PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-10-15, 03:05:40
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12
Author Topic: The Reality of Evolution?  (Read 4011 times)

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1494
Quote from: F6
Wrong: circular reasoning linked to the great intellectual
and cultural poverty in the religious sphere.

Might you be referring to the Religion of Science as it now
exists?  A Religion which has in fact chosen its own god.

Perhaps you might also reveal who the chosen God of Science is?
It is not really a secret.
« Last Edit: 2019-06-01, 07:40:50 by muDped »


---------------------------
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Might you be referring to the Religion of Science as it now
exists?  A Religion which has has in fact chosen its own god.

Perhaps you might also reveal who the chosen God of Science is?
It is not really a secret.

The closest thing to what you refer to as a god in science,would be facts,as unlike religion,that is what science believes in.

The difference between science and religion,is that science is always trying to disprove it self,while religion is always trying to prove it self.

The sad thing about being religious,is you will never learn anything new that science has to offer,when it comes to mans origins.

To be religious is to be closed minded,as you already have it all figured out.

And then there is the fact that the bible was written by wacky old men 1000's of years ago,and not by any god.

All sad but true,along with being inherently dangerous to the young mind.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 386
Ron ,
You left out déjà vu ....few persons in the population haven’t experienced déjà vu
 How does one explain déjà vu ?
some part of us travels through time ?

all little hints along the way...

OK, try this one then...

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

Ron
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1494
Quote from: TinMan
The closest thing to what you refer to as a god in science,
would be facts, as unlike religion, that is what science believes in.

Clues:
Quote from: former insider
Marx dedicated his book to Darwin. When Darwin came out
with evolution, they loved that. “Oh, wow! Now, we don’t need
that Genesis stuff!” They believed that everything depends on
what man... What did the Greeks say? Yes, man is the measure
of all things. They believed that man decides what’s right and
wrong, and they weren’t going to have God get in the way. All
these people believed in eugenics, of course. Nietzsche said,
“The heck with man.”

So this is what they’ve been doing since the end of the 19th
century. We had Ralph Waldo Emerson working on it in
America. All these forces have been converging together
against American society, which is God-based, and against the
American Constitution, which is God-based.

From the outside the Institution of Science seems so legitimate,
so respectable, so knowledgeable, so deeply concerned with
finding Truth.  But, on the inside, is where the dirt is.

Don't believe it?  Dare to take a look inside?  It is not pretty.
- -  -  -  - -  -  -  -  -  - -  - -  - -  - - -  -  -  -  -  - - -
I suppose that I should emphasize that the "Institution" I'm
referring to is that of The West;  that portion of which is
dominated and controlled by the U.S.  Hopefully, other
Institutions exist elsewhere which are not controlled or
corrupted.
« Last Edit: 2019-06-01, 22:31:55 by muDped »


---------------------------
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee

OK, try this one then...

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

Ron

Well the part about using water as a computer chip was interesting.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 386
Clues:
From the outside the Institution of Science seems so legitimate,
so respectable, so knowledgeable, so deeply concerned with
finding Truth.  But, on the inside, is where the dirt is.

Don't believe it?  Dare to take a look inside?  It is not pretty.

It is generally recognized that the races came into existence each in their own local and their own time period, full blown. There was no "Missing link" There is no Missing link.  Right off the bat this invalidates the Evolutionists.

Zecharia Sitchin does a very fair job of translating the Sumerian tablets. Jordan Maxwell and Michael, from their own sources, confirm this. That is we humans are put together by the Sons of God (the Aliens) Man is made in "OUR" image (Plural Gods)

And by simple observation as a slave race owned by a very non benevolent race of aliens, so that we were just smart enough to do the job but not smart enough to figure out the enslavement entrapment.

Mankind is not evolving, rather de-evolving. Through continual war where the brightest and most physically fit are sent away to be killed ... and through radiation, nuclear and electronic (5 G) and the deliberate introduction of poisons in the air, water and land. A continual dumbing down process.

I say simple observation because I remember a previous incarnation on another world and even my reason for coming here this time. I was told that there is no other world like earth and to be careful as it is a trap for many. But it is quite simple, we come from somewhere and when we die... return to somewhere.

My favourite vignette is a psychic's vision of Jack Kennedy dancing on top of his casket!

Life is continuous... despite the bible thumpers or evolutionists malarkey.

Ron


 
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
It is generally recognized that the races came into existence each in their own local and their own time period, full blown. There was no "Missing link" There is no Missing link.  Right off the bat this invalidates the Evolutionists.

Zecharia Sitchin does a very fair job of translating the Sumerian tablets. Jordan Maxwell and Michael, from their own sources, confirm this. That is we humans are put together by the Sons of God (the Aliens) Man is made in "OUR" image (Plural Gods)

And by simple observation as a slave race owned by a very non benevolent race of aliens, so that we were just smart enough to do the job but not smart enough to figure out the enslavement entrapment.

Mankind is not evolving, rather de-evolving. Through continual war where the brightest and most physically fit are sent away to be killed ... and through radiation, nuclear and electronic (5 G) and the deliberate introduction of poisons in the air, water and land. A continual dumbing down process.

I say simple observation because I remember a previous incarnation on another world and even my reason for coming here this time. I was told that there is no other world like earth and to be careful as it is a trap for many. But it is quite simple, we come from somewhere and when we die... return to somewhere.

My favourite vignette is a psychic's vision of Jack Kennedy dancing on top of his casket!

Life is continuous... despite the bible thumpers or evolutionists malarkey.

Ron

Some one has been watching toooo much StarGate.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Well as the thread title has change now to !The Reality of Evolution!,we can now confirm that evolution is a reality--a fact.

