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 - A Total Lie and Impossibility

Postby Winston » Tue Dec 22, 2015 2:58 am

This totally destroys the "Apes to Human" Evolution theory and closes the case and ends the debate.

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/

SUMMARY OF "APE TO HUMAN EVOLUTION" THEORY

Darwinians have asserted that humans evolved from the African ape, and they have proposed the following theory as to how "ape to human evolution" is supposed to have occurred:

Ape to Human Evolution Theory In a Nutshell

Darwinians tell us that the biological differences between humans and apes can be entirely accounted for in the differences in their genes (DNA).

They have claimed for decades that the "genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical."

They insist that apes evolved into humans because of gradual changes to their genome. The biological instrument for "ape to human evolution" is changes in the genome, especially the genes.

Darwinians further theorize that each such change in the apes' genes was minor but over the course of over six million years, the accumulation of such small changes in the genes of apes resulted in "ape to human evolution."

Darwin's supporters boast that there are "genes that make us human" and that soon they will find and identify all such genes.

In summary - Darwinians claim the ape genome evolved into the human genome through changes in apes' genes and very few changes were necessary because the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.

But since 2001, scientific researchers in genetics and embryology have discovered proof that virtually every detail of "ape to human evolution" is contradicted by scientific facts.

Below are some of the recent discoveries that prove "ape to human evolution" is impossible.

APE AND HUMAN CHROMOSOMES ARE NOT 98% IDENTICAL

BUT ARE TOO DIFFERENT FOR EVOLUTION TO EXPLAIN


Scientists in genetics and embryology are learning something new every day.

One of the things we now know is Darwinians were lying to us when they insisted that the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.

During the last 12 years, there has been a steady flow of scientific discoveries informing us that Chimpanzee and human chromosomes are so remarkably different that it is inconceivable for the ape genome to evolve into the human genome. For example:

In 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." (Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)

The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of "ape to human evolution."

Nonetheless, they found that:

* The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.

* The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes.

Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.

Below are maps of the Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes:

Image

The top map is the Chimpanzee Y chromosome and the lower map is the human Y chromosome.

"Ape to human evolution" theory asserts that the Chimpanzee Y chromosome (top one) evolved into the human Y chromosome (the lower one) and few changes were necessary.

That is obviously baloney - there is no way that could have happened.

There is no genetic mechanism that could have rearranged the genes in the Chimpanzee Y chromosome to become the human Y chromosome.

The two chromosomes are so different it is like comparing the chromosomes of humans to those of chickens.

The regions of both chromosomes are color coded to identify the gene family or DNA type as follows (MSY means male specific region of the Y chromosome):

Image

APE TO HUMAN EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE

APES AND HUMANS CANNOT ADD GENES TO THEIR GENOMES


The same research paper also revealed that the human Y chromosome has at least 35 more genes than the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Below is the gene table:

Image

The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have 41 more genes.

This means that in order for the ape Y chromosome to evolve into the human Y chromosome, apes had to add 41 genes. In order for apes to add genes, they would have to have a genetic mechanism to generate new genes and insert them into their chromosomes.

But apes do not have any "gene generating system."

Nor do apes have a "gene insertion system."

This means that "ape to human evolution" theory is missing the genetic mechanisms necessary for evolution to actually take place.

This is ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE that proves "ape to human evolution" is impossible,
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: 23570
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm







Re: Evolution Debunked - A Total Lie and Impossibility

Postby Winston » Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:01 am

You Evolutionists need to get some COLD HARD FACTS straight into your cranium that makes you look like fools. Here they are:

Evolution is not just unproven. It is FALSE and IMPOSSIBLE as well.

1. 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.

Natural selection means that the weaker members of a species die early of disease and predators. It does not mean that one species can become another species. Also, odbo made a good point before here:

viewtopic.php?p=55121#p55121
Legitimate questions
If birds evolved from reptiles, how did the wings form? If a reptile started growing wings little by little, it would be at a disadvantage. Survival of the fittest seems to dictate it would become extinct. Someone please explain this.


