Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Thurs nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts with FREE Prizes!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE Live AFA Seminar! See locations and details.


Scam free! Check out Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife



View Active Topics       Latest 100 Topics       View Your Posts       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


Evolution Debunked - A Total Lie and Impossibility

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Re: Evolution Debunked

Postby Farmer308 » Fri Nov 13, 2015 5:45 pm

Adama wrote:
Fine then doc, by your own admission, you are just full of air. Nothing means anything. Let's not pretend that evolution has evidence to back it. Nobody can remotely cite any evidence to support it, except moths which changed color and the fact that bacteria resist antibiotics, neither of which is a change over time into a new type of organism, nor does either imply that is possible. Evolution can not be proven or even observed, because the theory states that it takes millions of years for one species to evolve into another. Therefore it isnt science, because it can not be observed. It is simply a belief.


We conservatives understand that words mean things. I know some people have a hard time with this concept.
No idea why you are directing your opinions about evolution twords me. I made no comments on evolution at all.
Not sure where you got your science education, if you ever got any, but you are mistaken when you claim that a therory status it takes millions of years for one species to evolve into another.
Farmer308
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:29 pm







Re: Evolution Debunked

Postby Farmer308 » Fri Nov 13, 2015 5:48 pm

Blue Murder wrote:
Farmer308 wrote:(shrug) I guess if you see everything through a narrow American point of view.

(shrug) I guess if you see everything through a narrow Kiwi point of view. I'm not even American you doink. Try again.


I I didn't think you were American. I got the idea the you are Australian?
The issues you mentioned are issues that some of the less advanced countries still struggle with.
Farmer308
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: Evolution Debunked

Postby Blue Murder » Fri Nov 13, 2015 6:18 pm

Farmer308 wrote:
Blue Murder wrote:
Farmer308 wrote:(shrug) I guess if you see everything through a narrow American point of view.

(shrug) I guess if you see everything through a narrow Kiwi point of view. I'm not even American you doink. Try again.


I I didn't think you were American. I got the idea the you are Australian?
The issues you mentioned are issues that some of the less advanced countries still struggle with.

"Less advanced". Ha.
Self-improvement addict. Always striving for perfection.
Blue Murder
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 10:25 pm
Location: Climbing that mountain; reaching that plateau.

Re: Evolution Debunked

Postby MarcosZeitola » Fri Nov 13, 2015 6:31 pm

The very fact that most of the guys on this site will never reproduce is evidence of evolution being real.
User avatar
MarcosZeitola
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 7:13 pm
Location: Phillipines

Re: Evolution Debunked

Postby gsjackson » Fri Nov 13, 2015 6:57 pm

Farmer308 wrote:
Adama wrote:


Yet this man cited evidence for the germ theory of disease but not for evolution.


Uh, no I didn't cite any evidence for germ theory. My point was not to defend evolution, but to educate the scientifically illiterate about what a theory is and what it means.

My understanding is that to qualify as a scientific theory something must have predictive value. What predictive value does evolution have? Does it say, for example, that we're going to grow cell phones on our hands? With the emerging cultural idiocracy, is it predicting the survival of the stupidest?

Evolution is an account of natural history that has all kinds of holes in it, but serves a useful purpose as a class signifier. Those who fancy themselves among the educated elite can identify themselves to the similarly self-regarding by mouthing the usual mindless generalities about the "overwhelming" evidence for evolution and the idiocy of those who just can't or won't see this.

Please feel free to overwhelm with the evidence, or to clarify your notions of what a theory is.
gsjackson
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:08 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA USA

Re: Evolution Debunked

Postby Farmer308 » Fri Nov 13, 2015 7:01 pm

gsjackson wrote:
Farmer308 wrote:
Adama wrote:


Yet this man cited evidence for the germ theory of disease but not for evolution.


Uh, no I didn't cite any evidence for germ theory. My point was not to defend evolution, but to educate the scientifically illiterate about what a theory is and what it means.

My understanding is that to qualify as a scientific theory something must have predictive value. What predictive value does evolution have? Does it say, for example, that we're going to grow cell phones on our hands? With the emerging cultural idiocracy, is it predicting the survival of the stupidest?

