Creationists Believe the Darndest Things

Prove it!

 

Microevolution and Macroevolution.
When a species evolves within a smaller area and then we compare it to the evolution of the entire species.

Toxin resistance within species that have poison in them (snakes, etc)

Physical development in animals according to their environment
Herbivores in areas with predators: Quick + Long legs
Carnivores in areas with prey: Natural camo to match their environment
Herbivores in areas with no predators: slow, no need to evolve.

THE COMPLETE UNNECESSITY OF AN OUTSIDE FORCE

Fossils (lol god put it there to trick us!)
Look at how humanoids have changed over the history. Different skeletal structures for different time periods.

Also, what am I defending evolution against? Creationism?

I have no qualms with evolution guided by an outside force (If you choose to believe so) but don't tell me that evolution isn't scientifically valid or that creationism should be taught in school.

 

May be you should read first what I was stating all along instead of telling me "don't tell me creationism should be taught in school".

I never said nor intend to say that creationism should be taught in school , although ,for educational purposes, if you include Darwin's Religious Theory about origins of species in curriculum, then why not do the same with Creationist's, with the emphasis on fact that both are part of religious movements, founded on faith and have little to do with science ?

Because what I know for sure is that none of the followers of religious movement founded by Darwin are ever able to substantiate their claim and prove it's scientific validity when called on it. They consistently demonstrate nothing but irrational faith in it's tenets when challenged to validate it on scientific grounds.

 

It's true, I have no idea what your previous argument was.

Creationism is the idea that a supernatural force created everything. We have no proof and will never have proof of the existence of any supernatural entities.

Evolution is the theory that over time, animals mutate into a species that has a higher chance of survival. There is more proof for evolution than any other theory. It is not based on faith, but science.

I have no problem with creationism, however there is a seperation between church and state in the United States. Creationism deals with God, which is church and Evolution deals with historical and scientific evidence. If you want to teach creationism, teach it in a PRIVATE school, not a PUBLIC school.

Did you read everything in my post but the evidence?

 

That's irrelevant to me, since I am not the one claiming that Creationism is a scientifically valid theory or anything to that effect.

No, you are wrong. Just because you say "there is a proof" doesn't mean there really is one.

In fact, the mathematical odds of evolution happening by random chance and through mutation is so long that it makes it virtually impossible to have taken place in a period so short as few billions of years , as followers of Darwin's Religious Movement would want us to believe.

Agaim, subject of Creationism, whether it should or should not be taught in PUBLIC or PRIVATE schools has nothing to do with the fact that Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution has no valid scientific grounds to stand on.

Driving your argument to logical conclusion, since Church and State are separated in US , one could say that there should not be place for Religious Indoctrination of kids with Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution in public schools.


But all that talk about what should or should not be taught in which schools is a mere diversion from the main point here, which is the fact that Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution has no scientifically valid grounds and is not a scientifically valid theory.

What EVIDENCE

 

So that's what means... That you're blind. This explains so much!

EVIDENCE:

Read my post, discuss the evidence I put forward, not the ending to my post.

It is not a religion, it is a scientific theory. There is a bigggggggggggggg diffffffference.

 

Actually it meant I was cool with your acknowledgement that you had no idea what my point was while you jumped in to pull all the hair in your head, crying "creationism, dark ages, archaic beliefs, you have trouble coping with how shitty life really is" and etc.

Contrary to your religious assumption I did read your post.

What then? Why didn't you continue and make your point clear?
Unlike you I don't want to make any religious assumptions about what you were trying to say, so please be so kind and explain precisely what the above phrase/sentence implies and how it proves that Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution is indeed a Scientifically valid one?

What about toxin resistance within species that have poison in them? How does it prove that the most complex form of life evolved from most primitive by random chance , mutation and natural selection of better adopted organisms ?

Can you also quantitatively prove it ?
In terms of required time span, how does it fit within the known age of fossils and even entire lifespan of our planet?
Are you familiar with the concept, such as Probability Theory?
Do you know what , for each evolutionary step forward, is the number of total combinations/possibilities out of which, by pure chance and in random basis, one would be a "lucky" number to make even infinitely small advance on evolutionary ladder? Do you know in what geometric proportions those numbers increase as the complexity of organism increases?
Do you know how many of those steps it would take for life to evolve , just by random chance, from simple one cell to fully devoleped human being?
Do you know what an unimaginable magnitute of number such calculation would produce, that even thousands of trillions of years would not be enough to accomplish what is claimed by Darwin to have happened in mere few billions of years?
Do you even know or understand what is being questioned here?
Do you know that this is aside from other inconsistencies in the theory, as it is related to passage of information and gain of information or alleged improvement due to changes forced by external forces?

As I said earlier, unless and until you prove to the contrary , all you Darwinists say is in fact none other but a religious theory and dogma, When seriously challegend none of you is capable or willing to defend the theory on rational , scientific grounds, without ad hominem attacks and "this is so just because I believe or say so!" kind of arguments.

All the while you have audacity to call it a scientific theory...

What a bunch of hoax perpetrating fraudsters!

