Such as? I've only seen you mention all the things <i>you </i>think are wrong with evolution....
Start reading this thread from page 1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karst
The US are the <i>only</i> western country in which the majority does not believe in evolution.
Nonsence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karst
Evolution means changes that happen to help a species <i>adapt. </i>If a species doesn't need to change over millions of years (like sharks) it won't.
Mutation occurs to all animals. by "adapt" do you mean they change intentionally? Nothing forces change? A fish say to itself, "Hmmm. I need to adapt. This place is warmer than what i'm accustomed to?
Perposterous.
Evolution supposedly occurs because of mutation. And mutation, as it has been explained to you, cannot cause evolution. Instead, it causes disease, weakness, and deformity.
Show me a single mutation in a human being that is human only and is beneficial. None? Right.
This is an example of mutation in action. Mutations do not cause evolution. They cause weakness, deformity, and deisease.
"...innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ... and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory"
Are you just avoiding the question? Please, if it's so obvious, just tell me. I don't want to have to look through all 53 pages.
Quote:
Nonsence.
Got any more compelling argument than a single misspelled word of dismissal? Austria, where i live, has the second highest rate of evolution denyers in western societies, and the rate is hardly a third.
Quote:
Mutation occurs to all animals. by "adapt" do you mean they change intentionally? Nothing forces change? A fish say to itself, "Hmmm. I need to adapt. This place is warmer than what i'm accustomed to?
Perposterous.
It doesn't say to itself, it dies because it cannot survive in a changed climate....or, if it happens to be slightly better adapted, it survives and passes it on.
Quote:
Evolution supposedly occurs because of mutation. And mutation, as it has been explained to you, cannot cause evolution. Instead, it causes disease, weakness, and deformity.
Show me a single mutation in a human being that is human only and is beneficial. None? Right.
This is an example of mutation in action. Mutations do not cause evolution. They cause weakness, deformity, and deisease.
What about the mutations that caused us to get bigger brains? But of course you don't believe that happened. See, it's impossible to argue this with you cause you're stuck in perpetual blind denial. If anyone gives an example of why you're wrong, you simply deny it.
Also for a source, choose a scientifically credible one, not a christian website if you want to be taken seriously.
More proof of creation: Primordial chemistry did not create the DNA molecule, nor did a pool of molecules contain more complexity than a human being, or a car, or a space capsule, or a Michelangelo. This kind of ability was given to man by God:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karst
Are you just avoiding the question? Please, if it's so obvious, just tell me. I don't want to have to look through all 53 pages.
Is knowing thre truth about yourself and life on earth not worth looking over those pages? I'm sure that all of the information in them wil eventually be posted again if it's not important enough to you to investigate it on your own. I didn't learn that evolution is a hoax by doing such. i read everything i could find about it for months. You should too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karst
It doesn't say to itself, it dies because it cannot survive in a changed climate....or, if it happens to be slightly better adapted, it survives and passes it on.
If it dies, then no evolution has occurred!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karst
What about the mutations that caused us to get bigger brains? But of course you don't believe that happened. See, it's impossible to argue this with you cause you're stuck in perpetual blind denial. If anyone gives an example of why you're wrong, you simply deny it.
Also for a source, choose a scientifically credible one, not a christian website if you want to be taken seriously.
The denial is your own. Again, 999 of 1,000 mutations causes deformity, disease, death, or weakness.
Answer this one then: For a new physiological feature to happen to an animal, countless minute mutations would have to occur. Mind you, almost all will cause deformity, weakness, disease, or death. Now, if this HAD occurred, how did the massive amounts of new information that define a limb or a wing (for example) get into the DNA? You see, mutations are not intelligent. They are random. Therefore, if 1,000 mutations occured to an animal, 999 of them caused deformity, disease, weakness, and/or death. How then did an animal receive in it's family group over time only beneficial mutations? Sorry, but it cannot happen that way.
Furthermore, the mutations would have to build upon one another to cause a new limb or wing. Mutations on top of mutations would be horrifically deforming and destructive. The amount of information in the DNA molecule required to describe a foot alone is numerous pages of precise, perfectly aligned, and perfectly sequenced information. it would take many books to hold the DNA sequence for this alone. How then did such complex and perfect information of such a large quantity get into the DNA where it did not exist? Where would the information come from? The truth is, that science proves that neither mutation, breeding, or any other factor add this kind of massive amount of precice information into the DNA molecule in any living thing. it does not happen. The famous evolutionist-now-punked Dr. Richard Dawkins was asked this in an interview. He paused for 11 seconds, then skirted the question and passed over it without answering it. No wonder. He knows there is no explaination for how this could happen.
It could not have. To assume that it could is to assume that if you throw all of the parts required to build a jumbo jet into a hangar that an airplane will magically appear.
Such is the faith of evolutionists.
