Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Evolution debunked

Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 1:49:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is a very long article but worth reading. It completely destroys the theory of evolution. If you're interested in the truth, you will find it here.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 1:50:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 1:49:28 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
This is a very long article but worth reading. It completely destroys the theory of evolution. If you're interested in the truth, you will find it here.

Sorry. forgot the link. http://members.toast.net...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 2:40:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 1:50:07 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 1:49:28 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
This is a very long article but worth reading. It completely destroys the theory of evolution. If you're interested in the truth, you will find it here.

Sorry. forgot the link. http://members.toast.net...

Well, if that's the kind of pure fecal tripe you're reading, no wonder you're both ignorant and confused. Let's take a look at some of the statements from the site you linked, and talk about how they're praying on your blind ignorance of science, to make claims which are clearly and utterly false. They state;

- "Naturalism is the belief that all things, including the origin of life, can be explained purely in terms of natural phenomena, without the intervention of a supernatural being or deity. Ironically, many of the dogmatic proponents of Evolution may not even be aware that this is the religion they hold. Most seem unable to distinguish their religion from their "science", and thus pursue their opposition to a Creator on what they suppose are purely "scientific" grounds."

Let's start with the fact that naturalism isn't a "religion". I'm not sure why it is that the first step of religious people take in attempting to discredit any form of logical methodology, always start by calling it a "religion". It's as though they automatically recognize that religions are consistently just a load of crap.

More importantly, they're completely ignoring the requirement of science to have objective evidence for any proposition, upon which to test that proposition. There isn't a shred of evidence for a "creator" anywhere. In fact, the very concept of creation is entirely contrary to science. You posted this yourself on one of your threads, "matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed" (First Law of Thermodynamics). And that's a well-known, and fully consistent tenet of science. But this site which you're promoting, is upset with science for not just blinding accepting the idea of a creator - without a shred of evidence for a creator - and for not simply dismissing a major tenet of science which is consistent with every shred of evidence the universe has yet seen fit to offer, simply so that science can accept without any substantiation, an ancient superstition in place of solid objective evidence, and a solid, observed, and confirmed mechanism, fully supported by that evidence.

Do you think you do anything aside from make yourself look silly when you post links to such easily refuted, childish, tripe, posing as some kind of authority on science? It takes all of about 10-seconds of reading, and a minimal understanding of science to rip that kind of fecal rubbish to shreds.

There is no standard of science to which the Theory of Evolution does not comply. And if you think you can find one, then I invite you...

... no, I "challenge" you to present it.

Here's some more utter and obvious garbage from your linked site;

- "However, their "science" rules out the possibility of an intelligent Creator from the very outset. This consideration is not demanded by scientific evidence, but by prevailing philosophical ideas about what science ought to be. The problem with this position is that, if God really did create the universe, scientists are forbidden to acknowledge the evidence of it, and must substitute a false, naturalistic explanation in its place."

There is no tenet or principle of science which rules out the possibility of an intelligent creator. But just as one can't simply say that galaxies are moving away from each other because the fairies living in those galaxies want greater separation from their neighbors (and not be expected to present evidence for these fairies), one cannot simply insert an unevidenced creator, and expect the idea to be accepted, devoid of evidence. If you want to present a concept to science... FINE! Do so. But when you haven't a shred of objective evidence to support your concept, it's nothing but "story-telling". And stories aren't granted authority in science, when there is no evidence to support them.

There is no objective evidence for a creator - NONE. And if someone wants to present some credible objective evidence for a creator, there isn't anything stopping them (except the lack of any such evidence). The claim that scientists are forbidden to acknowledge evidence for a creator is pure bullcrap. There's simply nothing at all true about that statement. The problem is simply that - try as some might - none have been able to present even a shred of objective evidence for a creator... (because none has ever been found).

Idiot theists have a horrible habit of thinking that circular arguments are evidence. Things like; "God created the universe, therefore, the universe is evidence of God", is no more rational, logical or credible than, "Fairies cause galaxies to move away from each other, therefore the movement of galaxies away from other galaxies, is evidence for fairies." If you see the problem with the latter claim, then you can see the problem with the former claim. It's two assertions which rest only on each other. Neither one is supported by any actual evidence.

