Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

KGB/Stasi

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>
Author
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 9:31pm
Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:

if its not that, then i assume you must be refering to punctuated equilibria, however, while that does state there are periods of accellerated evolution, they still require a much, much longer timespan then a single generation.

and even punctuated equilibria, though its widely accepted among evolutionists, is not proven...



No, I'm talking about a simpler, grade 12 biology example.

So do you think that all forms of evolution are unproven?
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9818
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 10:57pm
I believe in evolution because it's the best explanation for certain people I know that seem much more simian than human. 
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 9:03am
My problem is with the actual use of the term
'evolution', in lieu of the more correct term 'natural
selection'. 'Evolution' is merely the perceived
improvement of a species as a result of the natural
selection process.

There's no magical force propelling a species to get
better. What simply happens is that the weakest members
of a species in any given generation will tend towards
less reproductive success. Simultaneously, most species
on earth are prone to random and sporadic mutations with
each new generation. Any new trait that favours an
individual's reproductive success, and which can be
passed on to future offspring, will over the course of
many generations become more prevalent. Conversely, any
mutation that does not favour increased reproductive
success will either die off or will find itself very
limited within the species.

'Evolution' simply refers to the phenomenon of
perceivable change in a species of the course of these
many generations as a result of these selective
pressures. Chimps became man because the chimps that
were smarter, stronger and better able to live within
their environment over time out-bred their bretheren,
and that process simply continued on until the present.

The actual spark of intelligence is indeed a very
interesting question, and one we don't yet have an
answer to- but there are other species that demonstrate
rudimentary intellectual abilities approaching some of
the traits associated with sentience. Humans, thus far,
are simply the only complete package that has combined
intelligence with the biomechanics allowing us to
manipulate our environment, and with those two traits
reinforcing each other.

TL;DR- If Dolphins ever evolve opposable thumbs we're
probably screwed.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 9:48am
Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:

if its not that, then i assume you must be refering to punctuated equilibria, however, while that does state there are periods of accellerated evolution, they still require a much, much longer timespan then a single generation.

and even punctuated equilibria, though its widely accepted among evolutionists, is not proven...



No, I'm talking about a simpler, grade 12 biology example.

So do you think that all forms of evolution are unproven?


micro evolution? that still takes place over a few generations, rather then one though...

depends on exactly what you mean by "forms" of evolution, if you mean by that forms of the evolutionary theory, then yes, i do, if you mean things like micro-evolution (which has been observed) natural selection, etc. then no.
Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 9:54am

Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

My problem is with the actual use of the term
'evolution', in lieu of the more correct term 'natural
selection'. 'Evolution' is merely the perceived
improvement of a species as a result of the natural
selection process.

I see what you are trying to say, but I have to disagree and clarify.  Natural selection is merely one of many forces causing evolution.  Evolution is the result of a number of things.

*grabs evolution textbook*

Genetic drift, for instance, accounts for more change over time than natural selection.  Sexual selection (which, admittedly, some view as a subset of natural selection), is a major driving force.

And, of course, underlying all of this is genetic mutation and recombination (for sexual species).

Natural selection is one of the contribruting factors of evolution.  Evolution is the result.

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 9:58am

DNA disproves the main part of the "evolution" theory.

Secular Humanists, who preach "evolution" (so they can eliminate "God".) realize this, and they are struggling with the facts...

Tom Phillips said it best.

"In truth, creation/design is the scientific position; evolution is unscientific. By definition, science is based upon what we observe in the physical world and logical inference from what we observe.

While microevolution, which is change within a species, is observed and scientific, macroevolution, which is what "evolution" customarily means, is not. It asserts life somehow arose from non-life by chance.

Such "spontaneous generation," disproved long ago, has never been observed. Instead, we always observe that life comes from previous life - and, as Scripture teaches, ultimately from an ever-living God.

