went to live in, clearly there are still apes yes we are apes we just evolved to different conditions then them but the way we evolved to suit our enviroment gave us bipedalism which freed up our hands to take our basic tools with us which means we didnt have to keep making new ones every time we moved to another area but could keep them with us and refine then further

so while our common ancestor with chimps no longer survives other apes will as they had different enviroments to conform to and different ways of doing it

Originally posted by daggyz

Proven fact?? What insanity this all is.

the insanity of knowing things becasue we looked

I have never EVER been shown a text book or lecture anyhting in link form to show 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. It's always 1 and then hey look it's now 17 so it evolved from 1. It's all crap and takes more faith than creation.

ummm so becasue you have never een it and you dont believe it it cant possibly exist?

how many text boks have you read? how many lectures have you been to?

and why do you think its a nice easy number sequence? number 1-100 would probabily look identicle becasue its genetic level changes until the point one of those changes effect its outward appearance enough for us to really notice

Culex pipiens in the london underground looks exactly the same as Culex pipiens found else where in europe, but the ones on the underground can no longer hybridise with Culex moletus like its other pipiens cousins can but its still a new insipid species

it would be a very long number list showing nothing of differeance in the look for a long time infact it would be the largest book ever made, but the fact you havnt seen it doesnt mean it doesnt exist youve probabily never seen an atom never seen an isotope decay but they exist too

and as things dont always use the same methods to solve the same problem you cant set down a specific number sequence

Can anyone show me all the slight changes from an ameoba to a monkey to a human. NO! Anyone evr guess why thats the case?

becasue its an absurd request ?

becasue you would never live long enough to see it, becasue no one would live long enough to take handy realtime footage for you to see every stage

becasue chances are any ameoba evolving beyond ameoba would become somthing other then a monkey unless exactly the same set of enviromental and predatorial pressures were pu on it through out the same time periods and youd then have to hope it overcame those pressures in exactly the same way as other ameoba did

chances are it will go an entirely different route this time, if it did given enough time turn into a monkey then evolution would be wrong, not becasue it cant become a monkey but if it did then mutations arnt random(all the evdiecne says they are) which would make ID right as its a fully guided process

Blind faith in what's taught at school as fact.

if you attended the kent hovind run school

I never believed it. It was all too absurd to be believeable.

so becasue you dont understand it and you havnt seen it and you think its absurd it cant be real?

maybe you should get out more then people thought the same about trains traveling over 20 miles an hour

people thought the same about the earth orbitting the sun

people thought the same about rainbows having a natural casue and not bieng gods bow he hung in the sky as a reminder of the flood(that didnt happen)

You know.. I've been thinking about it.. And the more i do, the more absurd evolution seems. On bacterial level, sure. But think about what you're really claiming here..

You're claiming that by natural selection, over millions of years, we became what we are now, humans. This includes that through evolution/natural selection/mutation/whatever, the following happened:

- Every single cell in your body works together with other cells and organs. If one organ fails, all the other cells and organs can die. So all the cells must kind of "agree" to what they must do.
- Two genders appeared, and by mutation, the two reproduction organs fit perfectly together on a macro level.
- The reproduction cells contain 23 chromosomes to after that form a pair that fit perfectly together to form a new being
- The uterus is perfectly designed to hold life
- The female breasts are designed to feed the offspring
- By natural selection, bones developed, out of nowhere
- These bones are build in such a way that different body parts have different functions. Your leg bones are build to maintain your balance and weight, while your arms are build for grabbing stuff for example
- Our rib cage was formed to protect all the vital organs
- All the important veins and nerve cells are ordered in such a way that they are the least vulnerable. They run on the "inside" of your legs and arms and are as deep in your body as possible
- Since the brain is so important, it's the only organ completely covered by bone to protect it
- Our brains have the capability of thinking things that never ever existed
- If you cut yourself, your cells know exactly what to do to maintain the whole body alive (to a certain extent of course)


And there are numerous others, and still people can think this is all because of "mutation and natural selection"? It's just too perfectly laid out.. If you think really deep about it, you'll know, that evolution might be able to change something to an extent, but it does not seem plausible for them to go together, form an organ, and another forms another organ, they decide to work together and i don't know what else.

