Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by Rychwebo


How would you explain the plethora of species if we didn't have a common ancestor? What do you suppose the magic was that happened to create the grass for the rabbit to eat, create the rabbit for the fox to eat, and create whatever else might eat a fox, all at the same time? It seems mathematically impossible for this seemingly impossible symbiotic relationship to occur by chance in a short period of time without genetic mutation.

I would say that is a very intelligent system. I see no reason that a divine creator made it as desired. I also see much playing out just as prophesied, but as this thread is not about theology, but the use of hoaxes to back up evolution, I suggest this not be debated here. I give you my answer to satisfy how it could logically be explained.

Am I to understand that there is a logical explanation for the origin of all life and it was created by an intelligent entity, and that one species cannot "evolve" into a completely new one over time? If that is so, then I guess we have different ways of looking at the world, and that's cool with me sir. I have just been trying to grasp what is going on here, not trying to call anyone dumb or anything.

reply to post by 1nf1del

I looked at evolution through a microscope for the better part of those 42 years and have only come to the same conclusion as creationists that the model of evolution presented doesn't fit

Could you please expand on what problems your seeing through your microscope that do not fit in the model of evolution and what is your replacement for this missing piece you see?
I have not seen any of your posts disproving evolution, what I do see is posts that misinterpret what evolution says...
Like this one.

It is theorized that the evolutionary process is to better a species and make them more suited to their environment, so let's examine and come to some conclusion why we lost our tail, was it for a survival purpose and if so what? How did not having a tail make us better suited to our environment?

Explain to me why anyone claiming knowledge of the model of evolution could make such a blatant misinterpretation?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I meant dead language as in not being added to anymore, and not widely understood. Latin is an example of dead language. I'm not saying it can't be read or people don't know it.

Evolution has been proven.

news.nationalgeographic.co.uk...

It is easier to study evolution on species that are short lived, hence being able to see adaptations to environment through many generations.

Originally posted by Rychwebo
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

I meant dead language as in not being added to anymore, and not widely understood. Latin is an example of dead language. I'm not saying it can't be read or people don't know it.

Yes, and so refresh me as to how that makes the bible unprovable.

Originally posted by Tykonos
Evolution has been proven.

news.nationalgeographic.co.uk...

It is easier to study evolution on species that are short lived, hence being able to see adaptations to environment through many generations.

From that article which is using a species and not showing and intermediate changes into a new species, but an adaptive process which if you read my OP the idea that we evolved from common ancestry is the problem and not adaptation. This article states:

Two other superworms, including an arsenic-munching population from southwest England, are also likely new to science, Hodson said. "It's a good bet they are also different species, but we haven't categorically proved that," he said.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I'll ask again, what is the mechanism that prevents a large number of mutations from accruing over a long period of time and as a result producing large scale changes with the inevitable result being the creation of a new and different species?

If evolution has never produced a new species and the number of species that are currently alive only represents a tenth of a percent of all species that have ever existed do you believe that there were billions of species when life first appeared?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

I'll ask again, what is the mechanism that prevents a large number of mutations from accruing over a long period of time and as a result producing large scale changes with the inevitable result being the creation of a new and different species?

If evolution has never produced a new species and the number of species that are currently alive only represents a tenth of a percent of all species that have ever existed do you believe that there were billions of species when life first appeared?

Seeing as you cannot even get the protein chains to be created by chance no matter how long you give based on the mathematics presented, evolution is dead in the water because the cellular level wont happen.

I imagine you've made lots of things in your life. Are you saying an intelligent source could not do the same with vastly superior ability, skills, and knowledge?

How do you respond to the problem with the geologic tables and Ice tables having Polystrate trees through multiple layers of the geologic record or a WWII airplane found deep in the ice which would make it 48,000 years old. Did we steal the designs for the B52 from an ancient culture ?

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by Rychwebo
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

I meant dead language as in not being added to anymore, and not widely understood. Latin is an example of dead language. I'm not saying it can't be read or people don't know it.

Yes, and so refresh me as to how that makes the bible unprovable.

First, what do you mean by the bible, do You mean everything in it as a whole, or just parts of it?

It is, without a doubt pure hearsay in its entirety. He said she said, and they aren't here anymore... Hearsay isn't admissible for good reason. Not proof of anything except the proof of the words on paper existing in form alone.

Here is a test you can do at home: Have somebody take 5 grams of p. cubensis mushrooms and write down things that they see and hear, then after a few millennia, read what they wrote down and try to prove what they wrote down as a fact.

I'm not saying you can't prove things true that were written down long ago. I am saying that the people that wrote it down are all dead, so we have nothing to go by except what we can learn from the present, and then see if it happens to line up with the bible. It's too strenuous to look at the bible as the root of all insight into the universe though, if you want to do that, then look to older texts. Older text would take precedent wouldn't it? I mean its older so therefore more true to the time.

reply to post by Rychwebo


The most important part of the Bible are the conversations they had. The words that were exchanged between people. The most easily falsified of all of the evidence in the Bible. That's what makes it unreliable. I can easily write down a conversation between me and my mother, and you'll never know whether or not that conversation actually took place.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


You need to create a theory then as to how this intelligent creator originated, with evidence that supports the existence of this creator. That would be something you could challenge abiogenesis or evolution with.

"I don't understand, therefore god" only works with idiots and apparently ATS.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

You need to create a theory then as to how this intelligent creator originated, with evidence that supports the existence of this creator. That would be something you could challenge abiogenesis or evolution with.

"I don't understand, therefore god" only works with idiots and apparently ATS.

