Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I'm sorry but your 'facts' are absolutely hysterical - thanks, I needed a good laugh!

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Barcs

 

If you had read my responses, I have said many times that Darwin 's theory actually starts once life is already here, but he has never proved his intermediate species issues. The evolutionists have postulated the "how life got started" issue and their best theories have been proven to not be statistically sound. Now they have gone on to some bacteria coming to earth on a meteorite as if all life would start from one bacteria. I mean, once you got a successful critter, why evolve into competing species?

Then we have the aliens did it.

They know evolution as it has been taught is fraught with problems, and have denied it like a child with their finger's stuck in their ears saying ,"la la la la la" and calling people names and insulting their intelligence when the issues are pointed out much as we have watched happen on this thread.

Evolution could not stand on it's own so they faked it until it took root and now they control the educational foundations, schools, and political machine so anyone who would dare to speak against it is ruined. Amazing how it was Christians who allowed people to think freely that enabled this unproven theory to even sneak out. Liars, charlatans and intellectually dishonest people with an axe to grind against God are not about to budge now that they feel the have the superior control of our children and grant money.

Damn the facts and science, they don't like God.

That's ludicrous. Yeah, science is all just a war on religion! Like I said, you can duplicate the results for yourself but again I'll post the link that no creationist has ever even attempted to debunk.

www.talkorigins.org...

You have not addressed the science behind evolution at all, you have straw manned it. Darwin is a red herring. Modern day evolution (modern synthesis) is undeniable. There are millions of fossils. Darwin's issues have been solved. Sorry, but if you believe in god, you are severely limiting his power by claiming he couldn't use a system of evolution to create the vast amount of life on earth. Evolution only goes against god if you are extremely stubborn in regards to literal translations of ancient texts written during a time when 90% of people were illiterate. If you intend to smear science, then please address it. Talking about hoaxes that science proved wrong is going to get you nowhere. It's because of science that they were exposed in the first place. Science works. Religion is a guess.

Not one transitional example has been proffered, end of story. Everyone wants to point to adaptive change within a species. That has never been the problem. The problem is trying to say we come from common ancestry. Fruit flies are still fruit flies. Show me one becoming a house fly or a dragon fly incrementally. So, keep on saying it's been done and know that everyone who has actually read this thread knows that it has not been done.

en.wikipedia.org...

There are hundreds of species of fruit fly. They have been observed to change on the species level. Evolution is small changes that add up over time, which are eventually sorted by natural selection (extinction). We have proved the small changes. What mechanism do you suggest prevents them from adding up over time? Are you expecting a fruit fly to give birth to a rat? Fruit flies in a lab have speciated in a relatively short time period. Now add millions of years to that and you will see a much bigger difference.

There's no reason to suggest that a common ancestor has to be a 50/50 combo of 2 creatures you are comparing. Evolution is not linear, it moves with the environment. Transitional fossils are pretty much a misnomer, as every fossil is transitional.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
reply to post by Barcs

 

Nope, if you want to play the evolution game, you have to include the primordial soup because evolutionary processes should still work at that level, if they don't then it is all bunk.

Completely wrong.

Do you understand what evolutionary processes are?

1. Genetic mutations
2. Natural selection

Are you trying to tell me that genetic mutations can happen without genetic code? You are mistaking naturalism for modern evolutionary synthesis.

If you want to play the game that evolution started after the first living cell came into existence, then Creationists will just tell you the Creator made the cell and Intelligently designed evolution into the coding of DNA. Anything you observe as a result of what is in that cell is therefore attributed to the Creator, whether you call it evolution or the hokey pokey. Do you see the weakness of your position? If not go see what real evolutionists are theorizing on how evolutionary processes bring about the first cell. They recognize the weakness of that position and are feaverishly working to fill the gap.

You have been proven to be yet another person that blindly attacks science and evolution without even understanding the basics of how it works. It's really getting old. Educate yourself. Stop regurgitating things as if they are facts because you read them somewhere and thought it was cool. Use scrutiny! Science makes our lives better. Deny ignorance!

reply to post by noonebutme


Where did matter come from?

reply to post by Barcs

Damn the facts and science, they don't like God.