2. Also, in the early 20th Century, when DNA was discovered, it was shown to be a closed genome system. Mutations could not add genes or take away from them. And the DNA structure was far more elaborate and complex than the codes for Windows 8 or any super computer, so that it could NOT have come from chance or natural selection 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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. When Richard Dawkins was asked for an example of mutations adding new information to the genome, he was stumped and could not think of any.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

So you see, the theory of evolution is not only unproven, but false and impossible as well. There is ZERO evidence that one species can evolve or transform into another species. No transitional species have ever been found between man and ape or even between reptiles and birds. And the few "transitional species" that have been alleged have all turned out to be either hoaxes, or types of animals or fish that have been around for a long time. Furthermore, the evidence from DNA and genes also show a locked genome system, which shown intelligent design beyond the complexity of the best supercomputers today. And random mutations have NEVER been shown to produce new organs or add new information to genomes or produce new genes. In fact, random mutations have ALWAYS been observed to be disadvantageous and detrimental to life, NEVER beneficial.

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.

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.

In spite of all this, most non-religious males have a BIAS in leaning toward Evolution for some reason, even though it has ZERO evolution to support it and contradicts basic principles of science and logic? I wonder why. I can only postulate 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?
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: 23570
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Re: Evolution Debunked - A Total Lie and Impossibility

Postby fschmidt » Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:08 am

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


Dear extraterrestrials,

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBumEYgnBuQ[/youtube]
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 Ghost » Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:04 am

Winston wrote: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.


They may say it, but that's because they have agendas. Just because they say something doesn't make it true. Experts frequently rely on the fallacy of authority to push agendas. Evolution is not evidence for or against God. And it certainly doesn't invalidate the existence of God. It doesn't even make God unnecessary.

2. Evolution is not just unproven. It is FALSE and IMPOSSIBLE as well.


I would have to ask what your definition of evolution is then. Evolution does happen. And please don't say that it's impossible that we evolved from monkeys or baboons. No "evolutionist" (biologist?) believes that either. :)

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.


What counts as a "transitional species"? And the theory of evolution didn't stop with Darwin, a mistake that most creationists make. They act as if scientists everywhere have a shrine to Darwin in their labs or something. Darwin popularized it. He wasn't the end of it.


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.


So we need to go back to asking what counts as a transitional form?

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.


Evolution doesn't happen by random chance. That's a creationist misunderstanding. It's called natural selection, you know. (i.e. NOT chance.)

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.


This is where the meat is, IMO. If abiogenesis could be proved true, then that's what would make God unnecessary. (Though not impossible.) Evolution happens, but abiogensis has never been proven or demonstrated or observed. The Miller-Urey experiment showed that they could "create" amino acids from the chemicals, but that's as far as they got.

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.


Are you sure? :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Beneficial_mutations

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_06

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.


It's not meant to explain the origin of life. Evolution explains the origin of species. Abiogenesis is what you're talking about, and that's where the issue lies, IMO. Evolution happens. There's no concrete and definitive evidence that abiogensis ever has.
Ghost
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5749
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:23 am

Re: Evolution Debunked

Postby Winston » Wed Dec 23, 2015 5:19 am

Ghost wrote:
Winston wrote: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.


They may say it, but that's because they have agendas. Just because they say something doesn't make it true. Experts frequently rely on the fallacy of authority to push agendas. Evolution is not evidence for or against God. And it certainly doesn't invalidate the existence of God. It doesn't even make God unnecessary.

2. Evolution is not just unproven. It is FALSE and IMPOSSIBLE as well.


I would have to ask what your definition of evolution is then. Evolution does happen. And please don't say that it's impossible that we evolved from monkeys or baboons. No "evolutionist" (biologist?) believes that either. :)

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.


What counts as a "transitional species"? And the theory of evolution didn't stop with Darwin, a mistake that most creationists make. They act as if scientists everywhere have a shrine to Darwin in their labs or something. Darwin popularized it. He wasn't the end of it.


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.


So we need to go back to asking what counts as a transitional form?

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.


Evolution doesn't happen by random chance. That's a creationist misunderstanding. It's called natural selection, you know. (i.e. NOT chance.)

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.


This is where the meat is, IMO. If abiogenesis could be proved true, then that's what would make God unnecessary. (Though not impossible.) Evolution happens, but abiogensis has never been proven or demonstrated or observed. The Miller-Urey experiment showed that they could "create" amino acids from the chemicals, but that's as far as they got.