One does not need to create an alternate theory to prove another theory wrong. Otherwise science would never happen. You postulate a theory and you either prove it or disprove it. I am not saying a theory for life is not needed nor has one not already been postulated. It's just that many don't like that theory despite their inability to disprove it.

Those same individuals who will negate God will push for an alien life form seeding earth. So, is it the omnipotent all knowing part they don't like or the idea that we have a responsibility to that God if that is true? The first lie is that one created by God said, "I am God" and then has pushed for all of us to believe that as well. "You will not die if you eat of that tree, you will be like God!"

Yes, I see exactly why evolution is so well liked though thoroughly disproved based on THEIR own science ie time tables etc..

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

You need to create a theory then as to how this intelligent creator originated, with evidence that supports the existence of this creator. That would be something you could challenge abiogenesis or evolution with.

"I don't understand, therefore god" only works with idiots and apparently ATS.

Dawkins actually postulated aliens!

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Your lack of understanding in the fields of biology, archeology, and geology isn't evidence of any flaw in science.

When no one wants to teach someone who does nothing but copy and paste from creation websites that have been debunked it isn't a flaw in science.

Go to www.Talkorigins.org and find something that hasn't been beaten into a pulp otherwise there's no point.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Seeing as you cannot even get the protein chains to be created by chance no matter how long you give based on the mathematics presented, evolution is dead in the water because the cellular level wont happen

Seeing as how you cannot prove a negative, based on mathematics, how can you prove something cannot happen with mathematics?

Be aware that atoms have almost a will of their own, and who knows the will on the subatomic level. Elements like to have their outer electron shells balanced, like the noble gasses. So elements combine to be stable and balanced. Prove to me that something can't happen at levels you cannot even witness in its entirety. You can't. You can only prove what exists, after that, anything that is probable is still possible.

Originally posted by Rychwebo

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Seeing as you cannot even get the protein chains to be created by chance no matter how long you give based on the mathematics presented, evolution is dead in the water because the cellular level wont happen

Seeing as how you cannot prove a negative, based on mathematics, how can you prove something cannot happen with mathematics?

Be aware that atoms have almost a will of their own, and who knows the will on the subatomic level. Elements like to have their outer electron shells balanced, like the noble gasses. So elements combine to be stable and balanced. Prove to me that something can't happen at levels you cannot even witness in its entirety. You can't. You can only prove what exists, after that, anything that is probable is still possible.

edit on 15-8-2013 by Rychwebo because: Still getting a hang on the html

It is called probability. The more improbably something is to happen the less likely it did happen. If I said you have a 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion chance to win X and it only will cost you your entire academic career would you take me up on it if X makes you the genius of the ages? That is how likely life came about as evolutionists want us to believe.

Are you denying how proteins are made and the structure of DNA?

Evolution demands we check our brains at the door, ignore facts about cellular biology, evidence in their supposed geologic tables and ice tables, ignore their outright lies and hoaxes, ignore their having no intermediate changes in species to a new species and believe adaptation means evolution.

I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am saying based on mathematics it has been disproved. The DNA is very much demanding of intelligent design. Proteins did not come out by chance or chance plus attraction. Have you even watched the videos proving this problem? All I see, it "Prove how it happened then!"

That does not support or prove evolution and it just a means to distract from the facts I have presented.

reply to post by Wertdagf


Explain the Polystrate fossils going through the various geologic tables. Explain the WWII airplane so deep that according to ice cores it must be 48,000 years old.

Your demeaning what I have shared from experts does not affect the facts. You just don't like where it leads.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Like I said.... go educate yourself. You come to ATS without a single attempt at finding ANYTHING that contradicts your ignorance.

Talkorigins.org has these listed as some of the stupidest arguments a creationist can use. The lack of embarrassment you show when presenting these obviously idiotic claims makes any discussion with you worthless.

www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
It is called probability. The more improbably something is to happen the less likely it did happen. If I said you have a 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion chance to win X and it only will cost you your entire academic career would you take me up on it if X makes you the genius of the ages? That is how likely life came about as evolutionists want us to believe.

This argument makes a couple of fundamental errors.

It completely mischaracterises the nature of the probability of evolution by a) limiting it to a single case event, and b) not taking into account the mechanism of natural selection

It's a bit like saying "The odds of cracking this 12 digit combination are 1 in a billion". Well, that might be true if you try to guess all 12 characters in one hit.

But if you had a lock which gave you some feedback on each number (character) as you entered it, so that as you guessed it it was tested and the feedback from the lock indicated whether it was correct or not, then you could guess those numbers in quite a short time.

This "feedback" is analagous to natural selection - it's the process which sorts the wheat from the chaff, or the beneficial mutations from the bad.

By not including it in the analogy you are making a common mistake, one that by it's nature is deceptive and dishonest.

If you are speaking strictly of abiogenesis, then again it's not a single case event. The number of planets in the universe is unknown, but likely to be an extraordinarily large number.

Once you get into large sample sizes, then extraordinarily rare events become virtual certainties. Check out the Law of Large numbers for a run down - en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Like I said.... go educate yourself. You come to ATS without a single attempt at finding ANYTHING that contradicts your ignorance.

Talkorigins.org has these listed as some of the stupidest arguments a creationist can use. The lack of embarrassment you show when presenting these obviously idiotic claims makes any discussion with you worthless.

www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

I'm sure they do denigrate these things just as much as you do. You come here looking for truth as opposed to me huh? I am here to discuss different topics. Just because we don't agree does not mean you have to be rude, condescending etc.. Instead of posting that link why don't you prove right now the problem with the time tables I have pointed out.

I notice you don't want to do that despite multiple opportunities to do so.