a challenge to prove all aspects of evolution (a pagan religious concept) through the scientific method
Offline - The vanguard theory of evolution has taken on an almost sacred status. The theory of ‘evolution’ that the evolutionists are really promoting, and which creationists oppose, is the idea that particles turned into people over time, without any need for an intelligent Designer.
- A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the general theory of evolution’ is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved. The key issue is the type of change required—to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content.
The three billion DNA ‘letters’ stored in each human cell nucleus convey a great deal more information (known as ‘specified complexity ) than the over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism.
- The DNA sequences in a ‘higher’ organism, such as a human being or a horse, for instance, code for structures and functions unknown in the sort of ‘primitive first cell’ from which all other organisms are said to have evolved.
- None of the alleged proofs of ‘evolution in action’ provide a single example of functional new information being added to genes. Rather, they all involve sorting and loss of information. To claim that mere change proves that information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant can sell goods, he can sell them for a profit.
- The origin of information is a major problem for the GENERAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION
- ‘ignoring important distinctions’! It’s evolutionary propagandists who generally mix them up. Biologists frequently define evolution as ‘change in gene frequency with time’ or ‘descent with modification,’ or other such ‘microevolution’ words, and then cite insignificant examples of change within species, such as Darwin’s finches, as clinching proof of ‘evolution’ in the ‘macro’ sense and disproof of creationism!
- The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
The steps of the scientific method are to:
- Ask a Question
- Do Background Research
- Construct a Hypothesis
- Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
- Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
- Communicate Your Results
- It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.
1. Observation
We exist.
2. Proposal of a question or a problem
How did we get here?
3. A hypothesis or educated guess made
We evolved from nothing, to dirt, to single cells, to multiple cells, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammals, to humans.
4. Scientific experimentation
Oh, wait a minute. Thats right, evolution can not be observed, tested, or measured. No one has ever done an experiment that made life come from non-life or a lower creature turn into a higher creature and without that empirical evidence evolution can not leave the hypothesis or model phase.
I do not need to prove the creation model true, I can simply prove the evolution model false. There are only two possibilities of how we got here, either we got here by supernatural intervention or we got here on our own, and if one of them can be proven absurd then the other has to be true. Someone that believes in atheistic evolution will never be able to disprove YAHUWAH or the creation because in order to disprove YAHUWAH you would need to be all knowing and omnipresent, in other words you have to have the attributes of YAHUWAH to disprove YAHUWAH. It would be as if you had an infinite amount of white ping pong balls and one red one. If you could never find the red one that does not disprove its existence; however, if someone found the red ball and showed it to you that would prove its existence.
Evolution is not a proven fact Evolution is not a scientific natural law Evolution is not even a scientific theory
evolution is not based in science. you think you are wise to say you know better but you are just being a smart ass belittling what I posted which is merely facts based on real science and repeating them is fair.
you and all your slapnut atheist monkey wannabes keep professing your claim to knowledge through science? I know it is a waste of my time to repeat myself to a bunch of mind bubbles in so many ways!!!
show me the origin of life and matter in space over time through the scientific method WITHOUT exposing youself in fact that you ARE of the spirit of satan as a liar and accuser:
atheist terminology falling under the stupid invented term EVOLUTION:which is being preached in maistream media
Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro -------evolution. dont play stupid they are all connected under the scam of evolution even if you ignore most of them because you cannot grasp the big picture. that does NOT mean they are ALL not a part of your unoriginal pagan religion of origins.
Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline of evolution. NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Stellar and planetary evolution is the discipline used to explain the origin of the stars and planets. This is distinct from cosmic evolution, yet, at times, overlaps it. NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Those in origin of life studies most often focus on this discipline of evolution.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The two final disciplines of evolution are also the most often confused by people. They are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. The difference between this and macro-evolution is that micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species.
Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that such adaptations and mutations allow new species to form.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Also micro changes can be observed with the scientific method. While all the other terms OF EVOLUTION are imaginary and preached as religious fact without question or basis in science or common sense. ( PAGAN HUMANIST /ATHEIST/ CHUMPS WITH CHIMP ENVY/ ARE OF THE SPIRIT OF SATAN)
fact
Evolution is an ancient pagan concept (MAN MADE RELIGION)where people worship nature / creation instead of a CREATOR or they invent idols based on nature/creation
the theory of evolution has been with us for a very, very long time. It actually comes from ancient pagan religious beliefs that continue to be reflected in many religious traditions around the globe today. It has been documented that many ancient pagan teachers and philosophers believed that the universe spontaneously evolved by itself, that the universe is millions of years old, that humans once resembled fish, and that all living things continue to evolve.
ABIOGENESIS:nonliving origin belief (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
1. (noun) abiogenesis, autogenesis, autogeny, spontaneous generation
a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.
Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life). (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but
all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable.
There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action.
It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment. (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory.
No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
- Login to post comments
information comes from a source of knowledge which implies a living source," in post #81.
So, you're defining information as knowledge from an intelligence. Correct? ----->>if you are relying on your intelligence to post that question based on your knowledge then yes is the answer you seek!
Um, okay, why is information necessary for evolution?------------>>>lol why is evolution necessary for you to believe, without information based in reality?
you need to replace evolution with words like growth and progress.
For now, I'm just asking you whether or not insertions and duplications can add more base pairs. Adenine with thymine or cytosine with guanine.---------------------------->>>>In terms of an analogy, [human DNA is like] a very large
encyclopaedia of forty-six volumes, 20,000 pages each.
Every cell in the human body is provided with the whole
encyclopaedia
Biological life consists, to a great extent, of making the correct proteins with the proper timing and amounts. Once formed, these various proteins can do many wonderful things.
Through long, patient intelligent investigation, biochemists figured out which codon, or trio, is translated into which amino acid in making a protein chain. It was found that in many instances several different triplets are assigned to the same amino acid. Three of the 64 codons indicate “end of chain.” These serve as punctuation to signal the completion of a protein.Research is still going on as to whether there are reasons for more than one codon to indicate the same amino acid.
Summarizing the Language of Life
The letters A, C, G, and T are strung along the spiral DNA thread. The letters are read three at a time. Each triplet or codon of letters tells which amino acid is to be placed next in order in arranging a protein molecule. Three of these codons are assigned as punctuation to indicate “end chain.” This marvelously simple code is the language of life. Thomas H. Jukes in his monumental work Molecules and Evolution tells about one type of special protein (cytochrome c) which is common to all forms of life except some of the simplest. In cytochrome c, the order of letters is the same for certain parts of the chain in all species which have been examined. He concludes that these “could scarcely have persisted for several hundred million years unless the code remained unchanged and identical in all the species involved.”
Many other biologists have commented on this astounding fact that the DNA code appears to be universal, the same language in every creature on earth, whether virus, elephant, or pine tree. In all earthly life, “the sequence of these nucleotides constitutes the set of instructions for the biochemical machinery of the cell.” as in immensly superior mechanism/technology.
this intriguing language is translated through a very exact and beautiful process, it may be helpful to pause and reflect. befor you waste your time being a chump with chimp envy instead of meeting my posted challenge which you have already failed to accept and meet with my standard of approval.
A Language Indicates an Intelligent Source not a dumb ass theory of pagan origins.
please think with your spirit of intellect and consider this question: By all the rules of reason, could there be a code which carries a message without someone originating that code? It would seem self-evident that any such complex message system, which is seen to be wise and effective, requires not only an intelligence but a person back of it.
reality check
Who wrote the DNA code? Who is the author of this precise language? There is no evolutionary explanation that even begins to be an adequate answer. Professor Carl R. Woese put the situation frankly when he wrote, “We have to be content with a few naive conjectures to fill in the great gap of the code’s evolution.”
The only logical thing to do is to listen to the voice of reason and to acknowledge that only YAHUWAH who has identified HIMSELF, the infinite Person, could author that amazing living language!
Okay, so you're saying organisms couldn't have evolved because they are so complex that even humans haven't made them yet?--------------------------------------------------->>>>>> yes on so many levels above your willingness and capacity to accept. and by yet I state never because all humans have been able to do is copy paste information like the saying goes
"immitated but never duplicated" the original one and only is what it is. if you have no source what do you have besides nothing?
and if you can see a mechanism at the molecular level what do you see besides evidence of a supreme being beyond your drop of water that contains your petty mind within a vast ocean of knowledge? ok maybe your mind is but a small pool in a vast endless ocean.
Nothing needs to be changed to produce evolution?------------------->? are you being a dick or a pussy? you just shot your non self in your non sense mind bubble--"POP" SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, you finally admit your faith ! you need to start with nothing add change to produce evolution!! lol that is what you said with a pretty little ???????????? add on.
Okay. Then, what would God need to change about the genome to make it seem like evolution was happening?--------> no that is something humans and fallen angels are attempting to do in fiction eg. splice or frankensteine or the GOLEM etc... and in real life( please research crytozoology on the topic)
you need to learn the name YAHUWAH and overcome your brainwashing of the use of god/fortune when refering to the ELOAH ALMIGHTY not your false elohim.
Couldn't God have designed the process of evolution to create all the organisms? ----------------------->absolutley not and do not believe the hype of false churches or false christians who try in vain to reconcile the WORD of YAHUWAH with the word of pagan man. creating gaps and reinterpreting scripture to suite the contemporary peer pressure of atheist scientists. the original scriptures of YAHUWAh clearly contradicts any need or plan for evolution and death before sin so therefore you question is useless since you not open to all perspectives on reality. could it be that you are a closet religious pagan ? hiding behind smug misinformation on a petty nature?
For this discussion, I'm only interested in trying to explain evolution, not abiogenesis. -------------> you fail to explain evolution because you stray from the truth which is in the light of day every day since before you ever were and will be. do or do not there is no trying to explain evolution, without including the before part which is as I originally coined ABIO-EVOLUTION which is what you are not qualified to explain unless you admit you are writing a sci-fi screenplay for a shitty b-movie lack luster film that will be showcased on pbs of national pornographic or the atheist discovery channel
you failed to meet my posted challenge yet again, are you keeping score?
I still accept your failure as a sign of utter defeat on behalf of all your fellow atheist humanist chump with chimp envy closet religious pagan zealots on this thread .
yet more irrational response squash!
seriously go learn yourself
learn some facts about YAHUWAH vs. the failed rebellion that you are in alliance with.
seek HIM out with your life testimony.
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
*sigh*
Sorry, guys, I'll stop feeding the troll.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
What kills me is that creationists want us to explain the science they missed by not paying attention in class or having the initiative to research themselves. This leaves such a cognitive gap it's no wonder they just cant get it. Rational discourse requires a somewhat common knowledge base. In my neck of the woods science talk tends to get the MEGO reaction (My eyes glaze over).
yeah it is very pathetic how you call me a troll who has no common sense in the real world where we rely on intelligence and information out of necessity not chance and billions of years. you talk about science and then you drift into science fiction with your bullshit imaginary facts that you hide behind as your religious dogma without question because it justifies your chump with chimp envy lie-festyle.
you can't handle a truth that exposes you as bitter hypocrites. in a reality screaming of proof of outside intelligence at work in the real world on every scale of perception, you like that decuhe bag charles lyle and his side ass kick darwin along with dawkins and hitchins and carl sagan and every atheist /closet pagan out there -- are all either in on the satanic scam to courrupt people of faith or you are just sellout to a inferior scheme of life in the short run.
I suspect you play stupid because you want the best of mortality out of desparation. and you act smug because of your misplaced faith in what your atheist preists have indoctrinated you with , that being the humanist lie told by the opposser of YAHUWAH.
