The Evolution Fraud

[Toddsterpatriot]

How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?

Evolution is anti-science. This is anti-anti-science. That's real science to the laypeople.

One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen. One can do the math and see evolution does not happen. One can do the math and see magic does not happen.

That's really nonsensical as you obviously have no "math" to support your unsubstantiated claims.

Your silly conspiracy theories surrounding science do nothing to refute the facts presented by the relevant disciplines of biology, chemistry, paleontology, the earth sciences, etc.

The only appeals to magic, fear and superstition I see are coming from the religious extremists.

First, you can't do the math, but I've done it and it may as well be zero chance.

ToE has been shown to be false by a young Earth. I used chemistry to show how rock is formed from sediment and bends. It's not millions of years of pressure. That would break rocks. I used paleontology to show there was no prehistoric cave people. I used earth science to show the Grand Canyon happened by a giant flood.

The magic is on the evolution side as apes did not become bipedal nor dinosaurs did not develop feathers to fly. Evolution has no origins, but magic, fear, and superstition. Magic of big bang, cosmic expansion, abiogenesis, and Copernican Principle. You have fear of having to obey God. You have superstition of aliens, multiverses, common ancestors, long time of millions and billions of years, the universe came from a quantum particle, and the present is the key to the past.

ToE has been shown to be false by a young Earth.

How young? How do you know?

Around 6000 yrs according to Biblical history.

ToE needs long time and still doesn't happen. There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old. How do you know how old someone is? You look it up or ask for a birth certificate.

Around 6000 yrs according to Biblical history.

Your science depends on a list of begats?

There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old.

There is, actually.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Isn't it fascinating that the godless left is so eager to invoke the Holy Bible in any discussion of evolution?
They despise the Book but bring it up constantly, while condemning it as utterly fictional. You can't talk science without them bringing up what they call "fiction." Unintelligent and anti-science, but that's the godless left for you.

Whether the earth is hundreds of millions of years old or not is immaterial to the anti-science and growing failures of Neo-Darwinism. It's more fit because it survives and it survives because it's more fit. Wow. That tells you precisely nothing.

 

[Hollie]

How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?

Evolution is anti-science. This is anti-anti-science. That's real science to the laypeople.

One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen. One can do the math and see evolution does not happen. One can do the math and see magic does not happen.

That's really nonsensical as you obviously have no "math" to support your unsubstantiated claims.

Your silly conspiracy theories surrounding science do nothing to refute the facts presented by the relevant disciplines of biology, chemistry, paleontology, the earth sciences, etc.

The only appeals to magic, fear and superstition I see are coming from the religious extremists.

First, you can't do the math, but I've done it and it may as well be zero chance.

ToE has been shown to be false by a young Earth. I used chemistry to show how rock is formed from sediment and bends. It's not millions of years of pressure. That would break rocks. I used paleontology to show there was no prehistoric cave people. I used earth science to show the Grand Canyon happened by a giant flood.

The magic is on the evolution side as apes did not become bipedal nor dinosaurs did not develop feathers to fly. Evolution has no origins, but magic, fear, and superstition. Magic of big bang, cosmic expansion, abiogenesis, and Copernican Principle. You have fear of having to obey God. You have superstition of aliens, multiverses, common ancestors, long time of millions and billions of years, the universe came from a quantum particle, and the present is the key to the past.

ToE has been shown to be false by a young Earth.

How young? How do you know?

Did GOD create a physically mature Adam and then Eve, or did God create a little baby. I firmly have no problem believing that GOD created a perfect environment and then a fully grown man to take care of it and nurture it.

And later, according to the fable, the gods wiped humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment.

Those gods, they're such kidders.

 

[ChemEngineer]

More's the pity. IgnoredMember appears to be the last to post on this thread, but … he's truly an Ignored Member to me, so ….. that's the Magic Wand of Selection for you. He got selected right out.

34,350 amino acid residues in titin alone and Darwinists think the first molecule produced from a random mutation defied the insuperable statistics of 1 in 20 to the 34,350th power? Shirley you jest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

More's the pity. IgnoredMember appears to be the last to post on this thread, but … he's truly an Ignored Member to me, so ….. that's the Magic Wand of Selection for you. He got selected right out.

34,350 amino acid residues in titin alone and Darwinists think the first molecule produced from a random mutation defied the insuperable statistics of 1 in 20 to the 34,350th power? Shirley you jest.

34,350 amino acid residues in titin alone and Darwinists think the first molecule produced from a random mutation defied the insuperable statistics of 1 in 20 to the 34,350th power?

Which Darwinists think that? Link?

 

[ChemEngineer]

34,350 amino acid residues in titin alone and Darwinists think the first molecule produced from a random mutation defied the insuperable statistics of 1 in 20 to the 34,350th power?

Which Darwinists think that? Link?

All of them. "A>B>C>D"

If you don't get it, then you don't understand evolution. It's all so "simple" with a wave of the Magic Wand of Selection.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

34,350 amino acid residues in titin alone and Darwinists think the first molecule produced from a random mutation defied the insuperable statistics of 1 in 20 to the 34,350th power?

Which Darwinists think that? Link?

All of them. "A>B>C>D"

If you don't get it, then you don't understand evolution. It's all so "simple" with a wave of the Magic Wand of Selection.

All of them. "A>B>C>D"

Link?

 

[Hollie]

More's the pity. IgnoredMember appears to be the last to post on this thread, but … he's truly an Ignored Member to me, so ….. that's the Magic Wand of Selection for you. He got selected right out.