The biggest stumbling block for evolutionists is that since the vast majority of them do not believe in God, disproving evolution proves creation and the existance of God. This is too hard for most of them to swallow. However, it is the future for all of us. Only a minority of people believe in evolution today. Next year it will be fewer, and in 10 years many fewer.
Get ready for it. Soon comes the day when everyone on earth knows that God exists. Most of us do already. The rest will soon enough, for if (since) evolution is not true, then creation is the only other possibility. And that means God.
"...innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ... and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory"
- Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species.
Last edited by ElderMan; February 14th, 2007 at 04:28 AM.
Is knowing thre truth about yourself and life on earth not worth looking over those pages? I'm sure that all of the information in them wil eventually be posted again if it's not important enough to you to investigate it on your own. I didn't learn that evolution is a hoax by doing such. i read everything i could find about it for months. You should too.
I don't see it. Your earlier "evidence" for creation was just another attempt to discredit evolution. If you have evidence for creation, post it! Imagine there's no such thing as evolution, if it helps, when you post it.
Stephen J. Gould, one of the intellectual fathers of the "punctuated equilibrium" theory, admitted this in all clarity at a conference he gave at Hobart & William Smith College:
Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome ... brings terrible distress. ... They may get a little bigger or bumpier. But they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, it's not evolution so you don't talk about it.16
Stephen J. Gould, one of the intellectual fathers of the "punctuated equilibrium" theory, admitted this in all clarity at a conference he gave at Hobart & William Smith College:
Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome ... brings terrible distress. ... They may get a little bigger or bumpier. But they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, it's not evolution so you don't talk about it.16
...it's funny, I express frustration at your childish out of context quoting, and your response is to do it again twice. Were you just giving us a demonstration?
But I'd love to find the rest of that lecture. I guess creationist-propaganda.com wouldn't want us to see that, though, for obvious reasons. What I can tell you is that "most species don't change" doesn't exactly help you, as that obviously means some of them do still change, and the majority are not expected to by evolutionists. But I can see how a biased observer might disagree.
Quote:
Sorry, but mutations do not skip over any species. Mutations are not intelligent, they are not selective. Obviously, evolution has not occurred.
That's just monstrously silly...mutations affect individuals within a species. ONE creature mutates and passes on that mutation. The others stay the same, and thus over time, you have both the old species and the new. Pretty basic stuff really, and I'd expect someone who'd done an objective study to understand it, but...
Quote:
Evolution is precluded by ALL of the fossil record and in fact every scientific fact. If you dare, read the following web site to leanr why the fossil record proves that evolution has not occurred. If you don't read it, are you wimping out and afraid of what you might learn?
Interesting that no link was forthcoming. I do feel I've been exposed to far too much agenda-driven rubbish already though.
Quote:
You and the minority of the keepers of the faith of evolution need to learn. Soon enough science and society will do it for you. In 20-30 years, evolution will be a joke and people will scoff at every scientist who claimed it was true. I imagine near the end of it, some will be so full of shame and embaressment that they will do something terrible. Many will resign or be fired, others will commit suicide, others will simply hide away out of the public eye and try to make a living as consultants.
You should write a book. it would be the most imaginative and original fantasy novel in history.
This has been explained repeatedly. Read this carefully so you will not make that mistake again:
Evolution is said to occur to all life forms. If mutations occur to all living things over time, then nothing will remain the same. It will change. According to the theory of evolution, all living things experience mutations (countless miniscule ones) and adapt to their environment. Since mutations will occur to all living things, it means that there would be no living fossils.
Please, try hard to comprehend this. It is very simple really.
Having a Masters in Biology I suspect I comprehend the concept of evolution... Perhaps even better than you... For change to occur there must be a selection pressure. Otherwise the only change will be due to genetic drift caused by harmless mutations... Which is, as stated earlier, cumbersomely slow.
I have been looking into this thread now and then...so I checked the only link that I found interesting in your post. It does appear that the lice has not changed much, but the words in the article ("almost", "startling resemblance") sort of imply that it is not 100% the same as the current lice.
I am of the opinion that creationists can be right, but so can the evolutionists. If the universe was created, it doesn't mean that the system cannot alter after its creation.
As for lice not evolving, I think one of the basics of evolutionist theories is, that the mutations which develope are more successful ones than the original design of a creature. It is possible that some creatures change very little, seeing they have already adapted very well to their environment, and further genetically changed forms of the specie are less successful than the current one.
Yes, well the universe and the Earth were created to adapt but evolution is the theory that those adaptations lead to new speices...I think that Elderman has made and incredible rock solid case and he knows a heck of alot about this than any person I've met in life or on the these forums...I'll be studying these links on an one going basis
More proof of creation: Primordial chemistry did not create the DNA molecule, nor did a pool of molecules contain more complexity than a human being, or a car, or a space capsule, or a Michelangelo. This kind of ability was given to man by God:
I don't see how this is proof of creation. It's merely a guess that evolution is impossible....but not proof for creation.
