Evolution Deceit

@gusto,

gusto;65230 wrote:

I hate to tell you this but very many of the top scientists in the world have now rejected evolution as a viable theory.

Great. Name them.

Quote:

Don't talk to me as if a high school biolgy text is the last word on modern scientific thought.

A bio book? Try modern medicine and agriculture.

Quote:

There are very many reasons that prove evolution to be false.

List them.

Quote:

My example of links is just one. And it's a valid one at that. Every link that has been discovered has proven to be either false or in many cases a hoax. If you do not believe that, then give me just ONE example.

The Scarlet Robin and Pacific Robin.

Primula Kewensis.

The London Underground mosquito.

By the by, the above are alive today. These are examples of speciation (and in the case of PK, hybridization) which have been directly observed in nature.

Then there's...

Ventestega
Archaeopteryx (To claim this is a hoax, you must specify which one of the twelve you are referring to.)
Tiktaalik
Gerbotrachus Hottoni
Oenothera Gigas

Quote:

If evolution is true there would be literally hundreds of billions of links in the fossil record.

We've found tens of thousands of them. See, your lack of education shines here. Never does anyone say "hundreds of billions of links in the fossil record", because the fossil record is a rather delicate thing. Not everything fossilizes.

Quote:

The evolutionists say that life was started just by chance.

Fail.

Quote:

The discovery of DNA has destroyed that argument just by simple math.

Fail again.

Quote:

It has been figured out by using the simple math of odds that the chance of 1 medium sized protein being formed by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 600. the estimated number of electrons in the entire universe is 10 to the power of 80.thats just a simple protein.

Ah, creationists using math... a sure sign of bullsh!t. Source your data, please.

Quote:

We now know that a gene is required as a blueprint to build this protein and since they know all that goes into a gene now they can also calculate the odds of it happening by Chance. A simple protein has about 300 amino acids the DNA gene controlling the formation of this would have about 1000nucleotides in it's chain. since there are 4 kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain the number of different combonations would be 4 to the power of 1000 which equals 10 to the power of 600. these numbers point to the complete impossibility or Darwins theory on the origins of life. At the time Darwin formulated his theory scientists thought that a single cell was a very simple thing indeed. As science has progressed they have found that even a single cell organism is complex beyond calculation.

So, where exactly does evolutionary biology... (a) speak of "chance" being the only driving force, and (b) speak of the origins of life. Hate to tell you, my ill informed creationist, that you will find neither. I still want you to source your data, unless you're just firing from the hip (read: copy-paste creationist sites)

Quote:

There are a lot of other scientific discoveries that disprove evolution but I'm not going to get into them just now.

If you could, you would.

Quote:

I will tell you this however that most of the leading evolutionists of today when faced with the facts say "the belief in evolution is a matter of faith". Evolution has ceased to be anything connected to science and has become for those who cannot face the facts a religion.

So you have 24 base pairs? How do you breed?

Do you like bananas? You do realize these are direct results of evolutionary biology, correct? Same goes for corn and wheat... you don't think those crops are pure 100% pulled from nature, do you?

You know that things like ancestry research are also based upon this, right? The same with DNA testing of any sort. Organ transplant, blood transfusion, the baby born without the ability to have breast cancer, the guy who is now immune to HIV... you realize this is all based upon modern evolutionary biology, do you not?

Oh, you don't? I'm so sorry. :rollinglaugh:

1 Reply

@Sabz5150,

The three leadin paleontologists in the world who were collectively in charge of 50% of the collected fossils in the world all agreed one one thing. There were NO transitional species.Dr. c Colin patterson of the British museum of natural history,Dr. David Raup at the field museum of natural history in Chicago and Dr. Niles Eldridge at the American museum of natural history in NY city.
You can call me all the names you want. You can insult my intelligence. You can get angry about it but the theory of eveloution is dead. The scientific evidence disproving it is overwhelming both in it's volume and scope.

2 Replies

@RedOct,

"If you want a list of them and if you truly would like to research the matter on your own I suggest a good place to start would be, evolution-facts.org"

The preconceived religious views of creationists have already led them to the conviction that evolution is wrong before they even know anything about the issue. Some of these creationists create websites, books, films, etc to promote their religion based conclusion. But it's not about science or evidence to them. They've started out with their conclusion and they're just looking for evidence to support it. Getting your information on evolution from creationist websites makes about as much sense as getting your information on the Holocaust from neo Nazi websites. I'd be interested to see you try to back up the things you say using credible sources.