34,350 amino acid residues in titin alone and Darwinists think the first molecule produced from a random mutation defied the insuperable statistics of 1 in 20 to the 34,350th power? Shirley you jest.

Gee whiz. Thousands of gods invented by humans and the religious extremist thinks his gods somehow supersede all the other gods.

 

[Hollie]

More's the pity. IgnoredMember appears to be the last to post on this thread, but … he's truly an Ignored Member to me, so ….. that's the Magic Wand of Selection for you. He got selected right out.

34,350 amino acid residues in titin alone and Darwinists think the first molecule produced from a random mutation defied the insuperable statistics of 1 in 20 to the 34,350th power? Shirley you jest.

Ignored member is obviously not ignored.

Ignored member refuted your nonsense claims causing you to tuck your tail in and skedaddle.

 

[rightwinger]

Isn't it fascinating that the godless left is so eager to invoke the Holy Bible in any discussion of evolution?
They despise the Book but bring it up constantly, while condemning it as utterly fictional. You can't talk science without them bringing up what they call "fiction." Unintelligent and anti-science, but that's the godless left for you.

Whether the earth is hundreds of millions of years old or not is immaterial to the anti-science and growing failures of Neo-Darwinism. It's more fit because it survives and it survives because it's more fit. Wow. That tells you precisely nothing.

Not fiction, a fairy tale meant to confuse the masses

 

[LittleNipper]

Lol, Richard Lenski had proven evolution of E-Coli strains.

So, you're saying E-Coli produces E-Coli, begets E-Coli, stays E-Coli. This is exactly wahr Creationists believe. It is one thing to show/demonstrate that any organism has the fortitude to try to persevere and or reproduce. But it has never been shown that any organism is slowly changing into another organism with each passing generations. As a Christian, I most certainly believe that everything in nature is unique to one degree or another. However I've never been shown how bacteria develops into an amoeba.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But it has never been shown that any organism is slowly changing into another organism with each passing generations.

Of course, this is false. Speciation has, in fact, been observed. And this is a stupid argument anyway. Profound changes take profoundly long periods of time. We haven't observed stars igniting either, but we know they do. We haven't watched planets form from disks, but we know they do. The changes simply will add up over time. It's inevitable. If you separate two populations of any species for any length of time, they will speciate from one another, eventually. You couldn't stop it if you tried. Even without any new mutations, genetic drift would cause them to speciate, given enough time. And that's not a "hypothesis" or a "guess"; that's an absolute, mathematical certainty.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lol, Richard Lenski had proven evolution of E-Coli strains.

So, you're saying E-Coli produces E-Coli, begets E-Coli, stays E-Coli. This is exactly wahr Creationists believe. It is one thing to show/demonstrate that any organism has the fortitude to try to persevere and or reproduce. But it has never been shown that any organism is slowly changing into another organism with each passing generations. As a Christian, I most certainly believe that everything in nature is unique to one degree or another. However I've never been shown how bacteria develops into an amoeba.

But it has never been shown that any organism is slowly changing into another organism with each passing generations.

Never ever? Link?

 

[james bond]

Your science depends on a list of begats?

Sure, it's better than evolution and becoming human from monkeys. We can observe no monkeys walk bipedal all the time..

There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old.

There is, actually.

Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your science depends on a list of begats?

Sure, it's better than evolution and becoming human from monkeys. We can observe no monkeys walk bipedal all the time..

There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old.

There is, actually.

Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..

Sure, it's better than evolution

Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..

Prove it was contaminated in 6000 years..

 

[james bond]

Your science depends on a list of begats?

Sure, it's better than evolution and becoming human from monkeys. We can observe no monkeys walk bipedal all the time..

There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old.

There is, actually.

Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..

Sure, it's better than evolution

View attachment 295203

Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..

Prove it was contaminated in 6000 years..

I'm going to assume you lost. You said, "There is, actually," and then proceeded to not provide anything. Sorry, loser. Better luck next time when you have something .

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your science depends on a list of begats?

Sure, it's better than evolution and becoming human from monkeys. We can observe no monkeys walk bipedal all the time..

There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old.

There is, actually.

Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..

Sure, it's better than evolution

View attachment 295203

Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..

Prove it was contaminated in 6000 years..

I'm going to assume you lost. You said, "There is, actually," and then proceeded to not provide anything. Sorry, loser. Better luck next time when you have something .

You said, "There is, actually,"

I only said that because it's true.

Did you have proof for your claim, "There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old"?

Or was, "Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years.." supposed to be your proof?

 

[bripat9643]

How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?

Evolution is anti-science. This is anti-anti-science. That's real science to the laypeople.

One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen. One can do the math and see evolution does not happen. One can do the math and see magic does not happen.

So-called "creation science" is magic, dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

Except for MAC who knows the truth

Actually, it seems to only be the religious nutballs who claim to know.

So you don't know?

Exactly how life came to be? No. Do you?

Then why do you keep claiming you do know?

 

[james bond]

Your science depends on a list of begats?

Sure, it's better than evolution and becoming human from monkeys. We can observe no monkeys walk bipedal all the time..

There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old.

There is, actually.

Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..

Sure, it's better than evolution

View attachment 295203

Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..

Prove it was contaminated in 6000 years..

I'm going to assume you lost. You said, "There is, actually," and then proceeded to not provide anything. Sorry, loser. Better luck next time when you have something .

You said, "There is, actually,"

I only said that because it's true.

Did you have proof for your claim, "There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old"?

Or was, "Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years.." supposed to be your proof?

It's not true. Ho hum. You know nothing and are boring, so I won the argument and you are dismissed.