Evolution Officially Debunked!!!

Now for the Real Bible quote, instead of theindependantjournal's made up one:

2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 (King James Version)

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Strange, nothing there about creation after all.

What's the bet the "strong delusion" is that the Bible stories are literal truth, leading creationists into the unrighteousness of stroking their conceit instead of humbly learning from those who have studied the facts?

Originally posted by furiousracer313

Originally posted by blowfishdl
Try pushing your debunked evolution strategy on a legitimate scientist. They have not the time of day to listen to a child's rant. Try reading the literature of Darwin, or even go visit Galapagos island yourself. The proof is there.

Really? because scientists who believe this evolutino crap have debated the guy in this video, and have been left confused. But i'll tell u what, go watch part 3, and if it interests u watch all the parts. Its like 8 parts. And if not keep ur mouth shut because u havent seen the video and probably know nothing of what he will say. So watch it and then talk. Thanks...

Your last post said there were 7 parts to the video.

My God - It's Evolving !!!!

reply to post by furiousracer313
I watched 8 portions, and would like to thank you for posting them. I do not completely agree with Dr Hovind's position on everything, but I do believe he is as close to the truth as anyone in this messed up world.

For my personal belief, I think Evolution, and creation, played a role in history. Let me coin a new term "EvoCreationism".



[edit on 13-12-2008 by All Seeing Eye]

To all creationists here, especially furiousracer313

I viewed the video posted by the OP, i believe i have watched everything Kent Hovind has provided that he has declared free to share and pass around copyright free.

I could make a long diatribe on just how wrong this man is, however there is someone who did it far far better than i ever could.

A user by the name thunderfoot did an entire series debunking this nonsense, over 20 videos, all backed up with verified scientific studies, mathematics and directly answered the points raised by Mr.Hovind.

Please see the video series linked below. To all creationists in this thread i ask you view the videos. Afterall i watched every creationist video posted, so why don't you return the favour?

Entire series - uk.youtube.com...

Parts dealing with Kent Hovind

uk.youtube.com...

uk.youtube.com...

uk.youtube.com...

uk.youtube.com...

uk.youtube.com...

uk.youtube.com...

As i have just tried my best to search through those videos to find the ones with Kent Hovind i would be grateful if the creationists watched them. If you don't then you are willingly avoiding evidence and therefore have no right to make any argument against evolution.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by blowfishdl
Here is his arguement summed up in a nice little graphic he created.

His arguement is.. Which one is different?

"Evolution is wrong because the Banana cannot reproduce with the wolf."

Dont take *snip* out of context ok? ok...

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 14-12-2008 by GAOTU789]

reply to post by furiousracer313


Absolutely nothing was taken out of context. He called upon a 6 year old to answer the question, a 6 year old. This is an example of how he is creating this illusion of stupidity on the science side of debate. He makes it seem as though a 6 year old can debunk science (laugh out loud).

He is clearly an entertainer, not a scientist. He does not use facts, he uses humor and disrespect for the scientist crowd to get believers. The problem with Christianity is they have this vendetta to recruit Christians regardless of what extent they must go through.

Just found a debate, going to watch it all the way through. Here it is.
Debate

Originally posted by blowfishdl

He is clearly an entertainer, not a scientist.

He claims to have a PhD and yet the school from which he got it is not recognized by any peer reviewed body. It's like one of those internet ones you get emails for. "Get your degree for 50 dollars".

reply to post by furiousracer313


He's no scientist. He's a creationist masquerading as a scientist. He is dishonest. He is lying to everyone.

and not only is he lying and claiming he has a phd (which as rightly said is from a phd mill and means nothing and is in bible study nothing to do with what he treis to talk about)

he also says he has taught science for 15 years, but neglects to say its in a school he ran that had no checking involved so could and did teach anything he felt like making up

not to mention he now resides in jail for fraud, the fact he has lied about his experience his phd and his taxes ... dont you think its just possible he is lying about this too?

even old beard face ken ham and answersingenesis put out a statemnet saying they were in no way affiliated or agreed with what he said, even they couldnt stomach his sillyness


the only debunking he is capable of is climbing out of his new best friends bunk and down on to his own when he has been used and abused in his cell

[edit on 13/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Unless you factor in the amount of time that is far beyond your comprehension. Or...care to share with us which creation myth or religion is less "far fetched?"