Evolution is an account of natural history that has all kinds of holes in it, but serves a useful purpose as a class signifier. Those who fancy themselves among the educated elite can identify themselves to the similarly self-regarding by mouthing the usual mindless generalities about the "overwhelming" evidence for evolution and the idiocy of those who just can't or won't see this.

Please feel free to overwhelm with the evidence, or to clarify your notions of what a theory is.


This site provides a readable explanation of what a therory is.

http://m.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
Farmer308
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: Evolution Debunked

Postby gsjackson » Fri Nov 13, 2015 7:37 pm

Farmer308 wrote:
gsjackson wrote:
Farmer308 wrote:
Adama wrote:


Yet this man cited evidence for the germ theory of disease but not for evolution.


Uh, no I didn't cite any evidence for germ theory. My point was not to defend evolution, but to educate the scientifically illiterate about what a theory is and what it means.

My understanding is that to qualify as a scientific theory something must have predictive value. What predictive value does evolution have? Does it say, for example, that we're going to grow cell phones on our hands? With the emerging cultural idiocracy, is it predicting the survival of the stupidest?

Evolution is an account of natural history that has all kinds of holes in it, but serves a useful purpose as a class signifier. Those who fancy themselves among the educated elite can identify themselves to the similarly self-regarding by mouthing the usual mindless generalities about the "overwhelming" evidence for evolution and the idiocy of those who just can't or won't see this.

Please feel free to overwhelm with the evidence, or to clarify your notions of what a theory is.


This site provides a readable explanation of what a theory is.

http://m.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html


Yes, this article says that theories are predictive. How is evolution predictive in any way? Of what use is it, other than the ways it has been traditionally used -- as a polemical battering ram against traditional belief systems, and as a class signifier? In other words, as a weapon in status warfare. And oh yeah, as WJ Bryan and others pointed out back in the 19th century, as a justification for racial supremacy theories.
gsjackson
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:08 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA USA

Re: Evolution Debunked

Postby Farmer308 » Fri Nov 13, 2015 8:25 pm

gsjackson wrote:Yes, this article says that theories are predictive. How is evolution predictive in any way? Of what use is it, other than the ways it has been traditionally used -- as a polemical battering ram against traditional belief systems, and as a class signifier? In other words, as a weapon in status warfare. And oh yeah, as WJ Bryan and others pointed out back in the 19th century, as a justification for racial supremacy theories.


I am responding to the false comment that evolution is called a theory because there are real problems with it.
That is not what a theory is. Of there was little evidence to support something it would not have risen to the status of a theory.
Your assertion that evolution is used as a battering ram against traditional beliefs and as a class indicator is new to me. I have never heard anyone else say that.
Farmer308
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: Evolution Debunked

Postby Farmer308 » Fri Nov 13, 2015 8:27 pm

What is the evidence supporting any of the various creation myths?
Farmer308
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: Evolution Debunked

Postby Winston » Tue Dec 22, 2015 1:34 am

Farmer308 wrote:
gsjackson wrote:Yes, this article says that theories are predictive. How is evolution predictive in any way? Of what use is it, other than the ways it has been traditionally used -- as a polemical battering ram against traditional belief systems, and as a class signifier? In other words, as a weapon in status warfare. And oh yeah, as WJ Bryan and others pointed out back in the 19th century, as a justification for racial supremacy theories.


I am responding to the false comment that evolution is called a theory because there are real problems with it.
That is not what a theory is. Of there was little evidence to support something it would not have risen to the status of a theory.
Your assertion that evolution is used as a battering ram against traditional beliefs and as a class indicator is new to me. I have never heard anyone else say that.

What is the evidence supporting any of the various creation myths?


LOL Why is it that most non-religion men have a BIAS toward believing Darwinian Evolution even though it has ZERO evolution to support it and contradicts basic principles of science and logic? LOL. It's ridiculous. I can only think of two possible explanations:

1. Most non-religious men like to believe that THEY are in control of everything, especially their lives. They don't like the idea of a higher power like God or deities running things. They prefer to believe that everything is due to chance, coincidence and human choices. That gives them a feeling that they are in CONTROL, not unseen forces out there. The male ego likes to feel in control. Also, Evolution theory fits left brained logic, which men like. So they have a natural BIAS toward Evolution.