Or maybe they've invested far too much in it, and they're not giving up without a fight. Again, to be perfectly fair, you are ignoring the fact that falsified evidence accounts for a small fraction of the support for evolutionary theory. What, you think the first person to scientifically prove intelligent design won't be the most famous man or woman in history? They would become rich. They would become teachers. They would change the world and the meaning of life. That is really nothing to laugh at.

There is far too much to be gained in such a discovery to just keep it quiet. But precisely because of that power, it is also easily abused. A strong man will kill for his beliefs. A religious man will die for them.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by noonebutme

 

Where did matter come from?

Are we now supposed to teach you all about the Big Bang and basic astrophysics? (Checks watch) How long have you got?

Are we now supposed to teach you all about the Big Bang and basic astrophysics? (Checks watch) How long have you got?

Lets be reasonable here sir.

Neither you or I know even .00001% about this universe we abide in.

Although you may be able to teach people a few tidbits here and there about what science says is theoretically possible, you have no idea where any of this came from or why.

That's why it's silly for either side of this argument to display any sort of arrogance. There really is value in what both sides have to offer on this discussion.

I think naturalists should also be mindful of the fact that the book of Genesis and its creation story is incredibly vague and is most definitely up for debate when it comes to timetables and such.

To be vehemently opposed to a possible creator is just as ignorant as saying the earth HAS to be 6,000 years old.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Yes, let's all psychoanalyze the OP and other posters you don't like and ignore the information presented, that is so much more fruitful and fun. You have not refuted the evidence.

I have not ignored the misinformation you've presented (see my first post). You have proven my point countless times in this thread by ignoring information that proves the fallacy of your position.
I also know that your not interested in evidence that refutes your nonsense by the simple fact that you "ignore" posts that prove you wrong, or you simply move the goal post with yet another fallacy.

You call me unaware? Why don't you try to tell me how no life creates life. Why don't you tell me how nature, the universe, DNA, and the myriad of examples I have presented just so happen to use the mathematical information of the Fibonacci sequence and golden ratio. Explain consciousness for me and emotions.

This post is "proof" you have no clue about what evolution says.
If you would like to discuss Abiogenesis , then go to the appropriate thread.

Or just continue to use typical derailment tactics to besmirch me and others you don't like. You are the one indoctrinated in their schools.

I never said I don't like you, I have many creo friends.
I myself once believed in such nonsense and yes, your correct, I was indoctrinated in Christian schools but have matured past that decades ago.

Tell me, did you even watch those videos or are you all knowing and thus find it stupid to avail yourself of information freely given.

Yes...I have already seen all those videos.
If you really want to learn about evolution may I suggest not buying into such nonsense and look into what real science says.

reply to post by sdb93awd


You have a good point and I apologise if what I have said comes off in any way shape or form as arrogant. However, I do get increasingly angry - and amused - when creationists bend and twist and, yes, even manipulate evidence in to supporting their arguments whilst at the same time ignoring counter-arguments. Wilful misrepresentation of what evolution is and how it works is a classic case in point.

reply to post by sdb93awd


It's true. Evolution vs creation is a farce. It's not one vs the other, it could be both. They are separate, but one is a science and one is a belief system. The problem is that it's always the creationists attacking evolution. They are attacking the wrong field of science. They should be looking at abiogenesis, or perhaps even looking to prove their side. Instead they just slander away despite not showing even a basic comprehension of the theory itself.

reply to post by Barcs


^^^ What he said...

Although I would argue that science is also a belief system, and not with out its flaws...

Originally posted by sdb93awd

Are we now supposed to teach you all about the Big Bang and basic astrophysics? (Checks watch) How long have you got?

Lets be reasonable here sir.

Neither you or I know even .00001% about this universe we abide in.

Although you may be able to teach people a few tidbits here and there about what science says is theoretically possible, you have no idea where any of this came from or why.

That's why it's silly for either side of this argument to display any sort of arrogance. There really is value in what both sides have to offer on this discussion.