I see that in your petty attempt at a rebuttal all you were able to post was a classic atheist retreat. instead of actually addressing the facts to support your bullshit wannabe religion of things making themselves over billions of unseen unobserved unscientific unrealistic un proven unbelievable purely faith based lies preached as fact at an atheist college/university level. So when the stuffed jerk off in the barney/clown costume preached millions of years ago to all the little kids you were paying attention! and then when PBS aired their computor generated images of human/ape hybrids or actors dressed up as chumps with chimp envy, you were paying even more attention because now you can see it happening in before your eyes or when national pornographic chump/ atheist discovery channel airs how the universe formed again you are on your knees worshipping the whore you call mother nature but then you will deny it because you are a bunch of closet religious zealots hiding because humanist non science where you mantra is
ABIO-EVOLUTION. non life evolving. - of course when real scientists come out and speak up against evolution or abio genesis it as frowned apon because it falls back to the real issue at the heart of this thread and this poor irrational response fraud full of bitchnuggets. the issue is not about proof because you cant handle the proof.
rather it is about you being a fool who has said in his/her heart that there is no CREATOR infinite person known to us as YAHUWAH. thus you are free to become your own elohim in defiance of our one true ELOAH ALMIGHTY.
your forget yourselves and your trial of life testimony.
you spend a lot of time confirming your faith in abioevolution without actually testing all truths to see what is true of false. you think being a person of faith means not having the gift of spirit of intellect?
evolution is not based in science. you think you are wise to say you know better but you are just being a smart ass belittling what I posted which is merely facts based on real science and repeating them is fair.
you and all your slapnut atheist monkey wannabes keep professing your claim to knowledge through science? I know it is a waste of my time to repeat myself to a bunch of mind bubbles in so many ways!!!
show me the origin of life and matter in space over time through the scientific method WITHOUT exposing youself in fact that you ARE of the spirit of satan as a liar and accuser:
atheist terminology falling under the stupid invented term EVOLUTION:which is being preached in maistream media
Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro -------evolution. dont play stupid they are all connected under the scam of evolution even if you ignore most of them because you cannot grasp the big picture. that does NOT mean they are ALL not a part of your unoriginal pagan religion of origins.
Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline of evolution. NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Stellar and planetary evolution is the discipline used to explain the origin of the stars and planets. This is distinct from cosmic evolution, yet, at times, overlaps it. NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Those in origin of life studies most often focus on this discipline of evolution.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The two final disciplines of evolution are also the most often confused by people. They are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. The difference between this and macro-evolution is that micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species.
Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that such adaptations and mutations allow new species to form.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Also micro changes can be observed with the scientific method. While all the other terms OF EVOLUTION are imaginary and preached as religious fact without question or basis in science or common sense. ( PAGAN HUMANIST /ATHEIST/ CHUMPS WITH CHIMP ENVY/ ARE OF THE SPIRIT OF SATAN)
fact
Evolution is an ancient pagan concept (MAN MADE RELIGION)where people worship nature / creation instead of a CREATOR or they invent idols based on nature/creation
the theory of evolution has been with us for a very, very long time. It actually comes from ancient pagan religious beliefs that continue to be reflected in many religious traditions around the globe today. It has been documented that many ancient pagan teachers and philosophers believed that the universe spontaneously evolved by itself, that the universe is millions of years old, that humans once resembled fish, and that all living things continue to evolve.
ABIOGENESIS:nonliving origin belief (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
1. (noun) abiogenesis, autogenesis, autogeny, spontaneous generation
a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.
Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life). (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but
all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable.
There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action.
It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment. (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory.
No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.
I t is very clear that noone on this thread who represents the scumbag theory of life is going to seriously demonstrate true science of what they believe.
you cannot hide behind one aspect of what you protest as fact , you must demonstrate the big picture or admit you believe it on faith and not science. otherwise you have no conviction and you admit your closet pagan religion of origins is what I say it is along with budism islame shinto and every other babylonian chicken scratch man made lie out their.
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
Blah blah blah. Noone here is impressed with your ignorance. Move along.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Blah blah blah. Noone here
Submitted by Vastet on June 19, 2010 - 6:54pm.Blah blah blah. Noone here is impressed with your ignorance. Move along.
----------------->according to your pagan man made religion you worship the whore you call mother nature. it/she develops or invents ways to solve your riddles with delusions and dementia. and then you give credit to it/ her for doing things you fail to grasp in an short life span of time and false assumptions that you use to set yourself free to live as you choose without consequense.
Darwin cannot explain how the world could go from bacteria that have 'babies' that are totally fit, to humans who have babies that are totally helpless.
Bacteria have "babies" that are replicas of the "parents" and 100 percent as viable as the "parents". Fish and reptiles have babies that are miniature replicas of the parents and are self-reliant but are less viable because of their smaller size and slower speed. Most mammals and birds have totally helpless babies that have zero percent viability and need to be nursed. Babies that need to be nursed are not exactly good examples of "survival of the fittest".
How does a Darwinist explain how, after 4 billion years of evolution, we end up with helpless babies'? from non living origins?
The fact is as we climb the evolutionary tree of complexity we find diminishing fitness on the way up because of the survivability of the babies.
The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest." But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies - instead of strong and fit ones. Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness. Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw.
Darwin Purposely Overlooked Helpless Babies To Save His Theory
Infantile Helplessness Busts The Theory of Evolution
While Darwin was formulating his Theory of Evolution, he purposely overlooked the babies of mammals and birds because these babies are unfit to survive and Darwin's theory could not possibly explain this. So Darwin ignored babies - he never wrote about them. But it was absurd and wrong to ignore a crucial portion of the life of most species of mammals and birds just because it does not fit with the theory.
The fact that most birds and mammals have helpless and fragile babies totally contradicts Darwinism. If Darwinian evolution actually worked, the result would have been that all higher life forms would have babies that were "fit" and self-reliant rather than fragile and helpless. The worldwide presence of infantile fragility is such a devastating blow to the Theory of Evolution that it actually renders Darwinism totally invalid because it contradicts the very essence of the theory.
Here is why:
Every Baby Born Helpless Proves Darwin Was Wrong
According to the Theory of Evolution, within each species, the babies with "better genes" that help them to be born the most fit and self-reliant would survive the best, breed the most, and pass on their better genes to their offspring. Therefore each succeeding generation would have babies that are increasingly self-reliant and fit until the species would ultimately breed babies that are completely self-reliant at birth.
Mammals are the highest form of life and Darwinism would predict that all mammals give birth to babies that are totally fit and not in need of help from the mother.
But the opposite it true.
All mammals and birds have offspring that are handicapped with infantile helplessness.
Infantile helplessness contradicts Darwinism so fundamentally that unless Darwinists can explain it, Creationists have the right to say Darwinism is disproved by the facts of life.
On the other hand, infantile helplessness supports Logical Creationism, which believes that the world is the purposeful creation of a loving God. One purpose is to teach humanity how to love selflessly and help us to be protective and gentle. Having helpless babies assists us to learn selfless love, compassion and self-sacrifice. Every parent has made sacrifices for his or her child and this is as God intended it.
God knew that there would come a Theory of Evolution and He made certain to create life on Earth in such a way that there would be major discrepancies between real life and the false theory. God is the Master of timing and this is the time He chose to bust Darwin - and this website is an agent for Him to do so.
[Scientists normally use the term "precocial" to refer to species that have offspring that are viable; and they use the term "altricial" to refer to species that have helpless offspring. These terms are unfamiliar and meaningless to the public so for the sake of clarity, we will not use them on this website.]
The Theory of Evolution is Wrong: It Predicts that the Most Advanced Species Would Produce the Most Self-reliant Offspring
How did life begin on Earth? And how come there is such a diversity of species on this planet?
As far as Darwinists are concerned, their answer is that life began by chance, with the simplest form of bacteria they call prokaryotes, and the prokaryotes "evolved" into more complex forms of life, which in turn then diversified into all the 8 million species we now have on this planet.
According to the devotees of evolution theory, this is the order of appearance of life forms on Earth:
Prokaryotes (simple cells) emerged on earth about 4 billion years ago
Eukaryotes (complex cells) emerged 2 billion years ago
Multicellular life emerged 1 billion years ago
Simple animals about 600 million years ago
Arthropods (ancestors of insects and crustaceans) about 570 million years ago
Complex animals first showed up about 550 million years ago
Fish have been on earth since 500 million years
Proto-amphibians have been here just a little less than 500 million years
Insects showed up 400 million years ago
Amphibians emerge about 360 million years ago followed by
Reptiles, which have been around for 300 million years, and
Mammals have been on Earth for 200 million years, whereas
Birds were the last to arrive and have been here only 150 million years
And the direct ancestors of man (hominids) probably have been here for maybe 2 million years.
You may or may not agree with the above but that is what satanic evolution scientists tell us.
But this timeline of evolution exposes a FATAL FLAW IN DARWINISM.
If we apply a logical mind to scrutinize the hidden details of this timeline, we come upon the following insurmountable problem for evolutionists to try to explain:
Either the timeline is backwards or the Theory of Evolution is backwards and fatally flawed. Here is why:
Mammals and birds are the highest forms of life and the most "evolved". But most of them have offspring that are born helpless and unfit to survive on their own. Every life form before mammals and birds has offspring that are essentially self-reliant and truly fit to survive. It is not possible for Darwinism to explain how life could evolve in the direction of having less and less fit babies. If Darwin were correct, each new species that evolves would have babies that are more fit.
To put it all another way:
Darwin cannot explain how the world could go from bacteria that have 'babies' that are totally fit, to humans who have babies that are totally helpless.
Bacteria have "babies" that are replicas of the "parents" and 100 percent as viable as the "parents". Fish and reptiles have babies that are miniature replicas of the parents and are self-reliant but are less viable because of their smaller size and slower speed. Most mammals and birds have totally helpless babies that have zero percent viability and need to be nursed. Babies that need to be nursed are not exactly good examples of "survival of the fittest".
How does a Darwinist explain how, after 4 billion years of evolution, we end up with helpless babies'?
The fact is as we climb the evolutionary tree of complexity we find diminishing fitness on the way up because of the survivability of the babies.
Darwinists cannot explain this. It is a FLAW IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. And because this flaw concerns the very essence of the theory (reproduction and survivability, which are the foundations of evolution theory) the FLAW IS FATAL TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
The Theory of Evolution is Wrong: It Would Predict that Babies of Each Species Would Become Increasingly More Fit From One Generation to the Next
Below are the basic tenets of the Theory of Evolution (for both Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism) as published in National Geographic Magazine:
The gist of the concept is that small, random, heritable differences among individuals result in different chances of survival and reproduction ' success for some, death without offspring for others ' and that this natural culling leads to significant changes in shape, size, strength, armament, color, biochemistry, and behavior among the descendants. Excess population growth drives the competitive struggle. Because less successful competitors produce fewer surviving offspring, the useless or negative variations tend to disappear, whereas the useful variations tend to be perpetuated and gradually magnified throughout a population.
National Geographic November 2004 Vol 206 No 5
From the above outline it is easy to understand that the Theory of Evolution would lead us to predict that over time, each generation of babies of a species would become more and more "fit" because being fitter as a baby would be a "useful variation" that would "tend to be perpetuated and gradually magnified throughout the population". also, the more "fit" the baby, the greater the "chances of survival and reproduction" and the extra fitness would be passed on to the children of the fittest babies.
Therefor, according to Darwinism, each new generation of a species would give birth to offspring that are more fit than the offspring of the previous generation. And this would be "magnified" over and over. The result would be that over time, each species would have offspring that are totally self-reliant. And there would be no species that gave birth to unfit offspring
According to Darwinism, certainly after hundreds of millions of imaginary unobserved un documented un tested years of evolution, there should not be any species left that gave birth to helpless offspring. including daf dumb and blind chumps with chimp envy.
The evolution theory says:
in short, biological change has 'gone up
problem is
all evolution as described above is genetically impossible life started with the creation of ancestral types (for instance the ancestral wolf, the ancestral oxen and the ancestral man) their variants can never evolve beyond the natural borders of their type a new species is genetically poorer, or is even a form of degeneration compared to their ancestors over time genetic information is lost instead of gained
reality check in other words, biological change goes down
1 - Just as a computer-program is not created through a combination of copy-errors and selection, also the complex information inside DNA did not spring forth from copy-errors and selection. In the same sense it would also be nonsense to say that the typewriter came into existence through small copy-errors, made when retyping the manual of the typewriter.
2 - Michael Behe talks about 'Irreducible Complexity'. A mousetrap is irreducible complex. If one part is missing, the mousetrap doesn't function. Many biochemical systems, such as blood clotting, 'light-sensitivity' of the eyes, and the 'engine' (flagellum) of a bacteria, are completely useless if only one part (gene) is missing.
3 - Many genes are so essentially important to bring forth living offspring, that their function could never change. If such genes would start to function otherwise, life would be impossible, because the original, essential function is lost. One example is hemoglobin, which transports oxygen in the blood. Not a single individual can miss it. So basically, there is no significant evolution in those kind of genes.
4 - The fact that the information inside DNA is degenerating is a very much neglected aspect of life around us. This degeneration causes species, and also mankind, to degenerate and genes disappear instead of new ones with formerly unknown functions appearing.