2. To accept intelligent design in the universe and in life on Earth, means that one would have to seek answers to life's meaning in religion, spirituality and philosophy. Most non-religious men don't want to feel obligated to do that. They prefer focusing on simple practical things like making money, building things, construction projects, eating food, driving cars, finding a woman, raising a family, etc. They don't want to deal with deeper mysteries of life which they can't control or touch. That's basic male nature. So they prefer to believe that Evolution explains everything and that's that. It's their BIAS.

Make sense?

Anyway, to answer your question Farmer308, yes there is evidence supporting some creation stories. Consider the following:

1. Many creation stories from many ancient cultures have common motifs and themes. For example, the idea of gods from the sky coming down to give mankind language and knowledge, flying craft, worldwide flood, Adam and Eve, the gods creating man from genetic manipulation, etc. If you watch the History Channel series "Ancient Aliens", they document many examples of this in abundance. So the creation stories have many commonalities even though they originated in different regions of the world.

2. The genes and DNA of humans is different from the rest of the animals on Earth. We do have some animal elements in our DNA. But 95 percent of our DNA is junk DNA, which means there are many unknown elements in our genes that other animals and species on Earth do NOT share. So we seem to be a HYBRID of animal traits and unknown alien/ET traits. That fits the creation stories about the gods creating mankind through genetic intervention and cross breeding. Read the Sumerian creation myths that say exactly that.

But regardless of all that, Evolution is 100 percent FALSE and IMPOSSIBLE. It has ZERO evidence to support it, is just a stupid BELIEF with no basis, and contradicts basic science and logic. It's definitely NOT a fact. That's just religious brainwashing from atheists who are programmed with an agenda to reject religion and spirituality and embrace materialism and the belief that we are just machines and animals. This kind of belief lowers our consciousness and makes us into machines that are easy to control. Unfortunately, a lot of you guys have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker. You guys are so GULLIBLE and cannot see obvious lies. I'm sure the two explanations above are a factor too.

Another simple logical proof is this: Everything created by nature is in harmony with nature. All creatures in nature give and take in harmony. This includes all plants, insects, and animals. Nothing created by nature destroys or plunders nature. Only mankind does. This means that mankind could not solely have come from nature itself. It must have origins OUTSIDE and BEYOND nature. And only mankind is capable of cruelty or evil, animals are not. So there is definitely something very different and UNNATURAL about mankind. Simple logic demonstrates that.

Furthermore, there is no explanation or mechanism in Evolution that can account for the onset of human intelligence, regardless of how many millions of years you put into the equation. The rise of human intelligence is unique and does not follow any natural path observed in nature or animal species. It's a complete inexplicable mystery to scientists, biologists and evolutionists.

Besides that, there is vast incontrovertible evidence of INTELLIGENT DESIGN in humans and all organisms. But that's another topic.

For now, consider the following:

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/

"Since 2001, many scientists conducting research in genetics and embryology have discovered more than just a few Darwin Busters.

Here are four Darwin Busters:

Darwin Buster One: Darwinians have been dead wrong whenever they have claimed that the "genetic matter of ape and humans is 98% identical." The ape and human chromosomes are remarkably divergent and too different for "ape to human evolution" theory to adequately explain. For example, the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.

Darwin Buster Two: There are laws of embryology that directly contradict "ape to human evolution." One reason is that genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development. This makes it impossible to add genes to any genome because there is no way to coordinate any new gene with existing genes. Yet "ape to human evolution" requires apes and humans to be able to add genes - for example, the chimpanzee Y chromosome has 37 genes and the human Y chromosome has at least 78 genes.

Darwin Buster Three: The laws of genetics prevent "ape to human evolution" from ever taking place. One reason is there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes. But "ape to human evolution" relies on apes and humans having the ability to create new genes with new functions. New genes are required in order to have morphological changes, such as gills into lungs or more efficient brains. So called "gene duplication" is not evidence that organisms can create new genes. Although bacteria can duplicate existing genes by mistake through "gene duplication," this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.