What seems to be continually confused in meaning is the term !theory!

Although i have tried many times to explain that !theory! in science has a completely different meaning to the word theory as used in everyday chat,it still is not sinking in. Some here think that because evolution has a theory associated with it,that it is just a theory in the sense of the meaning of the word as we use it dayley-which it is not.

For those still having trouble here,the below explains the difference between the two.

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

So,there is no debate as to whether evolution is a reality,as it is a scientific fact.
The theories of evolution give an explanation to that fact.

The other curve ball thrown by the creationist's is that !well life did not just appear out of nothing! argument.
!!Odd they should say that when they claim there god made man from dust and water  C.C!!
Anyway,evolution is not about how life started,evolution is about how life has evolved over millions of years.

So,there is rock solid scientific proof of evolution,and no proof what so ever for creation,or any of the wonderful stories in the bible,like Noah's great flood for example.

Science was not out to disprove creation,it's just that creation got flattened along the way of scientific discoveries.
So now we have creationist's calling science garbage,as science proves creation to be a myth.
Creationist's now attack science,so as they can try and keep there multi billion dollar elusion going.

This forum is a scientific forum.
We use science,scientific methods, and the laws of physics to confirm or disprove highly improbable claims.
And here we have a situation where all that is brushed aside in the name of religion. C.C
Do you ever notice that is the only time science is brushed aside  C.C

Did it ever occur to you(the creationist)that maybe god did not create man,but more so man created god?.
Perhaps !creation! refers to man creating the bible  O0.

Evolution is based on and around natural laws.

Natural selection--
Fact 1: All species have great potential fertility - population size would increase exponentially if all individuals born reproduced successfully.

Fact 2: Populations display stability.

Fact 3: Natural resources are limited. Resources remain constant in a stable environment.

Fact 4: Populations have variability.

Fact 5: Variation is heritable.


Gene flow--
Gene Flow is the transfer of alleles from one population to another. Migration of populations allows new alleles to surface in areas that did not previous contain the variations. Gene flow does not necessarily have to pertain to the movement of individuals; it can also refer to the movement of gametes. The dislocation of pollen or seeds is an example of gene flow in plants.

Genetic Drift:
A random change in the frequency of traits or genetic variants that arises across generations due to random events. Drift is most pronounced in small populations. i.e. if small group of people become stranded on an island, the genetic frequency of that population or gene pool is reflected by those individual. Over time, the population gets larger however their gene pool remains small, meaning there is very little diversity compared with that of populations from the mainland. The genetic frequency of the small population is dramatic different compare to that from the mainland.

Mutation:
Any change to the genetic sequence of an organism i.e the nucleotides A,T,G,C.
Causes of Mutations
1. There is an error in DNA replication (the difference in the DNA sequence is a mutation) -- naturally occurring
Frameshift
Substitution
Deletion
Insertion
missense
point
2. Environmental factors
-Radiation from the sun can damage your DNA, causing a mutation



Non-Random Mating, aka Sexual Selection:
when individuals of one sex (usually males) compete with each other over access to individuals of the other sex. It can lead to the evolution of traits like showy ornaments or weapons that improve an individual's chance of mating.

So there you have it--The Reality of Evolution.
Evolution is fact.


Brad



---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2150


Buy me a cigar
It is generally recognized that the races came into existence each in their own local and their own time period, full blown. There was no "Missing link" There is no Missing link.  Right off the bat this invalidates the Evolutionists.

Zecharia Sitchin does a very fair job of translating the Sumerian tablets. Jordan Maxwell and Michael, from their own sources, confirm this. That is we humans are put together by the Sons of God (the Aliens) Man is made in "OUR" image (Plural Gods)

And by simple observation as a slave race owned by a very non benevolent race of aliens, so that we were just smart enough to do the job but not smart enough to figure out the enslavement entrapment.

Mankind is not evolving, rather de-evolving. Through continual war where the brightest and most physically fit are sent away to be killed ... and through radiation, nuclear and electronic (5 G) and the deliberate introduction of poisons in the air, water and land. A continual dumbing down process.

I say simple observation because I remember a previous incarnation on another world and even my reason for coming here this time. I was told that there is no other world like earth and to be careful as it is a trap for many. But it is quite simple, we come from somewhere and when we die... return to somewhere.

My favourite vignette is a psychic's vision of Jack Kennedy dancing on top of his casket!

Life is continuous... despite the bible thumpers or evolutionists malarkey.

Ron

" Big daddy? "


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
" Big daddy? "

Quote;
The image displayed below was taken from Worth1000 (now DesignCrowd), a site devoted to hosting contests in which entrants show off their skills at manipulating photographs using digital editing programs. This particular picture was an entry from one of the site’s “Archaeological Anomalies” competitions, in which entrants vied to create the most realistic archaeological hoaxes: “Your job is to show a picture of an archaeological discovery that looks so real, had it not appeared at Worth1000, people might have done a double take.”

The basis for this image was a real photograph of an excavation site near Hyde Park, New York, where scientists were working to uncover the skeleton of a mastodon. Someone then linked the altered version of the image used for the Worth1000 contest entry with a fictitious backstory based on the Islamic account of the Prophet Hud, creating the hoax quoted above — which spread especially far after being published as a seemingly real news article on the web site of The New Nation, described as “Bangladesh’s Independent News Source.”

A May 2007 blog entry entitled “Bhima’s son Gadotkach like skeleton found” (and attributed to a 22 April 2004 Times of India article) repeated the hoax, with the locale switched from Saudi Arabia to northern India and additional skeleton photos included.

