Evidence Disproving Evolution

myself | 10/11/02 | gore3000

[Alamo-Girl]

You're quite welcome! IMHO, it is a great site for statistical information and analysis of murder by government, etc.

[gore3000]

This is a flat out lie on its face. The concept of 'lower races' had existed since time immemorial and justified such things as slavery. It did not require Darwinism.

Darwin popularized all the theories I mentioned, he made them respectable. He gave them the 'scientific' seal of approval. Yes, he is responsible for these ideas - and their results - whether you like it or not.

[gore3000]

I was discussing natural selection - not neutral drift - and I have explicitly stated so.

You keep restating what you were discussing. It does not matter whether you were discussing neutral drift, natural selection or genetic drift. They are all false as I have already shown. Address what I posted instead of shifting gears on each reply.

[AndrewC]

No magic involved. Just mutation, environmental changes, and good old natural selection.

On the other hand it could be that the scientists are changing the "evidence".

By comparing the specimens to Sri Lankan samples stored in museums around the world and analyzing differences in appearance, genetics and behavior (including the animals's telltale croaks), the scientists identified 120 new species.

[AntiGuv]

So a eunuch is a different species?

Here your being ridiculously thickheaded to the point of meriting no further response.

And in case you didn't know it, llamas and camels, which diverged 30 million years ago, can produce viable offspring which may be fertile.

Basic verbal comprehension skills should indicate that I've addressed this point. Evolutionary science presents an explanation of this, by the way, although I concede Creation Science does as well (because God felt like it..)

[AntiGuv]

All the theories were already popular, and they were already respectable. Darwinism simply provides an scientific model regarding why and how the intuitions arose in the first place. He is not responsible for any of those ideas - or their results - whether you like it or not. If anything, those ideas are more responsible for his model than the other way around - whether you like it or not.

[AndrewC]

Here your being ridiculously thickheaded to the point of meriting no further response.

It is your definition. And the point of your tap dance is to hide the fact that having such a tenuous and shape-shifting definition of species allows the just so stories to abound using the Darwinian "science".

[AntiGuv]

Address what I posted instead of shifting gears on each reply.

I did not restate what I was discussing; I chose to elaborate further in order to aid your comprehension. Nonetheless, you choose to believe whatever makes you happy which is consistent with your character. I cannot assist you further with this particular failing. Otherwise, I have addressed virtually everything that you have posted directly to me, and even beyond that numerous points addressed to others.

[AntiGuv]

Very well, then. Here's my final answer to this:

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. - Proverbs 26:4-5

[AndrewC]

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. - Proverbs 26:4-5

It goes both ways brother.

[AntiGuv]

Yep. Let God sort us out. :p

[AndrewC]

Yep. Let God sort us out. :p

Amen.

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

[Seeker204]

No, there's a lot of stuff there, but mostly it goes to prove evolution, not the other way around. The entire fabrication was of course concocted by some misguided fool who obviously doens't know what he's talking about. Evolution says that one species evolves into another? The casual (idiotic) observer may think so, but it's simply not true. Ooh! A picture of a butterfly! Butterflies have wings. They're too pretty to have not come from God. Lookee! A mRNA creating a protein! God's definitely making that happen. As a matter of fact, w/o his love we'd all fall apart this instant. As I understand it, that's actually an argument that has been used before by Christians. God makes the god go 'round.

IF YOU HAVEN'T REALY READ WHAT I JUST SAID: what that heap was all about was a big ol' hunk of SCIENCE. Somebody went through the trouble to go through a couple of textbooks, some websites. He proclaims to the world, I have learned, have tasted, and I find it good... in the eyes of God. Not good for Darwin. Do you realize that this guy is using science to explain something that is completely unscientific? God is not science. The guy's arguments are flawed because they don't make sense. Does he (I doubt that a woman could be so stupid or obsessive) realize that Darwin isn't the leading expert on Evolution today? He says that evolution is defunct in the present scientific community. He's a bloody idiot for saying that.

And what is all that shit about Newton? Where did that come from? A watch or a model are not comparable to life. Genes are just information, and can't do anything themselves? Have you ever touched the stuff? Have you ever engineered it? Have you ever knocked out the stuff from a mouse or yeast cell and replaced it w/ vectors creating from similarily engineered E. coli cells? I've done it, and I don't see god anywhere.

You are being irrational. You mock the idea of evolution, which states that complex systems like DNA came out of billions of years of coincidents, yet agree with the idea that they suddenly popped out of nothing? Excellent logic. Why would God have created DNA and cells and atoms and muons and strings? Why do ppl tend to become more religious in a stressful or dangerous situation? I'm sure that you've of soldiers who claimed that God protected them from a dangerous situation. Why would God care about anybody? He hasn't helped anybody like... almost ever. Why would he look down upon a soldier and say, you'll be safe because my magical hand is shielding you from the eyes of your enemies? God's existence has been proven. They put tape and sensors around the brains of priests in deep prayer, gurus in deep meditation, etc., and found a certain part of the brain that controls this stuff. Frontal lobe, personality. This whatever, religion. That's god right there.

