why I hate evolution..

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


And as for facts that evolution has holes in it, here you go, simpleton.

1. Fossil Records -

Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a … portion of the geologic column…the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time…over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."

2. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field - Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

3. The Global Flood -

The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. 5 M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. 6 Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers..7 It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.8

4. Population Statistics -

World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

5. Radio Halo's -

Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously.10 This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

6. Human Artifacts throughout The Geologic Column - Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.

7. Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere - Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medallist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years

8. Design in Living Systems - A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10

9. Design in the Human Brain - he human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe.18 It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.19 This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. 20 In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans – all without knowing they are doing so.



There are many holes in the evolutionary THEORY.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Refer to last comment, ty.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by iWantToBeelieve
reply to post by EvilSadamClone

 

Lol, that last statement of yours was quite the laughable kind. As for you leaning on a theory as fact, thats the more hilarious. If everybody believed theories to be fact, we'd still be in the stone age with the theory that the earth is FLAT. You leaning on the fact its a theory makes it the less strong an argument. I theorize that the center of a black hole is filled with unicorn #. It must be true right? Until you can prove it wrong. As for your lil' comment about Christians, it shows your intellect. Must be a middle school or high school kid out on break. That time of the year again! Just because someone claims to be christian, does not mean they do not believe in science, for I live my life by science. As for a theory that has as many holes in it as it does "facts" for it, well, says enough for itself.

Are you scolding him for leaning on theories when you yourself are—leaning on theories? And why rather than attack his ideas do you resort to ad hominem? tsk tsk.

Isn't every single person in here leaning on theories though? The truth is, and every credible scientist will admit it, we have ZERO idea how we got where we are. From an empty void in space to blogging? All we can do is theorize.

We humans like to think we have all the answers, creationist, evolutions, whatever. I'd wager in the not to distant future both will be proven wrong.

The real answers to our origins, I assure you, are far stranger than we could "theorize" today.

reply to post by iWantToBeelieve


Getting info from a religion biased site is like asking McDonald's owner why we shouldn't eat at McDonalds.

That site is like saying "hmm we have the answers, now how do we fit the question to make sense" typical religious thinking.

reply to post by KnawLick


I came off wrong in what I meant, I was meaning that theories can be changed or become false over time due to new information. So leaning on a changing variable, is just that, changing. So it really isnt something to lean on. That what I meant with that part, i must have misrepresented my meaning.

reply to post by KnawLick


Yes, think we do not know, we try to research and look for answer, that is science.

not the following "WE HAVE THE ANSWER, NOW STOP RESEARCHING!" < - creationist way of thinking.

reply to post by luciddream


So actual scientific research doesn't mean anything, just because it came off of a religious website?

LOL GTFO of here.

reply to post by luciddream


Whoever said "We have the answer now stop researching" ? Lol then you put your lil tag saying "Creationist way of thinking". Lmao. Even if something is definite, and known, it should still be studied. Your lack of knowledge of modern day Christians is astounding.

Just because you watch FOX news and think thats what christians are now a days, it isnt all of us!

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by KnawLick

 

Yes, think we do not know, we try to research and look for answer, that is science.

not the following "WE HAVE THE ANSWER, NOW STOP RESEARCHING!" < - creationist way of thinking.

Thats just your biased opinion of creationist isn't it though?

Can evolutionist really rail against creationist for not accepting science but at the same time not admit there ARE some supernatural forces at work within the universe?

Nobody knows.
Love is the only way, whatever you believe.
There is insufficient data to corroborate science or religion explanation of Life's origin. Both could be wrong, both could be correct, nobody knows.
The future... may hold the answers of the past.

Originally posted by KnawLick

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by iWantToBeelieve
reply to post by EvilSadamClone

 

Lol, that last statement of yours was quite the laughable kind. As for you leaning on a theory as fact, thats the more hilarious. If everybody believed theories to be fact, we'd still be in the stone age with the theory that the earth is FLAT. You leaning on the fact its a theory makes it the less strong an argument. I theorize that the center of a black hole is filled with unicorn #. It must be true right? Until you can prove it wrong. As for your lil' comment about Christians, it shows your intellect. Must be a middle school or high school kid out on break. That time of the year again! Just because someone claims to be christian, does not mean they do not believe in science, for I live my life by science. As for a theory that has as many holes in it as it does "facts" for it, well, says enough for itself.

Are you scolding him for leaning on theories when you yourself are—leaning on theories? And why rather than attack his ideas do you resort to ad hominem? tsk tsk.

Isn't every single person in here leaning on theories though? The truth is, and every credible scientist will admit it, we have ZERO idea how we got where we are. From an empty void in space to blogging? All we can do is theorize.

We humans like to think we have all the answers, creationist, evolutions, whatever. I'd wager in the not to distant future both will be proven wrong.

The real answers to our origins, I assure you, are far stranger than we could "theorize" today.

edit on 19-6-2012 by KnawLick because: (no reason given)

That is my point. But science builds models and theories based on observation and is willing to adapt with new observations; religious dogmas builds them on faith and authority, in complete disregard of observation, and that dogma is infallible. Luckily, we have the right to choose whichever we think is more probable.

That doesn't change the apparent religiosity and dogmatism shown by both interpretations. And in fact science and religion are basically the same thing—an attempt to explain the universe.

Originally posted by iWantToBeelieve
reply to post by luciddream

 

So actual scientific research doesn't mean anything, just because it came off of a religious website?

LOL GTFO of here.

That is not actual research, they already have their conclusion, they do their "experiment" with the mindset to defeat evolution. Science doesn't do experiments thinking "watch me disprove god!".