Evolution also asserts one life form can change into another, higher form - something also never observed and thus unscientific. Instead, we always observe exactly what Genesis states numerous times: Life reproduces "according to its kind," i.e., cats beget cats, crickets beget crickets, etc. They never change into something else. With microbiology, we understand why.

All life contains DNA, a genetic blueprint containing information. But purely material processes cannot create information, which originates only from a "mind." Evolution proceeds via chance, the antithesis of information. The DNA in simple bacteria has several million specifications; man's has several billion.

The DNA molecule, the most complex structure we know and unquestionably the most efficient copying device, with self-correcting processes, prevents one life form from "changing" into another. We are all copies of a copy of a copy, etc., going back to the very first human parents.

Genesis 3:20 says Eve was "the mother of all the living." Science proved we are descendents of one woman, whose genes are carried by all mankind. Even evolutionists accept the finding that all humans descended from a relatively recent woman whom scientists have taken to calling Eve, based on the DNA in our mitochondria, the cell's powerhouse. Mitochondrial DNA comes unmixed, only from the mother.

The fossil record disproves evolution. If the first life form changed into another, higher form by gradual gene changes, and so on down the line, accounting for all life then, quoting Darwin, "the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great."

The whole world would be awash in the remains of "infinitely numerous connecting links." It isn't. Darwin conceded that fact, calling it "the most obvious and serious objection" against his theory. He attests the "sudden appearance" of species, complete and distinct, in the fossil record - just as if God created all life individually.

Evolution is scientifically preposterous. Laws of probability are real scientific laws. Our DNA is unique because the odds of another person having our exact DNA are so remote we can dismiss that possibility altogether. Likewise with evolution.

Nobel laureate Francis Crick calculated nature's chances of producing one small protein: 1 in 10 to the 260th power. Crick reminds us there are only 10 to the 80th power (1 followed by 80 zeros) atoms in the whole universe; he concludes even the elementary components of life "cannot have arisen by pure chance."

Mathematician Emile Borel states an event will never happen when the odds are less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power.

Sir Fred Hoyle, mathematician and astronomer, calculated nature's chances of producing the 2,000 enzymes found in life: 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. He states: "The Darwinian theory of evolution is shown to be plainly wrong" and concludes, "Life cannot have had a random beginning . . . but must have come from a cosmic intelligence."

Nobel laureate Ernst Chain said, "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts."

Albert Einstein said, "I want to know how God created this world." Einstein knew the universe didn't happen by chance.

Atheism and evolution are dead. Science destroyed them. Those claiming evolution is scientific must demonstrate that life can come from non-life by purely material processes and that one life form can turn into another, higher form.

Science demands it. Put up or shut up."

They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Benjichang View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I pwned Leroy Jenkins!

Joined: 03 January 2004
Location: R'lyeh
Status: Offline
Points: 12518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benjichang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 10:02am
Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 10:06am
Here we go again, assuming that evolution address the creation of life/universe rather than just evolution.

Evolution covers only changes of species, it does not cover creation of the planets or life, those are other theories. Science is not lumped all together like creationism.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 10:12am

Bro, that is not what is taught in schools...

Evolution according to public education is the creation of the earth... Using the faulty experiment that Benji brought up...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/science/17LIFE.html?ref=us

"Enshrined in high school textbooks, the Miller-Urey experiment raised expectations that scientists could unravel life’s origins with simple chemistry experiments. The excitement has long since subsided. The amino acids never grew into the more complex proteins. Scientists now think the composition of air on early Earth was different from what Dr. Miller used, leading some to question whether the Miller-Urey experiment had any relevance to the still-unsolved question of the origin of life."

 

The Creation of life, and earth is critical to your "world view". Athiest and agnostics, or anyone who is a believer in humanism, MUST PROVE there is no God. Therefore, they have to believe that we just "evolved". Even when science proves otherwise.



Edited by FreeEnterprise - 04 November 2008 at 10:12am
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Benjichang View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I pwned Leroy Jenkins!