In early 2010, the same basic theme was recirculated with more hoax photos of a similar ilk, usually some version of a 1993 photograph of a University of Chicago dig for dinosaur bones in Niger, into which someone has added an image of a large human skull and accompanied by some variation of the following text:

Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 386
Well as the thread title has change now to !The Reality of Evolution!,we can now confirm that evolution is a reality--a fact.
snip
Brad

Repeating a lie endlessly does not instil any element of truth to it.

Creationism and Evolutionism are merely two belief systems set up by the PTB to divide people. The surprising thing is that people buy into this deception???

Wondering how I could answer was rewarded in another forum where the "incredible_mad_Scientist" was answering "H", let me quote:

Quote
Your understanding of the 'god' idea is pretty barbaric. Most gods reincarnate into human bodies. Very few remain in their ancestral shapes when interacting with humans. In fact, for the last 1000 years most have done human experiences as an incarnating soul inhabiting human bodies.  The cone head graveyards of Mexico, all dating to approx 1000 years ago and the Stone building all ceasing construction at the same time exemplifies this.
This understanding of the Energy problem humans have with the Energy of the Universe surfaces when ever another god incarnates into a human with IP over the pay grade of humans. Its a god eat god world and we humans are just the Herd.


Ron
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2400


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Repeating a lie endlessly does not instil any element of truth to it.

 

Ron

Only it's not a lie.

If you choose to believe in sci-fi fictiction's ,then that is up to you.

As i live in a country that confirms the evolutionary process beyond doubt,then that is what i will believe.

So,until proven wrong(which neither you nor the creationist's can do),evolution remains fact,and stands firm.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 292
.
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 292
Well as the thread title has change now to !The Reality of Evolution!,we can now confirm that evolution is a reality--a fact.

What seems to be continually confused in meaning is the term !theory!

Although i have tried many times to explain that !theory! in science has a completely different meaning to the word theory as used in everyday chat,it still is not sinking in. Some here think that because evolution has a theory associated with it,that it is just a theory in the sense of the meaning of the word as we use it dayley-which it is not.

For those still having trouble here,the below explains the difference between the two.

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

So,there is no debate as to whether evolution is a reality,as it is a scientific fact.
The theories of evolution give an explanation to that fact.

The other curve ball thrown by the creationist's is that !well life did not just appear out of nothing! argument.
!!Odd they should say that when they claim there god made man from dust and water  C.C!!
Anyway,evolution is not about how life started,evolution is about how life has evolved over millions of years.

So,there is rock solid scientific proof of evolution,and no proof what so ever for creation,or any of the wonderful stories in the bible,like Noah's great flood for example.

Science was not out to disprove creation,it's just that creation got flattened along the way of scientific discoveries.
So now we have creationist's calling science garbage,as science proves creation to be a myth.
Creationist's now attack science,so as they can try and keep there multi billion dollar elusion going.

This forum is a scientific forum.
We use science,scientific methods, and the laws of physics to confirm or disprove highly improbable claims.
And here we have a situation where all that is brushed aside in the name of religion. C.C
Do you ever notice that is the only time science is brushed aside  C.C

Did it ever occur to you(the creationist)that maybe god did not create man,but more so man created god?.
Perhaps !creation! refers to man creating the bible  O0.

Evolution is based on and around natural laws.

Natural selection--
Fact 1: All species have great potential fertility - population size would increase exponentially if all individuals born reproduced successfully.

Fact 2: Populations display stability.

Fact 3: Natural resources are limited. Resources remain constant in a stable environment.

Fact 4: Populations have variability.

Fact 5: Variation is heritable.


Gene flow--
Gene Flow is the transfer of alleles from one population to another. Migration of populations allows new alleles to surface in areas that did not previous contain the variations. Gene flow does not necessarily have to pertain to the movement of individuals; it can also refer to the movement of gametes. The dislocation of pollen or seeds is an example of gene flow in plants.

Genetic Drift:
A random change in the frequency of traits or genetic variants that arises across generations due to random events. Drift is most pronounced in small populations. i.e. if small group of people become stranded on an island, the genetic frequency of that population or gene pool is reflected by those individual. Over time, the population gets larger however their gene pool remains small, meaning there is very little diversity compared with that of populations from the mainland. The genetic frequency of the small population is dramatic different compare to that from the mainland.

Mutation:
Any change to the genetic sequence of an organism i.e the nucleotides A,T,G,C.
Causes of Mutations
1. There is an error in DNA replication (the difference in the DNA sequence is a mutation) -- naturally occurring
Frameshift
Substitution
Deletion
Insertion
missense
point
2. Environmental factors
-Radiation from the sun can damage your DNA, causing a mutation



Non-Random Mating, aka Sexual Selection:
when individuals of one sex (usually males) compete with each other over access to individuals of the other sex. It can lead to the evolution of traits like showy ornaments or weapons that improve an individual's chance of mating.

So there you have it--The Reality of Evolution.
Evolution is fact.


Brad


"Well as the thread title has change now to !The Reality of Evolution!,we can now confirm that evolution is a reality--a fact."

What a load of garbage. Only you feel confirmed on your acceptance of theories, not we. You take the changing of the title of the thread as some sort of win for you arguments. It is not. I preferred the original title as more truthful.



"What seems to be continually confused in meaning is the term !theory!"

O really? PC culture at its best.  Just like many things these days, the definitions of words are being distorted to forward agendas. Theory is theory and that is all that it is.

noun

    1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: "Darwin's theory of evolution"


Supposition. System of 'ideas'. 'Intended' to explain something.   Theory is not proof of anything.