Science does not include things that are not testable, or observable or measurable... science does not include magic during its experimentation.

reply to post by iWantToBeelieve

reply to post by luciddream


You have contrived your mind so far against "creationists" that you blatantly call real research "magic and superstition". Your mind is too simple. There will be no more replies from me, because I think interacting with such intolerance is effecting my balance. I wish you the best in your ill conceived reality.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Simpletons

Originally posted by iWantToBeelieve
reply to [url= by luciddream[/url]

 

So actual scientific research doesn't mean anything, just because it came off of a religious website?

LOL GTFO of here.

lol 'scientific research'

like the scientific research that proves the historical reality of the Biblical Flood? really? REALLY?

but ofc you're right, you, people like you and the creators of that website (and others like it) are the only ones with the truth, all scientists do the world over is think up ways to discredit your god because they hate him.......

its not like creationists have a motive to lie and spread misinformation in the face of facts and evidence that refute their position........they could always be wrong and change their minds.............right?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

That doesn't change the apparent religiosity and dogmatism shown by both interpretations. And in fact science and religion are basically the same thing—an attempt to explain the universe

Thats where its a bit different, Religious cannot prove their belief, its faith, they just have to accept what was TOLD to them by SOMEONE, 2000yrs ago(varies by religion).

Science is not obey what we tell you. When someone makes a theory and tests it, it goes in middle of scientific community, where peers will repeat the experiment to make sure it is what he says.

For example, if a scientist say, i can take this jelly fish's gene and put it into this E.Coli and make it glow. we can doubt his word and do the test, and if the test prove that infact you can transfer gene from jellyfish to e.coli, then now its more acceptable BUT still open to discussion.

There are more scientist to prove a existing theory wrong than a religious person trying to disprove science. That why i love science.

reply to post by Prezbo369


My god you people on this site really are offended by this huh? Just to say for fun, THERE IS A GOD, and when you die he says You did not know me, I do not know you, then you spend eternity in hell. That would just be so damn funny. (Not saying this from a religious point of view) The Irony would just be great, if only I could see that. The looks on your faces would be priceless. Then you see ole "IWantToBelieve" strolling on bye, whistling a toon, balling his eyes out laughing on this situational Irony. Gosh isnt it great to dream....

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

That doesn't change the apparent religiosity and dogmatism shown by both interpretations. And in fact science and religion are basically the same thing—an attempt to explain the universe

Thats where its a bit different, Religious cannot prove their belief, its faith, they just have to accpt what was TOLD to them by SOMEONE, 2000yrs ago(varies by religion).

Science is not obey what we tell you, when someone makes a theory and tests it, it goes in middle of scientific community, where peers will repeat the experiment to make sure it is what he says.

For example, if a scientist say, i can take this jelly fish's gene and put it into this E.Coli and make it glow. we can doubt his word and do the test, and if the test prove that infact you can transfer gene from jellyfish to e.coli, then now its more accepts BUT still open to discussion.

There are more scientist to prove a existing theory wrong than a religious person trying to disprove science. That why i love science.

Both religion and science merely put names and definitions to things and phenomena. Both adhere to their axioms and build models of how the universe works off of them. Same thing, different interpretation.

reply to post by Tbrooks76

Gravity is a theory, I probable know more about then most. It’s testable and proven, why it works it different story. It even has a mathematicall constant "G" . Evolving from one ancestor to man has not been, it doesn't even have a constant theory.

Gravity is a theory...and so is evolution. Both were assessed according to the EXACT SAME criteria when it comes to objective evidence. You might not like the theory of evolution, but in the end, it's just as valid as gravity

Abiogenesis, god, etc….abiogenesis is life starting from inorganic matter, so life starting itself. So what is the “etc”, you only have two options God or life created itself…both are extraordinary. What’s happen is in evolution we have only got parts of the picture then are trying to connect the dots, but the dots can connect to forum more than one picture.

Why do you STILL pretend evolution has anything to do with abiogenesis???

Here is bunch…
islamickorner.net...
islamickorner.net...
islamickorner.net...
islamickorner.net...

Ah yes, the famous crocodile example. Just because the ancestor looked similar (fyi, the skeleton isn't even a 100% match!!), doesn't mean they're "the same". The crocodile ancestor couldn't mate with today's crocodiles...so it's NOT the same. The same applies to the other examples, and DNA analysis fully confirms that

So as I said, those creationists are simply not educated enough to assess this properly...else they'd know that DNA analysis proves 100% (!!!) that they're not the same. But who cares about facts if they go against preconceived beliefs, right?

Sure there is, there is 4 pages of it above, and that is a fraction of the information you can find if you look.

Again, the 4 links prove the EXACT OPPOSITE of your claim that a creator was somehow proven

I really don’t enough on migration patterns to comment too much. Its something I will look into, but if are talking about animal behavior symbiosis doesn’t really have a good explanation in Evolution
And here is the population growth info..

Read the links I posted...talk originas has a great article about it too. In short, migratory trends confirm DNA dispersal (aka mixing of DNA) and clearly confirms evolution. Read up on it

You know, I hate that term miroevolution that some creationist use, Why they coined this term I’ll never know. Miroevolution is that animals can adapt to environment base on what genetic information is already available with in there DNA At no time does a single piece of new, ADDITIONAL genetic information develop or evolve. An example of this Bacteria resistance… from an evolutionist…Bacteria don’t “develop” resistance, as if it were a muscle nurtured by going to a microbial gym. Instead, they had it all along, or more accurately a small proportion of them did.

That's 100% false!

Take the bacteria that eats Nylon for example. Nylon isn't a natural material, so there's NO WAY the bacteria could have always had the ability to digest it...

As I told you before, you should really read at least the basic Wiki article about evolution...because from your posts it's abundantly clear that you don't really understand the theory in the first place. And of course you simply continue to ignore the FACT that we are actively applying the theory in modern medicine to predict future outcomes...if it were wrong, we couldn't do that!!