Evolution Theory is Error

qt9ukbg60ivjrn

janitorial work is not a science

Zulu

Gareth37 wrote: »

All Dawkins and co are doing is making money of people foolish enough to beleive their dribble. Selling books, going to talks, seminars etc. Making money

People say here than God cannot be proved but yet they accept some money making theory that doesn't actually make full scientific sense even. That to me is strange

Seems to me that religions organised or not have been the best way to make money for the past 3000 years.

Just saying is all.

Galvasean

Gareth37 wrote: »

All Dawkins and co are doing is making money of people foolish enough to beleive their dribble. Selling books, going to talks, seminars etc. Making money

People say here than God cannot be proved but yet they accept some money making theory that doesn't actually make full scientific sense even. That to me is strange

All Christianity and co are doing is making money of people foolish enough to beleive their dribble. Selling books, going to talks, seminars etc. Making money

People say here than evolution cannot be proved but yet they accept some money making theory that doesn't actually make full scientific sense even. That to me is strange

Mark Hamill

Gareth37 wrote: »

So tell me this. If we came for Monkeys this must mean that one day Monkeys will also become human?

So that means that every animal on this planet will eventually become human?

That is what you are saying here right, that man came from Monkeys? So Monkeys will also become man? Why did some Monkeys become man quicker than others and why are Monkeys showing no sign of evoluting further?

I think you have been watching too much planet of the apes

Here is another decent site which shows even more flaws in the theory:
http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/c..._Revised.shtml

and more
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Eh, you do realise that the second link is actually pointing out common creationist misconceptions about evolution (ie the things that creationists believe about evolution that are wrong, not the things that scientists believe about evolution, but are wrong) and that 4 of the 5 misconceptions pointed out in the 2nd link, actually appear in the list in the first link.
In your own blind linking of any webpage that even looks like it supports your view, you have completely contradicted yourself....Well Done!:D

EDIT: everyone got here before me

toiletduck

Gareth37 wrote: »

People say here than God cannot be proved but yet they accept some money making theory that doesn't actually make full scientific sense even. That to me is strange

You know the theory of evolution is used daily across the worlds in numerous fields right? Is it all by chance that it continues to 'work'?

What are your thoughts on geology, cosmology and the hundreds of other areas that would have also to be incorrect for whatever story you're buying into to be right?

And as for not answering any questions put forth, classy move.

Ronanc1

Hey tar alderion there's nothing wrong with food science:rolleyes: that's what i study not by choice i wanted to do medicinal chemistry but Ive come to live with it ****ing food science oops rant over haha :P:P

Yeah this Gareth guy is clearly a dope

firstly your piece about being a man of science, what tripe. Your grammar and composition of your responses clearly demonstrates you don't even have the appropriate English skills for such a profession, no men or woman of science would be constrained by age old mystic superstitions

as well your bit about proteins and amino acids is a complete mix up, it has nothing to do with evolution it is a completely different field Called abiogenesis

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote: »

Through chemistry dear boy!

Life is at the end of the day is simply a long series of chemical reactions. Chemical reactions take place due to energy causing atoms to change configuration.

Considering there have been millions of fossils found perhaps you should define what you mean by "genuine"

That's fine so far as it goes, but would I be right in saying that Gareth37 is trapping people into answering the wrong question. Evolutionary theory doesn't seek to explain the origin of life. Its silent on the topic. It just seeks to explain the origin of species. In other words, what Darwin was seeking to explain was the diversity in life, taking the existence of life as a given. He was trying to explain why everyone isn't an amoeba, not how amoebas (amoebae?) got there in the first place.

This seems to be a common enough distortion, that I think needs to be consistently refuted. If someone is asking how life began in the first place, it has damn all to do with evolution.

Unless I'm missing something. Unlike Gareth37, I've no pretensions about being a scientist.

Mark Hamill

Gareth37 wrote: »

Only GodEveryone else knows, thats why science this thread fails.

Fixed

Hivemind187

Gareth37 wrote: »

So tell me this. If we came for Monkeys this must mean that one day Monkeys will also become human?

HAHAHAHAHAHAAH ... I'm asuming you are positing yourself as evidence of this dire and willful misunderstanding of evolution.

Gareth37 wrote: »

So that means that every animal on this planet will eventually become human?

I have my doubts about some animals ...