Quote:
Is knowing thre truth about yourself and life on earth not worth looking over those pages? I'm sure that all of the information in them wil eventually be posted again if it's not important enough to you to investigate it on your own. I didn't learn that evolution is a hoax by doing such. i read everything i could find about it for months. You should too.
I already know the truth, and if there's so much proof for creation why don't you just mention one or two convincing arguments of proof? Surely it wouldn't take that long, much easier than just beating around the bush.
Quote:
If it dies, then no evolution has occurred!
Correct. You can hardly expect every single specimen to make a difference in the history of its species.
Quote:
The denial is your own. Again, 999 of 1,000 mutations causes deformity, disease, death, or weakness.
So? 0.1 % is plenty, considering the number of specimens and the time in which this takes place.
Quote:
Answer this one then: For a new physiological feature to happen to an animal, countless minute mutations would have to occur. Mind you, almost all will cause deformity, weakness, disease, or death. Now, if this HAD occurred, how did the massive amounts of new information that define a limb or a wing (for example) get into the DNA? You see, mutations are not intelligent. They are random. Therefore, if 1,000 mutations occured to an animal, 999 of them caused deformity, disease, weakness, and/or death. How then did an animal receive in it's family group over time only beneficial mutations? Sorry, but it cannot happen that way.
Furthermore, the mutations would have to build upon one another to cause a new limb or wing. Mutations on top of mutations would be horrifically deforming and destructive. The amount of information in the DNA molecule required to describe a foot alone is numerous pages of precise, perfectly aligned, and perfectly sequenced information. it would take many books to hold the DNA sequence for this alone. How then did such complex and perfect information of such a large quantity get into the DNA where it did not exist? Where would the information come from? The truth is, that science proves that neither mutation, breeding, or any other factor add this kind of massive amount of precice information into the DNA molecule in any living thing. it does not happen. The famous evolutionist-now-punked Dr. Richard Dawkins was asked this in an interview. He paused for 11 seconds, then skirted the question and passed over it without answering it. No wonder. He knows there is no explaination for how this could happen.
Quite simple, it takes a long, long time. Imagine you have two families of cavemen, in one the people are generally short, the others are taller and stronger. Because the shorter ones can't compete for food, their line dies out. The stronger ones remain, and since animals and people alive today all come from a relatively small number of ancient ancestors, a few differences long ago can lead to major differences now.
And on the matter of it being impossible that more drastic features like new organs appear: everything starts out small. Take the whale. Whales returned to the water after being something similar to today's hippo's. And if one of these "whales" had particularly large feet and could hold it's breath longer than most, well, then it's family would be taking the first step towards being aquatic.
It could not have. To assume that it could is to assume that if you throw all of the parts required to build a jumbo jet into a hangar that an airplane will magically appear.
Quote:
The biggest stumbling block for evolutionists is that since the vast majority of them do not believe in God, disproving evolution proves creation and the existance of God.
Evolution cannot be disproven because it is the truth. All your claims of why it is impossible have been dismissed.
Furthermore, disproving one thing doesn't proove another. You'd still have to proove creation, then.
Quote:
This is too hard for most of them to swallow. However, it is the future for all of us. Only a minority of people believe in evolution today. Next year it will be fewer, and in 10 years many fewer.
Get ready for it. Soon comes the day when everyone on earth knows that God exists. Most of us do already. The rest will soon enough, for if (since) evolution is not true, then creation is the only other possibility. And that means God.
You keep saying that and it keeps being wrong. Even in the United States, non-religious people are the fastest growing "religious" group:
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Religious Identification Survey, Key Findings The Graduate Center of the City University of New York
The American Religious Identification Survey gave Non-Religious groups the largest gain in terms of absolute numbers - 14,300,000 (8.4% of the population) to 29,400,000 (14.1% of the population) for the period 1990 to 2001 in the USA.
I don't see how this is proof of creation. It's merely a guess that evolution is impossible....but not proof for creation.
Well to put it lightly. If millions of speices of animals came to the Earth surface all at one small local area of time. Then they certainly didn't bring themselves into existance.
That would be another indicative trait to design. Continuity and purpose are markers of design.
It's also markers for a power we don't know and that is far beyond our comprehension.
Well to put it lightly. If millions of speices of animals came to the Earth surface all at one small local area of time. Then they certainly didn't bring themselves into existance.
They didn't exactly come all at the same time, but over a billion years....
Quote:
That would be another indicative trait to design. Continuity and purpose are markers of design.
Continuity isn't necessarily a trait of design, and what purpose is it you speak of?
Quote:
It's also markers for a power we don't know and that is far beyond our comprehension.
Definetly beyond our comprehension. Why are there all these discussions about the subject anyway? Because a lot of the things involved are beyond out comprehension.
I wouldn't say we don't know though.
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
Re: Hoax of Evolution 
Linear Mode