Here is Merrium Websters definition...   "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."

Plausible does not imply absolute fact.  Body of principles 'offered' to explain 'phenomena'.....

Phenomenon:
noun

    1. a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question:


So no, I do not accept your 'Offerings' of theories of evolution as fact, of which you choose to follow. I will not accept your 'new' definitions of what theory is. You just want to try and eliminate the true meaning of theory as it hurts your arguments. You have proven nothing.



"So,there is no debate as to whether evolution is a reality,as it is a scientific fact.
The theories of evolution give an explanation to that fact."

Lol.  Yes there is debate. You have been soo indoctrinated into science lies and agenda. You believe that all science is truth, but it is not.  You think all religion is about power and control but all science is truth and infallible?
One day soon, you will be very surprised.



"The other curve ball thrown by the creationist's is that !well life did not just appear out of nothing! argument.
!!Odd they should say that when they claim there god made man from dust and water  C.C!!
Anyway,evolution is not about how life started,evolution is about how life has evolved over millions of years."

Curve ball thrown by creationists??  So are you saying that we all DID just appear out of nothing?????  Dude I think you are loosing it. 

What is dust to you?  Dry skin flakes?  Sand? Carbon? Granite? Copper?  What specific dust do you theorize that it was, or in your case, could have been?  And for your version of the beginning of life, what was your dust made of????



"Did it ever occur to you(the creationist)that maybe god did not create man,but more so man created god?.
Perhaps !creation! refers to man creating the bible  O0."

Why would that occur to us? It certainly has occurred to you without actually knowing for sure. Can you prove God does not exist? No you cannot. You can only offer scientific 'theory' of alternative. Just one of Lucefers many deceptions. We do not have to prove God exists. We heard and we searched and we found. That is the only way.  Even though Im sure you have heard, you just chose other options. And you say we force our beliefs on you????  Look at who posts the most here and ridicules us! it is you that is pushing your beliefs on us. ;) C.C  Oh the hipocrisy.

You have put all this time and energy into trying to get people to accept the assumptions and theories you claim are facts. It is you that are in fantasy land.

Mags
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 292
"Anyway,evolution is not about how life started,evolution is about how life has evolved over millions of years.""

Hmm.  Evolution is not about how life started?  Is that your curve ball? From what I understand it is about how life possibly started, unless evolution belief is that life has always existed.  The whole basis of evolution is that we started from some accidental simple form of life appearance that started it all and we have evolved from that.  If not then what is your version?

Mags
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1494
Quote from: TinMan
Although i have tried many times to explain that !theory!
in science has a completely different meaning to the word
theory as used in everyday chat, it still is not sinking in.

Some here think that because evolution has a theory
associated with it, that it is just a theory in the sense of the
meaning of the word as we use it dayley - which it is not.

For those still having trouble here, the below explains the
difference between the two.

Science Definition of Theory

Very nice link TinMan!

Very nicely illustrates how The Agenda actually operates.

One of the key tenets of Deception involves the alteration
of the meaning of words.

The God of Institutional Science is really quite clever, no?

Sadly, America has contributed much to the deceiving of
the People Worldwide.

It is An Agenda.  It has become a Cult.

The End of the Institutional Lying is close at hand.

The Beginning is near.



---------------------------
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 486
Believing in something false doesn't make it true.
Hi Brad,

I have debated with myself for several days now as to whether I should make this post or not.  I sincerely do NOT want to offend you or ridicule what you believe.  I have a great amount of respect for you.  You are clearly a very intelligent person.  And your mechanical skills are simply amazing.  So I do mean it when I say I have a great amount of respect for you.  But I feel I really need to say the following things.

You keep making the claim that science proves evolution.  I of course strongly disagree with that statement.  I have provided several links to scientific articles that show that evolution is either not possible at all or is mathematically improbable as to be impossible.  Now let's look at what you have provided as scientific PROOF of evolution.

I first presented an article that was the latest data obtained from the study of the DNA of thousands of animals from all over the earth.  The data showed that almost all animals came into existence at almost the same time.  This is clearly not possible if all animals slowly evolved over time.  It also showed that the animals were the same age as humans.  Also not possible if we all had evolved over time.  It also showed that according to the DNA  mankind and the animals were between 100,000 and 200,000 years old. 

Your reply was that the article showed the Bible was wrong when it said the the earth was 6,000 years old.  SO WHAT!  That has nothing to do with scientifically proving evolution was real.  That is called a straw man argument.  It had nothing to do with the DNA evidence refuting evolution.

You then pointed out that the article said that this accounted for 90% of the animals.  So what about the other 10%  you asked.  Well what about them?  The article didn't say if they were even tested or not.  It just said the DNA accounted for 90% of the life forms on earth.  Another straw man argument.

I also presented a nice video explaining why creationist believe the fossil record correctly shows the results of a world wide flood and clearly showed the rock layers of the Grande Canyon and how all those layers were perfectly smooth and flat with no signs of erosion between the layers which could only have occurred if they were all laid down at the same time.

Your reply which you have reposted several times is that some mathematician claimed there was no place for all that water to go.  You posted that, even though the evidence from geology shows there have been massive changes in the earths surface and the depths of the oceans can easily hold the flood waters after the flood when the tectonic plates shifted and opened up the deep sea trenches.  And the surface if the earth is still 70% water.  And again another straw man argument.  Whether there was a flood or not does not prove evolution. 