I think naturalists should also be mindful of the fact that the book of Genesis and its creation story is incredibly vague and is most definitely up for debate when it comes to timetables and such.

To be vehemently opposed to a possible creator is just as ignorant as saying the earth HAS to be 6,000 years old.

Given there is absolutely no credible proof of a creator, please explain why being opposed to a creator is ignorant without mentioning religion.

Actually you can go one step further and admit that I might very well be this creator you refer to. Surely you must admit that I might be? It would be ignorant not to admit the possibility right? Just for the record like.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Barcs

 

^^^ What he said...

Although I would argue that science is also a belief system, and not with out its flaws...

The assertion that evolution is a belief system has been debunked in another thread here and here

How do you deal with suppressed archeology that finds human skeletons and evidence of civilizations existing millions of years ago? Michael Cremo explains this problem very well:

Grooved Sphere from South Africa Figure A2.9 A metallic sphere from South Africa with three parallel grooves around its equator (photo courtesy of Roelf Marx). The sphere was found in a Precambrian mineral deposit, said to be 2.8 billion years old. [p. 813, Forbidden Archeology]

Mysterious Letters from a Quarry Figure A2.1 Raised letterlike shapes found inside a block of marble from a quarry near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Corliss 1978, p. 657; American Journal of Science 1831, vol. 19, p. 361). The block of marble came from a depth of 60-70 feet in strata dated 500-600 million years old. [p. 797, Forbidden Archeology]

Ancient Coin from Illinois Fig. A2.3 This coinlike object, from a well boring near Lawn Ridge, Illinois, was reportedly found at a depth of about 114 feet below the surface (Winchell 1881, p. 170). According to information supplied by the Illinois State Geological Survey, the deposits containing the coin are between 200,000 and 400,000 years old. [p. 801, Forbidden Archeology]

Museum of hidden archeology

In the early 1950s, Thomas E. Lee of the National M useum of Canada found advanced stone tools in glacial deposits at Sheguia ndah, on Manitoulin Island in northern Lake Huron. Geologist John Sanford of Wayne State U niversity argued that the oldest Sheguiandah tools were at least 65,000 years old an d might be as much as 125,000 years old. For those adhering to standard views on North American prehistory, such ages were unacceptable. Humans supposedly first entered North America from Siberia about 12,000 years ago.


[further down in this article the issue of incised bones is discussed]

INCISED AND BROKEN BONES: THE DAWN OF DECEPTION
Intentionally cut and broken bones of animals comprise a substantial part of the evidence for human antiquity. They came under serious study in the middle of the nineteenth century and have remained the object of
extensive research and analysis up to the present.

In the decades following the publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species, many scientists found incised and broken bones indicating a human presence in the Pliocene,Miocene, and earlier periods. Opponents suggested t
hat the marks and breaks observed on the fossil bones were caused by the action of carnivores, sharks, or geological pressure. But supporters of the discoveries offered impressive counterarguments. For example, stone
tools were sometimes found along with incised bones, and experiments with these implements produced marks on fresh bone exactly resembling those found on the fossils. Scientists also employed microscopes in order to
distinguish the cuts on fossil bones from those that might be made by animal or shark teeth.

In many instances, the marks were located in places on the bone appropriate for specific butchering operations.
Nonetheless, reports of incised and broken bones in dicating a human presence in the Pliocene and earlier are absent from the currently accepted stock of evidence. This exclusion may not, however, be warranted. From the
incomplete evidence now under active consideration, scientists have concluded that humans of the modern type appeared fairly recently. But in light of the evidence covered in this chapter, it appears they may be deceiving themselves.

Source

reply to post by flyingfish


Again I'm not a creationist. You ever consider the possibility that we've just always been here whether here or Mars or elsewhere?

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by noonebutme

 

Where did matter come from?

Are we now supposed to teach you all about the Big Bang and basic astrophysics? (Checks watch) How long have you got?

Can you prove there was a big bang?

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Barcs

 

^^^ What he said...

Although I would argue that science is also a belief system, and not with out its flaws...

The assertion that evolution is a belief system has been debunked in another thread here and here

The big bang and Abiogenesis are belief systems as well so how can they be used in any argument?