I'll be glad to. First of all, let's start with abiogenesis shall we.

In the past, they thought that flies appeared from garbage itself. That was proven wrong when someone placed some flasks where some were open and some where closed and flies only appeared on the open one. Two centuries later, that belief came up again but with bacteria and algae. A scientist came along again, and he showed that life only comes from other life, including large animals and also algae and bacteria. That is basic biology. He showed an experiment to a lot of people to prove his point. I'm not gonna explain the experiment completely. The thing was that a sterile liquid not exposed to air will not form bacteria. It was proven again that life can not form from non-life. Now there's that primordial soup thing, which is completely hypothetical btw (no proof..), wherein a chain of chemical reactions took place and formed a single cell. Then a group of those cells grouped themselves together in colonies to form more complex organisms. This turned into fish blabla and then turned into man.. According to this, every single creature can be traced back to a single cell, which is represented by that tree of life. These are ALL ASSUMPTIONS. There is no proof whatsoever. They use these assumptions for the rest of the theory.

Next is the fossil records. All those bacteria and animals that are found, are found abruptly in the fossil record. There's no connection between them so to speak. They are simply separate. I didn't make this up, a lot of paleontologists say so. After two centuries of intense research, the paleontological evidence for evolution is VERY rare AND highly questionable. There are no links. There is also no indication that the situation will change in the future. If you don't believe me, ask a paleontologist or search about all those fake "apehumans" they made up with bones of man and apes. Besides that, all the things they use as links, for example that flying reptile that had feathers, is still very far from conclusive. Also a lot of paleontologists claim that humans did not change at all since their first appearance and that the whole apehuman thing should be thrown in the garbage. They even call evolution a mythology.

Now we go into evolution within the cells themselves. Biochemists say that mutations are not fixed to natural selection in the first place. Natural selection only eliminations anomalies that mutation can create. It stabilizes. Nothing more, nothing less. If living organisms were different in the past does not mean organisms have changed, only that they became extinct. They don't "make" new organisms. That's a BIG assumption they make. It's just a general agreement. No proof here. And even "simple" organisms like algae and bacteria are real complex and not something nature just comes up with by chance. It must derive from other life. Biochemists also claim that the basic of the life structure is the same but this does not mean that it evolved, but exactly the opposite, that life stayed the same, because evolved life would mean a more complex structure and that's not the case. The genetic data however, is different. When comparing man to other species, humans are original and did not evolve from any other species. Genetic data does not support an organism evolving into a more complex one at all.

Now we come to the geological timescale and rock strata. They search for "layers" where they find fossils. They say if something is deeper buried, it's older, but that's simply not true. The layer they say is actually a bank, and not the actual layer. Something buried deeper can easily be younger than something on the surface. The layers form sideways gradually and sometimes even instantly, and not the way they tell you. They say, a layer came a few million years ago (carbon dated, ill get into that later), a few million years passed, then another layer etc, but they are looking at banks, which is wrong. I'm not gonna explain this too deep. Research this yourself or look at this video and its other parts (starts after 1:40) till part 6:
www.youtube.com...

Now we come to physical chemistry which includes carbon dating and uranium dating. First carbon dating. For this, carbon-14 is used, which is an unstable radioactive form of the carbon element. Carbon is present in living organisms and is processed by the body, where a certain amount becomes carbon-14 and is expelled from the body. When it dies, the remaining carbon-14 which was present at the moment of death, is what can be detected. From the moment of death, carbon-14 is decaying and by calculating how much decayed, they have an indication of how old the animal was, however, this is only valid for living lifeforms because rocks do not contain carbon-14. Fossils in rock can therefore not be carbon dated. Most fossils are found in rock strata. Dating those by "layers" is far from accurate, and no carbon-14 can be applied. And rock strata often do not have any radioactive material to give indication. Therefore they often use lava or crystalline rocks nearby (which don't contain fossils..) which sometimes do contain radioactive material to date the fossils..
Then we come to radio-isotope dating, and we'll use uranium as an example. Uranium decays into lead. They compare what's left of uranium in the rock, the formed lead, and the rate of decay to give a time indication for how long it took for the lead to form. But there are a few problems with this. You don't know if there was lead there in the first place that did not decay from the uranium, and lot of rocks contain lead that didn't come from uranium. This make the rock appear a lot older than it actually is. Another problem is that uranium can leak out of the rock because of humidity and other stuff, which will also make the rock appear a lot older. They tested this with lava that was 200 years old, and the calculations said it was 22 million years... Another problem is that they assume the rate of decay has remained constant, which is also highly unreasonable.. There are too many influences that cause this to change..