LOSS OF GENES leads to new variation and new species
That the loss of a functional gene can lead to new variation is one aspect of biological change that is hardly realized. One single mutation can completely disable the a gene. With that the gene loses its function and causes a certain effect on the appearance of the individual carrying the gene. One clear example is albinism. The gene that produces the pigment has become dysfunctional. But it can also be more subtle: With many animals in the polar-regions, the gene that produces pigment in the skin has become dysfunctional. That's not the same as albinism, because albinism causes eyes to be red.
This photo of penguins shows how such a mutation can easily pop up in a certain population.
In the same way white lions (with black eyes) have been discovered in Africa. They will most likely quickly disappear in nature, because such a loss doesn't lead to good survival-prospects for lions.
populations when a mutation disables a functional gene.
However, if such an elimination of a pigment gene takes place in an area with lots of snow, it can be an advantage, because the species is less visible and thus has a better chance to survive. The polar-bear, the dall-sheep and the snow-owl are good examples.
Besides the gene that is responsible for coat-coloring, the polar-bear also lost the genes that produce the core of the hairs. Therefor they are hollow and that is an advantage for them, because they isolate the bear very well against the cold. But it is a loss of functional genes that causes this advantage.
The process of domestication leads to new variations much more often, because these variations are wanted and therefore preserved. That's why our dogs, cats and rabbits are available in many different varieties. Those varieties are usually the result of genes that were eliminated completely or that sometimes still perform a minor part of their original function.
In that sense , the result of the loss of A, B, C, D and S-genes leads to respectively black, cinnamon-coloured, albino, blue-greyish and spotted mice. Loss of certain combinations of these genes eventually leads to mice that are chocolad-brownish, blue, silver-cinnamon-coloured, silver-roe-coloured, black spotted, cinnamon spotted and so on.
Breeding and selection can lead to a lot of new varieties (a lot of genes will be permanently eliminated or damaged and new combinations of active genes arise). But the possibility to breed continuously is limited, because eventually too many active genes will have been lost. So 'fresh blood' has to be brought in; original, functional genes have to be added. Species around the world become 'genetically poorer' as time goes by, no matter what kind of selection is used: natural or human.
Genetic Loss
In biology two interesting phenomenon's are wellknown: the 'bottleneck' and the 'founder-effect', that show us how genetic loss occurs. The bottleneck is an event where the genetic diversity of a certain population reduces significantly while being brought back to just a small number of individuals (later to return to its original size maybe). Many genes can be lost in the process, because these few individuals could never carry the genetic variety of the whole population.
The founder-effect is something similar and starts working when a certain number of individuals split from a mother-population, and establish their own population separately from this mother-population. When one male and one female arrive on a remote island for instance, they can create a new population. This population will only have the limited genetic variation that was already present within the original founders of this population.
On top of that there will be a certain amount of inbreeding. The advantage of inbreeding is that hidden (recessive) qualities can be made manifest, that leads to quick new variation which makes possible selection and adaptation.
On the other hand, inbreeding could lead to an increased chance of hereditary defects, thus to degeneration. In the founder-effect - which is the most common mechanism for species-formation (when individuals split from the main population and get reproductively isolated) - the appearance of new variation, gene-loss and degeneration are closely related.
Degeneration exists
Many examples of biological change in living nature, which are often used to prove evolution, are in fact examples of degeneration:
1 - Rudimentary (reduced) organs are still considered as strong proof in favor of evolution. But the reality shows us it is a loss, losing something, not the development of something that originally wasn't there. It's a form of degeneration.
2 - Human hereditary illnesses are often caused by a mutation of a gene that was originally good. From that moment on the flaw is passed on to other members of a family according to heriditary laws. In first instance, however, the gene was good. And most other people outside this family have the good gene. All kinds of isolated groups of people show to have their own specific hereditary illnesses. But we have to keep in mind it's a malfunction of something that originally functioned perfectly. It's not just another step on the evolutionary diary. So if we go back in time far enough (thousands of years), until we reach the time of our ancestors, we would find that they possess all the intact genetic information. It is not possible for them to have carried all our billions of genetic defects within their limited genepool.
3 - In isolated caves we can find various animal species that lost sight, like the blind water-scorpion in the caves of Moville, Romania, or the blind fish and lobsters in the longest cave-system on earth; Mammoth Cave, Kentucky, USA. These fishes, for example, have also lost the pigment in their bodies. They are completely pale. This cán be interpreted as 'an adaptation to the conditions', but nevertheless it is based on a loss of genetic information (for pigment and eyes).
Usually individuals with such mutations will not survive. But in dark caves it's no longer a disadvantage and they're still able to reproduce. Because of this reproduction, damaged genes spread and once a whole population lost the original genes, they will never return, because the information inside genes is too complex to originate from dysfunctional genes. It's like a genetic subroutine has gone lost.
4 - The non-flying cormorant lost the ability to fly. This species lives on an isolated island, with plenty of fish around, so diving from rocks is enough for this cormorant to stay alive.
5 - Parthenogen lizards lost the ability to reproduce on a natural way, because the female-eggs have a double pair of chromosomes instead of a single pair. The lizards are exact copies of one another (clones) and they stimulate ovulation by simulating mating-behaviour among eachother. The masculine genetic information has gone lost through mutations, because this was no longer needed.
6 - One of the reasons the cheetah disappears is because of genetic loss and degeneration, like various researches have proven. By means of a 'bottleneck' all genetic information has gone lost and all cheetah's are lookalikes, like twins. In the supposedly 10.000 years this process has been going on, mutations did not lead to the needed variations; once something is lost, it will never return.
These examples and many more concerning this 'degeneration-law' leads us to this conclusion:
On the long run a species or population tends to lose genes and qualities which it doesn't necessarily need to survive.
Mutations occur randomly and one single mutation can be enough to disable a gene completely (just like a typing-mismatch will block computer-instructions). Therefor all the genes of a species have the risk to be eliminated sooner or later. Only if it strictly should not happen, because it decreases the chance of survival, the non-funtional gene will disappear.
In the long run it shows us that only the genes which are needed for survival in a specific environment, will last. Because of this a species might become completely dependent upon its environment, like, for example, the Koala, that only consumes very special eucalyptus-leaves. Eventually the genetic 'stretch' will have vanished, and if the environment changes again, a species could easily become extinct. It no longer has the genetic diversity to adapt to such changing circumstances.
The natural bottomline of degeneration
One question might arise: where does it end? Will life eventually become extinct?
There is a natural limit to degeneration that is preserved through natural selection: the reproductive age, the age on which a species might have offspring. If degeneration goes so far as to eliminate reproduction, that form of degeneration will not be spread anymore. In that sense, natural selection serves as a 'protector' against damaging degeneration, like weaker individuals die quicker than strong ones.
When a species balances on the edge of death, and is still able to reproduce, it can be called the worst form of degeneration. A good example is the one-day-fly. This fly spends most of its life under the surface of the water as a larvae. On a certain moment the larvae climbs out of the water onto a stalk and peels off its skin. It spends a little time flying, climbs onto a stalk again and peels off its skin for a second time. Then it starts looking for a partner. When the female is fertilized and the day has passed, she falls into the water out of exhaustion. While she drowns, she releases her eggs into the water for the next generation. A remarkable characteristic of the one-day-fly is that it has no mouth! This is where we can see the degeneration-law in action: a mouth wasn't necessarily needed for survival, and thus the species lost it eventually.
What does this all lead to?
When biological change that happens today and can be observed, shows us that species go genetically downhill, it will be very hard to hold on to the idea of an increase, or generation, of new genes. Micro-evolution seems to be 'down-hill'-evolution. That makes macro-evolution a fairy-tale.
The most logical explanation for the generation of life, and for the information inside DNA, is that an Intelligent Creator preprogrammed the DNA. Life must have sprung forth from several original types, like an original wolf, an original cat, an original bovine animal, and an original human. From these original species that had a great genetic richness in first instance, all the millions of subspecies and varieties started developing, each one searching its own way downward in its own environment.
And what about Darwin? He was a great man that made the most important discovery in biology, that is that species change throughout time. The only thing is that the direction he gave to biological change was completely opposite to what he assumed:
Not EVOLUTION, but DEVOLUTION.
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
You know, if you want to prove the existence of some intelligent designer the made us in his image, you should try to show some intelligence in your posts.
What is it with bat shit crazy fascist fucktards? They have no understanding of punctuation or spelling and then proceed to call US the stupid ones!
SO please No-Mind Fascist Troll, your complete mangling of the English language and the real science of evolution via natural selection just makes our case for us. Thank you for proving that religious fundamentalists are bat shit crazy and are unable to function in reality to boot!
P.S. In the interests of Truth In Advertising, why hasn't the Troll gotten the "Troll Badge" mark of shame yet?
"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!
I can keep this up for a fraction of the effort yet an infinitely more productive post every time. Reading one or two of your posts was enough to know you don't have the education or intellect to understand the concepts or realities that you're trying, and failing, to disprove. Every time you post the entire forum collectively snorts in amusement at your epic stupidity. Noone will bother introducing you to grade 1 science so you can catch up to the rest of the class. Every argument you've made is laughable and was rejected years, decades, and centuries ago. You are the definition of a fool. Move along.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Hey No-Mind Fascist Troll<<<--------------MIND OVER MATTER is the facts of CREATION destroys evolution
and atheist fascist wannabes are promurder for the sake of self serving perverted humanist trolls with a pagan religion of origins
Submitted by B166ER on June 21, 2010 - 12:29am.You know, if you want to prove the existence of some intelligent designer the made us in his image, you should try to show some intelligence in your posts.
What is it with bat shit crazy fascist fucktards? They have no understanding of punctuation or spelling and then proceed to call US the stupid ones!
SO please No-Mind Fascist Troll, your complete mangling of the English language and the real science of evolution via natural selection just makes our case for us. Thank you for proving that religious fundamentalists are bat shit crazy and are unable to function in reality to boot!
P.S. In the interests of Truth In Advertising, why hasn't the Troll gotten the "Troll Badge" mark of shame yet? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->because you have not found a way through intelligent design to copy and paste one in your pittiful excuse for a response to my posted challnge!
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin(failed rebel chump with chimp envy)
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."<-- stupid atheist quote.
"Fuckin' magnets, how do they work?" Insane Clown Pussies
No Gods, No Masters
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artifacts and Other Evidence Favoring Human / Dinosaur Co-occupation of the Earth
throughout history regarding people places and events around the world that testify to the fact of dinosaurs walking amongst humans.
atheist chumps with chimp envy on this thread are a peso a dozen. so sad too bad none of you are qualified to meet my posted challenges to justify your ingore and rant jibberish summed up in your humanist pagan religion for drones called evolution.. you spend your rebuttals on ignore and amuse as ignoramuses. thus the need for a-muse ment parks(atheist run museums) just like the need for a-bio- genesis as preached in pubic schools for the deaf numb and behind. yeah lol humans are the apex of creation yet atheists monkey wannabe slapnuts are the precurser to the satanic message of metropolis and the vision of subjective mindless drones giving themselves over to the insidious master manipulator and failed rebel of the universe/single spoken sentence.
bacteria/fish/lizards are not born to know calculus but they are born to live fully capable of surviving in the real world whereas the superiour human kingdom is not born with any capacity for survival yet it has the capacity to surpass all other living creatures of creation by learning calculus and even the key to eternal life through YAHUWSHUA. thus solving the desire to live while under penalty of death through transgression against the laws of the CREATOR who is the infinite person and is identified.
the same rock!
humans coexisted!
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
mind over matter
Submitted by Vastet on June 23, 2010 - 4:05pm.
mind over matter wrote:
Vastet wrote:I can keep this up for a fraction of the effort yet an infinitely more productive post every time. Reading one or two of your posts was enough to know you don't have the education or intellect to understand the concepts or realities that you're trying, and failing, to disprove. Every time you post the entire forum collectively snorts in amusement at your epic stupidity. Noone will bother introducing you to grade 1 science so you can catch up to the rest of the class. Every argument you've made is laughable and was rejected years, decades, and centuries ago. You are the definition of a fool. Move along.
---------> lol yeah you can speak your mind with blah blah blah! I certain get your lack of point. because you have none to represent your fraud religion of origins based in delusion for drones preached by satanic minions who hate you the pittiful proud slapnut.
you would if you could meet my posted challenges to justify your choice to be a sucker for ass hash philosophy but you can't so you won't and in all your posts you don't. therefore I accept your failure as a sign of defeat on befalf of all the atheist monkey wannabe chumps with chimp envy on this thread who whine about the creatards that out number you like stars outnumber the grains of sand in all the world.
now run along back to your atheist home base in your damp cave of monkey bones and bat piss and intranet dread locks !!!