0 Replies

@gusto,

gusto;65236 wrote:

The three leadin paleontologists in the world who were collectively in charge of 50% of the collected fossils in the world all agreed one one thing. There were NO transitional species.Dr. c Colin patterson of the British museum of natural history,Dr. David Raup at the field museum of natural history in Chicago and Dr. Niles Eldridge at the American museum of natural history in NY city.
You can call me all the names you want. You can insult my intelligence. You can get angry about it but the theory of eveloution is dead. The scientific evidence disproving it is overwhelming both in it's volume and scope.

Don't be a coward.

First Your claim that Dr. Colin Patterson said that there are no transitinal fossils is a blatant creationist lie.

What Patterson has said is

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."

In the link below Patterson even goes on to directly dismiss the distortions and lies that creationist have promoted about him.

Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'

Second. Your claim that Dr. David Raup said there are no transitional fossils is 100% flat out a creationist lie. What he said is

Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29). Here is the quote in the immediate context (the quoted portions in boldface):

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.

In fact if you read Raup he is very ANTI Creationism. Read him for yourself in the Google Book linked below.

Scientists confront creationism - Google Book Search

Lastly Dr. Niles Eldredge's own website completely invalidated any wilfull creationist lies against his statments.

Niles Eldredge - Let's keep evolving!

All three of the scientist you have sited support evolution. You have either fallen for or are willfully perpetuating a creationist lie. That is despicable.

0 Replies

@gusto,

gusto;65236 wrote:

The three leadin paleontologists in the world who were collectively in charge of 50% of the collected fossils in the world all agreed one one thing. There were NO transitional species.Dr. c Colin patterson of the British museum of natural history,Dr. David Raup at the field museum of natural history in Chicago and Dr. Niles Eldridge at the American museum of natural history in NY city.
You can call me all the names you want. You can insult my intelligence. You can get angry about it but the theory of eveloution is dead. The scientific evidence disproving it is overwhelming both in it's volume and scope.

Grouch pretty much put you in your place, however you bring forth three scientists who you claim are against evolutionary biology (although they are not). Three? Is that it? Ever heard of the famous "List of Steves"? That's a list of over 1,000 scientists who accept and support evolutionary biology named Steve. That's a sliver of a fraction of the scientific community, yet over 1,000 scientists in that tiny fraction can be found whom support evolutionary biology.

So your idea that throwing around names will make your point is hilarious.

This overwhelming evidence you speak of has yet to be seen. You have not posted one single bit of it, only referring to typical creationist quotemines in hopes of slipping one past the goalie. Sorry but between the lot of us, that simply won't happen.

I'm also quite certain you don't know what a transitional is seeing that you got the rest of evolutionary biology totally incorrect. C'mon, stop letting others think for you and use your own brain. Do some research, look at the data. It's all there.

Then there's us. Dunno about the other guys, but I am always willing to correct misinformation and answer any questions you might have. I'm sure they'll chip in too.

The problem you and the creationists have with trying to remove the cornerstone that is evolution can be summed up in two words: practical application. We know evolutionary biology works because we can utilize it for our needs... we can not only collect this data, but use it in a way that provides benefits, advancements and ultimately more data to put back through the ringer. We use evolutionary biology to modernize agriculture and medicine. We use it to identify disease (why do you think the first cure to smallpox was cowpox?). We can modify and improve crops (again, your bananas and corn aren't exactly "natural"). We use it to treat disease (diabetic insulin normally comes from many different animals, the diabetic medicine Byetta is dervied from the saliva of the Gila Monster). We used it to introduce a mutation into a patient's immune system and remove the HIV virus (CCR5delta32, look it up) It is now being used to modify virii and bacteria to fight off infections and disease.

Put simply: it works. There's a reason why nothing in biology makes sense without it.

0 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

Fatal_Freedoms;65169 wrote:

You're either lying or you're totally ignorant of fossils:

Wapedia - Wiki: List of transitional fossils

really? Name one.

hey you gonna respond to my post or not? When you say there are no transitionals and I give you a list of them, I expect that you admit you were wrong...although i'm sure your pride won't allow you to admit that.

0 Replies

@RedOct,

Fitst of all if you examine those statements regarding links you will notice that they are not claiming any actual links but extrapolated links. Every fossil ever found is an example of a pure spieces, bar none. A lot of the other speculations that evolutionists are just plain and simply stupid. Extremely complex structures coming into being by slow incremental steps. When the entire organ or system would not function at all without every part in it being present. I don't think any of you will change your minds about evolution. The idea that there is some other answer is just too threatening to you.
Explain to me how DNA came to be in that first life form so it could reproduce it's self?
There is no answer because the idea is just way out there in your imagination. The belief in evolution has become nothing but a cult.

