[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Creationism/Evolution Title: EVOLUTION IMPOSSIBLE!
We’re sure you’ve heard this claim before, probably hundreds of times: “Science has proven evolution is fact.” It’s like a strange Darwinian chant that emanates from atheist blogs and secular universities. Too bad (for them) it’s not true. In fact, refuting evolution doesn’t require complicated equations or lab experiments—though those do the job, too. Just remember the two fundamental flaws we can use to show evolution to be, well, not even scientifically viable. Where’d You Get Your Information, Bub? Everything that makes up your body requires genetic information. You’ve got hands and feet because your genes code for it. The same is true for any creature—dogs, camels, you name it. The genetic information in humans varies from the information in animals, plants, and so on. Seems obvious, so why point it out? Because for animal kind A to somehow “presto-change-o” into animal kind B, the information’s got to change. A fish doesn’t just morph into an amphibian without something changing in the genes. It would have to gain some new information. Check This Out! Get the full DVD. Here’s the clincher: when we use operational science—the kind involving observable, repeatable, testable results—we have never observed, repeated, or been able to test animal kind A turning into animal kind B—at all. Sure, there’s some genetic “do-si-do” going on through mutations and gene drift, but there’s no way fish are going to sprout hair and opposable thumbs. Just in case you think by “no way” we mean there’s still a chance, there’s not—none, zilch, nada, not going to happen. What if we add billions of years and cool artistic renderings? Still no. Original Recipe That first point is devastating enough. But here’s how evolution gets buried even more. You’ve probably heard news accounts about how life could have started on earth “gazillions” of years ago in volcanoes, slush pools, crystals, rocks, you name it. Maybe you’ve heard something about “artificial” life or test-tube life or rotten-food-in-the-refrigerator life (okay, maybe not the last one). Those are interesting speculations, but they overlook one important rule in biology: life doesn’t, cannot, and will never come from non-life. Life comes from life. Always. That’s the law—the Law of Biogenesis, to be exact. All these failed experiments, like the Miller-Urey experiment, really show is just how much intelligence is required for life to begin in the first place. (That is, way smarter than us.) And Yet We’re Here So, if evolution can’t explain how humans came to be (or any other living thing, for that matter), what can? The Bible. Yep, God’s Word. The Bible provides an eyewitness account of how the universe and all life came to be. There’s no speculation or strange interpretation needed. You can just read how God created everything in six days a few thousand years ago. Simple. Factual. Pick it up, dust it off if you need, and read it. There’s even some good news in there for you. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 62. EVOLUTION IMPOSSIBLE! Except it isn't. Other than that, the article is still pure 100% bullshit.
#12. To: Skip Intro, mininggold, war (#10) EVOLUTION IMPOSSIBLE! Lets start with this. Since none of you offered a single shred of evidence to your cause/religion. Is this bullshit? Everything that makes up your body requires genetic information. You’ve got hands and feet because your genes code for it. The same is true for any creature—dogs, camels, you name it.
#13. To: A K A Stone (#12) (Edited) You can't offer a shred of evidence that a magician conjured us from dust as it avers in Genesis. Again, you trust people whom you've never met trying to explain things they couldn't understand. I don't.
#14. To: war (#13) You can't offer a shred of evidence that a magician conjured us from dust as it avers in Genesis. There were no magicians in creation. It is a matter of historical record. The people who WERE there told us about it. The Bible has withstood the test of time. It hasn't been contradicted historically or scientifically. It said that we reproduce after like kind. That is a scientific statement that holds up to this day. It hasn't been contradicted. Evolution on the other hand has NEVER EVER been observed and can't be reproduced in the lab? Because it didn't happen obviously. Not close no cigar.
#17. To: A K A Stone (#14) Evolution on the other hand has NEVER EVER been observed "God" has never been observed and spare me the "Moses saw him" crap. Moses was a story that the Jews pilfered from several sources including the Sargon and Set and Horace stories from the Egyptians. ON the other hand, fossil records and DNA encoding exist. Mutations have been found and observed.
#19. To: war (#17) Mutations have been found and observed. Mutations are always bad. Go show me a mutation where an apple tree turns into something else. Show me a species that mutates and changes into something else. You can't because it don't All you have done so far is reinforce my position, the truth. Thank You.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#19) Mutations are always bad. Bzzzzt... You lose.
#24. To: war (#21) Mutations are always bad. You saying so doesn't mean so. Put something on the table. You are still avoiding number 15.