I presented an article about Sir Fred Hoyle.  He was a very famous mathematician and well known atheist.  His calculations clearly show that the creation of life could not have ever happened by accident.  Not in many many billions of years.  His words said it was mathematically impossible.  You response was that evolution was only about change over time and not the creation of life.  HUH?  The whole premise of evolution is that random chance is the means by which life was created and evolution is possible.  You also pointed out he was an astronomer.  I assume you meant by that that his math about evolution might be faulty.  So you will take the math of some unknown guy on YouTube but reject the math of one of the most famous mathematicians of the last century.

I could go on but I think you see what I mean.  Instead of offering scientific proof you insist on bringing up arguments that don't really have anything to do with proving evolution.  You seem to be particularly determined to prove the Bible is false.  Again, proving the Bible false does NOT make evolution true.

You also seem to have a problem with the  Biblical claim that God created Adam from dust.  Well golly gee.  If He can create the whole world from nothing then creating man from dust is a pretty small achievement don't you think.   I mean that is what He does.  He creates.

So here is your chance.  Please provide SCIENTIFIC evidence for the following:

How can a compound structure like the eye have evolved over time?

Why have no missing link fossils ever been found?

How could all those rock layers have been laid down perfectly flat with no erosion between layers if they supposedly took millions of years to form?

How could those same rock layers have been bent perfectly smoothly like we see in some mountains without them breaking if they weren't pliable when they were pushed up into the mountain shapes.

From my point of view Brad, you don't have a real strong bias for evolution.  But you do have a very strong bias against the Bible because that is what you keep going back to.  But again I have to say that trying to prove the Bible wrong does not prove evolution right.

Sincerely and very respectfully,
your friend, Carroll


---------------------------
Just because it is on YouTube does not make it real.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1494
On a more humorous note:

The struggle against deception has some very talented
warriors.

Adult Language is employed for best effect:

An example of their work

Who they are

Wouldn't it be nice of this sort of work went viral?

Isn't it encouraging to see Truth emerge valiantly?

The Theory of Evolution is just one prong of a multi-pronged
attack against Truth.  We're inundated with lies from every
segment of government controlled "information" and lulled
to sleep with numerous addictions, both chemical and
electronic via social media.

But not for too much longer.  A new beginning is soon.


---------------------------
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Hi Brad,



 Now let's look at what you have provided as scientific PROOF of evolution.

 





 







So here is your chance.  Please provide SCIENTIFIC evidence for the following:











Sincerely and very respectfully,
your friend, Carroll

Quote
I have debated with myself for several days now as to whether I should make this post or not.  I sincerely do NOT want to offend you or ridicule what you believe.  I have a great amount of respect for you.  You are clearly a very intelligent person.  And your mechanical skills are simply amazing.  So I do mean it when I say I have a great amount of respect for you.  But I feel I really need to say the following things.

No offence taken at all Carroll,and this is the reason we have threads within the forum-->to discuss things.

Quote
You keep making the claim that science proves evolution.  I of course strongly disagree with that statement.  I have provided several links to scientific articles that show that evolution is either not possible at all or is mathematically improbable as to be impossible.


It was also said to be highly improbable that we could send man to the moon in 1969,but !apparently! we did.
It was also said it would be highly improbable that man would build flying machines,but we did.

Quote
I first presented an article that was the latest data obtained from the study of the DNA of thousands of animals from all over the earth.  The data showed that almost all animals came into existence at almost the same time.  This is clearly not possible if all animals slowly evolved over time.  It also showed that the animals were the same age as humans.  Also not possible if we all had evolved over time.  It also showed that according to the DNA  mankind and the animals were between 100,000 and 200,000 years old.Your reply was that the article showed the Bible was wrong when it said the the earth was 6,000 years old.  SO WHAT!  That has nothing to do with scientifically proving evolution was real.  That is called a straw man argument.  It had nothing to do with the DNA evidence refuting evolution.

Well yes.
The bible says the earth is only 6000 years old,but you wish to use information supplied by a study that shows 90% of life here on earth is at least 100,000-200,000 years old.
The article says that !90%! of the animals were around the same age as humans,which means that !what we class! as humans have existed for at least 100,000 to 200,000 years. So if you wish to use there DNA samples as proof of anything,it would have to be proof that man has been around a lot longer than the bible states.

As we know,the earth has been through many near extinction event's,like ice ages,large volcanic activities, and meteor strikes. This is like pushing the reset button,and starting over again. But in all cases,there have been survivors (as your study clearly indicates-the 10,000 different species that were here beyond the 200,000 year limit of there study),and life continue's on from those survivors.

What i see as a common mistake here,is that creationist's think new species just pop into existence over night,when in fact it takes 10s of thousands of years for changes to take place. So between 100,000 and 200,000 years is a long time for live to evolve from those 10,000 species that survived,which your study clearly accounts for.

Now don't you find it odd that the creationist  believe in micro evolution,but not macro evolution ?.
Well that is because you have no choice with micro evolution,because not only have we seen it happen with our own eyes,the bible says it happens. But when the creationist's think evolutionary changes are out of sight-macro evolution,then they say it's not possible. Fact is ,evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change.
mutation
migration
genetic drift
natural selection
You simply cannot believe in one and not the other.

Quote
You then pointed out that the article said that this accounted for 90% of the animals.  So what about the other 10%  you asked.  Well what about them?  The article didn't say if they were even tested or not.  It just said the DNA accounted for 90% of the life forms on earth.  Another straw man argument.

As i stated above,that 10,000 different specie of animals,over a period of there 100,000 year gap,is quite enough time for new species to evolve. As i also stated,they are not referring to an over night event here,we are talking 10s of thousands of years.