Darwin Buster Four: Darwinians have no explanation for why humans and apes have a different number of chromosomes. Darwinians claim that "chromosome fusion" of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome resulted in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs. But there is not one example of "chromosome fusion" in mammals. Darwinians claim that 1 in 1000 human babies have a "fused chromosome" but this is an out and out lie. They are actually referring to Robertsonian Translocations, which are "translocations" and not fused chromosomes and does not result in a change in the chromosome number. Besides, scientifically derived facts refute "chromosome fusion" can occur in apes or humans.

We have just provided you with a summary of four Darwin Busters. Each one busts and invalidates "ape to human evolution.""


Also, see this video called "The Greatest Lie Ever Told" by White Rabbit where Evolution is totally debunked by science, facts, logic, reason and common sense. After you see it, you will hit yourself on the head and feel totally foolish and ridiculous for falling for the claims of Evolution.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1ufK04tjOI[/youtube]

However, just because Evolution is false, does not automatically mean that the Biblical creation story is true or that the Bible is true and that you have to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved so that you won't go to hell. That does not automatically follow, as Christians claim. All it means is that YES, there is intelligent design by an intelligent CREATOR. This creator could be God, or a group of creators (gods), or even a computer programmer if we are living inside a computer simulation, as many cosmologists are beginning to believe. That's all it means, not that any particular religion or Bible has all the answers.

You see, the fallacy here that both Creationists and Evolutionists presuppose, without basis, is that if there's a creator, then this creator MUST be ONE God that is all powerful, infallible and perfect. But that doesn't logically follow. That's like assuming that if someone built my house, then only ONE person could have built it, when in reality a team of workers actually built it. It simply doesn't logically follow that a creator can ONLY be one, as people automatically assume. There is more than one of everything in the universe, so why can't there be more than one god or creator? Even a video game simulation is usually designed by a team of designers, not just one. And there is plenty of evidence that we are living in a computer simulation, and that's why the universe seems to be fine tuned, ala the "Anthropic Principle", and follow mathematical formulas and patterns.

It also does not logically follow that a creator or god MUST automatically be perfect, all good and infallible. That is another fallacy and assumption that people just automatically assume because religion says so. That's like saying that the people who built my house must be infallible and perfect and all good, just because they were the builders. It's ridiculous, unwarranted and simply doesn't logically follow. Just because a god or creator is bigger and more powerful than you, does not mean it must be a good moral being that is perfect and infallible. That's like an ANT looking up at YOU and thinking "Wow this human is huge and powerful. He or she must be perfect, infallible and all good." Would that ant be right in assuming that? No of course not. Humans are not perfect or infallible or all good as we all know. So again, it does NOT logically follow that just because something is bigger and more powerful than you, or higher up, that that being must be perfect, infallible and totally good, devoid of any evil or bad traits or faults. That's a fallacy and assumption that people automatically assume without thinking and without basis.
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23573
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Re: Evolution Debunked

Postby Ghost » Tue Dec 22, 2015 1:45 am

Couldn't both intelligent design and evolution be true, with evolution being the method? I also don't understand why evolution is considered inherently atheistic. Evolution doesn't prove that there is no God. It doesn't even suggest it.

Genesis is allegorical, and I think the story can line-up with evolution in some ways, such as the order in which God created things, and a verse stating that "the earth brought forth life."

Abiogenesis has never been proven. But even if it was proven, it still wouldn't prove there is no God. At best, wouldn't that just show that God wasn't strictly necessary for life to come about? Creationists get wound up over evolution, but the thing that could show that God isn't necessary for life - abiogenesis - has never been proven.
Ghost
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5749
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:23 am

Re: Evolution Debunked - A Total Lie and Impossibility

Postby Winston » Tue Dec 22, 2015 2:05 am

This is a GREAT MUST READ article for all you guys. It contains tons of irrefutable FACTS to beat into Evolutionists' cranium. LOL

http://henrymakow.com/2013/08/Darwinism-is-an-Illuminati-Scam.html

The Illuminati have long known that if you destroy belief in God, people will cease to fear God and to obey the Ten Commandments. They then become pawns of the Illuminati, willing to serve money instead of principle, and carry out iniquities from sexual misdeeds to even murder.

In the Illuminati propaganda arsenal, the greatest tool for destroying faith in God has been Darwin's theory of evolution. I know some say "I believe in evolution and God." Nonetheless, countless people have become atheists from being taught the theory as "fact" - I was once one of them.