And even though, if it did not work this way, the chance that a single formed group cells, got the exact mutations to divide into organs that work together is just absurd.

When I saw the OP claiming that evolution had been debunked, I just had to take a look at the referenced "Seminar" that formed the basis for the OP claim. I haven't read all the posts in this thread since it has devolved into the usual sort of squabble between those who believe in evolution or those that take the fundamentalist religious view.

I find it amazing that this debate seems to be based on a a fundamental assumption that is assumed true by both sides yet I have never heard questioned except by those outside this argument. That assumption is that either evolution or creationism is correct, and that these are the logical opposites of each other so that if one must be right if you can prove the other guy wrong.

Where does the discussion consider the posssibility that both are wrong? Like two people arguing over whether or not Texas is in Asia or Africa. Each trying to prove their case by showing that Texas is not where their opponent claims it is so therefore it must be where they claim it is.

Why not just arm wrestle for it and end the debate that way? It would just about as valid as the current way and a lot faster.



[edit on 19-12-2008 by metamagic]

Well that's what I'm trying to do but i guess people shove me off to being a creationist, but I'm not.

reply to post by metamagic


except you forget there are mountains of evidence supporting evolution, and nothing as of yet being a significant challenge to the Theory.

Once the idea of evolution is proven to be false, it will cease to be a theory, and scientists will begin to search again. However, in the last 150 years, this has not happened.

If you have an alternative theory, with substantial evidence to support, we'd all love to hear it... If the evidence proves to be as sound as that of evolution, The scientific community will welcome the alternative as well...

However, evolutionary scientists brings mountains of evidence.... therefore, your theory must fit what we can observe in nature to be considered valid... This means, leave magic men and aliens at home...

Originally posted by vasaga
You know.. I've been thinking about it.. And the more i do, the more absurd evolution seems. On bacterial level, sure. But think about what you're really claiming here..

sorry you seem to think everything is perfect, it really isnt, those 23 chromosones sometime become 24 whic leads to downsyndrome and other syndromes

do sex organs really fit perfectly together? i think youll find theres varaitaion in size length depth they fit together enough to do the job not perfectly

the ribs protect enough for blunt force trauma short sharpe and thin passes through untouched, they are designed to protect from trauma comming from the side front or from above, becasue the system is essentially the same as when we were quadropeds it provides absoultley no protection for things travelling up (which would have been behind which our hind limbs protected)

basically your pulling the it all feels so well designed it must have been i can see why youd think that its easy to marvel at it and the way everything works and becasue we are used to thing we design working well then why not a designer

it really isnt correct thinking though, its been shown numerous times, the eye the bombadier beetle, the bacterial flagelum, immune system and blood clotting, even sex has been pulled out as proof of a designer and that evolution couldnt do it

and guess what happened they all showed evolution at work, when they were actually looked at

want to see how sex evolved? and no porn invloved so no need to feel guilty about watching it



do me a favour go to your library and get hold of 'the bind watchmaker' you only need to read the first 3 chapters thats less then 100 pages of easy to understand wording that goes into much more complex systems then just sex or ribcage design

hell if your enjoying it carry on read the whole book, maybe then you can apply it to those thoughts and figure out how they could have come about yourself then go look for data to confirm or show another way

- All the important veins and nerve cells are ordered in such a way that they are the least vulnerable. They run on the "inside" of your legs and arms and are as deep in your body as possible

of special note wheres your common carotid arteries? completley unprotected thats where if you tilt your head to protect one side the other is accesable if you drop your head to protect your windpipe both sides are accessable

they run from your inside and spread out so you would expect them to be on the inside of limbs



[edit on 19/12/08 by noobfun]

Those fights between religious people and evolution supporters are just worthless. Evolution does not exclude a God or Creator because it explains nothing about how life actually began. Believing in a creator does not exclude evolution because that might just be the way that God has ordered things to happen.