So expecting science to accept the idea that a creator might be behind the patterns and order we find in the universe, is not only ridiculous due to the fact that we can demonstrably show that these patterns and order are due to chaos theory (which doesn't employ or need any outside intelligent agent), but because you can't simply inject a proposition into science - without presenting evidence to support it - and call anything resulting from that blind assertion "science".

Would you like me to keep shredding your silly site which is clearly intended to fool only the most gullible and scientifically ignorant, or would you like to apologize and admit that you really have no clue what you're talking about?

Anyone with even a Jr High level understanding of science can shred that entire web site in a matter of minutes.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:42:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 2:40:27 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/1/2014 1:50:07 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 1:49:28 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
This is a very long article but worth reading. It completely destroys the theory of evolution. If you're interested in the truth, you will find it here.

Sorry. forgot the link. http://members.toast.net...

Well, if that's the kind of pure fecal tripe you're reading, no wonder you're both ignorant and confused. Let's take a look at some of the statements from the site you linked, and talk about how they're praying on your blind ignorance of science, to make claims which are clearly and utterly false. They state;

- "Naturalism is the belief that all things, including the origin of life, can be explained purely in terms of natural phenomena, without the intervention of a supernatural being or deity. Ironically, many of the dogmatic proponents of Evolution may not even be aware that this is the religion they hold. Most seem unable to distinguish their religion from their "science", and thus pursue their opposition to a Creator on what they suppose are purely "scientific" grounds."

Let's start with the fact that naturalism isn't a "religion". I'm not sure why it is that the first step of religious people take in attempting to discredit any form of logical methodology, always start by calling it a "religion". It's as though they automatically recognize that religions are consistently just a load of crap.

More importantly, they're completely ignoring the requirement of science to have objective evidence for any proposition, upon which to test that proposition. There isn't a shred of evidence for a "creator" anywhere. In fact, the very concept of creation is entirely contrary to science. You posted this yourself on one of your threads, "matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed" (First Law of Thermodynamics). And that's a well-known, and fully consistent tenet of science. But this site which you're promoting, is upset with science for not just blinding accepting the idea of a creator - without a shred of evidence for a creator - and for not simply dismissing a major tenet of science which is consistent with every shred of evidence the universe has yet seen fit to offer, simply so that science can accept without any substantiation, an ancient superstition in place of solid objective evidence, and a solid, observed, and confirmed mechanism, fully supported by that evidence.

Do you think you do anything aside from make yourself look silly when you post links to such easily refuted, childish, tripe, posing as some kind of authority on science? It takes all of about 10-seconds of reading, and a minimal understanding of science to rip that kind of fecal rubbish to shreds.

There is no standard of science to which the Theory of Evolution does not comply. And if you think you can find one, then I invite you...

... no, I "challenge" you to present it.

Here's some more utter and obvious garbage from your linked site;

- "However, their "science" rules out the possibility of an intelligent Creator from the very outset. This consideration is not demanded by scientific evidence, but by prevailing philosophical ideas about what science ought to be. The problem with this position is that, if God really did create the universe, scientists are forbidden to acknowledge the evidence of it, and must substitute a false, naturalistic explanation in its place."

There is no tenet or principle of science which rules out the possibility of an intelligent creator. But just as one can't simply say that galaxies are moving away from each other because the fairies living in those galaxies want greater separation from their neighbors (and not be expected to present evidence for these fairies), one cannot simply insert an unevidenced creator, and expect the idea to be accepted, devoid of evidence. If you want to present a concept to science... FINE! Do so. But when you haven't a shred of objective evidence to support your concept, it's nothing but "story-telling". And stories aren't granted authority in science, when there is no evidence to support them.

There is no objective evidence for a creator - NONE. And if someone wants to present some credible objective evidence for a creator, there isn't anything stopping them (except the lack of any such evidence). The claim that scientists are forbidden to acknowledge evidence for a creator is pure bullcrap. There's simply nothing at all true about that statement. The problem is simply that - try as some might - none have been able to present even a shred of objective evidence for a creator... (because none has ever been found).

Idiot theists have a horrible habit of thinking that circular arguments are evidence. Things like; "God created the universe, therefore, the universe is evidence of God", is no more rational, logical or credible than, "Fairies cause galaxies to move away from each other, therefore the movement of galaxies away from other galaxies, is evidence for fairies." If you see the problem with the latter claim, then you can see the problem with the former claim. It's two assertions which rest only on each other. Neither one is supported by any actual evidence.

