How to prove evolution is FAKE!!!

The Different Types Of Evolution

The following types of Evolution are described:

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

4. OrganicEvolution: The origin of Life.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kindsof species.

Observations about the different types of Evolution

- Of the above supposed 6 types of Evolution, only the last one, Micro-Evolution, has ever been observed.

- The other 5 types of Evolution are part of the Theory of Evolution.

- The other 5 types of Evolution are all theoretical, and have never been observed.

- They cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, and do not therefore fall under the strict definition of a science.

- They are in fact a belief system, taught in countless schools and universities in the world.

- Sadly they are taught as fact, even though the factual content of the Theory of Evolution cannot be proved or disproved, since nobody was present, and these beliefs cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.

If you believe in the theory of evolution that's fine, that's your choice. But don't go around presenting it as fact.

I really don't understand why some people refuse the beautiful notion that our universe has managed to organize itself from barely differentiated hydrogen and helium gas into stars, planets and life (a beautiful fractally self organizing system) and instead believe that a bearded sky god who likes the smell of burning cattle flesh and crazy semetic warrior tribes just threw the whole shebang together in media res 6,000 years ago and called it a week.

I don't find the notions of some sort of creator and an evolving universe to be mutually exclusive at all.

The person above me pointed out the various kinds of evolution I was trying to talk about much better than I think I could

reply to post by Mkoll


Because Humans have trouble leaving things unexplained, so they try to inject their notion, aka, fill in the concept aka, god, to feel at ease.

For some, things do not make sense if it has blanks. They will refuse the blank and input concepts.

When you stop giving purpose to nature, you will be closer to understanding it.


Evolution doe snot explain how life started, it explains how life EVOLVED from what was was there.

Abiogensis, is still a hypothesis, which is impossible to figure out unless we can build a time machine, which is also a hypothesis!

I love the what if's and crazy off the wall theorie's and this video is one of them. I'm just a specator not a scientist or have a college peice of paper saying i'm qualified to understand, but would it be "wrong" to beleive in both. I was raised an atheist, but also had to attend church on my mother's side. I find it hard to rual out both still no proof that evolution actually happened and still no "i'm sure i'll get bashed for this" proof that god exsist both only in our minds and imagination only not to feel alone. Stories have been passed down for century's, too many people with different view's, exaggrated to get attention and with the fake's and people willing to take lie's and the truth to the grave i'm not sure what to believe, or what is true and what is false. Is having "faith" in something greater than you enough in the world today, or does science have to prove it. And as I contridict myself often I beleive in both, proof and beleif!

So, let me see if I've got the video in the OP right - God, for want of a better description, puts the mould in my peanut butter jar, if I had one? He truly does work in mysterious ways, if that is the case.

If evolution was proven 100% wrong tomorrow, that would still not prove a god exists. My lack of belief in deities isn't dependent on evolution being true.

reply to post by Mkoll


I would guess because either hypothesis is equally retarded, and both the "God" and "Evolution" are used as complete and total distractions from any other conclusions.

Originally posted by Prime80
- Sadly they are taught as fact, even though the factual content of the Theory of Evolution cannot be proved or disproved, since nobody was present, and these beliefs cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.

If you believe in the theory of evolution that's fine, that's your choice. But don't go around presenting it as fact.

Have you ever observed life being created out of thin air? Have you ever observed a planet being created out of thin air? Etc.? If not, don't go around presenting it as fact.

If it is fake it is remarkably persuasive. I cannot imagine a more elegant explanation for the development over millennia to the creatures we see today.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by spacedog1973

 

I've posted this before and no answer.

---

In the early stages of life, proteins could not have formed because it would be no way for the Amino Acids to exist in a non pure state of liquid.

The first amino acid lived in volcanic pools and they also looked like barnicals and could grow on rocks, in fact when the first 2 major amino acids started multiply one was red/orange and the other was green. This is the basis of what they think makes plants and animals, plants are green and the red/orange stuff made animals. Read This

Originally posted by milkyway12
Obviously, lots of things were occurring on Earth, and the oceans / water would have been ... not very pure. So, how do Amino Acids link up to form proteins if the earth's heat, electrical discharges, and solar radiation destroy the protein products many times faster than they could form?

Not sure what you mean by earth electrical discharges, the earth does not discharge electricity unless it in a thunder storm and for an amino acid to get hit by a thunder storm is very rare, most people don't get hit let alone an amino acid lol. And as for solar radiation we have always had a magnetosphere to keep it out well not right at the beginning of the earth but when amino acids started coming around we did...

As for how amino acids become proteins YouTube will help you!

Originally posted by milkyway12
Rocks that we believe were in existence before have very little carbon. You would need a very toxic carbon-rich environment for life to have evolved. Today, the atmosphere is only 1/80,000 of the carbon that has been around since the first fossils formed. Why is that?

Well about 525 million year ago something called Proterozoic Eon happened which Earth's atmosphere shifted from being carbon rich to oxygen since the green amino acids had time to evolve into plants and in the carbon rich environment they where loving it as you can imagine. As they grew more and more oxygen was being pumped into the atmosphere by them and at the time oxygen was toxic, much life on Earth probably died out as its levels rose in what is known as the oxygen catastrophe. Resistant forms survived and thrived, and some developed the ability to use oxygen to increase their metabolism and obtain more energy from the same food

Originally posted by ParasuvO
reply to post by Mkoll

 

I would guess because either hypothesis is equally retarded, and both the "God" and "Evolution" are used as complete and total distractions from any other conclusions.

Other conclusions such as?