#26. To: A K A Stone (#24) You saying so doesn't mean so. I didn't make the statement. You did. I know better than to believe it. Support it.
#29. To: war (#26) There are no transitional fossils in the record. Yes I said there were no transitional fossils and no mutations that are good. You disagreed. I can't post something that doesn't exist (mutations that are good, transitional fossil). That would be up to you if you believe they exist. It's ok though. I asked you to do something impossible. You're just afraid to admit it.
#30. To: A K A Stone (#29) YOU claimed that ALL mutations are bad. SUPPORT THE STATEMENT. YOU claimed that there are no transitional fossils. SUPPORT THE STATEMENT.
#32. To: war (#30) YOU claimed that ALL mutations are bad. There are no transitional fossils. That statement is supported by the fact that you can't contradict it by posting transitional fossils. You wont post any because I you will get smacked down because there are none. There are no good mutations. If there was you would post them. You liberals can't debate for shit.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#32) There are no transitional fossils. Yes, there are, as ten seconds of research on the net would show you. Your repeated use of this statement shows us all what a total dumbshit you are.
#37. To: Skip Intro (#35) There are no transitional fossils. You said the entire articled is 100 percent bullshit. I posted to you in number 15 if that is bullshit. You like war are afraid of the first claim in the article. The very first one stumps you. If you think there are transitional fossils post an example and I will shoot it down. You only have claims of transitional fossils. No proof whatsoever. You are the dumbshit, certainly not I.
#40. To: A K A Stone (#37) Where did god come from, Stone?
#41. To: Skip Intro (#40) Where did god come from, Stone? That is a hard question. He said he always was. Are you ever going to answer number 15 so we can continue the discussion? You did say that the article is 100 percent bullshit.
#42. To: A K A Stone (#41) That is a hard question. He said he always was. So is he alive?
#43. To: Skip Intro (#42) So is he alive? I'll answer that after you answer 15. It isn't a one way street.
#44. To: A K A Stone (#43) I'll answer that after you answer 15. It isn't a one way street. Sorry, I don't play that way. Unlike you, I have a point to my question.
#45. To: Skip Intro (#44) I have had a point to my question too. I'll just stick to your original statement that the article is 100 percent bullshit. You don't believe this is true. Everything that makes up your body requires genetic information. You’ve got hands and feet because your genes code for it. The same is true for any creature—dogs, camels, you name it. You don't believe in genes. lol
#48. To: A K A Stone (#45) Everything that makes up your body requires genetic information. Yes, everything requires genetic information. I'll revise my opinion. The article is only 99% bullshit.
#49. To: Skip Intro (#48) Well those words are more then 1 percent of the article. Without counting the words it is about 10 percent. Yes I believe God is alive in answer to your earlier question. Now onto the next paragraph The genetic information in humans varies from the information in animals, plants, and so on. Seems obvious, so why point it out? Because for animal kind A to somehow “presto-change-o” into animal kind B, the information’s got to change. A fish doesn’t just morph into an amphibian without something changing in the genes. It would have to gain some new information. That paragraph sounds pretty reasonable to me. Do you really think that a fish can morph into an amphibian without a change in its genes? According to your 100 percent or 99 percent bullshit claim this is bullshit too. How can it be bullshit?
#50. To: A K A Stone (#49) Yes I believe God is alive in answer to your earlier question. ×0; Your 99% bullshit article says this: "Those are interesting speculations, but they overlook one important rule in biology: life doesn’t, cannot, and will never come from non-life. Life comes from life. Always." So if I take your article at face value, god must have been created by someone else, since " life doesn’t, cannot, and will never come from non-life. Life comes from life. Always." Funny how that part got left out of the bible.
#54. To: Skip Intro (#50) Now onto the next paragraph You forgot to answer that question.
#56. To: A K A Stone (#54) You forgot to answer that question. How do you know "God" or the creator of the Universe is based on your own interpretation of the Bible. Traditional Jews (whom originally wrote the Old Testament) know that the reader must properly interpret the wording as opposed to taking a literal interpretation as the truth.
#62. To: buckeroo (#56) that the reader must properly interpret the wording as opposed to taking a literal interpretation as the truth.
From Mark Chapter 13 And the gospel must first be published among all nations. There are other verses also that talk about the Bible being taken to all nations. I would expect that the first English versions which are nearly identical as far as I can tell (Bishops Bible, King James, and there was one other that escapes me right now) would be put out by God himself and not that mean old devil.
Replies to Comment # 62. There are no replies to Comment # 62.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 62. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|