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
A challenge to prove that evolution is, in fact, a "Pagan religious concept"
I jumped to the end of this post because it was way too long to read. I think all the others here have addressed Mind Over Matters concerns quite adequately but I wanted to post in a couple of things, directed at the OP.
1. Dude, learn to use the quote function. It's really easy. You can either press the quote button and edit if you're referring to an individual or, if you're addressing several people at once you can do the following:
Type out [ quote = CrazyPerson ] says what? [ / quote ] without the spaces in the brackets. That then becomes
2. Stop falling into the trap of the pseudo-intellectual. In a bid to seem clever and reasoned you not only fill your posts with the same overblown rhetoric that scientists are accused of using, but you also try to address 15 points at once. It leads to the thread becoming bloated and really hard to read.
3. Do some background reading. Every point you've made has been addressed a million times over, on this site and others. Try and educate yourself before starting an argument and then, when you fail to understand the responses, claim victory at what you think is an unsatisfactory answer.
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
I jumped to the end of this
Submitted by MichaelMcF on August 12, 2010 - 9:30am.I jumped to the end of this post because it was way too long to read. I think all the others here have addressed Mind Over Matters concerns quite adequately but I wanted to post in a couple of things, directed at the OP.
1. Dude, learn to use the quote function. It's really easy. You can either press the quote button and edit if you're referring to an individual or, if you're addressing several people at once you can do the following:
Type out [ quote = CrazyPerson ] says what? [ / quote ] without the spaces in the brackets. That then becomes
CrazyPerson wrote:2. Stop falling into the trap of the pseudo-intellectual. In a bid to seem clever and reasoned you not only fill your posts with the same overblown rhetoric that scientists are accused of using, but you also try to address 15 points at once. It leads to the thread becoming bloated and really hard to read.
3. Do some background reading. Every point you've made has been addressed a million times over, on this site and others. Try and educate yourself before starting an argument and then, when you fail to understand the responses, claim victory at what you think is an unsatisfactory answer.
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
<-----------lol
if you follow the blind you do not have the forsight of wisdom. ALSO,
jesus is a false name. the name given under heaven for salvation is that of the CREATOR WHO SAVES thus THE NAME OF THE CREATOR IS IN THE NAME OF THE MESSIAH. AND HE COMES BEARING THE FULLNESS OF THE CREATOR in HIS NAME. YAHUWAH (HE WHO EXISTS/self existent) manifests HIMSELF in the flesh as YAHUWAHSHUA MEANING YAHUWAH SAVES . you refer to the roman empire IE / ZEUS =jesus because you ignore and rant. thus you are ingorant.
you have no direction because you have no leader. and you cannot lead anyone because you have no direction. you are here because you are lost and need to be found. your spirit of intellect is in question. your life force/living soul in on trial. your matter of flesh is trivial.
===================================================================
>YOU
have not addressed my posted challenge to prove the pagan concept evolution from nothing to to humans via nothing and noone. using what honest intelligent people call science( which means knowledge gained through observation..
so . you did not meet my posted challenge and noone else on this thread has bothered to meet my posted challenge to prove all aspects of evolution (a pagan religious concept) through the scientific method .
the image of fire in your background is delusional. it makes the person in the pic look like satans expendable pawn.
all matter in space over time is subject to laws of a lawmaker. the burning in hell metaphore is misunderstood. death is the meaning of hell/going into oblivion.
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
Proving the process of evolution is easy. Every time your monkey-like body's microscopic cellular defenses cast off the new year's lurgy, the wee cells in your immune system have busily evolved to combat the latest attackers. Next year, the bugs will evolve a new strategy. That's because your body is an ecosystem and the groups of symbiotic cells teamed up inside you don't even know your mirror neuron-fueled self projection exists. They're not connected to your brain or your soul, they just go about the business of surviving in the hostile local environment they find themselves in, like a sort of bipedal coral reef.
I think you're simplifying evolution too much. It's a complex business going on at multiple levels - there are 6 keys elements to the theory of evolution and they include evolution, gradualism, speciation, common ancestry, natural selection and nonselective mechanisms - things like genetic drift that might relate the prevalence of wars or vendettas, say, the loss of all the men of lesbos in a storm at sea before the battle of marathon.
Of these, evolution means that species can accrue beneficial genetic changes over time. Stuff like brown skin if you live in the sun, or a hairier body if you live in the cold, a sleeker body if you swim in the sea, a light body if you fly in the sky. If you look around and see the modern creatures occupying these niches and compare them to the oldest fossil prokaryotes you'll see increasing complexity and suitability for a diverse range of environments. If you pick a mid-point you'd find a creature with shared similarities. And this proves evolution is a fact.
You don't want to misinterpret the word 'theory'. In this case, 'theory of evolution' is the same as atomic theory - it's not the theory your old auntie mae at the nursing home has a new boyfriend because all of a sudden she's washing her hair. Evolution is a scientific discipline. The theory of evolution encapsulates all the shitloads of data and commentary and science that goes along with that. It's like music theory or legal theory, it's not a game of pin the tail on the triceratops.
On the other hand, religion is a theory in the way you think you mean. The theory of christianity is a guess based on having no fucking proof at all. In fact, the best proof for god is considered by epistemologists to be absolutely no proof. Convinced, anyone?
Proving abiogenesis is not yet possible. There are RNA fossils in DNA but a snapshot of the moment of truth eludes us. Trouble is, all those soft-bodied little beasties don't figure much in the fossil record and even when they do it's difficult to make out cellular detail at the required resolutions. However, given evolution is true and appears to be governed by natural processes, it seems likely that abiogenesis was a natural process.
P.S. As for your insistence on proof of evolution in scientific style MOM, please buy a copy of Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True from Amazon. It costs a measly ten bucks.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
MoM,
I'd have less of a problem with you if you could spell your God's name correctly.
MoM, I'd have less of a
Submitted by jcgadfly on August 22, 2010 - 3:28pm.MoM,
I'd have less of a problem with you if you could spell your God's name correctly.
“Men become civilized not in proportion to their willingness to believe but in proportion to their readiness to doubt” - H.L. Mencken=foolish nonsense.
men become civilized because they are created to be civilized with the capacity to measure the difference between good and evil. thus is the trial of mortality. since the judgment in the beginning.
---------------->> lol
you must be used and abused? you failed to meet my posted challenge to prove all aspects of evolution (a pagan religious concept) through the scientific method . Yet another atheist drone with no real snese in reality. you ignore and rant because you are ignorant.
THE NAME OF OUR ELOAH YAH AM is YAHUWAH meaning HE WHO IS SELF EXISTENT/the INFINITE PERSON ( IAM IAM/YAH AM YAH AM
THE ONE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER IS YAHUWSHUA meaning YAHUWAH SAVES.
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
Hi MOM
Submitted by Atheistextremist on August 22, 2010 - 10:10am.Proving the process of evolution is easy.-----------> enter bullshit here => Every time your monkey-like body's microscopic cellular defenses cast off the new year's lurgy, the wee cells in your immune system have busily evolved to combat the latest attackers. Next year, the bugs will evolve a new strategy. That's because your body is an ecosystem and the groups of symbiotic cells teamed up inside you don't even know your mirror neuron-fueled self projection exists. They're not connected to your brain or your soul, they just go about the business of surviving in the hostile local environment they find themselves in, like a sort of bipedal coral reef.
I think you're simplifying evolution too much.-------> No, I simply posted a challenge to prove all aspects of evolution (a pagan religious concept) through the scientific method which you failed to do yet again.
It's a complex business going on at multiple levels ------>lol NO it is not a business, and No it is not complex, you just need a bulshit term and a pagan concept to fill in the blanks of your poor excuse for observation of the real world of matter in space over time.
- there are 6 keys elements to the theory of evolution and they include evolution, gradualism, speciation, common ancestry, natural selection and nonselective mechanisms - things like genetic drift that might relate the prevalence of wars or vendettas, say, the loss of all the men of lesbos in a storm at sea before the battle of marathon.
---------> WoW says MoM and continues :
evolution is not based in science. you think you are wise to say you know better but you are just being a smart ass belittling what I posted which is merely facts based on real science and repeating them is fair.
you and all your slapnut atheist monkey wannabes keep professing your claim to knowledge through science? I know it is a waste of my time to repeat myself to a bunch of mind bubbles in so many ways!!!
show me the origin of life and matter in space over time through the scientific method WITHOUT exposing youself in fact that you ARE of the spirit of satan as a liar and accuser: OH THATS RIGHT YOU JUST ADMITTED AND i QUOTE,"Proving abiogenesis is not yet possible" THE FOUNDATION OF YOUR FALSE RELIGION CANNOT BE PROVEN YET. AND SO the education continues.
atheist terminology falling under the stupid invented term EVOLUTION:which is being preached in maistream media
Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro -------evolution. dont play stupid they are all connected under the scam of evolution even if you ignore most of them because you cannot grasp the big picture. that does NOT mean they are ALL not a part of your unoriginal pagan religion of origins.
Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline of evolution. NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Stellar and planetary evolution is the discipline used to explain the origin of the stars and planets. This is distinct from cosmic evolution, yet, at times, overlaps it. NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Those in origin of life studies most often focus on this discipline of evolution.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The two final disciplines of evolution are also the most often confused by people. They are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. The difference between this and macro-evolution is that micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species.
Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that such adaptations and mutations allow new species to form.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Also micro changes can be observed with the scientific method. While all the other terms OF EVOLUTION are imaginary and preached as religious fact without question or basis in science or common sense. ( PAGAN HUMANIST /ATHEIST/ CHUMPS WITH CHIMP ENVY/ ARE OF THE SPIRIT OF SATAN)
=============================and then you say ?
Of these, evolution means that species can accrue beneficial genetic changes over time. Stuff like brown skin if you live in the sun, or a hairier body if you live in the cold, a sleeker body if you swim in the sea, a light body if you fly in the sky. If you look around and see the modern creatures occupying these niches and compare them to the oldest fossil prokaryotes you'll see increasing complexity and suitability for a diverse range of environments. If you pick a mid-point you'd find a creature with shared similarities. And this proves evolution is a fact.
You don't want to misinterpret the word 'theory'. In this case, 'theory of evolution' is the same as atomic theory - it's not the theory your old auntie mae at the nursing home has a new boyfriend because all of a sudden she's washing her hair. Evolution is a scientific discipline. The theory of evolution encapsulates all the shitloads of data and commentary and science that goes along with that. It's like music theory or legal theory, it's not a game of pin the tail on the triceratops.------------------------------>>>>No I do not want you to misinterpret " theory" with "guess" or "speculate" or bullshit in your case.
On the other hand, religion is a theory in the way you think you mean. The theory of christianity is a guess based on having no fucking proof at all. In fact, the best proof for god is considered by epistemologists to be absolutely no proof. Convinced, anyone?-------------> I am anyone who says NO! so you want to talk about religion? you closet pagan. pay attention=======>
fact = Evolution is an ancient pagan concept (MAN MADE RELIGION)where people worship nature / creation instead of a CREATOR or they invent idols based on nature/creation (eg. mother nature, lord , baal/alla, shiva, god, budda, jesus, etc.....etc....you feed off of bullshit and then you spew it and then you hide behind it..)
the theory of evolution has been with us for a very, very long time. It actually comes from ancient pagan religious beliefs that continue to be reflected in many religious traditions around the globe today. It has been documented that many ancient pagan teachers and philosophers believed that the universe spontaneously evolved by itself, that the universe is millions of years old, that humans once resembled fish, and that all living things continue to evolve.
Proving abiogenesis is not yet possible. -------> since you admit abiogenesis is not possible yet you should by your logic admit evolution is your closet religion and that in fact you are a pagan in denial.
ABIOGENESIS:nonliving origin belief (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
1. (noun) abiogenesis, autogenesis, autogeny, spontaneous generation
a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.
Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life). (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but
all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable.
There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action.
It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment. (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory.
No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions. yet here you are talking jibberish ...............
