Rejecting evolution with science...

kimimaro said:
Doesnt stuff degrade over time? Evolution says humans have changed over time, into better beings.
Click to expand...

Firstly you have to understand the concept of entropy before trying too refer to it as an irreversible process. Look up the 2nd law of thermodynamics for a better understanding. Via the input of energy you can sort different colored marbles thus decreasing entropy.

Secondly single celled organisms are still on top of the food chain in the form of bacteria. Showing that complex life forms are not the most superior. Little evolutionary processes have taken place with bacteria due to the constant rate of duplication. The cells still mutate and evolve to become resistant to other natural causes but does so due to natural selection.

Evolution is a result of mutation and natural selection it's not a driven process.
 
So science disproves evolution?

To those supporting this statement, since you used science to prove that, can you whilst you're at it, use science to prove Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden?
 
Last edited:
Examples of creationist quote mining (like quoting part of a scientists' sentence to make it sound like he's saying something completely different):

One frequent creationist poster to the talk.origins newsgroup produced a long list of what he dubbed "Famous quotes from famous evolutionists" [1]. It was not hard to discover that the list was taken, almost verbatim, from a creationist site called "Anointed-One.Net", where the list is called "Quotes by Famous Evolutionists." Lists like this, presented with little or no context except for vague claims that they somehow "disprove" evolution, are common among creationists. Indeed, entire books of these quotes have been published [2].

For a number of reasons, the posting of this list was illustrative of a persistent and basically dishonest practice, frequently engaged in by creationists, that has become known as "quote-mining." While the etymology of this term is obscure [3], the definition is clear enough. It is the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, "which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored" [4].
Click to expand...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
 
Obvious troll thread is obvious...
 
Swa said:
Obvious troll thread is obvious...
Click to expand...

How is it a troll thread? You state you have evidence to disprove evolution. You repeat this over and over and over. I create a thread allowing you a chance to have your say and post your proof. You say this is trolling.

Screw you. Post it or stfu from now on...
 
DJ... said:
How is it a troll thread? You state you have evidence to disprove evolution. You repeat this over and over and over. I create a thread allowing you a chance to have your say and post your proof. You say this is trolling.

Screw you. Post it or stfu from now on...
Click to expand...
You you keep claiming to have this mountain of evidence to support it yet all we see is the same old drivel from the same sites. Now in your words post it or stfu. ;)
 
Swa said:
You you keep claiming to have this mountain of evidence to support it yet all we see is the same old drivel from the same sites. Now in your words post it or stfu. ;)
Click to expand...

Dude, seriously, what drugs are you on?

You have not provided one bit of credible evidence that disproves evolution, ever.

If you don't have anything to post then stop saying that you do.
 
DrJohnZoidberg said:
Dude, seriously, what drugs are you on?

You have not provided one bit of credible evidence that disproves evolution, ever.

If you don't have anything to post then stop saying that you do.
Click to expand...
You have not provided one bit of credible evidence that proves evolution, ever. So take your own advice.
 
DrJohnZoidberg said:
Dude, seriously, what drugs are you on?

You have not provided one bit of credible evidence that disproves evolution, ever.

If you don't have anything to post then stop saying that you do.
Click to expand...

Just for clarity we should distinuish between the observed fact of evolution and the explanatory theory of evolution.

Any scientific challange would be against the theory, which has evolved considerably since Darwin's time.
 
alloytoo said:
Any scientific challange would be against the theory, which has evolved considerably since Darwin's time.
Click to expand...

Swa rejects the very basis of evolution. He rejects the very existence of observed evolution, the last I recall...
 
Swa said:
You have not provided one bit of credible evidence that proves evolution, ever. So take your own advice.
Click to expand...

I don't need to explain it to you. You can enroll in any educational establishment and trained professionals will teach you these things. This is most likely the best course of action if you believe that all the resources available on the internet were put there as some elaborate conspiracy theory.
 
DrJohnZoidberg said:
I don't need to explain it to you. You can enroll in any educational establishment and trained professionals will teach you these things. This is most likely the best course of action if you believe that all the resources available on the internet were put there as some elaborate conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
Well they don't seem to want to. It's always: this is how it could have happened, this may be what happened, if this happened then...

I'll be happy to enroll in any course where someone can confidently state facts but there aren't any in the whole world. :erm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X