Now,if we look at what the bible says,where there were only 2 of a !kind! of each animal taken on board the ark,and in just 6000 years we have 1000's of different types of !say! dogs for example,from just a single pair of 1 type of dog(maybe a wolf),then your bible also says that big changes can happen in short periods of time.
So if micro evolution can happen in just 6000 years,on the scale we see today,then imagine the changes that can happen over 100,000 years--the gap given by the study you posted.

And the fact that we all share some DNA trait's is absolute evidence we all evolved from a single parent specie's.


Quote
I also presented a nice video explaining why creationist believe the fossil record correctly shows the results of a world wide flood and clearly showed the rock layers of the Grande Canyon and how all those layers were perfectly smooth and flat with no signs of erosion between the layers which could only have occurred if they were all laid down at the same time.

Well the grand canyon actually disproves a great flood,and conforms exactly to events over millions of years.
First up,if you take a bucket of water,and mix in a number of different materials/dirts,clays,etc,and mix them all up(as would be done in a big flood),then tip it out so as the water drains away(as it did in the flood !apparently!),then you will not get perfect layers of different sediment as we see in the grand canyon.
You will get very blurred mixings between some layer forms.

Second-another test i gave you to try,but no one took on that one either  C.C
How exactly did the great flood burry different types of animals in each layer-how did it separate the different types of animals in each separate layer?. If it was a great flood that formed the layer's,then all the animals that existed back then would be in every layer together--not separated as we find them today.

Third. When floods occur,they carve straight paths through the earth,not winding valley's that we see with the grand canyon. The grand canyon was carved out over millions of years by a river,not a big flood.

Quote
Your reply which you have reposted several times is that some mathematician claimed there was no place for all that water to go.  You posted that, even though the evidence from geology shows there have been massive changes in the earths surface and the depths of the oceans can easily hold the flood waters after the flood when the tectonic plates shifted and opened up the deep sea trenches.  And the surface if the earth is still 70% water.  And again another straw man argument.  Whether there was a flood or not does not prove evolution.

Once again,there is no straw man argument,but only facts.

The bible clearly states that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights,and stopped when all the !high! hills and
mountain's under the heavens were covered by 15 cubits of water. So from this,we know that the mountains and high hill already existed. We also know for fact that there is not enough water on earth to achieve this feat,nor is there anywhere for that volume of water to drain to.

Quote
tectonic plates shifted and opened up the deep sea trenches.

First- i gave you a simple experiment to try,and that was to show us how the weight of water can push up rock and sand,and then post your results here.
Second,in order for that volume of water to be dispersed,the same volume of rock and sand would have to be displaced--so where is it if all the high hills and mountain's already existed as the bible quotes ?.

Quote
I presented an article about Sir Fred Hoyle.  He was a very famous mathematician and well known atheist.  His calculations clearly show that the creation of life could not have ever happened by accident.  Not in many many billions of years.  His words said it was mathematically impossible.  You response was that evolution was only about change over time and not the creation of life.  HUH?  The whole premise of evolution is that random chance is the means by which life was created and evolution is possible.  You also pointed out he was an astronomer.  I assume you meant by that that his math about evolution might be faulty.  So you will take the math of some unknown guy on YouTube but reject the math of one of the most famous mathematicians of the last century.

How exactly did he calculate the chance of life beginning without knowing what processes were taking place on earth billions of years ago? Could he also calculate how much rain will fall on a given day before that day is over?.
You cannot calculate chance without knowing any of the processes taking place at that time.

Evolution is just that-how life evolves over time. It is not about how life started,nor dose science claim to know how life started. But like evolution,science will one day show how life can start from the correct mixture of chemicals under the right conditions.
It's the very same situation with magnetism. We know exactly how to use magnetism,but we do not know what it is.So we know exactly how evolution work's,but do not know as of yet how life started.
Not knowing yet how life started dose not in any way disprove evolution. Just like not knowing what magnetism is dose not mean we do not know how to use it.

Quote
You also pointed out he was an astronomer

Yes,and that brings up another question i asked you(and other believers here),that you nor anyone else has answered.
Question-->If god created the heavens and earth only 6000 odd years ago,how is it the Andromeda galaxy can be 2.5 million light years away,or Maffei 2 at 9.13 million light years,or NGC 4945 at 11.7 million light years away ?.
We know the speed of light is a constant,or are we going to change that now as well?.

Quote
I could go on but I think you see what I mean.  Instead of offering scientific proof you insist on bringing up arguments that don't really have anything to do with proving evolution.    Again, proving the Bible false does NOT make evolution true.

Everything i have offered is scientific proof,where what you have offered is all disproven by science.

Quote
You seem to be particularly determined to prove the Bible is false.

Well it was you who started the thread off with the title !the myth of evolution!.
Also,it is not me trying to disprove the bible. Science just happened to do that on it's journey to finding out where we came from,and how we got here.

Quote
You also seem to have a problem with the  Biblical claim that God created Adam from dust.  Well golly gee.  If He can create the whole world from nothing then creating man from dust is a pretty small achievement don't you think.   I mean that is what He does.  He creates.

It is odd that creationist's keep saying that the universe could not just of popped into existence from nothing,but then claim god did exactly that  ??? I wonder what your mathematician would have calculated those odd's at?.

Another question i asked that also remains unanswered-->If all things are created,then who created god?

Quote
How can a compound structure like the eye have evolved over time?

Because we can clearly see how different animals eyes have evolved to suit there environment.
For example,dogs see far better than us,even more so at night,as most nocturnal animals can.
There eyes evolved over time to suit the environment they reside in,that being the dark of night.
In fact,the human eye is of medeoka quality compared to most animals.If god made us in his image,perhaps he was slightly blind ?  :D

Quote:The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.