So quit the stupid retarded fights between God and evolution, and start thinking outside of the box.

Noobfun: I'm not a religious person so that pornstuff and whatever else, im not afraid to watch it and claim its satanic or nothing like that.. See.. "When someone disagrees with evolution, they must be religious." But that's just wrong...

Anyway. Lemme watch that vid.

Yeah nice vid and all, but it still does not explain why a female produces only one active egg cell a month (usually) and males need to produce millions a day. The way he explains it, is that the cells start producing multiple cells because of evolution, but that would kill a woman if she released millions of egg cells too.. Why did the males start producing millions and the female only a single one? And besides that, he just puts the sperm tails there and does not explain why the males have them and the females don't etc. It's full of holes... And assumptions.. He just shows a lot of different reproduction types and say they are the product of evolution, but that's an assumption. It's setting a link between them that's possibly not even there, or possibly is, we don't know. Who can say that if we find life on another planet or moon or whatever, that they would not have the same mechanisms, even though they developed completely somewhere else?

[edit on 19-12-2008 by vasaga]

Originally posted by vasaga
Those fights between religious people and evolution supporters are just worthless. Evolution does not exclude a God or Creator because it explains nothing about how life actually began. Believing in a creator does not exclude evolution because that might just be the way that God has ordered things to happen.

your right but creationists

and im talking real 6 day man was made as man rib pulled out eve appear creationists do exclude the possability of evolution then brow beat anyone who subscribes to thiestic evolution

were here to destroy the falsehoods put around by the creationists that lead people to dought proven science, question it fine science loves being questioned its what makes it so valuable but theres a differeance between questioning it and learning and questioning it and calling it wrong becasue it conflicts with a holy book

Noobfun: I'm not a religious person so that pornstuff and whatever else, im not afraid to watch it and claim its satanic or nothing like that.. See.. "When someone disagrees with evolution, they must be religious." But that's just wrong...

i know your not you said above

that comment wasnt really for you but for anyone who comes along and reads the reply's they might choose not to watch it and learn somthing simply becasue it does involve sex or incase it had anything remotley explicite

while i reply to you im also thinking about others comming along later and reading it, there was no offence implied

reply to post by nj2day

except you forget there are mountains of evidence supporting evolution, and nothing as of yet being a significant challenge to the Theory.

I made no argument for or against evolution nor any statement about theory, so I am interested that you seem to be under the impression that you can intuit what my memories are and are not. However, I think you're statement is not exactly correct but understandably so.

Once the idea of evolution is proven to be false, it will cease to be a theory, and scientists will begin to search again. However, in the last 150 years, this has not happened.

If you have an alternative theory, with substantial evidence to support, we'd all love to hear it... If the evidence proves to be as sound as that of evolution, The scientific community will welcome the alternative as well...

However, evolutionary scientists brings mountains of evidence.... therefore, your theory must fit what we can observe in nature to be considered valid... This means, leave magic men and aliens at home...

Most of those debating evolution, on either side, are basing their position on second hand information so that they often get the impression that there is a single unified “Theory” of evolution that is accepted in biology. In all fairness, this is because biology as taught in school and textbooks suffers from the usual time lag that it takes to create educational information. Perhaps ten years ago, one could have argued that there was a “theory” on the promise that our rapidly expanding knowledge of genetics would yield that final solution.

However, modern biology had found that evolution, while not necessarily incorrect in many of its assertions, is inadequate for providing a model that explains many of the data that biologists observe and also does not provide solutions to outstanding biological problems, like that of cell differentiation. The principles of evolution continued to questioned and challenged in biology, a debate that most don't know about unless they follow the current biology literature.