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.


Are you sure? :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Beneficial_mutations

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_06

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.


It's not meant to explain the origin of life. Evolution explains the origin of species. Abiogenesis is what you're talking about, and that's where the issue lies, IMO. Evolution happens. There's no concrete and definitive evidence that abiogensis ever has.


My definition of evolution is that humans evolved from monkeys, or that one species evolved into another. We are talking about macro evolution here. Not micro evolution. We are talking about the theory that apes evolved into man. Come on. You know that. You yourself said that that kind of evolution is unproven. Yet the atheists are claiming that it's fact. Go figure.

A transitional species means like a species that would be the transitional form between apes/hominids and humans. Science has been looking for them for a long time. Charles Darwin wrote about them in his book "Origin of the Species". Haven't you read it? A transitional species between apes and humans would have characteristics of both. They have never been found, so evolutionists have had to resort to frauds like Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, and Lucy to try to prove them.

I already explained all this. How is this not clear?

Sorry but neo evolutionists today do use the word "chance" and "random mutations". Even Darwin used the term "random mutations" in his book. It's not only a word creationists use. Read the books and articles by evolutionists and you will see. Sorry you are wrong on that one.

Natural selection means that weaker organisms die out from disease or predators or their own handicaps and inability to adapt. It doesn't mean that one species can transition into another species, like ape to man. It also means that organisms can adapt to their environment by developing new traits. But new traits doesn't transform one species into another.

Atheists love the word chance and randomness. They believe that everything can be explained by those terms and they try to do so. For example, they try to attribute all psychic phenomena to chance, and the whole field of astrology as well. To atheists, chance/randomness is God, their God at least. To them, it explains everything, including the origin of life itself.

Their theory is that a random bolt of lightning hitting a pool of dead mud created the first living cells. Lots of random events eventually create patterns. That's their argument. But it doesn't hold water. Some things have irreducible complexity, such as the tail of a flagellan, which if missing one part, cannot work at all, thus could not have slowly evolved.

By "abiogenesis" you mean the transition from one species to another right? If so, then we seem to be in agreement.

Ok so there are a few examples of mutations being beneficial, such as the immunity of some people to the Bubonic Plague of Europe, aka "the Black Death". Science says that those who survived have a mutation in their immune system that protected them. But these examples are rare. Mutations may be beneficial once in a blue moon. But the majority of them are not beneficial.

But evolution has never explained the origin of species. Why do you say it does? How does evolution explain the origin of humans? Or even of any life? There is no evidence that single celled organisms or bacteria ever grew to become animals.

Do you understand my points now? They should be very clear.
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: 23570
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Re: Evolution Debunked

Postby Ghost » Wed Dec 23, 2015 9:01 am

Winston wrote:My definition of evolution is that humans evolved from monkeys, or that one species evolved into another.


Well here's the problem from the very get-go: we didn't evolve from monkeys, and no biologist claims that. Not a one. If you don't believe me, go ask a biologist if they believe that. What they claim is that we evolved from a common ancestor, which is shared with the other ape species alive today.

We are talking about macro evolution here. Not micro evolution. We are talking about the theory that apes evolved into man. Come on. You know that. You yourself said that that kind of evolution is unproven. Yet the atheists are claiming that it's fact. Go figure.


You can't prove it because we can't observe it (our evolution from a common ancestor.) We can only look at evidence and come to conclusions. It's like the old saying: proof is for mathematics.

A transitional species means like a species that would be the transitional form between apes/hominids and humans.


But I mean a specific example. And not the "crocoduck," which is silly. ;)

Science has been looking for them for a long time. Charles Darwin wrote about them in his book "Origin of the Species". Haven't you read it?


No, I haven't read it. He popularized the ToE, but the study of evolution didn't stop with Darwin. It's as if creationists can't understand that the ToE kept advancing and expanding after Darwin wrote that book.

Sorry but neo evolutionists today do use the word "chance" and "random mutations". Even Darwin used the term "random mutations" in his book. It's not only a word creationists use. Read the books and articles by evolutionists and you will see. Sorry you are wrong on that one.


