Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

reply to post by Xcalibur254


I've asked the same question on the other thread. I think their sticking to creo creed= avoid, spam, misdirect, lie, rinse and repeat.

Your using classic creo argumentation. All you have is your conclusions and look for anything you can shoehorn in as "evidence". Ignoring everything else that does not support your assertion and then cry about being ridiculed to everyone who disputes your unsupported claims. You know darn well that you have been given more than unsupported declarations, more than just examples of adaptations. The fact that your still misinterpreting adaptations as speciation, is proof your ignorant about the subject your trying to refute. Common descent occurs through speciation, natural selection producing adaptations is just ONE of the mechanisms that can contribute to the process of evolution that leads to speciation. Adaptation occurred through mutation followed by selection is evolution. The genetic evidence for small mutations giving rise to reproductive isolation is clear. Where is your evidence that such mutations can't contribute to speciation?

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
you would have to believe that if you sent a tornado into a junk yard enough times you would get a functioning car out of it when it was done. You really believe that?

Wrong logic.

In the same way as your wrong assumption that so called "evolutionists" believe in "chance".

The universe had billions of years tome to evolve, so no matter how you look at it, there is no "BY CHANCE".
Animals, plants etc. didn't develop "by chance". They ADAPTED and evolved.

As for your tornado classic logic mistake

The tornado will create "something" in the same way as if I throw a glass on the floor it will shatter in a million of pieces and create an UNIQUE pattern.

The tornado will not create a car. But no one argued that.

Your mistake is that you would take WHATEVER the tornado creates after it went through (or whatever the pattern will be the broken glass has created)...and point out the uniqueness of it and saying "it's impossible that THIS was created 'by chance' since the mathematical odds for this exact pattern is almost zero. ERGO: There must be "intelligent design" behind it.

Aside from that, your tornado example and the broken glass example are very, very bad since you cannot compare evolution to the chaotic acts of a tornado or the true random pattern broken pieces of a glass would create. However, YOU DO and think that your "evolutionists" would actually believe in such ridiculous naive things such as being reliant on astronomical odds that something of a higher order is created "by chance".

You are basically willingly ignoring and entirely disregarding what evolution ACTUALLY MEANS.

Evolution is the exact opposite of "by chance"..are you aware of that?

Originally posted by NoRulesAllowed
Evolution is the exact opposite of "by chance"..are you aware of that?

edit on 20-8-2013 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)

Well said.

In fact evolutionary algorithms are today used by engineers, computer programmers, designers and other specialists in many fields in order to optimise existing architecture models.

A few examples -







If evolution was the absurd completely random process as described by the OP , then none of these methods would work.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

 

Oh dear, he got caught telling the truth one time and then had to back track it. The facts stand. There is no proof of evolution.

... sorry, but you've decided to ignore the links that various people have posted on this thread? That's interesting...

If the universe was created by an omnipotent being, can that same being create a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by PrimeLight

 

Like what? What's everlasting?

Daisies. Everlasting daisies.

Originally posted by NoRulesAllowed
Evolution is the exact opposite of "by chance"..are you aware of that?

By saying that, you support your opponent's opinion: If "evolution is the exact opposite of 'by chance,' '' then evolution is a process based on a design.

Chance seems to be playing a huge role in the evolution of species. If it wasn't for a chance encounter between the earth and the comet or asteroid that hit the earth some sixty-five million years ago, then the dinosaurs and some other guys, who went extinct due to the adverse conditions brought about by the severe post-impact changes, could be still around today, if you accept this scientific speculation which tends to explain the demise of the dinosaurs. Since we know next-to-nothing about molecular changes that bring about new, higher species, the idea of an intelligent designer cannot easily materialize, even though as an option, there is no realistic reason which would exclude it. The evolutionary scientists basically replaced God with their own god called Nature. But there is a crucial difference: unlike Christianity, for example, evolutionary science is trying to understand its god and doesn't pray to it asking for salvation or other favors.