So.. After reviewing these facts it's obvious evolution has ZERO factual support in science..

[edit on 13-12-2008 by vasaga]

Those videos, and the points shown therein, are completely false.

That is all you'll get from me...

I seriously considered contributing more scientific fact and study and activly participating in this conversation... however, the arguments presented in these videos are so far separated from reality, I feel it is a complete waste of energy.

If you honestly believe what he has said... please stay away from young children...

[edit on 13-12-2008 by nj2day]

Ok science has been wrong and right at times. It is not always accurate. Although the Bible happens to have a 100% track record. Check it for urself..

Bibles 100% accuracy

One last thing before i go to sleep skip through this video or if u have time watch it all.. This man was involved in demon worship before being saved by Jesus Christ. He talks about how satan tutored Darwin to create the biggest lie: Evolution.

A Trip Into The Supernatural

reply to post by furiousracer313

*snip*

Snappy comeback, mate. Keep it to T&C, and prove him wrong.
Insulting him as a come back just makes you look bad, like you can't support your own statements.

SHow his credentials, then.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by RuneSpider]

Mod Edit: Removed quoted material previously removed from thread.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by GAOTU789]

reply to post by furiousracer313


Please stop. Just please stop. There has been very little of substance from your end. If you really believe that nearly everything exists to drive people towards satan, then realize that your attitude and methodology drives people further away from what you consider to be god. If God has friends like you, why would he need enemies?

Please stop believing everything you see on youtube. Start reading, start thinking for yourself, start behaving like a well adjusted individual that can respect those you interact with. Otherwise maybe you should consider whether or not ATS is right for you.

If you chose not to have a real conversations with people on ATS soon, you may find yourself ignored entirely, and then what of your crusade.

Chill out dude, we are not bad people. If you would calmly and rationally explain your point of view and post legitimate reasons as to why you believe what you do, people will take your more seriously. Choice is yours.

Good luck to you.

OK... I get to recycle my post 3 times tonight!

Below are two very long articles but is definitely worth the time reading them.


Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. They are both accepted on faith.

www.harekrsna.com...

www.newgeology.us...

Originally posted by infolurker
OK... I get to recycle my post 3 times tonight!

Below are two very long articles but is definitely worth the time reading them.


Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. They are both accepted on faith.

www.harekrsna.com...

www.newgeology.us...

The claim that evolution is chance-based is often wielded by people who have no understanding of it.

Natural selection is the logical result of conditions found in nature- over-reproduction, limited resources, and a large amount of genetic diversity. The first two conditions cause competition for the limited amount of resources, meaning that the organisms with the genes most favorable to their environment will be the ones who survive long enough to reproduce. This in turn leads to a change in the frequency of alleles in the gene pool- evolution.

Chance events occasionally have an impact (leading to genetic drift events, etc.) but the primary mechanism of evolution, natural selection, is by no means random.

The big question is why can't science and God be in the same room together?

Can someone answer me that?

This all so stupid

One side says there is no god for there is evolution and science, and the other side says there is no science or evolution because there is a god.

Here is a hint people…you can have both and still be correct within your beliefs….

The evolution of man is a theory… this is a belief or faith of how man evolved. Creationism is also a belief or faith of how man evolved…

Nothing to argue here for they can just easily be the same, but we all still need to dicker on how it came about…

Funny stuff

Originally posted by Xtrozero
The evolution of man is a theory… this is a belief or faith of how man evolved. Creationism is also a belief or faith of how man evolved…

If you're going to describe evolution as a belief or faith... than you must describe creationism as a fairy tale...