Glad you brought up junk DNA. Why would that be there? They've found some weird shit in the Human genome. Like you said, much of it is useless. Is god not all-powerful? Did he make a crapload of mistakes when he was molding us from clay? Why would ppl have diseases like malaria or asthma or river blindness? It never mentions in the Bible that God got pissed at us and gave us diseases. Explain that.

As I've stated many times before, Evolution is seen every day. Mutations that create viable organisms occur every generation. My parents were mutants. Their parents, your parents, and so on. Show me two ppl who look exactly the same, same prints, same facial heat signiture, iris, and I'll crawl on my hands to kiss you feet. And also viruses and bacteria evolve all the time to counter immunization, medication. Part of this is through the use of vectors, but some of it is incorporated into the DNA. The selfish gene. Ever heard of that? It's a theory and also a book. Read it some time. It'll help you. Save yourself from further waste of time.

[Seeker204]

And also good job trying to prove the existence of god using science.

[Ahban]

The short version is ....

I think we need the long version. The theory makes specific predictions. Your objections are so vauge as to be incomprehensible to me.....that you can't make a scientific theory by postulating the Designer, and then filtering evidence, keeping what fits and throwing out what doesn't.

Really, why not? Didn't evos do the same thing with PE? Evos have variation in their interpretation of HOW evolution did it while sticking with the Naturalisic framework. Creationists should have the same options. Whatever do you mean by "filtering evidence"?

In grade school this sometimes passes for science, but it's not working. Again, why? The theory makes several testable predictions. Why isn't that science?

[AndrewC]

And also good job trying to prove the existence of god using science.

Thank you, but that would be an unintended consequence. There is no need to prove something that is.

[f.Christian]

Seeker204 signed up 2002-09-13.
This account has been banned.

[gore3000]

A picture of a butterfly! Butterflies have wings. They're too pretty to have not come from God.

Seems that while you call yourself 'seeker' you do not look for answers. There is a very good reason why I give the butterfly as proof that evolution is wrong. It is the 'double' birth of it. For one thing evolutionists claim that all embrionic development goes through the same steps as all the previous species in the supposed evolutionary tree. Clearly a species that is essentially born twice, does not do that. There is another reason for it, this second birth could not have arisen by the step by step gradual development proposed by evolution. If the birth process does not work, the organism dies so it obviously had to be correct from the get-go.

Do you realize that this guy is using science to explain something that is completely unscientific? God is not science.

The guy is me and you are absolutely wrong. God is science in the sense that all science is about the discovery of God's creation. If the universe was totally materialistic and operated in a totally stochastic manner, then science would be impossible. Science is about finding order in the universe and if the universe was of random origin no such laws, no such order would ever have been found.

Have you ever knocked out the stuff from a mouse or yeast cell and replaced it w/ vectors creating from similarily engineered E. coli cells? ...

[and in a later paragraph]... Glad you brought up junk DNA. Why would that be there? They've found some weird [expletive deleted for 'stuff'] in the Human genome. Like you said, much of it is useless.

Well, you just showed both that you are not a scientist and have a big problem with reading comprehension. I said:

When the human genome was sequenced and it was found that only 5% of it was used in genes they immediately assumed that the 95% not in genes was 'junk'. They were wrong again of course. The now called 'non-coding' DNA is the source of what makes humans tick and a marvel of creation in itself.

How you can say from the above that I am saying it is junk is beyond me. That you call yourself a scientist and not know that this DNA not in genes is not junk is a complete contradiction. Practically all the work on DNA being done the last few years is concerned with discovering what this non-coding DNA does, how it controls and regulates the actions of genes. So no, you are not a scientist and you can save yourself the time of posing as one.

[gore3000]

You should grab yourself a good Medieval or Early Modern history text and you'll discover that an absolute morality and absolute ethics are similarly insufficient to restrain the basest instincts of man. This is what we saw in the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries after the broad conversion to Christianity and before Darwin.

You are making some very false assumptions there one of which that there were no atheists before Darwin. The most destructive European war before the 20th century was the one started by the atheistic French Revolution. Just about all the wars of Christianity - including the Crusades - before 1500 were defensive wars against atheist Norsemen, atheist nomads from Asia and the followers of the evil prophet Mohammed. If you knew anything about the Middle Ages you would know that war was a very gentlemanly thing in those times and civilian populations were almost completely unaffected by it. The only stain on Christianity came afterwards with the wars of the Reformation. While they might have claimed to be religious wars they clearly were using religion to incite the populace into unChristian actions for the purpose of conquest. Such were the wars of the English against the Scots and the Irish for example. So overall, Christianity has indeed shown a most civilizing effect on mankind and held back the barbaric passions we have seen displayed way too often by atheistic societies.