3 Replies

@gusto,

gusto;65230 wrote:

I hate to tell you this but very many of the top scientists in the world have now rejected evolution as a viable theory.

AHAHAHAHA!!!

:rollinglaugh: :rollinglaugh: :rollinglaugh:

You're so full of ****!

less than 1% of scientists working in related fields (ie natural sciences) reject evolutionary theory. That's not even a single percent, i'm not sure what kind of math you're using but a fraction of a percent does NOT constitute "many top scientists".

Quote:

Don't talk to me as if a high school biolgy text is the last word on modern scientific thought.

No, the last word on modern scientific thought is reflected in the textbooks. Highschool textbooks are "dumbed-down" so laymen like you can understand them, but apparently that was a failed effort.

Quote:

There are very many reasons that prove evolution to be false. My example of links is just one.

One that I heartily and hastily refuted, speaking of you still haven't responded to my list I gave, I suppose that means you concede my point?

Quote:

And it's a valid one at that. Every link that has been discovered has proven to be either false or in many cases a hoax.

How is that not an outright lie? You're just pulling things out of your ass and asserting that they are true.

Only 3 or 4 fossils have been hoaxes, out of what? Hundreds and thousands of fossils discovered.

I could go an list all "links" that weren't hoaxes but all it takes is one counter-example to make a liar of you: Australopithecus.

Quote:

If you do not believe that, then give me just ONE example.

already did, bub. An just to let you know many fossils of australopithecus have been found multiple times in multiple locations, so go ahead, i'd like to see you say that all of them are hoaxes.

Quote:

If evolution is true there would be literally hundreds of billions of links in the fossil record.

Define "links" then we can haggle over how many have been found.

Quote:

The evolutionists say that life was started just by chance.

FAIL

Evolution doesn't say how life started at all. It's not even mentioned. Not once. Evolution talks only of how [SIZE="4"]SPECIES[/SIZE] were started. Evolution is the change in allele frequency, if there are no alleles there is no evolution. If there is no life there is no alleles.

Quote:

The discovery of DNA has destroyed that argument just by simple math.

which is?

Quote:

It has been figured out by using the simple math of odds that the chance of 1 medium sized protein being formed by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 600. the estimated number of electrons in the entire universe is 10 to the power of 80.

I'd like to know where those numbers came from. Don't bother, I know where they came from...they're made up numbers, entirely fabricated, and you probably got them from some dubious creationist website.

Numbers regarding processes especially deterministic processes are completely null. They mean nothing. Why? Because proteins aren't formed according to chance.

You could calculate the probability of an object falling down and you'd probably get a number like this

1 out of 1.36x10^460

but what you will get will be more like this

1 out of 1

Objects will always fall down because of gravity, so calculating the probability is completely meaningless because the forces do not work according to probability.

Quote:

thats just a simple protein. We now know that a gene is required as a blueprint to build this protein and since they know all that goes into a gene now they can also calculate the odds of it happening by Chance. A simple protein has about 300 amino acids the DNA gene controlling the formation of this would have about 1000nucleotides in it's chain. since there are 4 kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain the number of different combonations would be 4 to the power of 1000 which equals 10 to the power of 600. these numbers point...

these numbers point to the fact that you have absolutely no understanding of the processes that work to form something like a protein.

Quote:

to the complete impossibility or Darwins theory on the origins of life.

um...

Darwin didn't make a theory of the origin of life. In fact there currently is no theory on the origin of life, at least not in the scientific sense.

Darwin however did formulate a theory on the ORIGIN OF [SIZE="4"]SPECIES[/SIZE].

origin of life does not = origin of species

Quote:

At the time Darwin formulated his theory scientists thought that a single cell was a very simple thing indeed. As science has progressed they have found that even a single cell organism is complex beyond calculation.

And? Do you have anything resembling a point?

Quote:

There are a lot of other scientific discoveries that disprove evolution

:rollinglaugh:

You still haven't even shown one.

Quote:

but I'm not going to get into them just now.

...or ever.

Quote:

I will tell you this however that most of the leading evolutionists of today when faced with the facts say "the belief in evolution is a matter of faith".

And which scientist said this?

You're just making **** up...as usual.

Quote:

Evolution has ceased to be anything connected to science and has become for those who cannot face the facts a religion.

Dobzhansky, Theodosius. "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."

0 Replies

@gusto,

gusto;65244 wrote:

Fitst of all if you examine those statements regarding links you will notice that they are not claiming any actual links but extrapolated links. Every fossil ever found is an example of a pure spieces, bar none.