So expecting science to accept the idea that a creator might be behind the patterns and order we find in the universe, is not only ridiculous due to the fact that we can demonstrably show that these patterns and order are due to chaos theory (which doesn't employ or need any outside intelligent agent), but because you can't simply inject a proposition into science - without presenting evidence to support it - and call anything resulting from that blind assertion "science".

Would you like me to keep shredding your silly site which is clearly intended to fool only the most gullible and scientifically ignorant, or would you like to apologize and admit that you really have no clue what you're talking about?

Anyone with even a Jr High level understanding of science can shred that entire web site in a matter of minutes.

Why did you even take the time to write this? It's nothing but your opinion, with no evidence to back it up. If you want to convince people I'm wrong, you'll have to do better than that. How about explaining the gaps in the fossil record, which even many scientists say is not valid evidence. How about explaining how life can come from non life. How about explaining how order can arise from chaos. How about explaining how the vast amounts of information in DNA can order itself by random chance, in contradiction of everything we know to be true.

DNA is a language. Supporters of evolution deny this simple fact. But it's the truth. Every other language, from simple smoke signals to the most advanced computer languages, require intelligence to exist. The same is true for the language of DNA. There is no credible scientific theory for how the language of DNA came to be. Only a fairy tale for grown ups, that claims it all happened by chance.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:47:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 10:42:49 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Why did you even take the time to write this?

hahahahahahahaha
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:50:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 10:47:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:42:49 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Why did you even take the time to write this?

hahahahahahahaha

Instead of laughing, why don't you try to refute what I just said? Show us all how DNA is not a complex language. Show us how it could have happened without an intelligent designer. Go on. Dazzle us with your brilliance.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 11:34:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 10:42:49 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 2:40:27 AM, Beastt wrote:


Why did you even take the time to write this? It's nothing but your opinion, with no evidence to back it up.
This is science methodology, silly. It doesn't need evidence to back it up. Simply look up science methodology and you'll read that science can not, and does not try to investigate that for which there is no objective evidence, because science operates on objective evidence.

If you want to convince people I'm wrong, you'll have to do better than that.
That's not at all true. The majority of intelligent people are already fully aware that you're wrong.

How about explaining the gaps in the fossil record, which even many scientists say is not valid evidence.
Very few carcases ever fossilize and nearly every specimen is a step in evolution. So there will always be "gaps". That doesn't mean we have anything missing, which is significant to call evolution into question. In fact, we can look to phylogenetic trees and phylogenetic trees can be constructed on the basis of anatomy, embryology, the fossil record, genetics, molecular biology, ERVs, histology, ecology, development, transitional fossils, biogeography or behavior. No matter which you choose, all produce the same tree. So if you think there is a gap of significance in the fossil record, it makes no real difference because the nature of phylogenetic trees maintains consistency across a large array of foundations.

How about explaining how life can come from non life.
That's one of the first ways people tend to demonstrate their ignorance regarding evolution. Evolution does not address the origin of life - NOT AT ALL! That's the field of abiogenesis, which is a totally separate and independent field of science. If you could provide unquestionable conclusive evidence that abiogenesis is wrong, it would do absolutely nothing to harm evolution in any way. And the same works the other way around. Disproving evolution would do nothing to damage abiogenesis. Neither have been disproved.

How about explaining how order can arise from chaos.
That's the field of chaos theory. Do you really want to know? I'm happy to explain it to you but the sad truth is that you don't want to know. You simply want me to fail. I'll give you a simple example - sand dunes. Does God sit around designing the sweeping curves, sharp angles and wavelet patters common to sand dunes? Of course not. The order and patterns reside within the similarities of the grains of sand themselves. Just as a box containing 10,000 small cones will form a different shaped mound when dumped on the floor than a box containing 10,000 small cubes or 10,000 small spheres, differently shaped grains of sand will result in different shapes and sizes of sand dunes as they are gradually moved about by the wind. In a given region, the grains of sand are more similar, than dissimilar.
Another example is an ice crystal such as a snowflake. The secret to the order is in the configuration and properties of the molecules of water themselves. They're triangular and polar, so they have certain ways in which they can align, and a great number of ways in which they cannot align. Out of those simple physical properties, comes definite geometric shapes - order and patterns from apparent chaos.