What's a "neo-evolutionist"? Actually, while we're at it, what's an "evolutionist"? A biologist? Just anyone who accepts that evolution is a fact.

Natural selection means that weaker organisms die out from disease or predators or their own handicaps and inability to adapt. It doesn't mean that one species can transition into another species, like ape to man. It also means that organisms can adapt to their environment by developing new traits. But new traits doesn't transform one species into another.


Natural selection is about genes being selected too. A trait enters a gene pool ---> If the trait is useful, it gets passed on through reproduction ---> trait gets meshed into that species if successful/useful. Enough of this, and species diverge. I'm very much a layman, but I think this is the basic version of how it works. It sounds like you're mainly talking about "survival of the fittest," which IIRC was coined by an economist (it would be an economist, hahaha), not Darwin.

Atheists love the word chance and randomness. They believe that everything can be explained by those terms and they try to do so. For example, they try to attribute all psychic phenomena to chance, and the whole field of astrology as well. To atheists, chance/randomness is God, their God at least. To them, it explains everything, including the origin of life itself.


Things are getting mixed up a lot in this thread. Lol. Atheist / Evolution / Randomness & Chance / Abiogenesis are all different things but you're lumping them together like they're inseparable.

Their theory is that a random bolt of lightning hitting a pool of dead mud created the first living cells. Lots of random events eventually create patterns. That's their argument. But it doesn't hold water. Some things have irreducible complexity, such as the tail of a flagellan, which if missing one part, cannot work at all, thus could not have slowly evolved.


That's abiogenesis, which, as I said, is where the issue really lies - not with evolution.

By "abiogenesis" you mean the transition from one species to another right? If so, then we seem to be in agreement.


No, that's evolution. Abiogenesis is the whole "lightning struck a mud puddle full of chemicals and life happened" thing. And it hasn't been proven. The Miller-Urey experiment showed that amino acids could be formed like this, but life has never been created in a lab, nor observed arising from non-living chemicals in a natural setting. This is why it's the issue. Once you understand what evolution is, it becomes a matter of how hard evidence there is and what it is for. Obviously, the evidence for the divergence of fruit fly species is much stronger since it has been observed. The evidence for single-celled life evolving into present day lifeforms isn't as easy, obviously.

Ok so there are a few examples of mutations being beneficial, such as the immunity of some people to the Bubonic Plague of Europe, aka "the Black Death". Science says that those who survived have a mutation in their immune system that protected them. But these examples are rare. Mutations may be beneficial once in a blue moon. But the majority of them are not beneficial.


Now you're backpedaling because earlier you said they were never useful. Lol. Over millions of years, there are lots of "blue moons" for benefits to accrue.

But evolution has never explained the origin of species. Why do you say it does? How does evolution explain the origin of humans? Or even of any life? There is no evidence that single celled organisms or bacteria ever grew to become animals.

Do you understand my points now? They should be very clear.


You need to talk to biologists about what evolution is and isn't, firstly. Creationist sites are full of ignorance.

Whether or not one accepts that evolution is factual is another matter. Regardless, one should learn what it really is before dismissing it. Anyone who is saying that "men evolved from monkeys" doesn't have a clue. No biologist is claiming that.
Ghost
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5749
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:23 am

Re: Evolution Debunked

Postby Winston » Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:02 pm

Ghost wrote:
Winston wrote:My definition of evolution is that humans evolved from monkeys, or that one species evolved into another.


Well here's the problem from the very get-go: we didn't evolve from monkeys, and no biologist claims that. Not a one. If you don't believe me, go ask a biologist if they believe that. What they claim is that we evolved from a common ancestor, which is shared with the other ape species alive today.

We are talking about macro evolution here. Not micro evolution. We are talking about the theory that apes evolved into man. Come on. You know that. You yourself said that that kind of evolution is unproven. Yet the atheists are claiming that it's fact. Go figure.


You can't prove it because we can't observe it (our evolution from a common ancestor.) We can only look at evidence and come to conclusions. It's like the old saying: proof is for mathematics.

A transitional species means like a species that would be the transitional form between apes/hominids and humans.


But I mean a specific example. And not the "crocoduck," which is silly. ;)

Science has been looking for them for a long time. Charles Darwin wrote about them in his book "Origin of the Species". Haven't you read it?