. There are RNA fossils in DNA but a snapshot of the moment of truth eludes us. Trouble is, all those soft-bodied little beasties don't figure much in the fossil record and even when they do it's difficult to make out cellular detail at the required resolutions. However, given evolution is true------>> Again you are preaching your religion as science. (asshole)! and appears to be governed by natural processes, it seems likely------>likley, appears to be, could have , might have , seems to be,we assume, speculate, impose, preach, presupoose, insist ===> that abiogenesis was a natural process. a(non) bio (living) genesis (origins) which means you believe without knowing. and you lie without shame. I admit my faith in a supernatural cause while you deny your conviction of your faith in your atheist closet pagan religion of origins. you assume lies told to you by satanic fools with false credentials. they know the truth and laugh at you the so called atheist in denial of being a closet pagan.
P.S. As for your insistence on proof of evolution in scientific style MOM, please buy a copy of Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True from Amazon. It costs a measly ten bucks. --------------------> OH okay now to address your fraud lover jerry coyne and his bullshit propaganda "why the pagan religion of evolution is true?"
Here's how Coyne attempts to explain why his religion isn't really religion after all:
Should we laugh or cry? According to Coyne the design "makes no sense under the idea of special creation" and this "is not a theological argument, but a scientific one." Coyne's misrepresentations and sophistry are, frankly, astonishing. Let's have a look in more detail. First, here is what Coyne writes about this design in his new book, Why Evolution is true:
This, of course, is a classic example of the theological naturalism which is the heart of evolutionary thought. Design X must have arisen naturalistically because it would not have been designed. Such assumptions about design, and what counts as acceptable and unacceptable design, are metaphysical--they are above science. They do not derive from science, but rather drive the science, as we can see so vividly here in Coyne's example.
Coyne also employs the classic evolutionary argument that it would be deceptive for God to have created the design, because this would mean he created organisms to look as though they evolved.
But nature's organisms do not look as though they evolved. Except, that is, if one assumes that God would never have designed the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Again, we're back to assumptions about design. Evolutionists are so deep in their own metaphysics they don't even realize it.
Evolution has no scientific explanation for how the recurrent laryngeal nerve, or any other nerve for that matter, evolved. It is a vacuous theory. But it knows they must have evolved because God would not have done it that way.
In fact, evolution has no solid basis for even thinking these designs are necessarily poor. This is more religion making its way into the argument, as the assumption of poor design is itself a motif of evolutionary thought. When in doubt, evolutionists assume lack of function or poor design. It is not a scientific finding so much as a consequence of the belief that evolution is true.
In fact, evolution's track record is terrible. Its many "findings" of lack of function or poor design are typically found to be false when more understanding is gained. In the case of the recurrent laryngeal nerve, it and associated nerves are complex and we by no means are in a position to declare the state of the design's goodness at this time.
Finally, Coyne makes a standard evolutionary appeal to a famous paper by evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky. Dobzhansky was one of the twentieth century's leading evolutionists and he wrote a paper entitled "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
The title itself reveals the metaphysical message and, not surprisingly, the paper was a tirade against divine creation. It is now a classic example of theological naturalism in action. The paper's title has become one of the most memorable and quoted phrases for evolutionists--another constant reminder of the theology embedded in their thinking.
Coyne makes the usual appeal to this iconic paper, but as if sensing a problem Coyne carefully edits the title. He writes that such imperfect designs "as Dobzhansky said, 'make sense in the light of evolution.' "
It may sound similar, but Coyne's redaction is a not too subtle attempt to hide the metaphysics. Dobzhansky's message was that imperfections make no sense except in evolution. That is, imperfections make no sense in divine creation.
Coyne inverts the message to say that imperfect designs make sense in evolution. Of course, but so what? So do perfect designs, and everything in between. All these make sense in evolution just as my bad day yesterday makes sense in astrology and warp drive makes sense in science fiction movies. When you can make up whatever just-so stories come to mind, then everything "makes sense."
The bottom line is that it is precisely from theology and metaphysics that evolution derives its power. Evolution is proclaimed to be a fact by Dobzhansky, Coyne and the evolutionists not on the basis of speculative science. As Elliott Sober has pointed out, evolution's truth status comes from the assumed unlikeliness of design, and all the theology entailed therein. It is, as Sober put it, Darwin's Principle.
Evolutionists like to make factual claims. One fact that is incontrovertible is that evolution is driven by theological claims--that is a matter of public record. Evolution is a religious theory. What is interesting is that the evolutionist denies any such thing. He may as well be denying the nose on his own face. This is truly a fascinating mythology.
Whether evolutionists are liars, delusional or in denial is difficult to say. What is obvious is that evolutionary thought is bankrupt. Religion drives science, and it matters.
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
We know there are issues with abiogenesis and obviously you are going to reject evolutionary theory on the basis of these tawdry strawmen. So tell me, how does creation work again?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I don't need to do what others have already done (and you choose to ignore). I'm not a big fan of re-inventing the wheel.
Seriously though, what's so hard about spelling the name of Yahweh (the Canaanite deity you claim to worship) and Yahshua (who some call Jesus - the god Paul created)?
Does being a genuine pagan scare you so much you don't want to be alone?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Ok MOM
new
Submitted by Atheistextremist on August 24, 2010 - 1:05am.We know there are issues with abiogenesis ---------> "OF COURSE YOU KNOW THAT IS TRUE"-----=and obviously you are going to reject evolutionary theory on the basis of these tawdry strawmen. So tell me, how does creation work again?-------------->>>> there is only one issue and that is the fact that abio-genesis is a lie. told by the atheist strawman. you use fossils to date layers and then you use layers to date fossils. that is the result of humanist brainwashing and false credentials from bullshit universities. who quote retardarwin. the real CREATARD
Reply------------------->>
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and ELOAHhead, so that they are without excuse. . .”
All creation works to glorify the CREATOR the infinite person who is identified.
YAHUWAH and HIS PROMISE OF SALVATION = YAHUWAHSHUA
To fully accept the conclusion that we have good evidence for YAHUWAH's existence, we need to lay aside our presuppositions and evaluate the evidence at face value. Many have set out to prove that YAHUWAH did not exist and after examining the evidence have instead found that YAHUWAH does exist. YAHUWAH = HE WHO IS SELF EXISTENT or ETERNAL
Humans are created with a capacity to create and use the spirit of intellect to conceive and then manifest their concept into matter in space over time. in case you didn't know HUMANITY is the apex of creation.
that is how something like informations is immaterial and transcends matter in space over time
information is the basis in the instructions for the procreation of life and all information comes from an intelligent mind which is supernatural and is not finite.
it is a scientific fact that
ALL LIFE COMES FROM LIFE that is why you fail to demonstrate the basis in evolution because your stupid false religion theorises /preaches nonliving origins. even the word abio-genesis is copying the GENESIS from the scriptures. which shows how pathetic the evolution scam really is. You should call it abio-evolution because that is what you believe on faith not science. yet you call it science because you are a fools fool. you cannot get past it and move on to the fiction of millions and (lol) billions of years.
Light-year - A measure of distance, not time
It doesn't measure time, in other words it is incorrect to say the universe began 4.5 billion years ago with a bang just because you pressupose you can see that far with a telescope. It's just a unit of measurement on a large scale. YAHUWAH is not limited by time. He could cross that distance in a millisecond. Man's comprehension is limited and the mortal scientist understands very little about the known universe, although they would have you believe different on so many levels and so little facts.
Humans use the spirit of intellect to concieve and then manifest their concept into matter in space over time.
that is how something like informations is immaterial and transcends matter in space over time
information is the basis in the instructions for the procreation of life and all information comes from an intelligent mind which is supernatural and is not finite.
all technology found in nature is creation at work. I tell you things and you deny them. I share information for your benefit and consideration.
you obviosly cannot handle the truth of my last post and you still fail to meet my posted challenge to prove all aspects of evolution (a pagan religious concept) through the scientific method . you fail yet again, I win you lose
are you keeping score?
how does creation not work everytime you post information on this thread? I will tell it does not work through your ignore and amuse mentality because you are an ignoramus. all you do is ignore and rant because you are ignorant.
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
Congratulations, you defeated yourself.
You state in this screed of yours that "All Life comes from Life". However, the holy book you claim to that your God inspired states the he created man from the dust of the ground aka non-living dirt.
Thank you for kicking your own tail - goodbye.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
That was an accurate representation of your posts, not me "speaking my mind". Not that I'm surprised at your inability to distinguish between the two.
rofl.
I, unlike yourself, am not stupid enough to have a religion. Your patheticness is spilling all over the place.
You have yet to post anything even remotely challenging. A six year old fresh out of grade 2, who paid attention in class, could refute half your "challenges" while sleeping. You're so incredibly stupid that you don't realise you're more than 10000 years behind the times. Get an education.
A perfect description of your beliefs.
SNORT
I once again accept your failure to challenge a monkey, let alone a human, with anything at all. I accept your failure to form cohesive arguments with logic and sense. I accept your failure to attack evolution and every branch of science. I laugh at your stupidity. Thank you, come again!
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I hope I live to see us understand the workings of the body well enough to do the equivalent of a Discovery Channel show on coral reefs only for the vascular system of John Smith at 321 Bartly Street. It would be fascinating to actually see a version of the immune system working in a way that we can relate to in real time.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Look, MOM, I agree with you that we should seek flaws in the scientific process and I strongly approve of your efforts to understand the weaknesses of evolutionary theory in such a systematic way. Now, if you could just turn the power of your objective analysis in the direction of the Old Testament, I think we could really get somewhere. As yet, I don't understand creation at the process level - could you elaborate a little more please?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Submitted by jcgadfly on August 24, 2010 - 9:37am.
Congratulations, you defeated yourself.------->NO you are a failed rebel drone chump who missed the part about the CREATOR adding life to HIS non living creation.
You state in this screed of yours that "All Life comes from Life"---->> YES that is still a scientific fact you fail to grasp.
. However, the holy book you claim to that your God inspired states the he created man from the dust of the ground aka non-living dirt.--> THE original scriptures of YAHUWAH state just as the currupt translations in english also state that life was added by the act of YAHUWAH breathing life into ADAHM thus he became a living soul. after the lifeforce of YAHUWAH added to the formed MAN. are you so pittiful you live in fear?
Thank you for kicking your own tail - goodbye.-> Oh so sad too bad. you just got here and I never got to see you meet my challenge to prove all aspects of evolution (a pagan religious concept) through the scientific method
you failed to meet my challenge. I acceptyour failure as a sign of defeat on behalf of all the atheist universities that brainwashed slapnuts like you.
now run along back to your atheist monkey wannabe home tree or bat infested cave. chump with chimp envy. you need to join the human race.
“Men become civilized not in proportion to their willingness to believe but in proportion to their readiness to doubt” - H.L. Mencken
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
MOM, are we there yet?
Submitted by Atheistextremist on August 24, 2010 - 7:46pm.
mind over matter wrote:look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
mind over matter
Submitted by Vastet on August 24, 2010 - 6:43pm.That was an accurate representation of your posts, not me "speaking my mind". Not that I'm surprised at your inability to distinguish between the two.
rofl.
I, unlike yourself, am not stupid enough to have a religion. Your patheticness is spilling all over the place.
You have yet to post anything even remotely challenging. A six year old fresh out of grade 2, who paid attention in class, could refute half your "challenges" while sleeping. You're so incredibly stupid that you don't realise you're more than 10000 years behind the times. Get an education.
----------------------------------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SLUBBERDEGULLION mentality of the humanist world-OKAY I SHALL REPEAT MY CHALLENGE = to prove all aspects of evolution (a pagan religious concept) through the scientific methodEvolution is not a proven fact Evolution is not a scientific natural law Evolution is not even a scientific theory
evolution is not based in science. you think you are wise to say you know better but you are just being a smart ass belittling what I posted which is merely facts based on real science and repeating them is fair.
you and all your slapnut atheist monkey wannabes keep professing your claim to knowledge through science? I know it is a waste of my time to repeat myself to a bunch of mind bubbles in so many ways!!!
show me the origin of life and matter in space over time through the scientific method WITHOUT exposing youself in fact that you ARE of the spirit of satan as a liar and accuser:
atheist terminology falling under the stupid invented term EVOLUTION:which is being preached in maistream media
Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro -------evolution. dont play stupid they are all connected under the scam of evolution even if you ignore most of them because you cannot grasp the big picture. that does NOT mean they are ALL not a part of your unoriginal pagan religion of origins.
Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline of evolution. NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Stellar and planetary evolution is the discipline used to explain the origin of the stars and planets. This is distinct from cosmic evolution, yet, at times, overlaps it. NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Those in origin of life studies most often focus on this discipline of evolution.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The two final disciplines of evolution are also the most often confused by people. They are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. The difference between this and macro-evolution is that micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species.
Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that such adaptations and mutations allow new species to form.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Also micro changes can be observed with the scientific method. While all the other terms OF EVOLUTION are imaginary and preached as religious fact without question or basis in science or common sense. ( PAGAN HUMANIST /ATHEIST/ CHUMPS WITH CHIMP ENVY/ ARE OF THE SPIRIT OF SATAN)
fact
Evolution is an ancient pagan concept (MAN MADE RELIGION)where people worship nature / creation instead of a CREATOR or they invent idols based on nature/creation
the theory of evolution has been with us for a very, very long time. It actually comes from ancient pagan religious beliefs that continue to be reflected in many religious traditions around the globe today. It has been documented that many ancient pagan teachers and philosophers believed that the universe spontaneously evolved by itself, that the universe is millions of years old, that humans once resembled fish, and that all living things continue to evolve.
ABIOGENESIS:nonliving origin belief (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
1. (noun) abiogenesis, autogenesis, autogeny, spontaneous generation
a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.
Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life). (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but
all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable.
There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action.
It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment. (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory.
No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions
A perfect description of your beliefs.
YES but incomplete at best also the fact of micro is stated in the case of evolution terminolgy. it is the bait and switch part of your fraud religion.SNORT
I once again accept your failure to challenge a monkey, let alone a human, with anything at all. I accept your failure to form cohesive arguments with logic and sense. I accept your failure to attack evolution and every branch of science. I laugh at your stupidity. Thank you, come again!
Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
-------------------------------->>>>>>>>>>
It is you who has taken yet another chump with chimp envy limp towards the zoo. sucks to be you in your primordial vision of crust.
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
"It is you who has taken yet another chump with chimp envy limp towards the zoo. Sucks to be you in your primordial vision of crust".
MoM
"...terms OF EVOLUTION are imaginary and preached as religious fact without question or basis in science or common sense..."
MoM
He can't really be a theist. He fits the law too perfectly. Religious fact. It's beautiful.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I don't know who Yahuwah is, BUT I WANT HIS JEW GOLD!
Your challenge had been met and crushed before I got to this thread. There was no reason to give you more to ignore. Why should I try to prove something with a tool you don't understand (the scientific method) when others already have?
So now that you've realized that you annihilated your earlier argument you have to throw in a special plead "Life can only come from life unless the Canaanite sky-god I believe in does it".
And please learn how to spell your God's name. Misspellings in all caps and extra colors is just pretentious.
Live in fear? Why? I don't have to worry that I'm kissing the correct God's ass. Why do you fear an ancient myth?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I know it's wrong but I like MoM.
Submitted by Atheistextremist on August 25, 2010 - 2:13am."It is you who has taken yet another chump with chimp envy limp towards the zoo. Sucks to be you in your primordial vision of crust".
MoM
"...terms OF EVOLUTION are imaginary and preached as religious fact without question or basis in science or common sense..."
MoM
He can't really be a theist. He fits the law too perfectly. Religious fact. It's beautiful. ------------------------------>>>>>>> I AM A YAHUWAHn a person of faith in YAHUWAH the true name above all names. the CREATOR who is knows whats in my heart and yours. HIS WORD is alive and working in ME. I merely direct you towards HIM.
you ignored the things I shared with you to your benefit. you won't see me in the circus/church. it is written that the kingdom of YAHUWAH is within not without. the original universal language since before the dispersion of humanity is still relevent. the fact that the true name YAHUWAH is preserved in the expression HAL LE LU YAH (SHORT FORM OF YAHUWAH) demonstrates the original language and the unchanged NAME of the ONE TRUE ELOAH YAH AM , not the false elohim that you desire. all throughout history and the worlds many cultures everchanging, the facts remain the same and unchanged despite the vain acts of men who have sought to cover up the truth and the true NAME YAHUWAH.
the reason you are incapable of accepting the truth is because you are not of YAHUWAH in spirit. you are of the spirit of shatan. an expendable pawn like so many in history who have dared to be independant of life everlasting.
6000 years ago the stage was created and set in motion and the events fortold and being fullfilled even today as the restoration of HIS NAME and HIS WORD is being spread throughout all the earth preparing the way for HIS gorious return to fellowship with us in communion as it was so shall it be again. it is only for those who are called that will hear and even then they are under trial of tribulation.
how does it feel to be deaf dumb and blind? is that why your pic is of a person wearing a mask of shame?
and you call yourself a non theist? that is a lie that cowards tell themselves. and what makes you an extremeist? so far you denied your faith in your false religion that worships shatan and you lack true conviction . as an extremeist you should have easily met my posted challenge to prove your faith in bullshit.
yet you hide behind the non theist wall of shame. you know your path is a broad and wide and will lead you nowhere time. that is why you and every chump with chimp envy has posted nonthing of value on this thread to justufy the whole agenda of atheism. you are a fraud and YOU know it. like the rich man who know he is poor in spirit and will end with nothing, you are here to seek direction because you are lost.
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
Canaanite sky-god better give me his Jew gold...
jcgadfly
Submitted by jcgadfly on August 25, 2010 - 9:10am.
Your challenge had been met and crushed before I got to this thread. There was no reason to give you more to ignore. Why should I try to prove something with a tool you don't understand (the scientific method) when others already have?--------------> I see you are a fraud lover and a cowtipper at best. you lack true conviction to state your case. noone has done anything to support their false religion of evolution. NO not even you ! My posted challenge is still pending for this very reason. the fact that you would rather hide behind your chump with chimp envy rebuttals is what makes you the tool and a useless tool at that.
I expect the typcal rant and retreat from your kind . it is very predictable. you claim I ignore reason? LOL I have maintaned a great effort to engage everyone on this thread and yet everyone like you with the non living origins theme who has posted is so deluded that reason disappears. just admit you are a fraud lover and you have know common sense and you do not know your history. you prefer to fail when you have not even stepped up to the plate. sucks to be you. you represent a failed rebel drone movement.---
So now that you've realized that you annihilated your earlier argument you have to throw in a special plead "Life can only come from life unless the Canaanite sky-god I believe in does it".-------------------->>NO you missed the point and you thus annihilated your earlier argument to misinterpret the facts which is typical atheist bitchnugget jargon. I did state that all life comes from life, I did not state the life comes from non living matter as you tried in vain to insult my intelligence with your poor excuse for an interpretation of scripture. you did do what shatan does by presenting a lie within a truth.. you now come back to insult THE INFINITE PERSON I referenced as the source of the LIFE in question. ARE you so dismal you play childish games where you ignore and amuse yourself to death. you fit the profile of an ignoramus. you belong in a non musement park being the non theist you think you are. you slapnut!
as for the pagan caananites you are reall uneducated and lack true knowledge of history, I suspect you fail to grasp truth at this point because you choose to reject it utterly.
And please learn how to spell your God's name. Misspellings in all caps and extra colors is just pretentious.-------------> HALLELU YAH is the expression that is unchanged and used in every culture throught the world it is a preservation of YAHUWAH within the original universal language which means PRAISE TO YOU YYAHUWAH and in the true written form of this expression you will find YAHUWAH is the true NAME given under heaven and the name of salavtion is
YAHUWAHSHUA which means YAHUWAH SAVES. if you ignore this evidence of history and language then you need to go learn how to spell the name of ELOAH YAH AM YAH AM . sky god? lol you obviously know nothing about the sky. or the pagan term god.
Live in fear?-------> oh yes you do live in fear
Why?--------------->because you are lost without direction and you are compelled to rant on this thread for that very reason you need to be vindicated in your futility. you know your days are numbered and you also know you are desparate in a world ruled by desparate selfish people.
I don't have to worry that I'm kissing the correct God's ass. Why do you fear an ancient myth? Yes you do have to worry that you are kissing the false god/elohim's ass. I do not fear ancient myths. also the ancient myths are alive and well in your mind. I choose to place my faith in reality not speculation based on lies as you assume I am doing. you have not truly read my posts nor have you understood the fallacy of the atheist term. it is not possible to be an atheist. you live in denial when you call yourself a non beleiver who still believes on faith alone. youdo not understand what science is by your very attitude in your non factual rebuttals. you should go learn yourself before embarrasing yourself like a retardarwin. you are a true cretard.
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
Canaanite sky-god better
Submitted by Kapkao on August 25, 2010 - 9:21am.Canaanite sky-god better give me his Jew gold...--------------------> the jews you seek are not israelites so you will be getting fools gold. that is what you deserve. jesus is not the name of YAHUWSHUA who comes in the name of YAHUWAH. and HE is not a satanic jew. the satanic jews pierced and crucified HIM because he exposed them as satanic frauds. you are a fraud lover. you take you cue from a cartoon character sterotype?
"Error of Opinion may be tolerated where Reason is left free to combat it." -Thomas Jefferson--------\
"Success is the slow judge of Right and Wrong" -Corinthian Blue, Starsiege -------------------------\
"The bible is and always has been strictly about a bunch of goat herders in the bronze age." -cj ----\
>>>>>>>opinions are like assholes like Kapkao in disguise
you failed to meet my challenge . I accept your failure as a sign of defeat. thank you for proving your a drone.
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
You do know that the guy you are claiming as the son of the Canaanite sky-god was an observant Jew, right? You should know that he would have been insulted by Paul's attempt to magic him up. If you really don't think he was a Jew, what do you think he was? If you claim he was an Israelite, please tell me how they're different from Jews.
Your challenge is bogus and you've ignored those who've met it. Evolution is not a pagan concept and has withstood the scrutiny of the scientific method for the last 150 years or so. If you'd ever been to a library or knew how to use Google you'd know that.
Does your sky-daddy not believe in you doing your own homework?
You're fun - I don't have that many people lose to me so easily in intellectual conflicts. Most put up some kind of a fight.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
> >
It has been done. That you refuse to accept evidence is your own problem.
Yes, it is.
Define "scientific natural law", and give examples.
lololololol
You are a liar. You quote thousand year old refuted arguments and call them science. You are the definition of failure.
See how you don't even understand the subject you're trying to argue? Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of anything. Evolution is the process that happens WHEN SOMETHING IS ALREADY THERE.
Now go back to kindergarten, work your way back up through grade 12, graduate, this time paying attention in class!, and you'll be able to argue the subject. Until then you're just embarassing yourself.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I think what MoM is saying is that he's a member of Neterei Karta
Here! Use these...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Then he's awfully confused - how could he believe his YAHUWAHSHUA is the Messiah and believe Messiah has not come?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Lol Kap. But the one I used still isn't there. Need them shifty eyes to respond to shifty statements.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
There are two reasons why I haven't tried to answer your challenge.
1) Others have already done so and you refuse to accept the answers they give you. You have not successfully argued against their evidence, you have simply said "Nyuh-uh! God still did it". As you have demonstrated a complete inability or unwillingness to actually enter discussion I don't feel like repeating the attempts of others.
2) As your mess of a reply to me demonstrates, your posts are rambling blocks of text which are draining to read. Organise your argument and your responses so that they're legible and I'll consider getting involved.
Also, don't jump to conclusions. The fire in the background of my picture has nothing to do with hell nor am I conveying anything about being in hell. The fire in the background is an admittedly crude representation of my hatred for the willingly ignorant (a dunce is actually reflected in my glasses).
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
I'm bored, so...
You prove that the proof of evolution is false. EVOLUTION IS PROVEN, 100% PROVEN. So the onus is on you to disprove it. All you're doing is proving that YOU are the liar and accuser, that YOU are the instrument of your fictional satan.
BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Demonstrate what? The Big Bang? Look at the Cosmic Background Radiation, irrefutable proof of the big bang. Demonstration not required, as you can see it every second of every day. Next.
Look at Sol. Our sun. It is a factory of complex elements. Demonstration not required, as it happens every microsecond of every day. Next.
The laws of physics were proven many centuries before you were in diapers. Demonstration not required, merely further studying of phenonmena that exist.
The Miller-Uray experiment was merely the first of dozens that have proven how easily life can form, and has been replicated in the lab. You're only a few years behind the times here, as opposed to the centuries and millenia behind the times you demonstrate with your previous arguments.
Strawman. There is no such thing as macro or micro evolution. The processes that govern both of these religious inventions are identical, relegating the question into complete irrelevance.
Proof of your inability to understand the very concepts you attempt, and fail, to argue against.