However, Darwinism cannot be challenged on morals alone. The public has been told evolution is "science," on a footing with physics and chemistry. Therefore Darwinism must be challenged on scientific grounds.

As author of two books on Darwin's spurious theory, I know one cannot discredit, in a few paragraphs, an idea which the Illuminati have spent millions to indoctrinate society with. But let's dent it, shall we?

GENETIC CODE DERIVED FROM CHANCE?

Darwin claimed life began eons ago from chance chemical processes. From the first living cell, all life evolved. This might have been plausible in Darwin's day, when cells were considered simple. But no longer. Even a bacterial cell requires thousands of different proteins ­- each composed of hundreds of amino acids in precise order. Francis Crick, who co-discovered DNA's structure, estimated the odds of getting just ONE protein by chance as one in 10 to the power of 260 - a number beyond imagination.

To function, cells require the genetic code, which is far more complex than Windows 8's codes. Would anyone argue the latter could derive from chance?

Further, the primordial cell must have perfected - in the span of one lifetime - the process of cellular reproduction; otherwise there never would have been a second cell. Yet, despite mathematic implausibility, and a dearth of supporting evidence, schoolchildren are still taught that life began from a chance arrangement of chemicals.

According to Darwinism, single cells eventually evolved into invertebrates (creatures without backbones like jellyfish), then successively into fish, amphibians, reptiles, and finally mammals. Darwin said this occurred from creatures adapting to environments.

The discovery of genetics threatened this claim. New organs require new genes. Just moving into new environments doesn't give you new genes.

This initially stumped Darwinists, but they eventually found a solution. Random mutations - copying mistakes in the genetic code - occur very rarely, but DO alter genetic information. So modern evolutionists said animals gained new genes by chance mutations, which made them more fit, and which they adapted to evolve into higher forms.

Dr. Lee Spetner, who taught information theory for years at Johns Hopkins University and the Weizman Institute, discredits this in his book Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. Spetner demonstrates that random mutations destroy genetic information and function - never increase it. Mutations are to the genetic code what typos are to a book. In humans, mutations cause sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, Down's syndrome, and thousands of other diseases. Spetner shows that even the rare "beneficial mutations" evolutionists trumpet - such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics - actually result from functional losses.

If, as evolutionists claim, bacteria evolved successively into invertebrates, then fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, there must have been countless "transitional stages." Think about it. For a fish to become a land creature, turning its fins into legs would require new bones, new muscles, new nerves - and while it was adapting to life on land, a new breathing system. Since this supposedly happened from chance mutations - very rare events - innumerable creatures would have to live and die during the intermediate period.

So where's EVIDENCE for these transitionals? Not in the living world. Among bacteria, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, there are many thousands of species, but no intermediate species between these groups. That's one reason why Carl Linnaeus, father of taxonomy (the science that classifies the living world) was a creationist. Evolutionists try to explain the missing intermediates by saying "they all became extinct" (a convenient euphemism for "we ain't got proof"). A more apt reason for their nonexistence: they never existed.

Evolutionists therefore rely on fossils of extinct creatures as their evidence for these transitional stages. Yet while fossils show variations within types, they do not validate the transitions between major animal groups Darwin's theory requires.

For example, while billions of invertebrate fossils exist, fossils illustrating their alleged evolution from simple ancestors are missing. Furthermore, the study of fossils has a storied history of error. In 1912, the announcement of "Piltdown Man" led the New York Times to exclaim in a headline: "Darwin Theory Proved True." For four decades the British Museum displayed this supposedly 500,000-year old "apeman" - until it was exposed as a hoax: an orangutan jaw and human skull had been planted together, stained to look old, with their teeth filed down.

Genuine fossils can be equally deceiving. Evolutionists called the coelacanth - a fossil fish claimed to be extinct for millions of years - a transitional form between fish and amphibians, its fins said to be "limb-like." Then people started catching live coelacanths, and they were 100 percent fish - no amphibian characteristics. Why are fossils tricky? Because, as molecular biologist Michael Denton notes in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 99 percent of an animal's biology resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible through fossils. This disposes them to subjective interpretations.