Originally posted by 1nf1del
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Again I'm not a creationist. You ever consider the possibility that we've just always been here whether here or Mars or elsewhere?

Then why do you applaud a creationist argument just because it is a creationist argument, while understanding nothing whatsoever of its actual content, what the heck are you?

Isn't there some stuff about not bearing false witness?

Reminds me of a quote:

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

Evolution vs Creation threads can get quite contentious. The definition of evolution needs to be sorted out from the beginning of this discussion. The idea of evolution is not just change. It is not just adaptation. Those certainly happen in Darwin's theory, but the theory of evolution seeks to explain how biological life has come from a common ancestry.

Darwin did not even try to begin with out life actually got started which some believe happened by Abiogenesis, but is not proven either.

Abiogenesis:


a·bi·o·gen·e·sis
[ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh-]

noun Biology .
the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
Origin:
a-6 + biogenesis; coined by T. H. Huxley in 1870


Theory of Evolution states that life evolved from simple organisms even a single cell and through natural selection the fittest would survive and adapt in their environment over long periods of time and through genetic changes other species were created until we get to the common species we see today.

I think there is no disagreement about species adapting to their environment and the fittest surviving and thus their traits get passed down. The place where the creationists disagree is in the idea of common ancestry which has not been proven.

Darwin expected to have proof emerge over time as we would dig up these many intermediate fossils. Thus, where did Darwin and science get it wrong? Has science ever gotten things wrong that were accepted facts for thousands of years? Of course they did. Ptolomy had us convinced for ages that the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. To question that would be stupid, but he was wrong.

There were all kinds of drawings and proofs to prove the Geocentric model. This was what they taught:

In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system), is a description of the cosmos where Earth is at the orbital center of all celestial bodies. This model served as the predominant cosmological system in many ancient civilizations such as ancient Greece. As such, they assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and naked eye planets circled Earth, including the noteworthy systems of Aristotle (see Aristotelian physics) and Ptolemy.[1]

Two commonly made observations supported the idea that Earth was the center of the Universe. The first observation was that the stars, the sun, and planets appear to revolve around Earth each day, making Earth the center of that system. Further, every star was on a "stellar" or "celestial" sphere, of which the earth was the center, that rotated each day, using a line through the north and south pole as an axis. The stars closest to the equator appeared to rise and fall the greatest distance, but each star circled back to its rising point each day.[2] The second common notion supporting the geocentric model was that the Earth does not seem to move from the perspective of an Earth bound observer, and that it is solid, stable, and unmoving. In other words, it is completely at rest.

Source

When I was in college we discussed that some scientists tried to prove differences in the male vs. female brain and why men are "better" at math or smarter at analytical things and women perform better in subjects such as English and History. They focused on one part of the brain that was larger in men and the other that was larger in women. They put forth the results and then later found out that those parts of the brain were actually the opposite... and thus they proved women are smarter and more analytical than men. I wish I still had my old text books, but it was just one example of scientists trying to prove something, jumping the gun and then having egg on their face.

This is interesting in looking at what we are really talking about:





There is an hour long program on the inner life of the cell which you can search for on youtube.

or watch here



Now, this is a BBC program and of course it's supporting evolution, but even in this information knowing what we know about how it would be a 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion probability to make a modest 150 chain protein from random chance, you really think this hidden universe happened by chance? That it's not intelligently designed?

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Grooved Sphere from South Africa Figure A2.9 A metallic sphere from South Africa with three parallel grooves around its equator (photo courtesy of Roelf Marx). The sphere was found in a Precambrian mineral deposit, said to be 2.8 billion years old. [p. 813, Forbidden Archeology]

I can answer that one -

These "spheres" (which are only vaguely spherical despite claims they are perfectly round) were analysed in 1996 by Paul Henreich, research associate for the University of Louisiana and found to be naturally formed concretions formed in either ash or volcanic sedements. The grooves are a product of the formation process itself - the material the concretion forms in is softer than the concretion itself, and when that softer material wears away all that is left is the indentation.

It's explained here - www.talkorigins.org... and here - en.wikipedia.org...