I agree.

Quote:

A lot of the other speculations that evolutionists are just plain and simply stupid. Extremely complex structures coming into being by slow incremental steps.

like?

Quote:

When the entire organ or system would not function at all without every part in it being present.

You're using the argument from irreducible complexity. unfortunately no irreducible complex system has been found in nature. So your argument is moot.

Quote:

I don't think any of you will change your minds about evolution.

If I have sufficient evidence to change my mind, then I will. But so far all arguments against evolutionary theory are just sad and pathetic.

Quote:

The idea that there is some other answer is just too threatening to you.

Who's looking in the mirror?

I came to accept evolution by discarding an inferior explanation.

Quote:

Explain to me how DNA came to be in that first life form so it could reproduce it's self?

Biological matter doesn't need to be "alive" to reproduce, nor is DNA the simplest thing that is capable of replicating.

Scientists develop first examples of RNA that replicates itself indefinitely

Quote:

There is no answer

What the **** are you talking about? I just gave you an answer. The fact that you conclude there is no "answer" before you even allow me to give one shows me that you've already made up your mind and no amount of evidence will persuade you otherwise. You're stuck in your dogma. Your answer relies on faith not reason or evidence. You must believe as you do because your religious dogmatism demands you to.

0 Replies

@gusto,

gusto;65244 wrote:

Fitst of all if you examine those statements regarding links you will notice that they are not claiming any actual links but extrapolated links. Every fossil ever found is an example of a pure spieces, bar none. A lot of the other speculations that evolutionists are just plain and simply stupid. Extremely complex structures coming into being by slow incremental steps. When the entire organ or system would not function at all without every part in it being present. I don't think any of you will change your minds about evolution. The idea that there is some other answer is just too threatening to you.
Explain to me how DNA came to be in that first life form so it could reproduce it's self?
There is no answer because the idea is just way out there in your imagination. The belief in evolution has become nothing but a cult.

Is English your first language?

Stop being a coward and think for yourself. You've provided absolutely nothing of intelligence here.

0 Replies

@gusto,

gusto;65244 wrote:

Fitst of all if you examine those statements regarding links you will notice that they are not claiming any actual links but extrapolated links. Every fossil ever found is an example of a pure spieces, bar none.

That's absolutely correct. They are pure species, every single one of them.

But what's that gotta do with not being a transitional?

You're looking at the wrong thing, throwing around terms you don't understand, and all it's doing is making you look like a fool.

Tiktaalik Roseae is a species, a pure species, bar none. It's also a transitional. It shares characteristics between two major groups. In this case, fish and tetrapods. A transitional shows where novel functions start to take shape in a very clear and concise way. Tik's fins which have every single bone in them that our arms do (raidius, ulna, humerus, carpals, etc, etc, etc) are excellent examples. Nowhere does any science text or research paper state that a transitional is some sort of "half-species" a'la crocoducks and sheepdogs.

Your misconceptions are many.

Quote:

A lot of the other speculations that evolutionists are just plain and simply stupid. Extremely complex structures coming into being by slow incremental steps. When the entire organ or system would not function at all without every part in it being present.

Ever seen a bridge built?

You are aware that there are several examples of what you seek. Most people go for the eye, so there are lots of examples and data concerning its evolution.

Where do you get your info? Seriously, you gotta switch up your sources.

Quote:

I don't think any of you will change your minds about evolution. The idea that there is some other answer is just too threatening to you.

Projection, perhaps? What "other answer" could there be? Care to entertain us?

Quote:

Explain to me how DNA came to be in that first life form so it could reproduce it's self?
There is no answer because the idea is just way out there in your imagination. The belief in evolution has become nothing but a cult.

Your asking of a question not pertaining to evolutionary biology is our problem? Why are you trying to get answers concerning the origin of life from a field of study which focuses on its diversity? It doesn't matter where life came from, as evo bio never touches on the subject whatsoever.

You can't even get that right. Sheesh.

Same tired quotemines and claims, new username.

1 Reply

@Sabz5150,

Game, Set and Match!!

Another creationist having his @ss handed back to him.

Next please?

0 Replies

@RedOct,

Can someone explain what killed this soccer player during the live televised game?

YouTube - SUDDEN "DEATH" OF A SOCCER (Football) PLAYER!?

1 Reply

@RedOct,

RedOct;65269 wrote:

Can someone explain what killed this soccer player during the live televised game?

YouTube - SUDDEN "DEATH" OF A SOCCER (Football) PLAYER!?

Looks like a head injury from the grainy pic,...Why?

0 Replies

Evolution Deceit

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know