The rest of your post in just the same tired old arguement-less crap that you excel at posting.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
MoM,
Google "observed instances of speciation" - you'll get all kinds of examples of that evil macro-evolution proven by the scientific method for you to ignore.
Also, you wonder why I reference Paul? That's another easy one. You deify Yahuwahshua. When you made him a God you stepped out of his religion and into the religion Paul created.
Go home, pagan.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Submitted by MichaelMcF on September 7, 2010 - 6:39am.
There are two reasons why I haven't tried to answer your challenge.
1) Others have already done so and you refuse to accept the answers they give you. You have not successfully argued against their evidence, you have simply said "Nyuh-uh! God still did it". As you have demonstrated a complete inability or unwillingness to actually enter discussion I don't feel like repeating the attempts of others.----------------->Noone on this thread has met my challenge to demonstrate evolution of everything from nothing so you are making excuses not to engage with dignity. I can see by your using the pagan term god you are not up to speed with history when you play the GOD DId IT quote like a skipping record. that is a coppout I have already demonstrated in so many ways how evolution is a scam for atheists insecurity. it does not compare to the fullfillment of faith in YAHUWAH our true ELOAH ALMIGHTY not some pagan knock off as you would presuppose. WHEN I admit my faith it is founded in reality . I can look at matter in space over time and verify my faith with conviction and rejoice at the rich culture and prgressive thinking that has resulted in history and civiLization. no thanks to your closet pagan religion of evillussion. which you seem to deny.
2) As your mess of a reply to me demonstrates, your posts are rambling blocks of text which are draining to read. Organise your argument and your responses so that they're legible and I'll consider getting involved.--------> YOU are useless to your atheist cause, you deserve a promotion! My point has already been made very for your elitest mind and yet you still make excuses not to simply show me eg. using real science in the present day how everything evolved from nothing. I expect this ignore and rant from you because you fit the sterotype of a drone who is not capable of meeting my posted challenge because it is not possible. everyone on this thread has written nonsense with no foundation in reality.
all you have is variation within kinds which you thrive on as your meal ticket to prove evolution is happening. eg. look the wolf evolved into a poodle! or look the black man evolved into a white man etc.... or look the finch with the small evolved a larger beak! oh look the bacteria evolved into a new kind of bacteria, oh look the the fruit fly is deformed it must have evolved since there appears to be new information in the deformity. this is called bait and switch it is a pathetic yet effective way to maniptulate young minds and brainwash them with the reality of known variation and then tell them it proves macro-evolution and then re-enforce your lies with smoke and mirrors and gimmicks and poster boys like darwin, dawkins and hitchens etc...all creatards with knowledge that what they preach is in fact a satanic lie. They seriously are not that stupid to believe the bullshit they preach to you. they just want you to be a drone for the NWO agenda. turn all the religions against each other and turn as many people away from the one true FAITH and then take
over world silently. I know this is above your head because you are content with pessimistic mortality. that is the atheist retreat philosophy.
Also, don't jump to conclusions. The fire in the background of my picture has nothing to do with hell nor am I conveying anything about being in hell. The fire in the background is an admittedly crude representation of my hatred for the willingly ignorant (a dunce is actually reflected in my glasses).--->>>your hatred is misplaced and arrogant at best. it shows a lack of direction and frustration with the all the con-fusion you see. You are just trying in vain to compensate for lost time by venting for a lost cause. true science is limited by human capacity. and therefore you have to admit you are not all knowing and neither is your false claim to knowledge of things that never happend just because you say they did.
you still cannot create life from non living matter. that does not mean you cannot PRO CREATE. which is what scientists are doing copying data and processing it immitating the technology found in organic matter. they are just too stupid too realize they are not YAHUWAH the source of all life. if they really wanted to give life to non living matter why don't they just use a dead organism? it already contains all the building block /ingredients found in living things. why are they playing with campbells soup?
they have all they need in dead organisms they just need to give life back to them. the fact is to this days they are nowhere near the stage where they can say they have created life as we know it. they are so full of shit it smells to HIGH HEAVEN.(the third in this context) they still have not got a room full of chimpanzees to write the works of shakespear and noone has yet played the lottery every day for 10 years and won every day for 10 years in a row. Noone has seen a growing ink blot result in a complete encyclopedia nor has anyone seen a jet airplane assemble itself from all its parts lying cold on the floor. it only takes an instant for life to leave in the form of death yet you believe it takes billions of years for life to occur naturally. that does not sound natural at all.
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss ------------>forget the pagan roman catholic sun/moon god worshipping empire version of YAHUWSHUA stars die as everything is in decay. stars are not born and they do not die so you could be here. that is a stupid pagan based fiction if you want to quote that and still deny you are a closet pagan who hides behind the term atheist then that is your downfall in life. you want to worship creation like a drone? that is what you are doing when you give all credit to non living matter as your god. I worship a living supreme being who created your stars that you bow to. the star are not all powerful even they are dying in a finite realm.
I accept your retreat. it is wise to admit you are blind. even with glasses and furious anger. it will not last.
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
Let me see if I can help you out, MoM.
Why don't you shorten your posts to "I'm a lying sack of crap. My challenge has been met and utterly conquered but I refuse to acknowledge it because it scares me. It's easier for me to lie and scream out my insults and the names of my God. Those protect me from the dangers of thinking and learning."
It would save a lot of bandwidth.
Have you typed in that search term I gave you on Google yet? Or is your cowardice in the way?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
MoM,Google "observed
Submitted by jcgadfly on September 8, 2010 - 8:39am.MoM,
Google "observed instances of speciation" - you'll get all kinds of examples of that evil macro-evolution proven by the scientific method for you to ignore.----->>
you think you are smarter than darwin? even he confessed that what he proposed as speciation was still variation within a kind, plants are still plants bacteria are still fucking bacteria fish are still fisf and fruitflies are still fruit flies no matter how you slice and dice and microwave them and scramble their dna. you stooge atheist closet pagan who still worships the the dead non living matter as a fool. you are still using the fools gold meal ticket of micro-evolution to preach macro-evolution. pathetic , but since you are a drone chump with chimp envy I accept your humourous refferences by your fellow chumps.
you still put faith in evolution of nothing to everything and life as we know it that is what makes you a dumb ass pagan.
you are useless to your atheist cause, You deserve a promotion.
I shall spare you the time to google
Evolution
Evolution, of the fish-to-philosopher type, requires that non-living chemicals organize themselves into a self-reproducing organism. All types of life are alleged to have descended, by natural, ongoing processes, from this ‘simple’ life form. For this to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the genetic information in living things today. Chapter 9 on ‘Design’ shows how encyclopedic this information is.
So how do evolutionists propose that this information arose? The first self-reproducing organism would have made copies of itself. Evolution also requires that the copying is not always completely accurate—errors (mutations) occur. Any mutations which enable an organism to leave more self-reproducing offspring will be passed on through the generations. This ‘differential reproduction’ is called natural selection. In summary, evolutionists believe that the source of new genetic information is mutations sorted by natural selection—the neo-Darwinian theory.
Creation
In contrast, creationists, starting from the Bible ( please see thge oroginal SCRIPTURES for the proper translations), believe that God( actually the true name is YAHUWAH that is given to man) created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.
All (sexually reproducing) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two genes at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be heterozygous at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms (alleles) of this gene. For example, one allele can code for blue eyes, while the other one can code for brown eyes; or one can code for the A blood type and the other for the B type. Sometimes two alleles have a combined effect, while at other times only one allele (called dominant) has any effect on the organism, while the other does not (recessive). With humans, both the mother’s and father’s halves have 100,000 genes, the information equivalent to a thousand 500-page books (3 billion base pairs, as Teaching about Evolution correctly states on page 42). The ardent neo-Darwinist Francisco Ayala points out that humans today have an ‘average heterozygosity of 6.7 percent.’1 This means that for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the pairs have different alleles, meaning 6,700 heterozygous loci overall. Thus, any single human could produce a vast number of different possible sperm or egg cells 26700 or 102017. The number of atoms in the whole known universe is ‘only’ 1080, extremely tiny by comparison. So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the original created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder Ayala pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden recessive alleles coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to information theory
Deterioration from perfection
An important aspect of the creationist model is often overlooked, but it is essential for a proper understanding of the issues. This aspect is the deterioration of a once-perfect creation. Creationists believe this because the Bible states that the world was created perfect (Gen. 1:31), and that death and deterioration came into the world because the first human couple sinned (Gen. 3:19, Rom. 5:12, 8:20–22, 1 Cor. 15:21–22, 26) [see The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe]
As the previous chapter showed, all scientists interpret facts according to their assumptions. From this premise of perfection followed by deterioration, it follows that mutations, as would be expected from copying errors, destroyed some of the original genetic information. Many evolutionists point to allegedly imperfect structures as ‘proof’ of evolution, although this is really an argument against perfect design rather than for evolution. But many allegedly imperfect structures can also be interpreted as a deterioration of once-perfect structures, for example, eyes of blind creatures in caves. However, this fails to explain how sight could have arisen in the first place.
Adaptation and natural selection
Also, the once-perfect environments have deteriorated into harsher ones. Creatures adapted to these new environments, and this adaptation took the form of weeding out some genetic information. This is certainly natural selection—evolutionists don’t have a monopoly on this. In fact, a creationist, Edward Blyth, thought of the concept 25 years before Darwin’s Origin of Species was published. But unlike evolutionists, Blyth regarded it as a conservative process that would remove defective organisms, thus conserving the health of the population as a whole. Only when coupled with hypothetical information-gaining mutations could natural selection be creative.
For example, the original dog/wolf kind probably had the information for a wide variety of fur lengths. The first animals probably had medium-length fur. In the simplified example illustrated below,a single gene pair is shown under each dog as coming in two possible forms. One form of the gene (L) carries instructions for long fur, the other (S) for short fur.
In row 1, we start with medium-furred animals (LS) interbreeding. Each of the offspring of these dogs can get one of either gene from each parent to make up their two genes.
In row 2, we see that the resultant offspring can have either short (SS), medium (LS) or long (LL) fur. Now imagine the climate cooling drastically (as in the Ice Age). Only those with long fur survive to give rise to the next generation (line 3). So from then on, all the dogs will be a new, long-furred variety. Note that:
Another information-losing process occurs in sexually reproducing organisms—remember, each organism inherits only half the information carried by each parent. For example, consider a human couple with only one child, where the mother had the AB blood group (meaning that she has both A and B alleles) and the father had the O blood group (both alleles are O and recessive). So the child would have either AO or BO alleles, so either the A or the B allele must be missing from the child’s genetic information. Thus, the child could not have the AB blood group, but would have either the A or the B blood group respectively.
A large population as a whole is less likely to lose established genes because there are usually many copies of the genes of both parents (for example, in their siblings and cousins). But in a small, isolated population, there is a good chance that information can be lost by random sampling. This is called genetic drift. Since new mutant genes would start off in small numbers, they are quite likely to be eliminated by genetic drift, even if they were beneficial.
In an extreme case, where a single pregnant animal or a single pair is isolated, e.g., by being blown or washed onto a desert island, it may lack a number of genes of the original population. So when its descendants fill the island, this new population would be different from the old one, with less information. This is called the founder effect.
Loss of information through mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift can sometimes result in different small populations losing such different information that they will no longer interbreed. For example, changes in song or color might result in birds no longer recognizing a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Thus a new ‘species’ is formed.
The Flood
Another aspect of the creationist model is the Bible’s teaching in Genesis chapters 6 to 8 that the whole world was flooded, and that a male and female of every kind of land vertebrate (animals with biblical life in the Hebrew נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה (nephesh chayyāh sense) were saved on Noah’s ark. A few ‘clean’ animals were represented by seven individuals (Gen. 7:2). The Bible also teaches that this ark landed on the mountains of Ararat. From these assumptions, creationists conclude that these kinds multiplied and their descendants spread out over the earth. ‘Founder effects’ would have been common, so many ‘kinds’ would each have given rise to several of today’s ‘species.’
Contrasting the Models
Once biblical creation is properly understood, it is possible to analyze the ‘evidence’ for ‘evolution as a contemporary process’ The three diagrams below should help: I doubt it in your case. since you have eyes wide shut
Figure 1: The evolutionary ‘tree’ which postulates that all today’s species are descended from the one common ancestor (which itself evolved from non-living chemicals). This is what evolution is really all about.
Figure 2: The alleged creationist ‘lawn’ this represents the caricature of creationism presented by Teaching about Evolution —the Genesis ‘kinds’ were the same as today’s species.