No, I haven't read it. He popularized the ToE, but the study of evolution didn't stop with Darwin. It's as if creationists can't understand that the ToE kept advancing and expanding after Darwin wrote that book.

Sorry but neo evolutionists today do use the word "chance" and "random mutations". Even Darwin used the term "random mutations" in his book. It's not only a word creationists use. Read the books and articles by evolutionists and you will see. Sorry you are wrong on that one.


What's a "neo-evolutionist"? Actually, while we're at it, what's an "evolutionist"? A biologist? Just anyone who accepts that evolution is a fact.

Natural selection means that weaker organisms die out from disease or predators or their own handicaps and inability to adapt. It doesn't mean that one species can transition into another species, like ape to man. It also means that organisms can adapt to their environment by developing new traits. But new traits doesn't transform one species into another.


Natural selection is about genes being selected too. A trait enters a gene pool ---> If the trait is useful, it gets passed on through reproduction ---> trait gets meshed into that species if successful/useful. Enough of this, and species diverge. I'm very much a layman, but I think this is the basic version of how it works. It sounds like you're mainly talking about "survival of the fittest," which IIRC was coined by an economist (it would be an economist, hahaha), not Darwin.

Atheists love the word chance and randomness. They believe that everything can be explained by those terms and they try to do so. For example, they try to attribute all psychic phenomena to chance, and the whole field of astrology as well. To atheists, chance/randomness is God, their God at least. To them, it explains everything, including the origin of life itself.


Things are getting mixed up a lot in this thread. Lol. Atheist / Evolution / Randomness & Chance / Abiogenesis are all different things but you're lumping them together like they're inseparable.

Their theory is that a random bolt of lightning hitting a pool of dead mud created the first living cells. Lots of random events eventually create patterns. That's their argument. But it doesn't hold water. Some things have irreducible complexity, such as the tail of a flagellan, which if missing one part, cannot work at all, thus could not have slowly evolved.


That's abiogenesis, which, as I said, is where the issue really lies - not with evolution.

By "abiogenesis" you mean the transition from one species to another right? If so, then we seem to be in agreement.


No, that's evolution. Abiogenesis is the whole "lightning struck a mud puddle full of chemicals and life happened" thing. And it hasn't been proven. The Miller-Urey experiment showed that amino acids could be formed like this, but life has never been created in a lab, nor observed arising from non-living chemicals in a natural setting. This is why it's the issue. Once you understand what evolution is, it becomes a matter of how hard evidence there is and what it is for. Obviously, the evidence for the divergence of fruit fly species is much stronger since it has been observed. The evidence for single-celled life evolving into present day lifeforms isn't as easy, obviously.

Ok so there are a few examples of mutations being beneficial, such as the immunity of some people to the Bubonic Plague of Europe, aka "the Black Death". Science says that those who survived have a mutation in their immune system that protected them. But these examples are rare. Mutations may be beneficial once in a blue moon. But the majority of them are not beneficial.


Now you're backpedaling because earlier you said they were never useful. Lol. Over millions of years, there are lots of "blue moons" for benefits to accrue.

But evolution has never explained the origin of species. Why do you say it does? How does evolution explain the origin of humans? Or even of any life? There is no evidence that single celled organisms or bacteria ever grew to become animals.

Do you understand my points now? They should be very clear.


You need to talk to biologists about what evolution is and isn't, firstly. Creationist sites are full of ignorance.

Whether or not one accepts that evolution is factual is another matter. Regardless, one should learn what it really is before dismissing it. Anyone who is saying that "men evolved from monkeys" doesn't have a clue. No biologist is claiming that.


My definition of "evolution" and "natural selection" is the same as the definition in wikipedia and the dictionary. Come on now. We all know what they mean.

You are getting into technicalities here, not the bottom line point. I know that evolution teaches that man and apes came from a common ancestor. I knew that in the late 1980s BEFORE you were born man! It was explained to be long before your mother conceived you man. No joke.

But this is a technicality. Whether men came from apes or from an ape-like ancestor, either way the point is that its UNPROVEN and doesnt make sense. Where is your proof that that happened? Where?!?! Are you contesting this?