Originally posted by tremex
By saying that, you support your opponent's opinion: If "evolution is the exact opposite of 'by chance,' '' then evolution is a process based on a design.

Non sequitor.

False dichotomy.

Did the wind turbine blade developed in the youtube vid I posted above have a designer? Someone wrote the code and defined the parameters, sure, but he did not come up with the shape of the blade - random mutations sorted by 'natural' selection did.

What I came to understand is that discussing evolution with criationists is like talking to a stone and expecting an answer. Sorry to burst your bubble but how can you try to disprove the most backed up theory conceived if you don't know the basics of it? How can you say that evolution is backed up by lies when you are the one posting biased pages that misinterpret everything to have an argument to argue with?

In this thread the only thing I see is the OP trolling, posting nonsense from non-credible sources and ignoring each and every argument presented, derailing the thread in the process. I wouldn't continue arguing with this person because in a debate he would get destroyed by any person that has studied 5th grade science.

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed


Do not confuse one set of algorythms to the likelihood of making a protein from 20 amino acids. You have a 1x10 74th power to make a simple 150 chain protein. Your body needs many proteins. So for you to say chance has nothing to do with it is ludicrous. Many proteins are 300 to 400 chains of amino acids. Some amino acids are left hand and some are right hand, and you have to get the specific one for each connection. That puts you at 1 x 10 to the 195th power in some cases.

Now, if you think some pre-biotic soup had a little electricity added to it and complex proteins were formed despite there being not one 1 proven example of this in all the years they have done experiments, then you have an incredible faith my friend.

There is zero proof of evolution. Show 1 intermediate fossil. Show just 1 example that is not distorted and lied about by evolutionists. Yes, let's hear more lies about vestigial bones in whale pelvis that have to do with mating an not walking like evolutionists want us to believe. You still think your appendix is vestigial?

You see, the evolutionists want us to believe that a simple cell came from a rock that got rained on for millions of years, and then one day one of the most complex things man has ever studied, DNA, just popped into existence. Then that same simple cell just happened to decide it wanted to become an animal or a plant and it just changed itself by nature into a new creation.

Please show me one example of this happening that we can discuss. I have looked and so far there is not one example of a species changing into another species and I do not mean a wolf to a Chihuahua. I mean a lizard to a bird or a mouse to a dog.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Your using argument from ignorance to bash abiogenesis and then guilt by association to try and conclude that that extends to evolution.

Evolution is independent of abiogenesis. I know creationists just don't get this, but the theory does not concern itself with the origins of life at all, it just deals with diversification.

Originally posted by JameSimon
What I came to understand is that discussing evolution with criationists is like talking to a stone and expecting an answer. Sorry to burst your bubble but how can you try to disprove the most backed up theory conceived if you don't know the basics of it? How can you say that evolution is backed up by lies when you are the one posting biased pages that misinterpret everything to have an argument to argue with?

In this thread the only thing I see is the OP trolling, posting nonsense from non-credible sources and ignoring each and every argument presented, derailing the thread in the process. I wouldn't continue arguing with this person because in a debate he would get destroyed by any person that has studied 5th grade science.

You can disagree all you want, but you have no proof. You have not offered one shred of evidence. You are using the same old "you're sources are not credible" and yet you don't want to discuss those facts presented. Typical disinformation.

Can you not understand what Berlinski is saying here?

I do just love Berlinski and his cavalier attitude and demeanor. You can't accuse him of being a bible thumping creationist. He is simply pointing out the many problems with their theory.

I also enjoyed this debate and think by examining the best of science defending their positions without the school yard antics so often encountered on this thread one can honestly examine the best points of contention. I believe that if you accept scientific rules on proving a theory, then ID theory stands as the best answer to how life was created:

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Your using argument from ignorance to bash abiogenesis and then guilt by association to try and conclude that that extends to evolution.

Evolution is independent of abiogenesis. I know creationists just don't get this, but the theory does not concern itself with the origins of life at all, it just deals with diversification.