Gareth37 wrote: »

That is what you are saying here right, that man came from Monkeys? So Monkeys will also become man? Why did some Monkeys become man quicker than others and why are Monkeys showing no sign of evoluting further?

Um, no. No one in their right mind is saying that at all.

Evolution works because a survival imperative is placed on an a particular species. this imperative means that (for example) a particular gets more visits by pollen spreading bee's than others because it is more colourful. This spreads the "extra colour" genes to other plants and those who express this trait will eventually become more widley spread because they are better adapted to their environment (specifically to manipulating bees in this case). If Bee's were attracted to pink flowers more than blue flowers the pink flowers would become more wide spread and vice versa. (Yes this is an extremely simplified mechanism of evolution but it serves my point).

Man and monkey are separate species. Man (homosapiens) is a member of the great ape family not that "monkey" family. Man did not evolve directly from apes either, we had a common ancestor i.e. traced back far enough a single species separated down two different paths resulting in ourselves on the one hand (due to multiple examples of the "extra colour" scenario above) and a different species on the other (there were likely many many more branches but eventually you get back to a single individual species).

Why are monkeys not showing signs of evolution? Firstly that betrays a massive misunderstanding of evolution and its mechanism and secondly you ignore the factor of time. You are unlikely to see great changes in monkeys (or any complex multiple cell organism) during a single life time because the changes taking place are small and subtle. There is a possibility you will see such changes in the vent of massive disasters like plagues, famine etc which maybe surviviable depending on minor previously ignored traits (i.e. ability to thinking abstractly or resistance to particular infection).

If you doubt the reality of this I invite you to look at faster examples of evolution which can be seen within your life time. Bacteria and viruses. MRSA is perhaps the best example of natural selection. Simple stapholococus bacteria living in Hosptials were repeatedly exposed to cleaning products during routine scrubbing of floors etc or by the. Most of their number would be wiped out by the chemicals - however a few would survive the treatment due to being resistant to one degree or another. These bacteria would then regrow and re-infect requiring cleaning with antibiotics or cleansers again. Over and over this process is repeated with different anti-biotics and chemicals until we arrive at a species which is immune to nearly every kind of chemical we can throw at it. Hence, Multi-drug Resistant Stapholococus A.

Gareth37 wrote: »

I think you have been watching too much planet of the apes

Your's was a fine performance.

seamus

Gareth37 wrote: »

Millions of pre-man or ape-man? No

It's worth noting that nature is unbelieveably efficient at reprocessing organic matter for its own uses. Since we started living in communities and burying our dead in the ground, we've given nature something of a helping hand. The odds of any one particular person's body surviving long enough to become fossilised are so remote that you've a better chance of winning the lotto multiple times.

Skin decays very rapidly and is completely disintegrated by bacteria in far less than a century. Teeth and bones take that bit longer, but after 2,000 years you can be pretty sure there's not much more than a flake a molar left.

Fossilisation takes some very specific circumstances to really turn out well - ideally being buried in a ridiculous cold place (such as arctic tundra) or falling into an airless liquid which harbours no organisms, such as tar or oil, are about your best bets.

Such is our modern way of living and the massive increase in safety that we now have, of the 6 billion (?) people alive today, no more than ten or twenty will be suitable to be dug up as fossils in 50,000 years.

Of course, the chances of the fossil actually being found are equally remote. It's a wonder that we find any fossils at all. The fact that we've found millions of fossils (and a few hundred primates) is solid evidence of the enormous varieties of living creatures that have flourished on this planet over its billions of years of existence.

sdep

Almost exactly a year ago, we were informed on boards that 'Satan invented Evolution'. What is it about November?

smcgiff

As for the type of scientist - can I suggest... Mad Scientist


Great thread all the same.

toiletduck

So the B,C&P thread not only reproduced but the offspring had mutations such as different forum DNA? And those mutations weren't harmful (7 pages in a few minutes is indicative of a highly successful thread)? Omg this thread proves evolution :eek:

kevmy

Gareth37 wrote: »

Only God knows, thats why science fails.

Even if one were to accept evolution, do you not think that there was something before evolution and what before that? So before all these things how was the first thing ever in the Universe created but then I hear myself say, what about before that. This is beyond human, it is supernatural. Denying the supernatural is denying that a concept behond the human mind exists and we all realise that there is something that science cannot explain. So I cannot accept evolution even and other theories for God is the creator in one way or another.

At the very very start of what we are living in there must have been something supernatural for the concept of the human mind cannot explain how nothing was turned into something and Im 100% sure that God is the supernatural.

Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe.

It only explains how life evolved on Earth. Simply their was no life on Earth before evolution so before evolution there was minerals and atoms and molecules which had formed into planets, suns, meteors etc.

Now it is completely possible that there was life before evolution began on Earth it was just on another planet.

Also the question of what happened in the initial microseconds around the Big Bang is open for debate. But not for you unfortunately as you need an advanced degree in physics/astronomy not a "I'm a Creationist" badge

Galvasean

toiletduck wrote: »

So the B,C&P thread not only reproduced but the offspring had mutations such as different forum DNA? And those mutations weren't harmful (7 pages in a few minutes is indicative of a highly successful thread)? Omg this thread proves evolution :eek:

Within kinds.

quad_red

Gareth37 wrote: »

Only God knows, thats why science fails.

Reasoned argument, well made.

Gareth37 wrote: »

This is beyond human, it is supernatural. Denying the supernatural is denying that a concept behond the human mind exists and we all realise that there is something that science cannot explain.

I think you'll find that applying a cobbled together religious theory onto the universe as a whole fully illustrates that when the human mind is faced with something beyond it's comprehension, it looks back in on itself.

Gareth37 wrote: »

... human mind cannot explain how nothing was turned into something ...

YOUR human mind cannot conceive of a universal model without an all knowing creator/deity setting everything up, building DNA from the bottom up. I don't proclaim to fully understand the mechanics of the universe. But I can certainly conceive of one without an all knowing intelligence/creator. You, on the other hand, cannot even conceive of a bacteria evolving without divine intervention.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

35 minutes. 48 messages.

Well done everybody!

like a bunch of 11 year old boys full of Fanta we are!

KnifeWRENCH

sdep wrote: »

Almost exactly a year ago, we were informed on boards that 'Satan invented Evolution'. What is it about November?

PMSL at that thread.

estebancambias wrote:

Dinosaurs still exist, just very rare.

Zombrex

Gareth37 wrote: »

Even if one were to accept evolution, do you not think that there was something before evolution and what before that?

Evolution is a process, it isn't a thing. Your question is like if you accept that one can sort coins in order of size what came before sorting coins in order of size :rolleyes:

Gareth37 wrote: »

So before all these things how was the first thing ever in the Universe created but then I hear myself say, what about before that.

Well yeah, but based on your posts you dont have a clue what you are talking about, so I would listen to much to yourself it will only end up confusing you.

Gareth37 wrote: »

So I cannot accept evolution even and other theories for God is the creator in one way or another.

Evolution has nothing to do with the start of the universe.

Gareth37 wrote: »

At the very very start of what we are living in there must have been something supernatural for the concept of the human mind cannot explain how nothing was turned into something and Im 100% sure that God is the supernatural.

If we cannot explain it then why are you asserting that it must have been something supernatural (I assume you are going to go on and assert that that supernatural thing must have been a god)

If we cannot explain it then we don't know what it was and we certainly can't make claims about it.

Galvasean

A correction:

Dinosaurs still exist, just now we call them 'birds'.

Mitch Connor

Galvasean wrote: »

A correction:

Dinosaurs still exist, just now we call them 'birds'.

well I read this book, it was, like, twice as big as that Grant blokes book and he said dinosaurs didn't evolve into birds

MOH

Gareth37 wrote: »

Here is another decent site which shows even more flaws in the theory:
http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/creation_evolution/Ten_Major_Flaws_of_Evolution_-_Revised.shtml

and more
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

In fact there are so many doubts its like saying that the world is flat

OK, you seriously fail at trolling. Did you even read your second link? It details misconceptions in creationist arguments, including at least one you've used yourself.

Galvasean

Mitch Connor wrote: »

well I read this book, it was, like, twice as big as that Grant blokes book and he said dinosaurs didn't evolve into birds

His was fully illustrated.

quad_red

Galvasean wrote: »

His was fully illustrated.

Seriously, I have to dig up a book we were sent pumping up the Creationism agenda.

You don't know the meaning of the world lusciously illustrated till you see this puppy.

pH

Galvasean wrote: »

toiletduck wrote:

So the B,C&P thread not only reproduced but the offspring had mutations such as different forum DNA? And those mutations weren't harmful (7 pages in a few minutes is indicative of a highly successful thread)? Omg this thread proves evolution

Within kinds.