Evolution is not a monolithic theory that is right or wrong, provable or unprovable. There are many evolutionary models that compete because each explains something but not other things. For decades, Lamarkian models (acquired characteristics could be inherited) were considered to be biological heresy and data that suggested this rejected as unsound. However, current work suggests that evolution be somewhat Lamarkin based on a number of very interesting studies. It now is hypothesized by some that the proteins that control the expression of DNA may in fact respond to environmental stimuli and effectively change the expression of DNA in an organism's offspring – rewriting the DNA as needed if you will.

There are alternative theories both within and outside of biology, if you are really serious about proving your point, then I suggest getting down to the local University library with a large thermos of tea and start reading current journals in genetics and evolution. It really will blow your mind what's going on right now.

Your strict Popperian view of science is not practical. We are constantly trying to explain nature, and nature, bitch that she is, will not follow our explanations but keeps doing whatever she wants without consulting us before hand. Evolution may be “locally” correct, but we certainly cannot extrapolate the it is globally correct or that it is even complete. Or we might be totally wrong.

Magic men and aliens are not necessary, but I would suggest that if you follow the incredible work being done in Anthropology in traditional medicines and the incredible insights some cultures have into biological processes, it might be premature to write off these magic men until we are sure that they do not have something to teach us. As for aliens, there are a number of distinguished biologists who are very seriously considering some form of panspermia as an explanation for some evolutionary mechanisms.

The debate over evolution as "The Theory" and creationists who look at evolution as "The Great Heresy" is a waste of time.

And there is even another more intriguing alternative that is far too long for this post but is summed up in the saying "All things are true, even those that are false.' Remember Hamlet's caution to Horatio about things in heaven and earth.

Keep up the good fight my friend.

Originally posted by vasaga

Yeah nice vid and all, but it still does not explain why a female produces only one active egg cell a month (usually) and males need to produce millions a day. The way he explains it, is that the cells start producing multiple cells because of evolution, but that would kill a woman if she released millions of egg cells too..

you just partially answered your own question

a woman killing her self for overbreeding wouldnt be a good strategy

and it only takes 1 egg to be fertalised to form a young un, unless you are going for mas reproduction which causes problems for mammals bodies as we grow the young within us

so we only need 1 egg, and making millions of them takes energy a lot more then simple gamets(sprem) so limited timed eggs is a better system as your not gonna starve to death trying to keep pace with massive egg production and if the egg is fertalised your body has ample time to become aware and stop releasing more and start to get the body ready to grow that baby

but while it only takes 1 sperm to fertalise the egg you want to increase the chances so you make lots of them as they are cheap on energy and if theres lots of them chances are more will find the egg and at least 1 will fertalise the egg

its a game of trade offs make to many eggs you risk yourself and it could casue problems with several babies growing inside from different conception rates

making just 1 sperm like 1 egg has to many risks of failing so many are made to reduce the risk and they are kept simple so they are fast cheap and easy to produce

And besides that, he just puts the sperm tails there and does not explain why the males have them and the females don't etc. It's full of holes... And assumptions.. He just shows a lot of different reproduction types and say they are the product of evolution,

flaggelum are not the best way to move about but it works on that level when you get into a system where 1 is motive and seeks out the other theres a better chance of success then both bieng unable to move so any gamets that had some mobility no matter how small increases its chance of fertilisation, becasue the motive gamets are the ones winning the race they pass on that trait and becomes amplified so it starts off as a bit of a wriggle and ends up bieng a swimming champion (well kinda)

the reason eggs dont have them is simple its a spherical cell it has no way to move at all so couldnt even wiggle about a bit to gain influence and further enhance its motive ability

gamets arnt sphericle though they some ability to effectivley wobble and produce some forward motion becasue of thier shape, the shape they took to allow them to enter through cell walls

this shape gave them the ability to increase that ability, and they got that shape becasue it held an advantage so theones that were perfectly spherical got no where the ones that were a bit deformed in shape functioned better could reach and pass into the egg easier

Who can say that if we find life on another planet or moon or whatever, that they would not have the same mechanisms, even though they developed completely somewhere else?

that we simply cant answer until we find other life, we can speculate that if the face similar enviroment they may have produced solutions similar to what we find on our planet

but anything suggested about this with them bieng similar or completley different is pure speculation

There has to be a creator A God. Because nothing can be infinite not even time or Matter.