Transitional species is like the missing links. Google that if you need an explanation. How do you not understand it? Dont play dumb. Evolutionists have been seeking the missing links with no success and lots of fraud. You know that. So why you sidestepping and denying all this?

Are you claiming that cro magnon became man all of a sudden? Whats the intermediary? This is basic logic.

When i talked about random mutations, i meant observable physical mutations in the lab, that one can observe on animals and insects. Those are not usually beneficial.
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: 23570
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Re: Evolution Debunked - A Total Lie and Impossibility

Postby Ghost » Thu Dec 24, 2015 6:27 am

I don't know if humans evolved from a common ancestor, in the sense that I can't prove it. I think that's why evolution is a theory instead of a law.

But there is evidence that we did. And I do think it is strong evidence. Sharing most of our DNA. (Which all life on earth does also, to vary extents, suggesting a common ancestor of all life.) Humans can rarely be born with tails, showing we have some leftover DNA from our distant past. Humans have back problems, suggesting we weren't explicitly designed for walking upright.

These are points that explicitly contradict what creationists often say about humans being made "perfect." We clearly weren't made perfect. But then I would say that is just creationists putting their own words into the Bible. Perhaps a few clever ones would just say we are no longer physically perfect because of the fall of man in Eden.

So, no, it can't be explicitly proven because no scientist from today could've have been there to witness evolution of life over many millions of years. Anyway, I really don't think it's a big issue for the religious. Like I said, abiogenesis has never been proven. God has never been made "unnecessary." So I find this "evolution debate" a big waste of time. Creationists doubly waste the time by not even accurately portraying the opposition's arguments and evidence.
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 » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:20 pm

Here is a list of the anti-evolution videos to watch that present the other side of Richard Dawkins.

Lectures, interviews and debates by Dr. Stephen Meyers, Ph. D.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stephen+meyer

Documentary: Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed - Shows how professors and scientists are being fired from universities for talking about intelligent design, proving that there is censorship in science.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=expelled+no+intelligence+allowed

Intervention Theory by Lloyd Pye - About how human evolution must have had genetic intervention from outsiders.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=intervention+theory

Let me know what you think.
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: 23570
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Re: Evolution Debunked - A Total Lie and Impossibility

Postby Adama » Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:09 pm

If anyone wants to study some more about creationism, my suggestion is to get a hold of Kent Hovind's Creation videos, which you can find for free on Youtube. Kent Hovind is a Bible believing Christian creatonist, and he dispels many of the myths of the theory of evolution.

No reason to debate with atheists. You can't win over someone who's already determined not to believe.
Look for women who automatically want to please you because it pleases them. Any woman who seeks to please her man is a treasure. Even better if you don't have to ask but rather suggest.
User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 3949
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 9:37 pm

Re: Evolution Debunked - A Total Lie and Impossibility

Postby starchild5 » Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:51 am

I think Winston, All our Evolution and Anti-Evolution gets thrown out of the ground since yesterday's video by the Russian dude...

It is now abundantly clear that even our Point of References were all wrong.

Earth was by default a Silicon Based Life Form NOT CARBON BASE. So there goes all DNA, Evolution, Creation, Non Evolution theory, all these arguments for and against are dead, because everything that we see around is based on Carbon life forms, DNA itself is carbon.

We are actually living in a scrap yard a mile below the original layer on earth which was scooped away by the Aliens as shown in the video. Our seeding is artificial on Earth. I think Himalayas were the original plane for earth .

Those who looking for Proof and Evidence can look at Simple Chemical Formulas.

Carbon Base Life Form is a very recent Phenomenon it seems & Artificially Engineered...For millions of years, Earth was Silicon Base before it was destroyed.

Silicon Loves Oxygen

Si+O2= SiO2 (Silicon Dioxide - Good for humans...Now you know why XANAX works and lowers you anxiety and loneliness :lol: because its ingredient is Silicon Di Oxide.)..The drug industry uses this heavily to "cure you" and make billions out of it. Most of the drugs has silicon compounds.

Now,

C + O = CO (Extremely Toxic Carbon Monooxide)

C + O2 =CO2 (Toxic after a certain level...You breathe oxygen and release CO2 for a reason)..We are not suppose to breath like that.