Joined: 03 January 2004
Location: R'lyeh
Status: Offline
Points: 12518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benjichang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 10:22am
Since there is no scientific evidence whatsoever suggesting that a god exists, I'd say that the burden of proof lies with the people that believe in a creator.
Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 10:25am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Bro, that is not what is taught in schools...

Evolution according to public education is the creation of the earth... Using the faulty experiment that Benji brought up...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/science/17LIFE.html?ref=us

"Enshrined in high school textbooks, the Miller-Urey experiment raised expectations that scientists could unravel life’s origins with simple chemistry experiments. The excitement has long since subsided. The amino acids never grew into the more complex proteins. Scientists now think the composition of air on early Earth was different from what Dr. Miller used, leading some to question whether the Miller-Urey experiment had any relevance to the still-unsolved question of the origin of life."

 

The Creation of life, and earth is critical to your "world view". Athiest and agnostics, or anyone who is a believer in humanism, MUST PROVE there is no God. Therefore, they have to believe that we just "evolved". Even when science proves otherwise.

Once again, your links bear no relationship to your claims.

No self-respecting scientist will claim that evolutionary theory addresses the origins of life or the universe.  That's just not what it is about.

 

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 10:26am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Tom Phillips said it best.

...

You know, virtually that entire post describes a straw man that is NOT evolutionary theory.  That whole post was so much nonsense.

Before you bash science, you should understand the science you are bashing.

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
Reb Cpl View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
2010 Worst Luck award winner

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 14004
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reb Cpl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 10:27am
Originally posted by Benjichang Benjichang wrote:

Since there is no scientific evidence whatsoever suggesting that a god exists, I'd say that the burden of proof lies with the people that believe in a creator.


What a way to weasel out of a debate.

You can't prove that a higher power DOESN'T exist, despite having a pretty well stocked argument for evolutionary theories and natural selection.

Without solid proof that there is no God, you're in the same basket as those trying to prove that there IS....all you're doing is holding your own beliefs as gospel and passing on the duties to prove you wrong to those that disagree, and since they can't prove you wrong, you dance about it. Yet to be truthful, you can't prove THEM wrong either.




Edited by Reb Cpl - 04 November 2008 at 10:28am


Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 10:30am

Originally posted by Reb Cpl Reb Cpl wrote:

Originally posted by Benjichang Benjichang wrote:

Since there is no scientific evidence whatsoever suggesting that a god exists, I'd say that the burden of proof lies with the people that believe in a creator.


What a way to weasel out of a debate.

Yes and no. 

To quote Carl Sagan:  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." 

Lack of conclusive proof on a subject does not mean that we have to be completely neutral in belief.

The absence of Santa Clause also cannot be proven, yet I feel perfectly comfortable and justified on placing the burden of proof on the Santa proponent,and going with my theory that Santa does not exist.

 

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
Benjichang View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I pwned Leroy Jenkins!

Joined: 03 January 2004
Location: R'lyeh
Status: Offline
Points: 12518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benjichang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 10:31am
It seems that simply believing in no god is the simpler solution. People believing in a god are making the bigger claim.

Either way, I don't feel like I have to prove my beliefs to anyone. It seems silly to me that FE is saying that I have to prove that there is no god. Obviously no one can *prove* that god doesn't exist, and I'd say no one can prove that a god does exist.

I believe that science is the path to truth and understanding of the universe, and so far a god isn't a part of that, and I'm fine with that.

If you choose to believe in a creator, go ahead, I'm not going to argue with you. It's about the most pointless debate there is.
Back to Top
Reb Cpl View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
2010 Worst Luck award winner

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 14004
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reb Cpl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 10:35am
Originally posted by Benjichang Benjichang wrote:

It seems that simply believing in no god is the simpler solution. People believing in a god are making the bigger claim.