Because if we bring infinite or Eternal into the equation Time,Matter and Space
you will see that it cant be infinite but finite. Which means it had to have a beginning. But all logic tells us that "everything" cant come out of "nothing". That's impossible.

Something besides Time,Matter and Space must have existed which would mean it would be Eternal or infinite. It must have always been there. Could this be"God" ?

Take time for example:
Time is the measure of changes in Matter.
So for us to have time we must have Matter. And Matter to have time. But if Time and matter was Eternal or infinite. Time would never have had a beginning and Matter would never have been created. See the logic!

Its like if i say, I will give you a million Dollars after you have hit your keyboard a infinite amount of times. Would you ever get your million! NO because you would never have finished hitting your keyboard. And have and when would you have started.

So if time is infinite when and have did it start?

Matter.
We cant have matter with out time,because when would you put it.
It would never happen if we dont have the essence of Time.
With out time you will have no action or reaction. Because there would be no Matter to create time. "No Time No Action"

So Matter has to be finite. That means it has to have a beginning. Because Matter cant act with out time and time cant exist without Matter. In other words Matter cant be Eternal or infinite.

So have and when did Matter,Time and Space created it self and everything ?

Noobfun you dont have to replay because this is far past your knowledge. Your are a denier of everything even logic.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by spy66
There has to be a creator A God. Because nothing can be infinite not even time or Matter.

See whats wrong with your argument here? Nothing can be infinite, so the solution to this problem is to suggest an infinite all powerful being?

Using this logic, you must explain what created your creator... and onward into infinity... (infinite regression)

Its a common logical fallacy...

However, if you state that a deity CAN be infinite, than your supposition that everything MUST have a beginning and an end is false... therefore, why must everything else have a start/finish?




[edit on 19-12-2008 by nj2day]

Originally posted by metamagic


Most of those debating evolution, on either side, are basing their position on second hand information so that they often get the impression that there is a single unified “Theory” of evolution that is accepted in biology.

there is a single theory of evolution

your talking about hypothesies either unproven or partially proven that aim to become part of evolutionary theory

a proven hypothesis if its a better explanation for a proven hypothesis already included can replace it but the theory its self remains still proven

the theory is sounds they are just working on better understanding of it or understanding new things we find

i understand what your saying but our creationist friends will take that wildly out of context and run around waving it like a victory flag

The debate over evolution as "The Theory" and creationists who look at evolution as "The Great Heresy" is a waste of time.

not really if we dont challenege thier message they will spread it with glee and confuse large portion of humanity for ever

thats why we try and stick to the basics, once people understand the basic principles they can then (hopefully) choose to go on and learn more

Originally posted by nj2day

Originally posted by spy66
There has to be a creator A God. Because nothing can be infinite not even time or Matter.

See whats wrong with your argument here? Nothing can be infinite, so the solution to this problem is to suggest an infinite all powerful being?

Using this logic, you must explain what created your creator... and onward into infinity... (infinite regression)

Its a common logical fallacy...

However, if you state that a deity CAN be infinite, than your supposition that everything MUST have a beginning and an end is false... therefore, why must everything else have a start/finish?
[edit on 19-12-2008 by nj2day]

Well nothing created the creator (God).
Because God the creator was always there. You cant have a creator who creates a creator. You would never get to the source.You would go on for ever. And that's quite logic.

So that means the creator has to be Eternal or infinite. That means He never had a beginning and he will never have a end. And that quite logic to. That would be the definition of A God.

So the explanation of our Eternal God fits in quite perfectly to the equation if you ask me.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66


didnt we cover this in another thread yesterday/today

yes we did didnt we