Stop being hysterical, that doesn't prove a point.
Get real and try to prove instead that it is indeed a scientific theory (not that I think you ever will. But at least calm down and learn to live with it).

 

I know, I'm just giving you shit

I'm curious though, what are your beliefs?

 

What I have nowdays is the knowledge, including the knowledge of it's limitations.

I don't know about that and not really certain about the process involved in developing of defense mechanisms.
All I see is species and that they have various mechanisms, including defense mechanisms.
Perhaps they already had the capacity to develop such mechanisms prior to actually utilizing them and outer stimuli just played a role of a trigger?
But how did the capacity develop then? And did it reaaly occur in such order or reverse is true?
How do we know?
If you claim to know for sure, then let us know how? Where, by what means you acquired such knowledge (certainly you weren't witnessing the whole process through tens of millions of years, so there must be a method of reasoning employed? Do you mind to share)?

This is an idle specualation, but who knows, sometimes even idle speculation might be correct (after all it's not as improbable as Darwin's theory of evolution of species by random chance).
But I am curious as to what is the exact thought process employed and how does it correspond to observed phenomena and ,most importantly, how the frog's development of resistances to poison in their body relate to the argument that creature as complex as homo sapiens has evolved from a single cell organism by means of random chance, mutations and natural selection in a matter of few billion years?

I didn't ask you to give me a reason why theory of evolution is a theory or why didn't you witness Big Bang in person.

As to fossils, you just lack any so called evidence of evolution in it (contrary to widespread claims of hoax perpetrators) and whenever challenged about it all you say is "but of course we can't have an evidence , as required, because A) fossils are too rare and uniquie in the first place , B) any fossil is transitory anyway", well then why even bother to mention fossils and claim they are "evidence of evolution" ? And yes , every fossil could be transitional , just as any point between point C and D is transitional, but where does the reasoning come from that there is a linear connection between two? What if point C has nothing whatsoever to do with D ? How do you know D has sprung from C or that both have come from common E?
Just where the reasoning, the argument come from?

Why don't you try it instead of telling me how difficult it is?
Am I supposed to believe what you say in absence of convincing proof or argument simply because it is difficult for you to do it?
What if I tell you "Believe me, elephants CAN fly, it's just so darn difficult to show you!" , will you believe me?

No, given that fossil record is so scarce and incomplete (and fossils are impossible to obtain for all periods and species) you can't really use them for the purpose.

But you have to know chemistry, you have to know physics, you have to know how cells operate, you have to know how elements comprising them operate within a system, you have to calculate the number of all the possibilities for all the interactions of cells or elements comprising it, you have to calculate out of how many of those possibilities just one would lead to an advance, to a next step, you have to calculate the lifespan and speed of reproduction and timespan required for each of those advances to actually occure, you have to calculate geometric proportion with wich numbers increase as you move from most primitive to more complex life forms, you have to know statistics, you have to understand the basic concept and principles of the probability theory, you have to do extremely hard math and you have to spend quite a while to do all that and then, once you get the results, you have to comprehend just how long it would take for events to take place as suggested by Darwin, and you have to compare that timespan to an actual time that has passed between whatever point in history of earth you find one or another fossil record and whether few billion years would be enough for a single cell to evolve into who you are.

I did post some quotes here, but apparently you didn't browse a single page nor did you read any of what I have posted so far, yet you so confidently go on to call me a neanderthal who just happen to not understand how he came to learn how to invent and use stone tools and how it proves that Darwin is right.


Well, may be you should read this:

or this:

or this:

Now go ahead and do it, why not?
Don't you claim that theory is scientifically valid?
Where is the proof

It is actually very easy. You can prove it to youself, in practice, by rolling a dice all day long and counting the number of times you roll it and number of times you get one or another combination.
You can use mathematical formula to predict the sequence of random events and within acceptable margin of error it will prove to be accurate.

See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory

It is a real scientific theory, not some hoax that is being presented under guise of science.

We are not talking about aesthetics here.
Point is that the theory is not scientifically valid one unless you can prove it to the contrary.

Another argument is that species , prior to "adapting", already possess capacity to do so ! In another words, they do not advance or develop something out of blue and by random chance , but rather utilize the capacity which is already present and innate in them. And those who either lack or don't utilize such capacity do die.
But the question of how such capacity develops in the first place has never been convincingly explained by Darwinists, nor do they (as far as I know) have a single laboratory confirmed proof of their theoretical claims, even in the scale of the microorganisms.
Or may be you can site the name of laboratory, time such experiment was performed and particular title and name of author where it is described and proven beyond any reasonable doubt?
If so, please leave the references.

I didn't ask you to do that !
I asked lithium once, though (in another thread) and his reaction was similar to what you describe.

Oh, yes, I did make that up.
The magnitute of REAL numbers is far beyond trillions of years (just read above the copy paste from Spetner's exchange with Edward max or his readers comment. Those numbers are truly mind boggling and beyond human capacity to imagine their true vastness).

I have flown to Garren Nebula NGC 604 yesterday, just came back few minutes ago.
I hate when people say they traveled there without actually flying the starship back and forth.

No matter what you call it, it is not scientifically valid theory.