Simpler solution, yes, but if we always took the simple road, nothing would get done.


Either way, I don't feel like I have to prove my beliefs to anyone. It seems silly to me that FE is saying that I have to prove that there is no god. Obviously no one can *prove* that god doesn't exist, and I'd say no one can prove that a god does exist.

Yet you ask those that believe in God to prove their beliefs? A bigger claim perhaps, but still the principal is there. "I don't have to prove anything to you, but you have to prove everything to me" Perhaps the belief is proof enough.

I believe that science is the path to truth and understanding of the universe, and so far a god isn't a part of that, and I'm fine with that.

Even science started somewhere.

If you choose to believe in a creator, go ahead, I'm not going to argue with you. It's about the most pointless debate there is.

Yeah, but its one of the most fun debates you can have if its done right.


Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 10:37am

Say your sick. I mean REALLY sick. Doctors tell you, that you are about to die. No hope.

 

Do you pray to God for a miracle?

They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Reb Cpl View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
2010 Worst Luck award winner

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 14004
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reb Cpl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 10:39am
Originally posted by Bruce Banner Bruce Banner wrote:

Originally posted by Reb Cpl Reb Cpl wrote:

Originally posted by Benjichang Benjichang wrote:

Since there is no scientific evidence whatsoever suggesting that a god exists, I'd say that the burden of proof lies with the people that believe in a creator.


What a way to weasel out of a debate.

Yes and no. 

To quote Carl Sagan:  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." 

Lack of conclusive proof on a subject does not mean that we have to be completely neutral in belief.

The absence of Santa Clause also cannot be proven, yet I feel perfectly comfortable and justified on placing the burden of proof on the Santa proponent,and going with my theory that Santa does not exist.



Santa Clause isn't as long lived or as world wide a phenomenon as a belief in a higher power is. Shrugging off the idea of a fat guy delivering free stuff is one thing. Shrugging off the idea of a supreme being heading the creation of everything including science in the same theoretical basis is sort of like comparing apples to duct tape.




Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 10:39am
FE- copypasta from thedefender.org? come on, you aren't
even trying.

Evolution within a species is exactly what
macroevolution is- extended over the course of many
hundreds of thousands of generations. If a species
breeds once every twenty years, for two million years,
that's one hundred thousand generations of that species.
If one small difference is happening every hundredth
generation as a result of spontaneous mutation, natural
or sexual selection, etc, that's still a thousand little
differences happening one at a time. Over that lengthy
time period a species very gradually changes from one
form to another.

Think of it in terms of frames of a moving animation. If
you have one hundred thousand frames showing an
animation of a black dot slowly moving from one point on
a white screen to another, no two subsequent frames will
be distinguishable from one another. But takes frames
that are, say, one thousand frames apart, and you'll see
a difference. That's analogous to the sketchy fossil
record we have on most species. Species appear radically
different as they have evolved simply because all we
have are snapshots taken at huge intervals of time and
generations.

It's amusing for you to claim that those of us who are
atheists or agnostics feel a compulsion to prove there's
no God. I certainly feel no need; I could really care
less. I don't go out trying to prove there's no Easter
Bunny, or Santa Clause, or Great Pumpkin. I put my
faith, as it were, in hypotheses that can be
scientifically tested, and which survive those tests
over many iterations and attempts.

If there IS a God, I'll find out in seventy years or so
(hopefully not much sooner than that, but who knows). If
there's a God that is as omnipotent and omniscient as it
is supposed to be, surely it can see past the petty
doctrinal and sectarian nonsense we humans feel are
necessary in the observance of a faith, and will instead
judge me based on how I've lived my life. I cannot
imagine any creature that powerful that would give half
a damn what we mere humans think about anything, nor one
so petulantly in need of our worship as the God of the
old testament seems to be. I also don't see the concept
of God and evolution as exclusive of each other- why
could some God not set the cosmic experiment in motion,
sit back for a couple billion years, crack a couple of
cold ones and see what happens?
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 10:41am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

DNA disproves the main part of the "evolution" theory.