The eye is not that complex.
What i mean is,we can make cameras that see better than we do.
We can transmit electromagnetic waves through the air,and then use electronics(the TV) to convert those electromagnetic waves into very high definition motion pictures.

Quote
Why have no missing link fossils ever been found?

That is an incorrect statement used only by creationist's.
Also,what do you refer to as a !missing link!,as there are no !missing links! as you call them.

Quote
How could all those rock layers have been laid down perfectly flat with no erosion between layers if they supposedly took millions of years to form?

They are a classic example of how the environment has change over those millions of years.
Example,if the environment was a lush green rainforest environment,and over the next 20,000 years it turned into a dry hot environment,we would see two distinctive different layers.
We would also find two very different types of animals in each layer-which we do.
We would not see erosion as you expect us to see,due to the winds keeping most everything level over those millions of years. What we would see is hills and valleys over long distances,which we do.
Once again,you are trying to cram all these events into a time scale that you can comprehend,and not the millions of years it actually happened over.

Now,if they were formed by a great flood,we would not find different species of animals in each layer,we would find them all mixed together in all layers--which we do not find.
Also erosion would be very apparent if a great flood formed those layers. The sheer volume of water running over the landscape when the flood waters were reciedding would have carved huge straight valleys into the sediment layers,but we don't see that.
There is also the fact that raging flood waters do not create definitive layers as we see.

Quote
How could those same rock layers have been bent perfectly smoothly like we see in some mountains without them breaking if they weren't pliable when they were pushed up into the mountain shapes.

Once again,you are trying to visualise these events taking place in a time scale you can conceive,and not the millions of years it actually took. Rock is formed over millions of years from sands and particulates-it dose not just become rock once it is formed in a layer. Damp rock can be bent over time in the right conditions,just as a glass panel standing vertical over years will become thicker on the bottom,and thinner up top.
If you take a piece of copper pipe,and you bend it,it will kink at the bend. If you fill that copper pipe with water or sand,seal the ends,and then bend it,it will not kink at the bend. Can you imagine the pressures on top and below each rock layer,and the heat generated when that rock is being deformed?. When you heat rock up hot enough,it becomes a liquid,and solid rock can then be bent.

Lets say that the bend in the rock layer is a 2 meter high deformation/bend over a distance of say 5 meters.
To achieve that over a million years,the rock layer would have to deform just 2 microns (.oo2 of a mm) each year over that 5 meters.Not looking that hard now,is it. O0

Quote
From my point of view Brad, you don't have a real strong bias for evolution.  But you do have a very strong bias against the Bible because that is what you keep going back to.  But again I have to say that trying to prove the Bible wrong does not prove evolution right.

We must keep in mind here Carroll,that it was you that opened this thread with the title name-the myth of evolution. So it would seem that your bias against evolution was apparent before anyone else made a post.
You have also stated that no matter what evidence anyone provides for evolution,your mind will not be swayed.

So i responded in kind,and gave the evidence required by science to prove that evolution is not a myth,but a fact.
It just so happens that along the way,we also showed the bible and the stories within it to be the myth,and not evolution as the original thread title insinuated. In fact,you yourself helped prove the bible wrong when you posted that paper showing man and animals to be much much older than 6000 years.

So now that i have answered your questions,and provided the requested proofs of evolution,perhaps you can do the same.Your answers must be provable by known science.

1-How did the water push up enough rock and sand,so as the flood waters receded,when it cannot even raise the soft beach sand on the ocean floor ?

2-How is it that the receding flood waters carved out a winding chanel through the grand canyon,when all other floods have shown straight channels carved from the earths surface?.

3- How did the flood result in different species of animals being placed in the different layers of rock,and not all being mixed up together in all the layers of rock?.

4-If God created the heavens and earth some 6000 years ago,how is it that we have galaxies that are millions of light years away?.

5-how can you believe in micro evolution,but not macro evolution,when the only difference between the two is time?.

6-Where have all the dinosaurs gone if Noah had them on the ark ?.
If he had them on the ark,then that means they existed after the flood waters receded.
That being the case,and they died out shortly after,we should find the skeletons on the top layer of the earths surface--which we do not.
If the dinosaurs were not taken upon the ark,but existed with man,why do we not find mans fossil remains with those of the dinosaurs?.

7-If everything was created,who created God?.
I mean,if god created everything,did he exist in nothing before everything was created?.

I have many more,but will leave it at that for now.

Respectfully

Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
"Anyway,evolution is not about how life started,evolution is about how life has evolved over millions of years.""

Hmm.  Evolution is not about how life started?  Is that your curve ball? From what I understand it is about how life possibly started, unless evolution belief is that life has always existed.  The whole basis of evolution is that we started from some accidental simple form of life appearance that started it all and we have evolved from that.  If not then what is your version?

Mags

Well perhaps you should go and learn the difference between evolution,and the origin of life.

Evolution is how existing life forms evolve over time.
The origin of life is how life started.
To different subjects.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
On a more humorous note:

The struggle against deception has some very talented
warriors.

Adult Language is employed for best effect:

An example of their work

Who they are

Wouldn't it be nice of this sort of work went viral?

Isn't it encouraging to see Truth emerge valiantly?

The Theory of Evolution is just one prong of a multi-pronged
attack against Truth.  We're inundated with lies from every
segment of government controlled "information" and lulled
to sleep with numerous addictions, both chemical and
electronic via social media.

But not for too much longer.  A new beginning is soon.

I agree with everything in that video.
I always post those video's on my facebook page.
As funny as they seem,there is so much truth to them-always.

Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee

"Well as the thread title has change now to !The Reality of Evolution!,we can now confirm that evolution is a reality--a fact."