You are being very deceptive here. I have said over and over that Darwin DID NOT start with how life started, but began after life was here. Nonetheless, evolutionists love to throw in their evolution teaching in school the whole, "How life began from chemical soup and then go back to the big bang" and neither are proven.

This has been discussed over and over and you act as if by my answering someone else who brought up Abiogenesis that I am somehow displaying just how stupid and uneducated I am, and that is a farce. If you don't want me to disprove another stupid idea in evolution outside of micro evolution then kindly as your friends to stop bringing them up.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Your using argument from ignorance to bash abiogenesis and then guilt by association to try and conclude that that extends to evolution.

Evolution is independent of abiogenesis. I know creationists just don't get this, but the theory does not concern itself with the origins of life at all, it just deals with diversification.

You are being very deceptive here.

You know what's deceptive? Naming a topic "Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies" and then presenting as supportive evidence nothing but hoaxes and desperate lies from creationists.

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Your using argument from ignorance to bash abiogenesis and then guilt by association to try and conclude that that extends to evolution.

Evolution is independent of abiogenesis. I know creationists just don't get this, but the theory does not concern itself with the origins of life at all, it just deals with diversification.

You are being very deceptive here.

You know what's deceptive? Naming a topic "Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies" and then presenting as supportive evidence nothing but hoaxes and desperate lies from creationists.

So, you deny that Piltdown man, Lucy, fossils glued together, Nebraska man, are not hoaxes? Do educate me as to how I have deceived anyone. You just don't like the facts and are trying to ignore facts.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
You can disagree all you want, but you have no proof. You have not offered one shred of evidence. You are using the same old "you're sources are not credible" and yet you don't want to discuss those facts presented. Typical disinformation.

Stop lying. I provided this link before and you chose to ignore it. This is pure trolling on your behalf, and if you believe what you just said (that I provided no proof) then you should seek medical care because you are delusional.

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how 2 species from the same family, Horse and Donkey, have a different number of cromossomes (exacly what happens between us and chimps).
I'm also waiting for your rebuttal on my arguments supporting evolution in regards to the human mouth. Do you want the list again?

You've essentially just chosen the known hoaxes and quack science that has been used to "prove" that evolution is real. There is at the very least an equal and probably much more abundant number of hoaxes and lies that have been used to support and prove Christianity and religions in general.

Evolution, like so many other words, has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena". The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence AGAINST evolution.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed

 

Do not confuse one set of algorythms to the likelihood of making a protein from 20 amino acids. You have a 1x10 74th power to make a simple 150 chain protein. Your body needs many proteins. So for you to say chance has nothing to do with it is ludicrous. Many proteins are 300 to 400 chains of amino acids. Some amino acids are left hand and some are right hand, and you have to get the specific one for each connection. That puts you at 1 x 10 to the 195th power in some cases.

Now, if you think some pre-biotic soup had a little electricity added to it and complex proteins were formed despite there being not one 1 proven example of this in all the years they have done experiments, then you have an incredible faith my friend.

There is zero proof of evolution. Show 1 intermediate fossil. Show just 1 example that is not distorted and lied about by evolutionists. Yes, let's hear more lies about vestigial bones in whale pelvis that have to do with mating an not walking like evolutionists want us to believe. You still think your appendix is vestigial?

You see, the evolutionists want us to believe that a simple cell came from a rock that got rained on for millions of years, and then one day one of the most complex things man has ever studied, DNA, just popped into existence. Then that same simple cell just happened to decide it wanted to become an animal or a plant and it just changed itself by nature into a new creation.

Please show me one example of this happening that we can discuss. I have looked and so far there is not one example of a species changing into another species and I do not mean a wolf to a Chihuahua. I mean a lizard to a bird or a mouse to a dog.

edit on 21-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)

You have proven yourself to be completely unsuited to this conversation. A cell doesn't decide anything. Can you comprehend the time-scale involved here? You obviously think along the lines of an amphibian never laid an egg that hatched a mammal so how did mammals arise?!

You have no grasp of microbiology either. You know about plasmids? DNA that can replicate without chromosomal DNA.