Secular Humanists, who preach "evolution" (so they can eliminate "God".) realize this, and they are struggling with the facts...


Tom Phillips said it best.


"In truth, creation/design is the scientific position; evolution is unscientific. By definition, science is based upon what we observe in the physical world and logical inference from what we observe.


While microevolution, which is change within a species, is observed and scientific, macroevolution, which is what "evolution" customarily means, is not. It asserts life somehow arose from non-life by chance.


Such "spontaneous generation," disproved long ago, has never been observed. Instead, we always observe that life comes from previous life - and, as Scripture teaches, ultimately from an ever-living God.



spontaneous generation is a separate theory from evolution. evolution, in itself, is not concerned about where life comes from, rather seeks to explain how it progressed.

Quote

Evolution also asserts one life form can change into another, higher form - something also never observed and thus unscientific. Instead, we always observe exactly what Genesis states numerous times: Life reproduces "according to its kind," i.e., cats beget cats, crickets beget crickets, etc. They never change into something else. With microbiology, we understand why.


All life contains DNA, a genetic blueprint containing information. But purely material processes cannot create information, which originates only from a "mind." Evolution proceeds via chance, the antithesis of information. The DNA in simple bacteria has several million specifications; man's has several billion.


The DNA molecule, the most complex structure we know and unquestionably the most efficient copying device, with self-correcting processes, prevents one life form from "changing" into another. We are all copies of a copy of a copy, etc., going back to the very first human parents.


to say DNA prevents life from changing to another form without adding any source or study to prove this point isnt a very effective means of "proving" something.

Quote

Genesis 3:20 says Eve was "the mother of all the living." Science proved we are descendents of one woman, whose genes are carried by all mankind. Even evolutionists accept the finding that all humans descended from a relatively recent woman whom scientists have taken to calling Eve, based on the DNA in our mitochondria, the cell's powerhouse. Mitochondrial DNA comes unmixed, only from the mother.



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html

Quote

The fossil record disproves evolution. If the first life form changed into another, higher form by gradual gene changes, and so on down the line, accounting for all life then, quoting Darwin, "the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great."


The whole world would be awash in the remains of "infinitely numerous connecting links." It isn't. Darwin conceded that fact, calling it "the most obvious and serious objection" against his theory. He attests the "sudden appearance" of species, complete and distinct, in the fossil record - just as if God created all life individually.



the lack of fossil record is a position i take myself, this however, is a drastic overrepresentation of the problem it causes to the evolutionary standpoint, even i admit that.

Quote

Evolution is scientifically preposterous. Laws of probability are real scientific laws. Our DNA is unique because the odds of another person having our exact DNA are so remote we can dismiss that possibility altogether. Likewise with evolution.


Nobel laureate Francis Crick calculated nature's chances of producing one small protein: 1 in 10 to the 260th power. Crick reminds us there are only 10 to the 80th power (1 followed by 80 zeros) atoms in the whole universe; he concludes even the elementary components of life "cannot have arisen by pure chance."


Mathematician Emile Borel states an event will never happen when the odds are less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power.


Sir Fred Hoyle, mathematician and astronomer, calculated nature's chances of producing the 2,000 enzymes found in life: 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. He states: "The Darwinian theory of evolution is shown to be plainly wrong" and concludes, "Life cannot have had a random beginning . . . but must have come from a cosmic intelligence."



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Quote

Nobel laureate Ernst Chain said, "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts."


Albert Einstein said, "I want to know how God created this world." Einstein knew the universe didn't happen by chance.


Atheism and evolution are dead. Science destroyed them. Those claiming evolution is scientific must demonstrate that life can come from non-life by purely material processes and that one life form can turn into another, higher form.


Science demands it. Put up or shut up."



Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.250 seconds.