Perhaps you will say that there is no universe? that'd be a twist.

Originally posted by milkyway12

By the way, here is something I stated in the past.

In the early stages of life, proteins could not have formed because it would be no way for the Amino Acids to exist in a non pure state of liquid. Obviously, lots of things were occurring on Earth, and the oceans / water would have been ... not very pure. So, how do Amino Acids link up to form proteins if the earth's heat, electrical discharges, and solar radiation destroy the protein products many times faster than they could form?

Rocks that we believe were in existence before have very little carbon. You would need a very toxic carbon-rich environment for life to have evolved. Today, the atmosphere is only 1/80,000 of the carbon that has been around since the first fossils formed. Why is that?
-----

This video used the peanut butter jar for an example, but I think he missed out on commenting more on the practices of the food industry to make foods safe for consumption.
Food is subjected to high heat and in some cases (like milk in the UK, if I remember correctly) to UV light (radiation) to kill all the microorganisms in the food. The theory that chaotic powerful planet creating forces of high heat and all the radiations out there magically creating single celled organisms is silly since we have proof that it actually kills them.

Also as someone else pointed out we have mosquitoes and crocodiles that are still the same as their ancestors from millions of years ago. The only difference they have is that our current ones are smaller. They didn't suddenly become cats or wild pigs.

Also the theory of evolution believes that an organism would evolve to the best form for its survival. If that was true why would a one celled organism become multicellular, especially big complex multicellular organisms that need more resources to survive, have more complicated reproduction practices (vs cloning yourself as a one cell), have more parts and systems that can fail, and just in general are more susceptible to being wiped out by environmental conditions. The harshest environments on the planet and in space have had one celled organisms that survive and in some cases do better than just survive while waiting for better conditions. If you are looking to survive everything life throws at you and be the optimal potential of your design as a one celled organism ... you would STAY as a one celled organism.

If you don't believe in God that's fine, free will and the freedom to choose is what it's all about. I just think that assuming a piece of rock suddenly became a one celled organism, which then decided to become multicellular and eventually became ALL the vast species we have today is being dishonest with yourself. Don't believe or not, but I think it's safe to say life didn't create itself, someone or something had a hand in it.

Originally posted by milkyway12
Evolution is nothing but a theory any how. Take it as a grain of salt. Some how, the T-Rex is now the chicken breast I eat for dinner from KFC.

People call creationist crazy, but at least I don't believe T-Rex transformed into a chicken.

What if the chicken gets really really angry and the genes mutate with radiation and it turns into a giant man eating bird we call a Raptor?

Wait, maybe a couple of Hulks will spawn through human beings to combat the man eating chickens AKA raptors.

Thank ..... Nothing that radiation and gas spawned randomly in the universe somehow and the humans mutated into hulks to better survive the chicken, I mean, Raptor onslaught.

edit on 29-1-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

It's so very sad. You don't know what you're saying. At least you made me laugh?

T Rex transformed into a chicken...

Originally posted by Prime80
The Different Types Of Evolution

The following types of Evolution are described:

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

4. OrganicEvolution: The origin of Life.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kindsof species.

Observations about the different types of Evolution

- Of the above supposed 6 types of Evolution, only the last one, Micro-Evolution, has ever been observed.

- The other 5 types of Evolution are part of the Theory of Evolution.

- The other 5 types of Evolution are all theoretical, and have never been observed.

- They cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, and do not therefore fall under the strict definition of a science.

- They are in fact a belief system, taught in countless schools and universities in the world.

- Sadly they are taught as fact, even though the factual content of the Theory of Evolution cannot be proved or disproved, since nobody was present, and these beliefs cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.

If you believe in the theory of evolution that's fine, that's your choice. But don't go around presenting it as fact.

you said yourself that "micro-evolution" has been observed....then....don't present evolution as fact.

can't have it both ways

one other thing....observation of other "evolutions" can be observed in organic fossils of animals, plants, microbes etc.....simple one for you....an insect embedded in amber....

and how about the study of DNA?.....that's just off the top of my head from basic science books

evolution is fact

Damn! Peanut butter and no JELLY

What's next?

Kool aid and no SUGAR

Oh no he dinnit........Yes he did!!!


Jus' Sayin'




spez

The OP video is confusing two different concepts:

evolution
abiogenesis

They are talking about abiogenesis and calling it evolution.
They are not the same thing.

Also, if the first organisms were single-celled, how does he know that abiogenesis is not taking place in the peanut butter jars? A single-celled organism is typically too small to see. So if abiogenesis occurred in the peanut butter, chances are someone would just eat and destroy the new life form without ever knowing it.

reply to post by milkyway12


You can tell by the way these people fight knowledge and facts so blindly that they would rather die than accept reality.

www.livescience.com...

Dino-chicken coming right up....

I guess evolution skips over some people.

reply to post by Wertdagf

I think you get it, but I don't think that guy Horner in your link gets it, when he says:

Horner: Of course. You bet. There are people who are misinformed, and there are people who are uninformed [about the validity of evolution]. If people are uninformed, this will probably get through to them. If they've been misinformed and don't mind being misinformed, then they probably will continue to be misinformed.

reply to post by milkyway12


erm you say that magic is better than spawning randomly out of thin air,
this is called special pleading, since you believe in a god then you seem
to be ok with the idea he can create things out of nothing himself, IE
doing exactly what your saying cant be done but labeling it god and
assuming he can do such a thing, or a better way to say it, if nothing
comes from nothing then how did god come from nothing? oh wait we
have to make an exception for him?oh i get it now we only play prentend
on your terms or its not true, i see.