What a load of garbage. Only you feel confirmed on your acceptance of theories, not we. You take the changing of the title of the thread as some sort of win for you arguments. It is not. I preferred the original title as more truthful.



"What seems to be continually confused in meaning is the term !theory!"

O really? PC culture at its best.  Just like many things these days, the definitions of words are being distorted to forward agendas. Theory is theory and that is all that it is.

noun

    1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: "Darwin's theory of evolution"


Supposition. System of 'ideas'. 'Intended' to explain something.   Theory is not proof of anything.

Here is Merrium Websters definition...   "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."

Plausible does not imply absolute fact.  Body of principles 'offered' to explain 'phenomena'.....

Phenomenon:
noun

    1. a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question:


So no, I do not accept your 'Offerings' of theories of evolution as fact, of which you choose to follow. I will not accept your 'new' definitions of what theory is. You just want to try and eliminate the true meaning of theory as it hurts your arguments. You have proven nothing.



"So,there is no debate as to whether evolution is a reality,as it is a scientific fact.
The theories of evolution give an explanation to that fact."

Lol.  Yes there is debate. You have been soo indoctrinated into science lies and agenda. You believe that all science is truth, but it is not.  You think all religion is about power and control but all science is truth and infallible?
One day soon, you will be very surprised.



"The other curve ball thrown by the creationist's is that !well life did not just appear out of nothing! argument.
!!Odd they should say that when they claim there god made man from dust and water  C.C!!
Anyway,evolution is not about how life started,evolution is about how life has evolved over millions of years."

Curve ball thrown by creationists??  So are you saying that we all DID just appear out of nothing?????  Dude I think you are loosing it. 

What is dust to you?  Dry skin flakes?  Sand? Carbon? Granite? Copper?  What specific dust do you theorize that it was, or in your case, could have been?  And for your version of the beginning of life, what was your dust made of????



"Did it ever occur to you(the creationist)that maybe god did not create man,but more so man created god?.
Perhaps !creation! refers to man creating the bible  O0."

Why would that occur to us? It certainly has occurred to you without actually knowing for sure. Can you prove God does not exist? No you cannot. You can only offer scientific 'theory' of alternative. Just one of Lucefers many deceptions. We do not have to prove God exists. We heard and we searched and we found. That is the only way.  Even though Im sure you have heard, you just chose other options. And you say we force our beliefs on you????  Look at who posts the most here and ridicules us! it is you that is pushing your beliefs on us. ;) C.C  Oh the hipocrisy.

You have put all this time and energy into trying to get people to accept the assumptions and theories you claim are facts. It is you that are in fantasy land.

Mags

I see you,like most creationist's,get angry when facts are presented that appose your super natural story book.

Perhaps this is not the thread for you Mag's ?.

I also see that you too confuse scientific theory with the meaning of everyday social theory,even though i have posted the difference on a number of occasions now.

I am presenting scientific facts,and if creationism gets run over on the way,that is not my fault.

Perhaps you could answer just one question.
Lets forget about evolution for the moment,and look at space/the heavens instead.

If the heavens and earth were created just 6000 odd years ago,why do we have galaxies that are millions of light years away?. As all was created only 6000 years ago,we should not see anything that is further than 6000 light years away-but we do.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
 author=CITFTA link=topic=3776.msg74976#msg74976 date=1559515745]

 

Quote
I presented an article about Sir Fred Hoyle.  He was a very famous mathematician and well known atheist.  His calculations clearly show that the creation of life could not have ever happened by accident.  Not in many many billions of years.  His words said it was mathematically impossible.  You response was that evolution was only about change over time and not the creation of life.  HUH?  The whole premise of evolution is that random chance is the means by which life was created and evolution is possible.  You also pointed out he was an astronomer.  I assume you meant by that that his math about evolution might be faulty.  So you will take the math of some unknown guy on YouTube but reject the math of one of the most famous mathematicians of the last century.

I decided to look up mr Hoyle,and here is another thing i found out about him.

Quote:Sir Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 – 20 August 2001)[1] was an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis. He also held controversial stances on other scientific matters—in particular his rejection of the "Big Bang" theory, a term coined by him on BBC radio, and his promotion of panspermia as the origin of life on Earth

Panspermia hypotheses propose (for example) that microscopic life-forms that can survive the effects of space (such as extremophiles) can become trapped in debris ejected into space after collisions between planets and small Solar System bodies that harbor life. Some organisms may travel dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other planets or intermingling with protoplanetary disks. Under certain ideal impact circumstances (into a body of water, for example), and ideal conditions on a new planet's surfaces, it is possible that the surviving organisms could become active and begin to colonize their new environment. At least one report finds that endospores from a type of Bacillus bacteria found in Morocco can survive being heated to 420 °C (788 °F), making the argument for Panspermia even stronger.[10] Panspermia studies concentrate not on how life began, but on the methods that may cause its distribution in the Universe

And i posted this in post 101

All pay careful attention to this.
We are a carbon based life form-as is all life here on earth.
Amino Acids are the building blocks of life.
Lets have a look at what fell to earth in 1969-->which happens to be the year i was born,and the 28th of September was the day my son was born.whats the chances of that lol.

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC6EK8H_murchison-meteorite-the-building-blocks-of-life?guid=994f64f6-12c5-4449-a1b8-4cc2653c3559


So it would seem that your mathematician agree's with how i think life started on earth,that being it arrived from space,and then !evolved! from there.
It would also seem that he dismisses creationism at the same time.

Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
How climate changes can and did occur over time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUdtcx-6OBE


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-10-15, 03:05:40