Which brings us to our closing point. Evolution is not a science like physics or chemistry, which comprise repeatable, testable knowledge. Water boils at 100 degrees centigrade. This can be tested countless times. If I argued that water boils at 75 degrees, you could easily test and disprove my hypothesis.

But take evolutionary claims. Darwin said we lost our body hair because our apelike ancestors preferred mates with less hair. How do you disprove that? How do you disprove that "Lucy" (fossil bones found in Africa) was our ancestor? Laws of physics and chemistry can be tested in present time. Evolution, however, mostly constitutes opinions about the past, and one cannot test the past with the same authority as the present.

I'm out of time - but you're not. For more information, see my book Tornado Junkyard, or my short Case Against Darwin, or websites such as www.trueorigin.org and www.answersingenesis.org.
--

James Perloff is author of The Shadows of Power and Tornado in a Junkyard. His newest new book, Truth Is a Lonely Warrior, is a comprehensive look at the satanic drive for world government. It is available here on Kindle.

Related-
Darwin's theory of evolution: good science or a steaming pile of dung?
James Perloff is author of The Shadows of Power and Tornado in a Junkyard. His newest new book, Truth Is a Lonely Warrior, available in Kindle format, is a comprehensive look at the satanic drive for world government. - See more at: http://henrymakow.com/2013/07/the-hindenburg-another-false-flag.html#sthash.gLvgt1ox.dpuf
First Comment from Dan:

Perloff's right. Charles Darwin had an agenda. He didn't come up with Darwinism, he was just the messenger.

Darwinism is the cosmology of Freemasonry. See 2001: A Space Odyssey for the Masonic version of Genesis, in which Cain is the 'good guy' and Abel is the schmuck. Darwin's grandfather had attempted to pass off evolution as a science hypothesis in the 18th century. In his version, all life came from a single microbe. That never got traction, so a generation later, grandson Charles gave took another run at it. Charles was bipolar and lacked charisma, so the orator Thomas Huxley took up the lance of 'Darwinism'. A genius publicist, the press dubbed him "Darwin's Bulldog".

Darwin's famous book was originally titled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

The title is very important. He didn't simply propose that species change over time, but that 'fitness' is the only qualification for survival. In one stroke the human race becomes on par with animals. The highest authority in an indifferent Universe is the creature with highest kill ratio. Morality becomes what you can get away with, etc, etc.

Erasmus Darwin was initiated in the famous Time Immemorial Lodge of Cannongate Kilwinning, No. 2, of Scotland, 1758. As 3rd generation (at least) Charles Darwin qualified for the invisible secret society above exoteric Freemasonry.
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/darwin_e/darwin_e.html
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23573
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Re: Evolution Debunked - A Total Lie and Impossibility

Postby fschmidt » Tue Dec 22, 2015 2:08 am

Human intelligence debunked. Please, I beg intelligent aliens from another planet, beam me up.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
fschmidt
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2118
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 8:16 am
Location: El Paso, TX

Re: Evolution Debunked

Postby Winston » Tue Dec 22, 2015 2:40 am

Ghost wrote:Couldn't both intelligent design and evolution be true, with evolution being the method? I also don't understand why evolution is considered inherently atheistic. Evolution doesn't prove that there is no God. It doesn't even suggest it.

Genesis is allegorical, and I think the story can line-up with evolution in some ways, such as the order in which God created things, and a verse stating that "the earth brought forth life."

Abiogenesis has never been proven. But even if it was proven, it still wouldn't prove there is no God. At best, wouldn't that just show that God wasn't strictly necessary for life to come about? Creationists get wound up over evolution, but the thing that could show that God isn't necessary for life - abiogenesis - has never been proven.


I guess both intelligent design and evolution could be true, if you want to believe that. It's an attempt at taking a middle ground. However, consider the following:

1. Popular atheists and staunch evolutionists say that the theory of evolution makes God "unnecessary". They use that word, "unnecessary", many times in their books and lectures. Listen to famous atheists like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, for example, and you will see that they keep saying that Evolution makes God UNNECESSARY, because Evolution can explain everything pertaining to the origin of life. That's their position that they try to ram down everyone's throats. Either way, Evolution is definitely a STEPPING STONE toward Atheism, which is why Atheists embrace it so much and so religiously. Ask Atheists, and that's what they will tell you, that Evolution invalidates God and makes him unnecessary. Thus they have no reason to believe in him. That's why to them, Evolution is evidence against God, ultimately.