Draw a random set of dots and straight lines. Chaos, right? Now apply some very simple rules, not unlike the rules imposed by the forces of nature.
Years ago, I constructed four very simple rules to apply to the random placement of lines and dots. Watch what happens as the rules interact.
https://www.youtube.com...

How about explaining how the vast amounts of information in DNA can order itself by random chance, in contradiction of everything we know to be true.
The first thing to wrap your mind around is that it has nothing to do with random chance. But a lack of intellectual guidance does not result in random chance. Nothing about physical mechanisms are the product of random chance. Roll a marble down an incline. Do it again. Now do it 50 more times. The more consistent you are with your point of release, angle and release technique, the less variation there will be in the path of the marble. That's because it's not rolling in accordance with random direction. It's governed by physical properties. And the formation of DNA is also governed by physical properties. For example, adenine can only bond to thymine. It can't bond to guanine or cytocine, just as the oxygen side of one water molecule, can't bond to the oxygen side of a second water molecule. The like charges repel. And just as adenine can't bond to cytosine, thymine and adenine can't bond to cytosine or guanine. There are very strict physical properties which govern the manner and combinations which can, as well as those which cannot, bond. None of these are random.

DNA is a language.
No it isn't. This is a very common theist misconception. Would you claim that a bicycle chain is a language? It has two different kinds of links, which are always arranged in an alternating sequence. That doesn't make it a language. DNA is both a result, and a pattern, each formed concurrently, and with complete inter-dependence. Can you follow a set of foot-prints, determine the direction of travel, and reconstruct the route followed by the owner of the feet? Does that make it a language? That's essentially what DNA is. It is the residue of metabolic processes, which can be (and is), retraced to replicate those metabolic processes, again, and again, and again. Nothing about that indicates any kind of intelligent process, nor does it constitute a language. Each time you leave a trail of footprints, you're leaving a code similar (in function), to DNA. A rock rolling down a hill also leaves a path.

Supporters of evolution deny this simple fact.
Because it's not a fact. It's a complete misunderstanding of what DNA is, how it forms, and how it provides a repeating pattern for metabolic processes to follow. It's another example of how the processes are following a set pattern, rather than an intelligent choice.

But it's the truth.
No, it is not the truth.

Every other language, from simple smoke signals to the most advanced computer languages, require intelligence to exist. The same is tr
You simply don't know what you're talking about. And that's just ignorance. There's not a thing in the world wrong with ignorance. Every single person on the planet is ignorant of more forms of knowledge than those of which they are well informed. The shame is in pretending that your ignorance is instead, knowledge. You think that by saying "it's the truth" and calling it a "fact", that you somehow have overcome your ignorance. Instead, you're only reinforcing that ignorance.

Look, do you seriously think you understand DNA better than I do, or better than a biologist who makes his living by understanding it? Please try to remember that even in the U.S. with a shamefully high level of creationism, fully 98.15% of scientists absolutely accept evolution as true. Why don't you see the obvious conflict in claiming that evolution is false, when it's greatest support base is in the people who hold the greatest understanding of life and life processes?

You've demonstrated that you're ignorant in regard to evolution, abiogenesis, DNA structure, bio-chemical replication processes and similar fields of study. And yet, here you are proclaiming that these things are false. The only reason you think they're false is that you don't understand them. And you fly your ignorance like a victory flag. And that's just shameful.

If you want a better understanding of DNA, spend a little time learning.
https://www.youtube.com...
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 11:34:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 10:50:22 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:47:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:42:49 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Why did you even take the time to write this?

hahahahahahahaha

Instead of laughing, why don't you try to refute what I just said? Show us all how DNA is not a complex language. Show us how it could have happened without an intelligent designer. Go on. Dazzle us with your brilliance.

OK Dr O.

Some very basic questions for you.

Do you exist?
more to come.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 11:35:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 10:50:22 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:47:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:42:49 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Why did you even take the time to write this?

hahahahahahahaha

Instead of laughing, why don't you try to refute what I just said? Show us all how DNA is not a complex language. Show us how it could have happened without an intelligent designer. Go on. Dazzle us with your brilliance.

Read Post #7. You have been refuted... again.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 1:08:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 12:09:25 PM, LeMatt wrote:
I really want to read his reply to that:3

Le Matt? Are you from reddit?

I know I should be expecting some heavy reason and logic from you. Strapping back my fedora for your response.