I'm finding the evidence here conflicting. On the one hand this thread certainly isn't intelligently designed, yet on the other it contains no new information either, and is fully compliant with J C's theory of devolution.

tba

Maybe we should start calling it "The Evolutionary Model of Species Diversification"

To quell these "ITS A THEORY!" disscussions

Then they could call theirs "It was always like this theory of animal (but not humans) Uniquenessification"

Gareth37

Ok, so from the posts back I see a number of things:

First of all I would say that my own theories are from the Internet and only used as a stimuli. From what I can see here, scientifically nobody here nor any other great scientist can prove the theory nor can they prove otherwise.

1. The athiest community, for which I believe many will be given a chance to convert in their lives, wish to accept a theory and use it to support a doctrine against God.

2. Many athiests believe than even if this theory could be proved that it would prove the Bible wrong. This is an incorrect assumption in many ways, nobody truly knows God's methods and how much man will be able to learn. If evolution were to prove true then what we should say is: Look at what we have been allowed to learn about our planet and a certain part of our universe. Lets use this for the good of God and in a way that God meant.

3. The supporters of the theory of evolution fail to point out that the prophets of this doctrine, like Hawkins etc, are using the anti Bible slant to sell more literature and gain more publicity. What they fail to realise is that even if this individual had such great wisdom to understand the origon of man on this planet that the messages against God that these prophets are teaching don't mean anything.

4. No matter what we learn scientifically there is no explanation as to why we exist other than God. If you say that everything came from an atom or very simple chemical compund then who made these, what was the start and why have they developed in such a way? It doesn't matter what science says, the beginning of the world and our placement here has a meaning, a purpose that is beyond the understanding of the human mind.

So just maybe, Im saying maybe, people could pick up a copy of the Bible, read the New Testament and decide if they have found something in themselves that raises questions about their lives and the world. Even just out of curiosity read the Bible. If they don't then they don't have to do anything, just treat it like a piece of fiction if they wish (although I don't reccommend this).

Placing trust in science can only take us so far for no matter what science does or say it can't save us from death nor from judgement if you are a Christian.

I hope that people reading this will really start deep thinking for themselves rather than accepting society for what it is.

seamus

So Gareth, from your posts, we can deduce at least one thing:

You don't bother reading anything.

Dades

Maybe this thread is a ploy to keep us all from bothering people in the Christianity forum. :pac:

Mitch Connor

Gareth37 wrote: »

Ok, so from the posts back I see a number of things:

First of all I would say that my own theories are from the Internet and only used as a stimuli. From what I can see here, scientifically nobody here nor any other great scientist can prove the theory nor can they prove otherwise.

1. The athiest community, for which I believe many will be given a chance to convert in their lives, wish to accept a theory and use it to support a doctrine against God.

2. Many athiests believe than even if this theory could be proved that it would prove the Bible wrong. This is an incorrect assumption in many ways, nobody truly knows God's methods and how much man will be able to learn. If evolution were to prove true then what we should say is: Look at what we have been allowed to learn about our planet and a certain part of our universe. Lets use this for the good of God and in a way that God meant.

3. The supporters of the theory of evolution fail to point out that the prophets of this doctrine, like Hawkins etc, are using the anti Bible slant to sell more literature and gain more publicity. What they fail to realise is that even if this individual had such great wisdom to understand the origon of man on this planet that the messages against God that these prophets are teaching don't mean anything.

4. No matter what we learn scientifically there is no explanation as to why we exist other than God. If you say that everything came from an atom or very simple chemical compund then who made these, what was the start and why have they developed in such a way? It doesn't matter what science says, the beginning of the world and our placement here has a meaning, a purpose that is beyond the understanding of the human mind.

So just maybe, Im saying maybe, people could pick up a copy of the Bible, read the New Testament and decide if they have found something in themselves that raises questions about their lives and the world. Even just out of curiosity read the Bible. If they don't then they don't have to do anything, just treat it like a piece of fiction if they wish (although I don't reccommend this).

Placing trust in science can only take us so far for no matter what science does or say it can't save us from death nor from judgement if you are a Christian.

I hope that people reading this will really start deep thinking for themselves rather than accepting society for what it is.

Evolution is a doctrine against God as you seem to think. It is would be better described as a 'doctrine' against Creationism.

God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Evolution COULD be the HOW God created everything, as opposed to willing it all into existence in 6 days.

You points above are misunderstood rubbish