Figure 3: The true creationist ‘orchard’ diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis ‘kinds’ (creationists often call them baramin, from Hebrew bara = create, and min = kind). Much of the evidence of variation presented by Teaching about Evolution refutes only the straw-man version of creationism in Figure 2, but fits the true creationist ‘orchard’ model perfectly well.
Figure 1: The evolutionary ‘tree’ which postulates that all today’s species are descended from the one common ancestor (which itself evolved from non-living chemicals). This is what evolution is really all about.
Figure 2: The alleged creationist ‘lawn’ this represents the caricature of creationism presented by Teaching about Evolution —the Genesis ‘kinds’ were the same as today’s species.
Figure 3: The true creationist ‘orchard’ diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis ‘kinds’ (creationists often call them baramin, from Hebrew bara = create, and min = kind). Much of the evidence of variation presented by Teaching about Evolution refutes only the straw-man version of creationism in Figure 2, but fits the true creationist ‘orchard’ model perfectly well.
Figure 1: The evolutionary ‘tree’ which postulates that all today’s species are descended from the one common ancestor (which itself evolved from non-living chemicals). This is what evolution is really all about.
Figure 2: The alleged creationist ‘lawn’ this represents the caricature of creationism presented by Teaching about Evolution —the Genesis ‘kinds’ were the same as today’s species.
Figure 3: The true creationist ‘orchard’ diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis ‘kinds’ (creationists often call them baramin, from Hebrew bara = create, and min = kind). Much of the evidence of variation presented by Teaching about Evolution refutes only the straw-man version of creationism in Figure 2, but fits the true
The alleged evidence for evolution in action
eg.
Antibiotic and pesticide resistance
the false religion of Evolution claims The continual evolution of human pathogens has come to pose one of the most serious health problems facing human societies. Many strains of bacteria have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics as natural selection has amplified resistant strains that arose through naturally occurring genetic variation.
Similar episodes of rapid evolution are occurring in many different organisms. Rats have developed resistance to the poison warfarin. Many hundreds of insect species and other agricultural pests have evolved resistance to the pesticides used to combat them—even to chemical defenses genetically engineered into plants.
However, what has this to do with the evolution of new kinds with new genetic information? Precisely nothing. What has happened in many cases is that some bacteria already had the genes for resistance to the antibiotics. In fact, some bacteria obtained by thawing sources which had been frozen before man developed antibiotics have shown to be antibiotic-resistant. When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria, those lacking resistance are killed, and any genetic information they carry is eliminated. The survivors carry less information, but they are all resistant. The same principle applies to rats and insects ‘evolving’ resistance to pesticides. Again, the resistance was already there, and creatures without resistance are eliminated.
In other cases, antibiotic resistance is the result of a mutation, but in all known cases, this mutation has destroyed information. It may seem surprising that destruction of information can sometimes help. But one example is resistance to the antibiotic penicillin. Bacteria normally produce an enzyme, penicillinase, which destroys penicillin. The amount of penicillinase is controlled by a gene. There is normally enough produced to handle any penicillin encountered in the wild, but the bacterium is overwhelmed by the amount given to patients. A mutation disabling this controlling gene results in much more penicillinase being produced. This enables the bacterium to resist the antibiotic. But normally, this mutant would be less fit, as it wastes resources by producing unnecessary penicillinase.
Another example of acquired antibiotic resistance is the transfer of pieces of genetic material (called plasmids) between bacteria, even between those of different species. But this is still using pre-existing information, and doesn’t explain its origin.
Superbugs Not Super after All
Darwin’s finches.....Evolution claims:
However, again, an original population of finches had a wide variety of beak sizes. When a drought occurs, the birds with insufficiently strong and wide beaks can’t crack the nuts, so they are eliminated, along with their genetic information. Again, no new information has arisen, so this does not support molecules-to-man religion of evolution from nothing.
Also, the rapid speciation (200 years) is good evidence for the biblical creation model. Critics doubt that all of today’s species could have fitted on the ark. However, the ark would have needed only about 8,000 kinds of land vertebrate animals, which would be sufficient to produce the wide variety of species we have today. Darwin’s finches show that it need not take very long for new species( variation within a kind) to arise.
Breeding versus evolution
the religion of Evolution compares the artificial breeding of pigeons and dogs with evolution. However, all the breeders do is select from the information already present. For example, Chihuahuas were bred by selecting the smallest dogs to breed from over many generations. But this process eliminates the genes for large size.
The opposite process would have bred Great Danes from the same ancestral dog population, by eliminating the genes for small size. So the breeding has sorted out the information mixture into separate lines. All the breeds have less information than the original dog/wolf kind.
Many breeds are also the victims of hereditary conditions due to mutations, for example the ‘squashed’ snout of the bulldog and pug. But their loss of genetic information and their inherited defects mean that purebred dogs are less ‘fit’ in the wild than mongrels, and veterinarians can confirm that purebreds suffer from more diseases.
Actually, breeds of dogs are interfertile, even Great Danes and Chihuahuas, so they are still the same species. Not that speciation is a problem for creationists. But if Great Danes and Chihuahuas were only known from the fossil record, they would probably have been classified as different species or even different genera by atheist drones taught to view fossils with an EVILLUSIONARY bias. Indeed, without human intervention, Great Danes and Chihuahuas could probably not breed together (hybridize), so they could be considered different species in the wild. Creationists regard the breeds of dogs as showing that YAHUWAH programmed much variability into the original dog/wolf created kind.
The GLOBAL flood
wiped out all land vertebrates outside the ark and would have totally re-arranged the earth’s surface. So, there’s no way that anything was created in its present location.
Also, all modern land vertebrates would be descended from those which disembarked from the ark in the mountains of Ararat—over generations, they migrated to their present locations. It should therefore be no surprise to biblical creationists that animals on islands off Africa’s coast should be similar to those in Africa—they migrated to the islands via Africa.
Darwin’s observations were thus easily explainable by the biblical creation/flood model. However, by Darwin’s time, most of his opponents did not believe the biblical creation model, but had ‘re-interpreted’ it to fit into the old-earth beliefs of the day.
A prevalent belief was a series of global floods followed by re-creations, rather than a single flood followed by migration. Darwin found observations which didn’t fit this non-biblical model. This then allowed him to discredit creation and the Bible itself, although it wasn’t actually the true biblical belief he had disproved!
An interesting experiment by Darwin, cited by the book Teaching about Evolution on page 38, also supports the creation-flood model.
Thus, Darwin helped answer a problem raised by skeptics of the Bible and its account of the flood and ark: ‘How did the animals get to faraway places?’ This also showed that some invertebrates could have survived the flood outside the ark, possibly on rafts of pumice or tangled vegetation, or on driftwood as Darwin suggested. Other experiments by Darwin showed that garden seeds could still sprout after 42 days’ immersion in salt water, so they could have traveled 1,400 miles (2,240 km) on a typical ocean current. This shows how plants could have survived without being on the ark—again by floating on driftwood, pumice, or vegetation rafts even if they were often soaked. Therefore, the creation-flood-dispersion model could also have led to such experiments, despite what Teaching about Evolution implies.
Also, you wonder why I reference Paul? --> The idea that Pauwl invented Christianity out of some theological vacuum is completely without merit. Although Paul's Letter to the Romans is radically different from just about any other book of the Bible, the teachings found in the Book of Romans is also found in the Old Testament, the teachings of YAHUWASHUA, and the teachings of the disciples. So, Paul didn't just make up doctrines to create a new religion. However, he did write the greatest theological treatise of all time in the Book of Romans. Not only are the core doctrines of Christianity found outside Paul's writings, but Paul himself taught many other theological issues that reflect the teachings of Jesus during His years of ministry. Contrary to the claims of some, Paul did not just write about some "cosmic YAHUWSHUA," but described YAHUWAHSHUA as a real man who lived and died on planet earth. In conclusion, Paul of Tarsus did not invent Christianity, but clarified the teachings of the Bible as no other Bible author ever has. In addition to his great theological writings, Paul was Christianity's greatest evangelist.
it is clear you are a failed rebel dron with no ability to grasp reality so now you jump ship and swim towards the quick sand shores of propaganda to undermine history. in a vain attempt to justify your petty pride as a chump with chimp envy!
That's another easy one. You deify Yahuwahshua. When you made him a God you stepped out of his religion and into the religion Paul created.-> again you can't handle the truth that YAHUWAH fullfilled HIS plan of SALVTION or that HE is able to manefest HIMSELF in the flesh to accomplish it.
you are truly satans bitch. how does that make you feel?
Go home, pagan.-> you are still the closet pagan in denial because you worship a false - idol bitch called mother nature
while I am admit I am a person of faith in the supreme LIVING being who CREATED LIFE AND SUSTAINS IT.
NO it is you who must retreat to your atheist home base and come back with more atheist drones for me to engage and expose as fraud lovers
fact about your atheist closet religion of evolution
Evolution is an ancient pagan concept (MAN MADE RELIGION)where people worship nature / creation instead of a CREATOR or they invent idols based on nature/creation
the theory of evolution has been with us for a very, very long time. It actually comes from ancient pagan religious beliefs that continue to be reflected in many religious traditions around the globe today. It has been documented that many ancient pagan teachers and philosophers believed that the universe spontaneously evolved by itself, that the universe is millions of years old, that humans once resembled fish, and that all living things continue to evolve.
ABIOGENESIS:nonliving origin belief (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
1. (noun) abiogenesis, autogenesis, autogeny, spontaneous generation
a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.
Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life). (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but
all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable.
There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action.
It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment. (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory.
No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
So, you didn't do the search. Is there a reason why it frightens you, Christian (pagan)?
Ah, Creation Ministries International. If you're going to steal, can you at least find good material? Mixing it with Yahuwah.org, even if you write that site, doesn't give you property rights over the whole mess you made.
While you're here, can you define "kind"? No creationist has been able to.
You do understand that a transitional form that jumps clades (half fish/half man) would disprove the evolutionary theory, right? If you want to attack the theory, that's what you guys should be looking for. Good luck with that.
Can you help us with finding the "original scriptures" Those are long gone (unless you have a divine rewrite hanging around). I mean, you don't really think the Septuagint is the original, do you?
Are you really that dumb or are you saying that the Greeks created Judaism? Are you admitting to being a pagan?
If the evolutionary tree is so wrong, why does all of life fit it instead of your idea? Is Yahuwah messing with you?
Again, if the flood was global why were there thriving civilizations around during the time they should have been drowning?
Why is abiogenesis OK for your God but wrong for any other theory? There are some interesting theories out there and as incomplete as they are, they all beat your "Magic man done it". Oh, and the oft replicated Miller-Urey experiments still prove you incorrect.
By all means, keep insulting me. it gives me a great idea of how red your ass is getting. As it is right now, be careful sitting in dry grass,. You could start a brush fire.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Fine I accept your challenge and I'll look to address the points you've made, one at a time so that the whole thing doesn't become confused. I'll start with this:
Look at the above diagram. Are the 2nd and 3rd shapes the same? Or are they unrelated shapes? Are they in any way related to the circle on the left?
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
i dont know if that has allready been adressed, but you claim there would be no chemical evolution. If i understand your claim right you say it is not possible to make higher elements out of lower elements. Am i so far correct ?
Well let me introduce ITER : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
http://www.iter.org/
Basically they try to produce energy, by converting a lesser element (hydrogen) into a higher element (helium). So far it hasnt worked for very long, but it has definitly worked and even produced more energy than they had to use to start the process. I could even describe to you in detail what happens there but i fear with your little knowledge of science concepts like the quantumchromodynamik, quantummechanik and the standart modell of particle physics might be a bit over your head.
One might argue, that it only works for those two elements, and higher elements are out of the question, but you would be wrong. When they where doing the research for this project they turned all kinds of elements in other elements. They even fullfilled the age old dream of turning lead into gold. Problem is it would cost about 100 times more than natural gold, so they didnt go mass producting with this.
p.s.: after reading the opening post i knew how it must have felt for conservatives to hear all those news stories about sarah palin during her campaign. You just cant believe someone from your "camp" is really that ignorant. People like you are on of the biggest problems for religion, cause frankly after reading this i could understand if a christian claims to be an atheist out of sheer emberessment. I am sure after sarah palin said africa is a country some conservatives also claimed to be democrats when aksed to spare them the humiliation.
Be patient: English is not my first language.
Wow, your screen name should be "mind over 1/2 a brain cell"