I will not venture to invent yet another theory as to why exactly, for what reason it has credibility within scientific community , but what I know for sure is that evidence is not one of them.

Oh, it was just a hallucination

 

What does said knowledge entail though? Because if you think evolution is a hoax I'm curious as to what else there is to believe that makes any sense at all...

It is obvious that you won't convince me, seeing as I recognize and understand the evidence.

It is obvious that I won't convince you, seeing as you do not recognize nor understand the evidence.

So let's agree to disagree. Let's settle on the fact that the progression of life and it's origins is mysterious. We have theories to explain it (Evolution) but as of right now complete proof has no been achieved.

 

This is a mere word play and it does not prove the scientific validity of the Darwin's theory of evolution.

I will agree on that.

 

You can't agree with half my statementm all or nothing. Not the first part (understanding, blahblah) but the second part is all or nothing.

 

I agreed with the sentense. I can do that if I find it to be correct.



You have made two separate statements there:

1) Let's settle on the fact that the progression of life and it's origins is mysterious.

No disagreement on that

2) We have theories to explain it (Evolution) but as of right now complete proof has no been achieved.

Well, guess what, not only we lack a complete proof, but we simply lack any scientificaly valid theory to explain progression and origins of life.

Darwin's Myth "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" does not count as a theory to explain it.

Hence, I can't agree with the second statement.

 

I reversed my agreement, fuck you jumbuli, argue again.


Bacteria developing resistances to modern anti-biotics.

suck it

 

Why don't you pick a sledgehammer and kill some ants outside of your house?
May actually make you feel like a hero and bring relief from all that pent up anger.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqyc37aOqT0

 

Waah still on this one jumbuli I cant say that I read all of it but u have some nerve preaching your nonsense without any alternative theory presented here. I am not religious guy because am not sure of anything in this world my beliefs can change in a minute if sufficient evidence is presented that includes evolution theory its not set in stone or bible. Pointing out few holes in a theory that does a very good job of explain all life on earth stretching almost 4 billion years does not win u the argument by default.


Am not sure what do u mean by saying “the mathematical odds of evolution happening by random chance and through mutation is so long that it makes it virtually impossible to have taken place in a period so short as few billions of years “ plz provide a link or something.
Let me give some perspective. Feel your pulse and don't let go ah common try it for now 1pulse is = 1year 1year!!! now imagine from the day u was born to the day u die holding that finger on your pulse average male heart beats approximately 2.7biliion time per life not even close does few billion years still feel short?
Lets not forget that the basic still similar life forms could of originated spontaneously in few separate places on earth giving more that 1 ancestry family tree producing rich variety of life forms.


So whats the point of this should we go back to the drawing bored and forget and reject all the benefits the theory produced like medicine understanding viruses...Crop hybridization talking of which u want evidence just look at dog breeding its no short term thing ether its been going on for thousands of years sins the beginning of humans, development if u like evolution of herbicides and pesticides and so on... Lets not forget punching religion in its ugly greedy face.

 

Indeed you are the one who has a nerve to preach Darwin's Religious Theory about evolution when it is obvious to any reasonable mind that it's nothing but a hoax.

And no, I don't have to make up an alternative theory in order to show that this one is not scientifically valid.

If you claim that you can become Pope tomorrow I don't have to prove that you can't (or prove any other things) in order to invalidate your claim.
It is you who has to prove your claim since you are the one making it.


To quote Spetner once again:

"I don’t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT. You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove a non-existence".

You sure sound like one, even though you claim not to be.
If it is not irrational faith in religious theory of evolution then you have to show relevant evidence and present plausible argument to support your claim and prove that it is indeed scientifically valid theory and not a religion.

It's not a "few holes" but discreditation of the fundamental premises of so called theory.
Just because you say "it does a very good job" to explain all life on Earth doesn't mean it really does.

I mean exactly what I said.

I did quote the Ph.D in physics from MIT who did the math, you can go back and review my earlier posts if interested.

This is irrelevant , a mere digression.

I don't know about that and don't make any claims as to how life evolved (let alone how it came into existence, when and where).

But one who makes any such claim and insists that it has scientifically valid basis must also vigorously defend it against any plausible criticism and methodically show on what grounds it has to be accepted as valid scientific theory.

Microevolution does not prove macroevolution.

And I have yet to hear about breeding technicues that succeded in producing new, entirely different species out of existing ones (as opposed to variations within the frames of the same).

Read what you write and look in the mirror.

 

Man u are 1 hard headed :banghead:guy I don't care much for the theory its no religion I don't mind other good theory if it has no holes in it but really is it possible something this complex that had started such a long time ago I just don't understand wthell are u imagining a perfect theory its impossible.

 

I am imagining nothing.

But if you claim Darwin's theory is scientifically valid then you must prove it.
Or else you have no claim.

 

-.-' Evolution is the leading idea how life develop on planet earth it haves a lot and I mean a lot of evidence heavily out weighting these so called holes suggesting that Darwin was and is wright. The theory head withstood 150 years of testing Darwin did not knew about gene sequences but never the less it just reconfirmed it. The theory benefited and will continue to do so to humankind in a very practical seance.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
But really whats the point u just going to say MEH whatever