Creationist disputes evolution

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Truth1980, Oct 18, 2018.

  1. Truth1980 Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    We didn’t evolve period. All this talk of evolution is absurd and uneducated thinking. Darwin’s theory stated that if anyone could prove one or more of his theories was wrong he would admit that he was wrong. Since then we have proved and so has science that evolution is a complete hoax. The amount of evidence supporting evolution can be stored in a quarter of an average coffin. Hardly enough to prove anything, even the most prominent scientists say the Genesis theory is more plausible then evolution, and that’s from an evolution theorist and many in that field. Your teeth have always been that way since the beginning, don’t confuse facts with fantasy and ideas that have no proof, just an imagination of a crazy dead guy that was proven wrong so long ago. Why are monkeys still monkeys? Why isn’t there half human half apes walking around? I’m sure if you believe all this you must believe in stories of Big Foot lol. Such foolishness. Education is so valuable today, please get one. Cheers
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Who told you that lie? It's getting so it's hard to find even an uneducated creationist nowadays.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Truth1980 Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    I don’t know, Discovery channel for those without an education but for me I’m a university student in this field and don’t need to explain to anyone actual facts about Evolutionary theorists. It’s not even up for discussion anymore. It’s ridiculous to think we all came from a 1 in a trillion chance of coming from a primordial soup that that just happened to have formed the most complex organisms in existence. The odds are immense against it. Without all the factors of our position in the universe and the very things we need to exist and thrive is even a greater chance of failure. Odds and proof are against Evolution. I was once told by a evolutionist that it’s like covering the State of Taxes in 3 layers of coins and only marking one with a scratch, then walking to any random location and picking up the one and only coin and getting it the first time. The odds are astronomical against it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    That's right. It isn't. Creationism died a long time ago. Wherever did you get the silly idea that there are scientists who oppose evolution? Go ahead and name a few.
     
  8. Truth1980 Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree...The difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection , though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered subversive of the theory.” Darwin

    The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.


    The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits.


    A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists.


    Evolution is a theory developed one hundred and forty years ago by Charles Darwin (N/A actually, by his grandfather in 1794 - before Charles was even born), before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false.


    His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to support the Theory of Evolution.


    Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by the main stream scientists.


    Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support.


    They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense.


    Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly.


    What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible.

    Enough aleardy!
     
  9. Truth1980 Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    This from someone who watches the Simpsons lol, you watch too much tv mate, back to the books
     
  10. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    I asked you to name some scientists who oppose evolution. Can't do it, eh? I was hoping that you had just been duped but it looks like you're embracing the lie.

    Name some scientists - preferably biologists - who oppose evolution, or you're exposed as trying to promote a lie.
     
  11. Truth1980 Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    DeHart, Haley, and LeVake


    The Creation Research Society currently has a membership of 650 scientists, each one holding a Master’s degree or above in a recognized field of science. In a recent article Dr. Russell Humphreys, physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, estimates that there are around 10,000 practicing professional scientists in the USA alone who openly believe in a six-day creation.


    Why does it matter who is a scientist and who isn’t? Because our society has been conditioned to accept the notion that any sentence that begins, “Scientists say …” is undeniably true. The general public has been told that scientists are unbiased, objective individuals who are never wrong. If you can’t trust what scientists say, what can you trust?

    Evolutionists weren’t too worried when scientists said evolution was true and preachers said it wasn’t. But now that thousands of scientists (not counting engineers and high school science teachers) are saying publicly that evolution isn’t true, that’s a big problem for evolutionists. Scientists have much more credibility (in their opinion) than mere preachers do. The general public might believe what scientists say. Therefore, the evolutionists have to convince the public that the scientists who reject evolution aren’t really scientists-they are just high school science teachers, engineers, or skillful debaters posing as scientists.


    I would like to recommend the book In Six Days (why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation) edited by John F. Ashton. It is a collection of fifty essays, each written by a different scientist. Each author’s (impressive) academic credentials are listed at the beginning of his or her essay. They span a wide variety of academic disciplines.
     
  12. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    That's just a copy/ paste. Do you even understand any of it?
     
  13. Truth1980 Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    Yes a copy and a paste, because I have had this conversation a thousand times and save such articles when brought up. You will not listen to anything because you are blind to knowledge. Im done with you because you will never change your thinking or think outside the box or (reality) like many of my associates. Have a good day and you’re free to believe in fairys for all I care.
     
  14. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Wikipedia says, A 2009 poll by Pew Research Centerfound that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time."[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
     
  15. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    You can't think outside the box effectively until you understand the box. You clearly don't.
     
  16. Truth1980 Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    Again whatever you want to believe, its a free world in most parts, you post faster then you read and research. This research has been done by people I know and trust and that I do extensive researching on
     
  17. Truth1980 Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    You believe one of many theories and don’t even open your thoughts to other ideas, close minded people never go anywhere
     
  18. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Your claim was that, "even the most prominent scientists say the Genesis theory is more plausible then evolution." That is clearly false.
     
  19. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    DeHart - high school biology teacher
    LeVake - high school biology teacher

    Haley is too common a name to google.
     
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,509
    No student of evolutionary biology would describe evolution the way you do.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    Since we have seen evolution occur - and seen new species emerge - to claim that you would have to deny reality.
    Correct.
    It could fill libraries. From cichlid radiation to the size of fish in commercial fisheries to the peppered moth to the wing bones of the Idiurus Macrotis, we have a huge amount of information on how evolution works.
    No, they don't.
    Would that be Moses or Jesus?
    Because they found an evolutionary niche.
    There are. Chimpanzees and bonobos are halfway between orangutans and humans, genetically speaking.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    The most often used misquote by creationists. Here is the full text:

    "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."
     
  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,509
    Only one the CRS's 2015-16 board of directors is qualified in biology. I can't find a record of who is on the board now.

    I would love to know how many of the other scientists in this organisation are biologists. I suspect fewer than 10%. My guess would be that the rest are engineers, computer scientists and similar things, with a leavening of the odd wacko physicist.
     

Share This Page