2. Evolution is not just unproven. It is FALSE and IMPOSSIBLE as well. For example, for apes and hominids to have evolved into humans, there would have to be many countless transitional species between ape and man for that to be possible. Yet there are NONE. ZERO. NADA. ZILCH. And for reptiles to have evolved into birds, there would have to be many transitions species between reptiles and birds. Yet there are NONE. ZERO. Charles Darwin even admitted in his book "Origin of the Species" in the chapter "Problems with Theory" that if no transitional species were found, then his theory would probably be wrong. And he was right, so even by Darwin's own standard, his theory is WRONG.

In fact, Evolutionists have had to resort to FRAUDS and HOAXES to try to find such transitional species between man and apes. For example, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, and Lucy, were all HOAXES by desperate Evolutionists to try to find the missing links. Now, LOGIC would say that if Evolution were true, and there were plenty of REAL transitional species and fossils available, then these Evolutionists WOULD NOT have to resort to FRAUDS and HOAXES to try to prove their theory. They could just use REAL transitional fossils to show the missing links. But they don't have any! BUSTED! That fact alone is very damning and defeats their case.

Also, in the early 20th Century, when DNA was discovered, it was shown to be a closed genome system. Mutations could not add or change it. And the DNA structure was far more elaborate and complex than the codes for Windows 8, that it could not have come from chance or evolution. Even the co-discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, said that DNA could NOT have evolved from chance. Would you believe that the codes in Windows 8 could evolve from chance? Or that the parts in your smart phone could evolve from chance? Or that a tornado could blow through a junk yard and create a fully functioning Boeing 747 from chance? That's ridiculous of course, but that's what Evolutionists would have to believe.

Remember that even a single celled organism is highly complex. In just ONE single cell, there are THOUSANDS of parts that work together in harmony, like a clock or TV or radio. Thousands of parts working together in harmony could NOT have evolved from chance. No way. Not anymore than your smart phone or iPhone could have come about by chance and random mutations and natural selection. No way. We all know that, so why do many persist in the ridiculousness of Evolution? Very odd.

Also, in the 20th Century, the best chemists and evolutionists in the world have tried in the lab to create living cells, using pools of inanimate matter and electricity to stimulate lightning, to try to prove the Evolutionary theory that the first living cells first came about from lightning striking mud pools of dead chemicals. Stanley Miller tried for years to do this in the 1950's. Yet all these attempts have COMPLETELY FAILED, 100 PERCENT! They never came close to creating living cells. Cells could not have come about by random forces. You can break open a cell in a test tube, fill it with chemicals conducive to life, and see that the parts of the cell will NOT randomly form into a living cell. Never happened.

Finally, random mutations have NEVER been beneficial to a species or organism. All observed random mutations have been disadvantageous and resulted in damage or early death in that organism. There has NEVER been one documented case of random mutations being beneficial to an organism. NEVER.

So you see, look at the big picture and you will see that the theory of Darwinian Evolution and God working together just doesn't add up or jive or make any sense at all. The theory of evolution is not only unproven, but false and impossible as well. So why would we need to posit a theory involving both God and Evolution working together? Furthermore, Evolution does not explain the origin of life, even of single cells, and does not explain the existence of intelligent design as well. So why is Evolution necessary? That's the question you should ask.
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23573
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Re: Evolution Debunked - A Total Lie and Impossibility

Postby Winston » Tue Dec 22, 2015 2:50 am

fschmidt wrote:Human intelligence debunked. Please, I beg intelligent aliens from another planet, beam me up.


Excuse me, but if you believe in religious traditional morals and values, and in godless Darwinian Evolution at the same time, then you need to have your head examined. That is a very hypocritical position that is contradictory in basic logic. Please explain how you reconcile those two.

Also, didn't you say you were an Atheist once? If so, how can you believe in religion and atheism at the same time? That makes no sense. They are mutually exclusive. Can you please elaborate? That is a very unusual position. How do you reconcile or synthesize traditional religion and atheism? You must be an odd bird.
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23573
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Kradmelder and 7 guests