That is why to quickly heal you, now a days, in hospitals, they put you in a pressured oxygen chambers to resemble the times on earth when Atmospheric pressure and Oxygen levels were high which results in healing your bones and body quickly.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/hyperbaric-oxygen-therapy/basics/why-its-done/prc-20019167

This is why Hyperbaric Therapy works and mainstream hospital endorses it. This can cure you in days what takes months to heal.

Our core internal essence is even now Silicon Based or moving towards silicon life form which is how what would be if we spend more time on earth.

Evolution, Non-Evolution argument is only for carbon based life forms.

Even spiritually, the sermons on mountain in Christianity, Hindu Kailash mountain, Mount Sastha in America is so much spiritual because mountain are silicons.

Inshort..If you want more Spirituality in Life...GET MORE SILICON... :lol:

Silicon means spirituality :D

---------------

Now I understand why Gemstones works...Its a silicon crystal..Which heals you....
User avatar
starchild5
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1651
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:32 am

Re: Evolution Debunked - A Total Lie and Impossibility

Postby starchild5 » Thu Aug 11, 2016 3:01 am

Benefits of Silicon life form vs Carbon life form aka all of us..

Unlike, Carbon life which decays...If you are silicon base, You never die..you live eternally young forever

Unlike, Carbon life..aka slow death through loneliness :D , depression, breathe in, breathe out sh*t, scavenging for food and sex, sh*t in general, 9 to 5 jobs, wife, children, none of these emotional burdens for silicon base life forms.

Silicon Life form itself is spiritual..That is why Mountains are revered in all religion. There is no pain when you have a silicon body, you are synced with earth because earth is a crystal ball not a carbon ball :mrgreen:

There is no 9 to 5 job for silicon based life forms...f*ck there is no JOB at all, as they get auto nourishment through earth.

The bottom line that we all know and feel everyday is..CARBON LIFE SUCKS.... :)

DNA itself is sh*t, creation, Evolution, non-evolution is sh*t, a scam, hoax because our BASE itself is a scam called carbon...

Also, We have more silicon than carbon on earth not the other way around..

Silicon Life form will kick ass of any carbon life forms anydays....

Get this...When Silicon Combines with Oxygen..Its forms and grows, it does not have to spill out things like sh*t & CO2...

There is no getting things In and then out...which is the bases for all slavery..Carbon life means a slave life. Guaranteed.


There is literally no sh*t to go to, brush your teeth stuff if you are a silicon life form ..How wonderful.. :mrgreen:
User avatar
starchild5
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1651
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:32 am

Re: Evolution Debunked

Postby Yohan » Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:59 am

Winston wrote:2. Evolution is not just unproven. It is FALSE and IMPOSSIBLE as well.


If evolution does not exist, time does not exist too. However time does exist and changes take place.


My definition of evolution is that humans evolved from monkeys, or that one species evolved into another.


Who says evolution has to be from monkey to human only?

It is for example very difficult to see a difference between human parts and parts of pigs - the content of the body of a pig is often more similar than those of monkeys comparing them with humans.

It will be possible in near future to transplant certain organs etc. from pigs into humans, but so far I do not know about successful experiments to use organs from moneys..

Blood from pigs can be altered for use in humans, but not blood from dogs and cats.
It is possible to create artificial blood too which was not produced by an animal or human. etc.

However to do reasonable research about the existence of the universe - even without considering any medical aspect - is very costly and complicated, only some facilities are existing worldwide which can do that.
For example:
http://www.kek.jp/en/
http://www.kek.jp/en/InternationalCollaboration/

This world is not ending with atoms with positrons and electrons inside. There is something which is smaller and to find out how it works is not easy.

It is of course much easier to say, I don't care, there is a creator, I believe in God etc. etc.
User avatar
Yohan
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2212
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:05 am
Location: Tokyo, JAPAN

Re: Evolution Debunked - A Total Lie and Impossibility

Postby Citizen » Thu Aug 11, 2016 7:43 am

Cool just like silicon valley, computer chips. Robots and programs. Nothing more. Unable to create or sustain life. Of course they can reproduce, but production of a machine is not creating life. With the correct program a machine can develop wonderful pieces of art and music.
Citizen
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:01 pm

Previous

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests