Science Disproves Evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2014, 07:41 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
Well, on the bright side, we do appreciate the fact that you kept the spelling and grammar errors to a minimum. I'm not sure if this is just one big copy/paste, but regardless, your "sources" are half century out of date or longer.

Welcome to 2014 (very soon to be 2015). Science and the understanding of our universe has made leaps and bounds since the 1930s.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like jojorumbles's post
16-11-2014, 12:26 AM
Re: Science Disproves Evolution
You know what? From now on when a visiting or drive-by theist resurrects a thread, I'll call it a lazarus or lazarus thread.

BEHOLD LAZARUS, WHO HATH RISEN FROM THE GRAVE!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Clockwork's post
16-11-2014, 06:39 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(16-11-2014 12:26 AM)Clockwork Wrote:  You know what? From now on when a visiting or drive-by theist resurrects a thread, I'll call it a lazarus or lazarus thread.

BEHOLD LAZARUS, WHO HATH RISEN FROM THE GRAVE!

I usually call it necromancy, which is more of the process of raising the dead. Both are adequate.

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes grizzlysnake's post
17-11-2014, 03:00 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
[Image: image.png?w=400&c=1]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
30-12-2014, 03:07 PM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
The Evolutionist's Dilemma

What do you do when you've invested so much in a theory, even proselytized others on its scientific validity, and then see every new archaeological discovery prove it wrong?

You go into cognitive dissonant mode.

The massive collection of fossils discovered to date show that survival of the fittest (as attributed to evolution) never happened -- the vast majority of fossils seem to represent the "fit." The "unfit," the ones that allegedly didn't survive, are practically non-existent.

Yes, we all know how genetic code pass down mostly the beneficial mutations to perpetuate the hardiest of the species. But this nonsense misses the point. In scenarios of "survival of the fittest" or "natural selection," there would be those that were "not fit" or "not selected." Where are they? The absence of the unfit in the fossil record indicates that all life forms came into existence already "fit" and "selected." How do you account for such a practically flawless success rate?

Of course, there is the misguided notion of how the misfit generally don't spawn successive generations and therefore leave few telltale traces. The problem with this notion is that accidental chaos happens in far greater numbers than accidental benefits. Fossils of the misfit, even if they never survived to spawn successive generations, should have far outnumbered our current collection of fossils. But they hardly exist.

Natural selection on the genetic level cannot account for this inexplicable lack of "misfit" fossils. Before the first drastically different family of life forms (the first dog, the first bird, the first snake, etc.) came into existence, the genetic code could not possibly have held the genetic design for their precise characteristics. At some point, drastic genetic mutations must have occurred to produce these new life forms. And for every "first" of a new life form, there would have to have been the spawning of literally millions of misfit predecessor variations that were weeded out by natural selection. Then you'd have survival of the fittest. As it stands, we have only the fit.

It's one thing to claim that natural selection on the genetic level can weed out bad genes. But that the genetic process can weed out, prior to birth, the first birds without wings, fish without fins, lions without teeth, etc., is preposterous. These aberrations would have to exist before they could be eliminated by natural selection.

The possible variations of "misfit" creatures are almost limitless. There is simply no explanation for how nature produced virtually every new life form in a state already fit to survive, as the fossil record shows over and over.

There's no question that life forms can mutate in relatively minor ways to adapt to an environment. But for completely new families of creatures to suddenly appear without any telltale signs of trial-and-error that clearly show how the myriad of misfits fell by the wayside till nature finally got it right, is impossible to explain.

Evolution is a modern invention of a God-less religion. It's interesting how a common response you get when confronting evolutionists with legitimate disproofs of evolution is: "You don't understand evolution." Really? The only ones who seem to "understand" evolution are those who believe in it.

Another common response is the label "creationist," regardless of whether you mentioned Creation or not. This is ironic coming from those who believe in primitive notions of how life inexplicably develops.

Another response is ridicule. This is understandable; if you have nothing to defend your position, what else can you resort to?

Evolution is little more than lunacy cloaked in scientific jargon. Sorcery and witchcraft were also "scientific" and "well understood" in their time. None of it was ever based on evidence, yet had strong followings. Evolution fulfills 21st Century man's need to believe in a great mystical power beyond himself. Welcome to the supernatural.

-- Please feel free to copy, post, email and freely distribute this message --
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2014, 10:17 PM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
Nice necropost. This one's been dead over a month now.

Might this be more properly discussed in, oh, I dunno, the Creationist sub-forum? Could somebody kindly relocate this. Zeke's going to think it's Christmas all over again.

(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  What do you do when you've invested so much in a theory, even proselytized others on its scientific validity, and then see every new archaeological discovery prove it wrong?

You go into cognitive dissonant mode.

So. Babylonians, Egyptians, Chinese, Minoans. All alive and thriving at a time when your "god" was purportedly throwing a hissy fit and drowning the world. Not one of them mentions the slightest dampness. How's that working out for you?

Quote:The massive collection of fossils discovered to date show that survival of the fittest (as attributed to evolution) never happened

[Image: wikipedian_protester.png]

Quote:the vast majority of fossils seem to represent the "fit." The "unfit," the ones that allegedly didn't survive, are practically non-existent.

Metazoa Zeke is going to love you.

Quote:There's no question that life forms can mutate in relatively minor ways to adapt to an environment. But for completely new families of creatures to suddenly appear without any telltale signs of trial-and-error that clearly show how the myriad of misfits fell by the wayside till nature finally got it right, is impossible to explain.

Zeke's Big Book of Transitional Fossils. Have fun.

Quote:Evolution is a modern invention of a God-less religion. It's interesting how a common response you get when confronting evolutionists with legitimate disproofs of evolution is: "You don't understand evolution." Really? The only ones who seem to "understand" evolution are those who believe in it.

The only people having trouble understanding evolution are those who are chanting, "I don't believe! I won't believe! I can't believe!" Science requires no belief, just the evidence.

Quote:Another common response is the label "creationist," regardless of whether you mentioned Creation or not. This is ironic coming from those who believe in primitive notions of how life inexplicably develops.

Funny thing but creationists are the only people we get going on about how evolution can't possibly happen. Are you something novel?

Quote:Another response is ridicule. This is understandable; if you have nothing to defend your position, what else can you resort to?

Evolution is little more than lunacy cloaked in scientific jargon.

Irony: Using your own argument to demonstrate that your position is indefensible in under three sentences.

Quote:-- Please feel free to copy, post, email and freely distribute this message --

Tell me, did you even read this before you spammed it?

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Paleophyte's post
30-12-2014, 10:56 PM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
Hello!

Welcome to the forums.

I hope you'll come back and do more than put in one post. Smile


(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  The Evolutionist's Dilemma.

Please, perhaps, actually post what you think the dilemma is? Instead of leading with an open statement?

(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  What do you do when you've invested so much in a theory, even proselytized others on its scientific validity, and then see every new archaeological discovery prove it wrong?

Please, can you provide a link or suggest some information which might show how archeology is leading to problems with evolution?

(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  You go into cognitive dissonant mode.

The massive collection of fossils discovered to date show that survival of the fittest (as attributed to evolution) never happened -- the vast majority of fossils seem to represent the "fit." The "unfit," the ones that allegedly didn't survive, are practically non-existent.

Um.... fossils simply show the survived remains of creatures. Pretty much every creature dies. (Though Metazoa can probably point out one or two that effectively don't. There are some nematode worms? Or some sh that seem to be effectively 'immortal'?)

"Survival of the fittest" is a small part of a larger work... and used here it would seem to be out of context.

(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  Yes, we all know how genetic code pass down mostly the beneficial mutations to perpetuate the hardiest of the species.

Nope... ALL mutations are passed down by a surviving and breeding individual. not just 'beneficial' ones. Also, you're confusing survival of the individual over the survival of a group. As long as larger numbers of a group survive and continue to breed etc...

(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  But this nonsense misses the point. In scenarios of "survival of the fittest" or "natural selection," there would be those that were "not fit" or "not selected." Where are they? The absence of the unfit in the fossil record indicates that all life forms came into existence already "fit" and "selected." How do you account for such a practically flawless success rate?

The above doesn't really make much sense and would seem to be nothing more than a tilt at some windmills.

(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  Of course, there is the misguided notion of how the misfit generally don't spawn successive generations and therefore leave few telltale traces. The problem with this notion is that accidental chaos happens in far greater numbers than accidental benefits. Fossils of the misfit, even if they never survived to spawn successive generations, should have far outnumbered our current collection of fossils. But they hardly exist.

Again, you're looking at things the wrong way.

(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  Natural selection on the genetic level cannot account for this inexplicable lack of "misfit" fossils. Before the first drastically different family of life forms (the first dog, the first bird, the first snake, etc.) came into existence, the genetic code could not possibly have held the genetic design for their precise characteristics.

No... again, you seem to be looking at things backwards.

(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  At some point, drastic genetic mutations must have occurred to produce these new life forms. And for every "first" of a new life form, there would have to have been the spawning of literally millions of misfit predecessor variations that were weeded out by natural selection. Then you'd have survival of the fittest. As it stands, we have only the fit.

... Um... The above again makes no sense.

(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  It's one thing to claim that natural selection on the genetic level can weed out bad genes. But that the genetic process can weed out, prior to birth, the first birds without wings, fish without fins, lions without teeth, etc., is preposterous. These aberrations would have to exist before they could be eliminated by natural selection.

But it does not say that. You are the one positing these ideas.

(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  The possible variations of "misfit" creatures are almost limitless.

Well, except for creatures so mutated as to be still born etc (I'm sure some one wil come along with the handy images of such soon)

(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  There is simply no explanation for how nature produced virtually every new life form in a state already fit to survive, as the fossil record shows over and over.

No, again, you are effectively misrepresenting things.

(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  There's no question that life forms can mutate in relatively minor ways to adapt to an environment. But for completely new families of creatures to suddenly appear without any telltale signs of trial-and-error that clearly show how the myriad of misfits fell by the wayside till nature finally got it right, is impossible to explain.

Ah! So you accept some sort of 'micro' evolution. Since we can see large variations within a population. But you reject that such large variations can lead to separate species? You do understand what a species is, right?

(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  Evolution is a modern invention of a God-less religion.

Citation needed, please.

(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  It's interesting how a common response you get when confronting evolutionists with legitimate disproofs of evolution is: "You don't understand evolution." Really? The only ones who seem to "understand" evolution are those who believe in it.

Again, citation of said problems. Also, please refer to how a lot of your previous comments don't actually make sense?

(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  Another common response is the label "creationist," regardless of whether you mentioned Creation or not. This is ironic coming from those who believe in primitive notions of how life inexplicably develops.

In the bold section you are making the common mistake of confusing(Conflating?) two different things. Evolution is considering things after there is life. Abiogenesis is about the arising of life.

(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  Another response is ridicule. This is understandable; if you have nothing to defend your position, what else can you resort to?

Okay.. so your opinion about the matter would be?

(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  Evolution is little more than lunacy cloaked in scientific jargon. Sorcery and witchcraft were also "scientific" and "well understood" in their time. None of it was ever based on evidence, yet had strong followings. Evolution fulfills 21st Century man's need to believe in a great mystical power beyond himself. Welcome to the supernatural.

The above is an assertion. Please show more than such. Perhaps by starting with a single issue picked from one of the many?

(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  -- Please feel free to copy, post, email and freely distribute this message --

And this last little telling peice left on the bottom of the post is an indication of some one simply 'spamming' the forum and hence possible calls for a banning?

Please return and add more of your original thoughts/questions/answers to this or some new thread?

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
31-12-2014, 07:48 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
It takes balls to necropost a post that has already been necroposted to the point that the previous entry you are necroposting is a necroposting meme.

Or maybe just some copypasta without any care about the context or the content of the post.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
31-12-2014, 08:03 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  What do you do when you've invested so much in a theory, even proselytized others on its scientific validity, and then see every new archaeological discovery prove it wrong?

What scientists do is revise the theory accordingly. What you do is apparently close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and jump up and down yelling "I DO believe, I DO, I DO, I DO".

The rest of your post just illustrates that you do not know what "survival of the fittest" means. You need to educate yourself on what the actual theory of evolution is by reading something other than the Answers in Genesis website.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2014, 11:16 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(30-12-2014 03:07 PM)DawkyJR Wrote:  The Evolutionist's Dilemma

What do you do when you've invested so much in a theory, even proselytized others on its scientific validity, and then see every new archaeological discovery prove it wrong?

You go into cognitive dissonant mode.

The massive collection of fossils discovered to date show that survival of the fittest (as attributed to evolution) never happened -- the vast majority of fossils seem to represent the "fit." The "unfit," the ones that allegedly didn't survive, are practically non-existent.

Yes, we all know how genetic code pass down mostly the beneficial mutations to perpetuate the hardiest of the species. But this nonsense misses the point. In scenarios of "survival of the fittest" or "natural selection," there would be those that were "not fit" or "not selected." Where are they? The absence of the unfit in the fossil record indicates that all life forms came into existence already "fit" and "selected." How do you account for such a practically flawless success rate?

Of course, there is the misguided notion of how the misfit generally don't spawn successive generations and therefore leave few telltale traces. The problem with this notion is that accidental chaos happens in far greater numbers than accidental benefits. Fossils of the misfit, even if they never survived to spawn successive generations, should have far outnumbered our current collection of fossils. But they hardly exist.

Natural selection on the genetic level cannot account for this inexplicable lack of "misfit" fossils. Before the first drastically different family of life forms (the first dog, the first bird, the first snake, etc.) came into existence, the genetic code could not possibly have held the genetic design for their precise characteristics. At some point, drastic genetic mutations must have occurred to produce these new life forms. And for every "first" of a new life form, there would have to have been the spawning of literally millions of misfit predecessor variations that were weeded out by natural selection. Then you'd have survival of the fittest. As it stands, we have only the fit.

It's one thing to claim that natural selection on the genetic level can weed out bad genes. But that the genetic process can weed out, prior to birth, the first birds without wings, fish without fins, lions without teeth, etc., is preposterous. These aberrations would have to exist before they could be eliminated by natural selection.

The possible variations of "misfit" creatures are almost limitless. There is simply no explanation for how nature produced virtually every new life form in a state already fit to survive, as the fossil record shows over and over.

There's no question that life forms can mutate in relatively minor ways to adapt to an environment. But for completely new families of creatures to suddenly appear without any telltale signs of trial-and-error that clearly show how the myriad of misfits fell by the wayside till nature finally got it right, is impossible to explain.

Evolution is a modern invention of a God-less religion. It's interesting how a common response you get when confronting evolutionists with legitimate disproofs of evolution is: "You don't understand evolution." Really? The only ones who seem to "understand" evolution are those who believe in it.

Another common response is the label "creationist," regardless of whether you mentioned Creation or not. This is ironic coming from those who believe in primitive notions of how life inexplicably develops.

Another response is ridicule. This is understandable; if you have nothing to defend your position, what else can you resort to?

Evolution is little more than lunacy cloaked in scientific jargon. Sorcery and witchcraft were also "scientific" and "well understood" in their time. None of it was ever based on evidence, yet had strong followings. Evolution fulfills 21st Century man's need to believe in a great mystical power beyond himself. Welcome to the supernatural.

-- Please feel free to copy, post, email and freely distribute this message --

The Creationist dilemma:

Creationists don't even understand evolution well enough to critique it, they admit that microevolution occurs naturally, admitting that the theory of evolution is correct, but deny macroevlution, which is an imaginary dividing line that causes less cognitive dissonance with their childish creation myth in light of science.

Creationists don't even realize that their creation myth is dead in the water long before the prospect of life can even be addressed.

Quote:Genesis 1:1-5 states:
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

See the order of creation? Heaven and earth, including water on the earth were created before light. Chemicals such as water depend on electromagnetic radiation to form chemical bonds. Water or earth cannot even exist without electromagnetic radiation (light) to form these chemicals.

Are we dealing with a fanciful myth here that cannot be taken seriously at any level?
The myth lacks a basic understanding of matter, it can't even account for water existing before light.

The myth compounds it's demonstration of ignorance even further by stating the stars, moon and sun were created after light. This is impossible, LAUGHABLY impossible. It even goes to further demonstrate it's inherent mythical ignorance by stating that the moon emanates light just like the sun.

This is childish stuff, the creationist believes in ancient, childish myths. I can further illustrate the absurdity of biblical myth based off of the story of Adam and Eve.

IT HAS TALKING SERPENTS! How much absurdity can you tolerate?

IT HAS MAGIC KNOWLEDGE-GIVING FRUIT! How much absurdity can you tolerate?

It portrays an angry and insecure god that fears man becoming like one of "us". A reference to the MANY gods that the ancient Jews believed existed alongside YHWH.

No, you simply can't argue biological evolution isn't true on the basis of a Babylonian-derived Jewish myth. You can't even account for water before light, talking serpents, magic fruits, etc. before getting out of the first chapter of Genesis.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. Part of that lack of belief is because the favorite western myths in the bible are so childishly wrong.

If you're going to assert that your beliefs are right, then you need proof that preposterous stories that are in the bible could be true.

If all you do is create your own myth that diverges from the bible, I think those on this forum recognize YOUR cognitive dissonance.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: