• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

So you say I don't understand Evolution. Really?

ttechsan

twitter @ttechsan
Lets see.
1. It does not have an actual thinking brain! True!
2. It is a force of nature (Natural Selection ie Survival of the Fittest) Yes
3. Forces of Nature don't have actual brains! (Mother Nature etc) True
4.Evolutionist give it credit as if it has the powers of a brain to Design, Engineer and Program etc. Yes you do.
5. Yet, In all of human history and all we see in the world today. Anytime we see Design, Engineering, Programming it always takes Intelligence for it to occur! Yes
6.You say it ALL started with the Big Bang. Therefore all the order, precision, laws of nature, science. math, cosmology and it goes on came ultimately as a result of an explosion energy! (Yet nothing in our experience of today's world do we ever see order, precision etc as a result or aftermath of an explosion of energy!) If so please give me examples other than what you SAY evolution did. But if I go by % of the evidence then explosion of energy doesn't produce order, precision etc. So very illogical and not common sense based on real world experience. I Live in Texas. The explosion in West didn't leave order. Nor did 9/11, nor Oklahoma City bombing and this goes on. Heck the bombing of Japan to end WWII sure didn't either.
7. Computer programming controls the computer and all it does. True. So likewise does DNA/RNA for all of life. Yet you can't explain this. Computer Programs are like language that communicate directions. Have we ever seen anything of a language, esp that complex evolve from simple to complex and esp w/o Intelligent brain behind it. Real life experience tells me NO! Even Darwin in chapter 6 of his book Origins said if ever proven anything was so complex that it couldn't have evolved from simple to complex by evolutionary steps it would disprove his theory. DNA/RNA did that.
8. In real life when we see Design, Engineering, Programming etc we instantly recognize behind it was Intelligence. We don't immediately say, Look what evolved by natural forces w/o a brain directing it.
9. Like my example on the other thread about Mother Nature deciding, which has no brain but is a force of nature, to unite the forces of nature and form the faces on Mt Rushmore. Using rain, wind, erosion etc. It shows design but of course since mother nature has no real brain it couldn't have done it as it requires a brain to design it. Yet real life is much more complex and you say natural forces of evolution out designed, engineered, programmed what man still can't match. Not only that did it before man had "evolved" to the point to even learn about it. Much less study nature and copy it to make life better for mankind.
10. You can take so many processes of life and systems and explain them in depth. Yet you can't take not ONE example of evolution and take it from one species to the next species and explain where it started, the no.of steps it took and what each step it entailed to get there. All the while battling survival of the fittest since after it adapted it was already fittest and had no need to change. To change further put its survival at risk and vulnerable to extinction.
11. Evolutionist own words betray evolution. Quote from Dr. Richard Lewontin A geneticist that is very revealing

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Sounds like materialism atheism first over good, true, honest, science at all cost.

Stephen J. Gould once admitted, "The history of most fossil species includes... features particularly inconsistent with gradualism..(like) sudden appearance...in any local areas, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears suddenly all at once and "fully formed". According to Gould, there is no evidence of gradual evolution, since there are no transitional creatures. Species are fully formed when they first appear in the record.

Evolutionist Mark Ridley admitted, "No real scientist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."

Dr Mano Singham an evolutionary college prof in this attached article admits to teaching using brainwashing and propaganda techniques to teach his students. Yet, as all evolutionist do he makes it to be religion vs science. Which I find funny with all the other admissions he made. You will have to open the PDF file to read it.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/53/6/10.1063/1.1306373

From Physics Today of June 2000

Dr. James Tour, a prof at Rice who specializes in chemistry, nano engineering and computer science said, Despite decades of research into the origin of life, he does not understand how it all could have happened. And when he challenges his peers on the subject, they too sheepishly admit its a mystery. He says: Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science with National Academy members, Nobel prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public, because its a scary thing if you say what I just said. I say, "Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from and how this happened?" The answer I usually get is "No". "Every time I have sat with people who are synthetic chemist, who understand this, They go "Uh-uh, Nope". Dr. Tour said "And if they're afraid to say "yes", they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can't sincerely do it."

See Evolutionist own words betray what evolution really is. Bad science, full of proven frauds etc.

I've exposed it too by my questions that you can't answer. IT proves I actually know it better than you do.

I challenge you to educate me with proof and examples to disprove what I have said.

Your opinion that I don't know what I am talking about means nothing. I have given you points. You MUST disprove my points with provable and proven science. Not just opinion. If you asked evolutionist to explain various bodily or other systems in depth they as could creationist.

We, as does atheist mathematician Fred Hoyle, acknowledge the obvious. Behind it took and demands an Intelligent Designer, Engineer and Programmer etc far above what we are capable of.

That my friends is common sense and logic. Yours takes more faith than I could ever muster. At least I stand on what the world and experience and worlds history tells me.

Plus science is never decided by popular vote. Otherwise the world would still be flat and the earth still the center of this solar system etc.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Why not finish up the other discussion before starting yet another thread about the same thing? You keep on starting threads about how wrong evolution is, but you really don't take your time reading the responses. Then it's just a futile and useless exercise.
 

ttechsan

twitter @ttechsan
Because of the ones I read. Most tell me it is proven science and that I don't understand evolution. It is easier to deal with this way. So take this and take the points and prove me by points what it is I don't understand about evolution! Words without backing up proof are meaningless. So I gave you what I know about evolution in some bullet points. Take the points you say I am wrong and don't know evolution correctly on and then prove me wrong. Pretty simple really. Quit avoiding and start proving my understanding is wrong.
Does evolution have an actual Intelligent thinking brain? NO!
Yet evolutionist give it credit as if it does.
Can evolution Design, Engineer, Program etc like an actual intelligent thinking brain can? You guys seem to think it can and do it better than man's top of the line "evolved" brain can. Yet experience shows not one example that is possible. All Design, Engineering, Programming etc takes an actual thinking Intelligent brain. Other than what you say evolution did. You can't prove it by giving me any other examples proving that possible. If that were possible we should see examples of it everywhere. We can't and never do.

Otherwise, You guys would be busting at the seams to give me examples after examples proving that not only is possible but has proven to be true in all these cases. Yet you can't do it even in ONE case. Mush less in all the cases necessary for evolution to produce all we see created on this planet!

I'm using common sense, logic. You are using faith w/o demonstration and using just so stories that have no basis in fact. That is NOT SCIENCE but fraud, deception and faith to keep your atheism. As I've said. Fred Hoyle atheist mathematician acknowledges the need for Intelligence. He keeps his atheism by going to outer space. His only other option. As a math person myself. I think logically with common sense and no,s. I follow them. Odds for evolution are impossible. Fred Hoyle proved that himself and he is one of you.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Given attempting to teach you about evolutionary theory, statistical probability, and the sciences is probably an epic waste of time, I really only have one question: why do you care? Why does it matter, to you, how biological diversity happened? What's the significance of that, if any? How does it impact your personal life?
 

McBell

Unbound
Lets see.
1. It does not have an actual thinking brain! True!
2. It is a force of nature (Natural Selection ie Survival of the Fittest) Yes
3. Forces of Nature don't have actual brains! (Mother Nature etc) True
4.Evolutionist give it credit as if it has the powers of a brain to Design, Engineer and Program etc. Yes you do.
5. Yet, In all of human history and all we see in the world today. Anytime we see Design, Engineering, Programming it always takes Intelligence for it to occur! Yes
6.You say it ALL started with the Big Bang. Therefore all the order, precision, laws of nature, science. math, cosmology and it goes on came ultimately as a result of an explosion energy! (Yet nothing in our experience of today's world do we ever see order, precision etc as a result or aftermath of an explosion of energy!) If so please give me examples other than what you SAY evolution did. But if I go by % of the evidence then explosion of energy doesn't produce order, precision etc. So very illogical and not common sense based on real world experience. I Live in Texas. The explosion in West didn't leave order. Nor did 9/11, nor Oklahoma City bombing and this goes on. Heck the bombing of Japan to end WWII sure didn't either.
7. Computer programming controls the computer and all it does. True. So likewise does DNA/RNA for all of life. Yet you can't explain this. Computer Programs are like language that communicate directions. Have we ever seen anything of a language, esp that complex evolve from simple to complex and esp w/o Intelligent brain behind it. Real life experience tells me NO! Even Darwin in chapter 6 of his book Origins said if ever proven anything was so complex that it couldn't have evolved from simple to complex by evolutionary steps it would disprove his theory. DNA/RNA did that.
8. In real life when we see Design, Engineering, Programming etc we instantly recognize behind it was Intelligence. We don't immediately say, Look what evolved by natural forces w/o a brain directing it.
9. Like my example on the other thread about Mother Nature deciding, which has no brain but is a force of nature, to unite the forces of nature and form the faces on Mt Rushmore. Using rain, wind, erosion etc. It shows design but of course since mother nature has no real brain it couldn't have done it as it requires a brain to design it. Yet real life is much more complex and you say natural forces of evolution out designed, engineered, programmed what man still can't match. Not only that did it before man had "evolved" to the point to even learn about it. Much less study nature and copy it to make life better for mankind.
10. You can take so many processes of life and systems and explain them in depth. Yet you can't take not ONE example of evolution and take it from one species to the next species and explain where it started, the no.of steps it took and what each step it entailed to get there. All the while battling survival of the fittest since after it adapted it was already fittest and had no need to change. To change further put its survival at risk and vulnerable to extinction.
11. Evolutionist own words betray evolution. Quote from Dr. Richard Lewontin A geneticist that is very revealing

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Sounds like materialism atheism first over good, true, honest, science at all cost.

Stephen J. Gould once admitted, "The history of most fossil species includes... features particularly inconsistent with gradualism..(like) sudden appearance...in any local areas, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears suddenly all at once and "fully formed". According to Gould, there is no evidence of gradual evolution, since there are no transitional creatures. Species are fully formed when they first appear in the record.

Evolutionist Mark Ridley admitted, "No real scientist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."

Dr Mano Singham an evolutionary college prof in this attached article admits to teaching using brainwashing and propaganda techniques to teach his students. Yet, as all evolutionist do he makes it to be religion vs science. Which I find funny with all the other admissions he made. You will have to open the PDF file to read it.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/53/6/10.1063/1.1306373

From Physics Today of June 2000

Dr. James Tour, a prof at Rice who specializes in chemistry, nano engineering and computer science said, Despite decades of research into the origin of life, he does not understand how it all could have happened. And when he challenges his peers on the subject, they too sheepishly admit its a mystery. He says: Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science with National Academy members, Nobel prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public, because its a scary thing if you say what I just said. I say, "Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from and how this happened?" The answer I usually get is "No". "Every time I have sat with people who are synthetic chemist, who understand this, They go "Uh-uh, Nope". Dr. Tour said "And if they're afraid to say "yes", they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can't sincerely do it."

See Evolutionist own words betray what evolution really is. Bad science, full of proven frauds etc.

I've exposed it too by my questions that you can't answer. IT proves I actually know it better than you do.

I challenge you to educate me with proof and examples to disprove what I have said.

Your opinion that I don't know what I am talking about means nothing. I have given you points. You MUST disprove my points with provable and proven science. Not just opinion. If you asked evolutionist to explain various bodily or other systems in depth they as could creationist.

We, as does atheist mathematician Fred Hoyle, acknowledge the obvious. Behind it took and demands an Intelligent Designer, Engineer and Programmer etc far above what we are capable of.

That my friends is common sense and logic. Yours takes more faith than I could ever muster. At least I stand on what the world and experience and worlds history tells me.

Plus science is never decided by popular vote. Otherwise the world would still be flat and the earth still the center of this solar system etc.
Thank you for so thoroughly demonstrating you do not understand evolution.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
Anyone who knows anything about evolution wouldn't confuse Big Bang with Evolution. Sad to say but you've just been misguided and have no idea what you are criticizing.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Can evolution Design, Engineer, Program etc like an actual intelligent thinking brain can? You guys seem to think it can and do it better than man's top of the line "evolved" brain can. Yet experience shows not one example that is possible. All Design, Engineering, Programming etc takes an actual thinking Intelligent brain. Other than what you say evolution did. You can't prove it by giving me any other examples proving that possible. If that were possible we should see examples of it everywhere. We can't and never do.
I hope no one on here has said that. Evolution has many poor designs that engineers would have designed much better. e.g.
  • Why design the human throat that has to be both for breathing and eating and drinking - increasing chances of chocking.
  • What is the appendix for in humans?
  • Why do flightless birds have wings?
  • The route of the laryngeal nerve in the case of the giraffe!!
  • Various vestigial body parts, like the femur and pelvis in whales
This sort of 'bad design' goes a long way to proving that evolution id NOT controlled by intelligence but by random mutations and natural selection.
 

McBell

Unbound
Can evolution Design, Engineer, Program etc like an actual intelligent thinking brain can? You guys seem to think it can and do it better than man's top of the line "evolved" brain can. Yet experience shows not one example that is possible. All Design, Engineering, Programming etc takes an actual thinking Intelligent brain. Other than what you say evolution did. You can't prove it by giving me any other examples proving that possible. If that were possible we should see examples of it everywhere. We can't and never do.
Did you actually stop and think the above quoted part through to its logical conclusion?

I mean, you are basically saying that the "intelligent designer" sucks at designing....
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
An abysmal, and even humorous, understanding of evolution.

And the quote mining is no better. Simply take this one (originally from New Scientist)

“”In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.

However, the quote leaves out the very next sentence, which not only provides context, but shows the author's point of view much more accurately:

“”This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.

The article later goes on to state that:

“”So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy.
source
 
Last edited:

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
If you believe that evolution begins with a "big bang" and that a gazelle's "nose radiator" disproves evolution, then you do not understand evolution.

My be is, you didn't bother to look at the video series I posted in your other thread: the "foundational falsehoods of creationism". My bet is, you won't, because you can't bear to have your silly beliefs confronted.
 

Kuzcotopia

If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
Lets see.
1. It does not have an actual thinking brain! True!
2. It is a force of nature (Natural Selection ie Survival of the Fittest) Yes
3. Forces of Nature don't have actual brains! (Mother Nature etc) True
4.Evolutionist give it credit as if it has the powers of a brain to Design, Engineer and Program etc. Yes you do.
5. Yet, In all of human history and all we see in the world today. Anytime we see Design, Engineering, Programming it always takes Intelligence for it to occur! Yes
6.You say it ALL started with the Big Bang. Therefore all the order, precision, laws of nature, science. math, cosmology and it goes on came ultimately as a result of an explosion energy! (Yet nothing in our experience of today's world do we ever see order, precision etc as a result or aftermath of an explosion of energy!) If so please give me examples other than what you SAY evolution did. But if I go by % of the evidence then explosion of energy doesn't produce order, precision etc. So very illogical and not common sense based on real world experience. I Live in Texas. The explosion in West didn't leave order. Nor did 9/11, nor Oklahoma City bombing and this goes on. Heck the bombing of Japan to end WWII sure didn't either.
7. Computer programming controls the computer and all it does. True. So likewise does DNA/RNA for all of life. Yet you can't explain this. Computer Programs are like language that communicate directions. Have we ever seen anything of a language, esp that complex evolve from simple to complex and esp w/o Intelligent brain behind it. Real life experience tells me NO! Even Darwin in chapter 6 of his book Origins said if ever proven anything was so complex that it couldn't have evolved from simple to complex by evolutionary steps it would disprove his theory. DNA/RNA did that.
8. In real life when we see Design, Engineering, Programming etc we instantly recognize behind it was Intelligence. We don't immediately say, Look what evolved by natural forces w/o a brain directing it.
9. Like my example on the other thread about Mother Nature deciding, which has no brain but is a force of nature, to unite the forces of nature and form the faces on Mt Rushmore. Using rain, wind, erosion etc. It shows design but of course since mother nature has no real brain it couldn't have done it as it requires a brain to design it. Yet real life is much more complex and you say natural forces of evolution out designed, engineered, programmed what man still can't match. Not only that did it before man had "evolved" to the point to even learn about it. Much less study nature and copy it to make life better for mankind.
10. You can take so many processes of life and systems and explain them in depth. Yet you can't take not ONE example of evolution and take it from one species to the next species and explain where it started, the no.of steps it took and what each step it entailed to get there. All the while battling survival of the fittest since after it adapted it was already fittest and had no need to change. To change further put its survival at risk and vulnerable to extinction.
11. Evolutionist own words betray evolution. Quote from Dr. Richard Lewontin A geneticist that is very revealing

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Sounds like materialism atheism first over good, true, honest, science at all cost.

Stephen J. Gould once admitted, "The history of most fossil species includes... features particularly inconsistent with gradualism..(like) sudden appearance...in any local areas, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears suddenly all at once and "fully formed". According to Gould, there is no evidence of gradual evolution, since there are no transitional creatures. Species are fully formed when they first appear in the record.

Evolutionist Mark Ridley admitted, "No real scientist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."

Dr Mano Singham an evolutionary college prof in this attached article admits to teaching using brainwashing and propaganda techniques to teach his students. Yet, as all evolutionist do he makes it to be religion vs science. Which I find funny with all the other admissions he made. You will have to open the PDF file to read it.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/53/6/10.1063/1.1306373

From Physics Today of June 2000

Dr. James Tour, a prof at Rice who specializes in chemistry, nano engineering and computer science said, Despite decades of research into the origin of life, he does not understand how it all could have happened. And when he challenges his peers on the subject, they too sheepishly admit its a mystery. He says: Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science with National Academy members, Nobel prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public, because its a scary thing if you say what I just said. I say, "Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from and how this happened?" The answer I usually get is "No". "Every time I have sat with people who are synthetic chemist, who understand this, They go "Uh-uh, Nope". Dr. Tour said "And if they're afraid to say "yes", they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can't sincerely do it."

See Evolutionist own words betray what evolution really is. Bad science, full of proven frauds etc.

I've exposed it too by my questions that you can't answer. IT proves I actually know it better than you do.

I challenge you to educate me with proof and examples to disprove what I have said.

Your opinion that I don't know what I am talking about means nothing. I have given you points. You MUST disprove my points with provable and proven science. Not just opinion. If you asked evolutionist to explain various bodily or other systems in depth they as could creationist.

We, as does atheist mathematician Fred Hoyle, acknowledge the obvious. Behind it took and demands an Intelligent Designer, Engineer and Programmer etc far above what we are capable of.

That my friends is common sense and logic. Yours takes more faith than I could ever muster. At least I stand on what the world and experience and worlds history tells me.

Plus science is never decided by popular vote. Otherwise the world would still be flat and the earth still the center of this solar system etc.

Glossolalia?
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
1. It does not have an actual thinking brain! True! True

2. It is a force of nature (Natural Selection ie Survival of the Fittest) Yes - What is a "force of nature?" please define.

3. Forces of Nature don't have actual brains! (Mother Nature etc) True - Likely true, but what is a "force of nature?" please define

4.Evolutionist give it credit as if it has the powers of a brain to Design, Engineer and Program etc. Yes you do. False and scurrilous.

5. Yet, In all of human history and all we see in the world today. Anytime we see Design, Engineering, Programming it always takes Intelligence for it to occur! Yes - The problem is that you're not capable of seeing and understanding the difference between design and natural process.

6.You say it ALL started with the Big Bang. Therefore all the order, precision, laws of nature, science. math, cosmology and it goes on came ultimately as a result of an explosion energy! (Yet nothing in our experience of today's world do we ever see order, precision etc as a result or aftermath of an explosion of energy!) If so please give me examples other than what you SAY evolution did. But if I go by % of the evidence then explosion of energy doesn't produce order, precision etc. So very illogical and not common sense based on real world experience. I Live in Texas. The explosion in West didn't leave order. Nor did 9/11, nor Oklahoma City bombing and this goes on. Heck the bombing of Japan to end WWII sure didn't either. - The Big Bang has nothing to do with biological evolution. As far as order is concerned, the Big Bang did not create order, but gravity and time took over and did. That's.irrelevant to the current discussion, however

7. Computer programming controls the computer and all it does. True. So likewise does DNA/RNA for all of life. Yet you can't explain this. Computer Programs are like language that communicate directions. Have we ever seen anything of a language, esp that complex evolve from simple to complex and esp w/o Intelligent brain behind it. Real life experience tells me NO! Even Darwin in chapter 6 of his book Origins said if ever proven anything was so complex that it couldn't have evolved from simple to complex by evolutionary steps it would disprove his theory. DNA/RNA did that. Your analogy is false and does not serve, just because you make it up (actually you don't deserve that much credit, just because you can cut and paste it from some self-serving fool who is defending his cracked rice bowl) that doesn't make it applicable. You have no shame, you (oh, that's right, it not actually "you" it's those whom you copy without understanding the error) even quote mine Darwin..

8. In real life when we see Design, Engineering, Programming etc we instantly recognize behind it was Intelligence. We don't immediately say, Look what evolved by natural forces w/o a brain directing it. Take the simple natural explanation before you complicate it with an entire mythology and you're more likely to be correct. Mutation as the raw material and natural selection are all the explanation needed to be sufficient to explain the observed result.

9. Like my example on the other thread about Mother Nature deciding, which has no brain but is a force of nature, to unite the forces of nature and form the faces on Mt Rushmore. Using rain, wind, erosion etc. It shows design but of course since mother nature has no real brain it couldn't have done it as it requires a brain to design it. Yet real life is much more complex and you say natural forces of evolution out designed, engineered, programmed what man still can't match. Not only that did it before man had "evolved" to the point to even learn about it. Much less study nature and copy it to make life better for mankind. Previously exposed as as wrong headed and fraudulent. Continued use without further arguing the case it a form of lying.

10. You can take so many processes of life and systems and explain them in depth. Yet you can't take not ONE example of evolution and take it from one species to the next species and explain where it started, the no.of steps it took and what each step it entailed to get there. All the while battling survival of the fittest since after it adapted it was already fittest and had no need to change. To change further put its survival at risk and vulnerable to extinction. Not one example, but many such examples like ring species, Adriatic island lizards and Neris worms.

11. Evolutionist own words betray evolution. Quote from Dr. Richard Lewontin A geneticist that is very revealing

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

You are quote mining a very bright but fringe player that everyone respects for opposing the "powers that be" but that few take seriously beyond that role. Edward Wilson suggested that Lewontin's political beliefs affected his scientific view. Lewontin has at times identified himself as a Marxist and admitted that his ideological views have affected his scientific work.

Sounds like materialism atheism first over good, true, honest, science at all cost.

Sounds like you don't know the field, the players or even what game is being played but you're happy to quote mine anyway.

Stephen J. Gould once admitted, "The history of most fossil species includes... features particularly inconsistent with gradualism..(like) sudden appearance...in any local areas, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears suddenly all at once and "fully formed". According to Gould, there is no evidence of gradual evolution, since there are no transitional creatures. Species are fully formed when they first appear in the record.

Now you quote mine Gould, taking him way out of context. We was not discussing if there had been evolution, that was taken for granted, he was discussing the rate at which evolution took place and if the rate was constant. Again, you don't know the field, the players or even what game is being played but you're happy to quote mine.

Evolutionist Mark Ridley admitted, "No real scientist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."

Now that is truly gross, it is just plain lying. What Ridley actually wrote was:

"Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." (page 830)


"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."

"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)

"These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." (page 832)"

But you would not know that, you would not know that your creationist leaders are playing you for a patsy and making you look foolish because you obviously have never read the source of the quote: Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981
.

Dr Mano Singham an evolutionary college prof in this attached article admits to teaching using brainwashing and propaganda techniques to teach his students. Yet, as all evolutionist do he makes it to be religion vs science. Which I find funny with all the other admissions he made. You will have to open the PDF file to read it.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/53/6/10.1063/1.1306373

From Physics Today of June 2000

As usual you obviously did not read the article but love that quote mine. Actually Dr. Singham is not an "evolutionary" college prof, he's not even a biologist, he teaches physics as Case Western Reserve (though he has expressed views on evolution that are not relevant here). In the article cited he is discussing teaching theory (with reference to the teaching of physics) and, in a nutshell, is pondering the difference between and authoritarian "brainwashing" approach and "discover the truth" yourself approach. In his conclusion he offers students this advice: "“Listen carefully and courteously to what knowledgeable people have to say, and be able to use that information when necessary. Weigh the arguments for and against any issue but, ultimately, stand up for what you believe. Don’t ever feel forced to accept something just because some “expert” tells you it is true. Believe things only when they make sense to you and you are good and ready for them.”

Dr. James Tour, a prof at Rice who specializes in chemistry, nano engineering and computer science said, Despite decades of research into the origin of life, he does not understand how it all could have happened. And when he challenges his peers on the subject, they too sheepishly admit its a mystery. He says: Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science with National Academy members, Nobel prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public, because its a scary thing if you say what I just said. I say, "Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from and how this happened?" The answer I usually get is "No". "Every time I have sat with people who are synthetic chemist, who understand this, They go "Uh-uh, Nope". Dr. Tour said "And if they're afraid to say "yes", they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can't sincerely do it."

Tour has no creditability in the scientific community when it comes to evolution, he is a Discovery Institute stooge and should be know as such.

See Evolutionist own words betray what evolution really is. Bad science, full of proven frauds etc.

No, what we seen is the many different ways that you find to lie, you should be ashamed of yourself,

I've exposed it too by my questions that you can't answer. IT proves I actually know it better than you do.

I think any impartial observe can see that you know nothing, but lie about it anyway.

I challenge you to educate me with proof and examples to disprove what I have said.

I think you are a congenital liar who is incapable of learning so, on those grounds, I will have to pass.

Your opinion that I don't know what I am talking about means nothing. I have given you points. You MUST disprove my points with provable and proven science. Not just opinion. If you asked evolutionist to explain various bodily or other systems in depth they as could creationist.

That baseless claim has been exposed as the same sort of fraud that you perpetrate throughout your tracts. You have not made any points, you have not presented any data, all you have done is quote mine and engage in other forms of duplicitous behavior.

We, as does atheist mathematician Fred Hoyle, acknowledge the obvious. Behind it took and demands an Intelligent Designer, Engineer and Programmer etc far above what we are capable of.

Holye's is a distinctly minority opinion that is not taken seriously. What if I tell you the Pope and all but one member of the Council of Cardinals support both the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution? Does that not more than cancel Hoyle? Just as I do not get to choose your Christian experts, you do not get to chose mine.

That my friends is common sense and logic. Yours takes more faith than I could ever muster. At least I stand on what the world and experience and worlds history tells me.

Would that it were. In your case it is lies in defense of make believe.

Plus science is never decided by popular vote. Otherwise the world would still be flat and the earth still the center of this solar system etc.

Correct, science is not decided by popular vote, it is decided by what is left standing after many insightful attempts at falsification. Evolution still stands tall as the only creditable, unfalsified explanation for the observed phenomena. I'd say the jury is in, you don't know Jack about evolution.
 
Last edited:

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Lets see.
1. It does not have an actual thinking brain! True!
Obviously. This does not demonstrate that you know anything about evolution.

2. It is a force of nature (Natural Selection ie Survival of the Fittest) Yes
Obviously. This does not demonstrate that you know anything about evolution.

3. Forces of Nature don't have actual brains! (Mother Nature etc) True
Obviously. This does not demonstrate that you know anything about evolution.

4.Evolutionist give it credit as if it has the powers of a brain to Design, Engineer and Program etc. Yes you do.
This is loaded language. We don't believe "it has the powers of a brain to design". We don't believe evolution "designs" in the same way a brain can - it simply alters, slowly and gradually, in response to natural stimuli. This does not demonstrate that you know anything about evolution.

5. Yet, In all of human history and all we see in the world today. Anytime we see Design, Engineering, Programming it always takes Intelligence for it to occur! Yes
False. Firstly, how do you qualify that which is designed by human brains from that which occurs in nature? A watch is designed, but it can be argued that a tree is more complicated than a watch - and yet we know trees area result of natural reproductive processes. There is no basis on which to assume living systems that naturally reproduce must be a result of intelligent design. This does not demonstrate that you know anything about evolution.

6.You say it ALL started with the Big Bang. Therefore all the order, precision, laws of nature, science. math, cosmology and it goes on came ultimately as a result of an explosion energy! (Yet nothing in our experience of today's world do we ever see order, precision etc as a result or aftermath of an explosion of energy!) If so please give me examples other than what you SAY evolution did. But if I go by % of the evidence then explosion of energy doesn't produce order, precision etc. So very illogical and not common sense based on real world experience. I Live in Texas. The explosion in West didn't leave order. Nor did 9/11, nor Oklahoma City bombing and this goes on. Heck the bombing of Japan to end WWII sure didn't either.
Firstly, the big bang has absolutely nothing to with evolution. They are two very different subjects in two entirely different fields of science.

Secondly, "order" is not a tangible product of something. You have no basis on which to assert what kind of "order" exists in the world in an objective sense, as all of the laws of the Universe could be entirely different to how they are now and you could still consider that "order". The current state of the Universe is merely the current state of the Universe. It is not "ordered".

Thirdly, if you detonate a bomb, what happen immediately is obviously going to be destructive. But imagine detonating a bomb, and then returning to the site of the bomb every year for a hundred years. Would the bomb site remain in its current state and never change? Of course not. Vegetation grows, the environment changes with the influence of the weather, etc. Your own lousy metaphor defeats your own argument.

Fourth, this does not demonstrate that you know anything about evolution.

7. Computer programming controls the computer and all it does. True. So likewise does DNA/RNA for all of life. Yet you can't explain this. Computer Programs are like language that communicate directions. Have we ever seen anything of a language, esp that complex evolve from simple to complex and esp w/o Intelligent brain behind it. Real life experience tells me NO! Even Darwin in chapter 6 of his book Origins said if ever proven anything was so complex that it couldn't have evolved from simple to complex by evolutionary steps it would disprove his theory. DNA/RNA did that.
DNA is not comparable to computer programming. They are completely different things. We INTERPRET DNA as a language because that makes it easier to understand, in the same way the we INTERPRET the noises other human beings make with their mouths to be a language, when really all that's happening is they are causing vibrations in the air that are entering our ears and being picked up by our brains, and our brains express those vibrations as various sounds according to pitch, frequency, etc. "Language" is not an actual facet of the sound - it is a system of interpretation we GIVE to sound in order to make sense of it, in the exact same way the DNA is a sequence of nucleic acids reacting to certain chemical stimuli THAT WE INTERPRET as a language or code. This does not demonstrate that you know anything about evolution.

8. In real life when we see Design, Engineering, Programming etc we instantly recognize behind it was Intelligence. We don't immediately say, Look what evolved by natural forces w/o a brain directing it.
Going back to the watch example above, it is easy to see how a watch is designed. However, that is only because WE ALREADY KNOW HOW WATCHES ARE MADE. We see how they are made, and we know of no natural process which can produce a watch or anything similar to a watch.

Imagine you walk through a forest and find a watch on the ground. The look, feel and design of the object tells you that it is manufactured by humans for a specific purpose. Imagine, however, that you then find a tree on which you see a bunch of watches growing. Is it now reasonable to assume that this watch could only have been designed, or could it have come from this tree? Also, we can only identify design by contrasting it with natural. If your only qualifier for something being designed is its apparent complexity, then you have no measure on which to compare something that is complex and designed against that which is complex and produced naturally. If you cannot do that, you have no basis on which to assert design rather than nature as a probable cause. This does not demonstrate that you know anything about evolution.

9. Like my example on the other thread about Mother Nature deciding, which has no brain but is a force of nature, to unite the forces of nature and form the faces on Mt Rushmore. Using rain, wind, erosion etc. It shows design but of course since mother nature has no real brain it couldn't have done it as it requires a brain to design it. Yet real life is much more complex and you say natural forces of evolution out designed, engineered, programmed what man still can't match. Not only that did it before man had "evolved" to the point to even learn about it. Much less study nature and copy it to make life better for mankind.
This is just yet more of the above fallacies. Life is a naturally reproducing phenomenon; you cannot compare it accurately to man-made objects. This does not demonstrate that you know anything about evolution.

10. You can take so many processes of life and systems and explain them in depth. Yet you can't take not ONE example of evolution and take it from one species to the next species and explain where it started, the no.of steps it took and what each step it entailed to get there. All the while battling survival of the fittest since after it adapted it was already fittest and had no need to change. To change further put its survival at risk and vulnerable to extinction.
This paragraph alone absolutely demonstrates that you genuinely and sincerely have no concept about how evolution works. You still think evolution is this simplistic sequence of "steps" that can be counted, and that "after adaptation" a species can be "the fittest" and have "no need to change". This betrays your total lack of knowledge on the subject. There is no such thing as "the fittest" in evolution, and it is not matter of "number of steps". It is a complex process of mutations propagating against environmental attrition, and every single generation provides new mutations and variations on each previous generation which can be selected from given their current environment. There is no way a species can be "fittest", and no way a species can just "stop changing". All living things that reproduce do so imperfectly, creating new mutations. Change can be slowed practically to a halt when attrition is no longer a factor in the selection process - or when a species reaches a state of near-perfect survivability in its current environment, but they never just STOP - changes just stop being selected for as much, resulting in much slower (or even seemingly no) change over greater periods of time. This does not demonstrate that you know anything about evolution.

11. Evolutionist own words betray evolution. Quote from Dr. Richard Lewontin A geneticist that is very revealing
Quote-mining is a dishonest tactic, and does not demonstrate that you know anything about evolution.


Now here is your chance for you to ACTUALLY show whether or not you understand evolution:

I want you to answer the following questions IN YOUR OWN WORDS AND WITHOUT REFERENCES TO OUTSIDE SOURCES. None of these questions are tricks, and they all deal exclusively with very basic evolutionary concepts. You can be as simple or as elaborate in your answers as you wish, it is entirely up to you.


1) What are mutations and how are they caused?
2) What is natural selection?
3) How do mutations and natural selection cause changes over time, according to evolutionary theory?

Any failure to answer these questions will be considered an admission that you do not understand evolution. I look forward to your reply.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Lets see.
1. It does not have an actual thinking brain! True!
2. It is a force of nature (Natural Selection ie Survival of the Fittest) Yes
3. Forces of Nature don't have actual brains! (Mother Nature etc) True
4.Evolutionist give it credit as if it has the powers of a brain to Design, Engineer and Program etc. Yes you do.
5. Yet, In all of human history and all we see in the world today. Anytime we see Design, Engineering, Programming it always takes Intelligence for it to occur! Yes
6.You say it ALL started with the Big Bang. Therefore all the order, precision, laws of nature, science. math, cosmology and it goes on came ultimately as a result of an explosion energy! (Yet nothing in our experience of today's world do we ever see order, precision etc as a result or aftermath of an explosion of energy!) If so please give me examples other than what you SAY evolution did. But if I go by % of the evidence then explosion of energy doesn't produce order, precision etc. So very illogical and not common sense based on real world experience. I Live in Texas. The explosion in West didn't leave order. Nor did 9/11, nor Oklahoma City bombing and this goes on. Heck the bombing of Japan to end WWII sure didn't either.
7. Computer programming controls the computer and all it does. True. So likewise does DNA/RNA for all of life. Yet you can't explain this. Computer Programs are like language that communicate directions. Have we ever seen anything of a language, esp that complex evolve from simple to complex and esp w/o Intelligent brain behind it. Real life experience tells me NO! Even Darwin in chapter 6 of his book Origins said if ever proven anything was so complex that it couldn't have evolved from simple to complex by evolutionary steps it would disprove his theory. DNA/RNA did that.
8. In real life when we see Design, Engineering, Programming etc we instantly recognize behind it was Intelligence. We don't immediately say, Look what evolved by natural forces w/o a brain directing it.
9. Like my example on the other thread about Mother Nature deciding, which has no brain but is a force of nature, to unite the forces of nature and form the faces on Mt Rushmore. Using rain, wind, erosion etc. It shows design but of course since mother nature has no real brain it couldn't have done it as it requires a brain to design it. Yet real life is much more complex and you say natural forces of evolution out designed, engineered, programmed what man still can't match. Not only that did it before man had "evolved" to the point to even learn about it. Much less study nature and copy it to make life better for mankind.
10. You can take so many processes of life and systems and explain them in depth. Yet you can't take not ONE example of evolution and take it from one species to the next species and explain where it started, the no.of steps it took and what each step it entailed to get there. All the while battling survival of the fittest since after it adapted it was already fittest and had no need to change. To change further put its survival at risk and vulnerable to extinction.
11. Evolutionist own words betray evolution. Quote from Dr. Richard Lewontin A geneticist that is very revealing

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Sounds like materialism atheism first over good, true, honest, science at all cost.

Stephen J. Gould once admitted, "The history of most fossil species includes... features particularly inconsistent with gradualism..(like) sudden appearance...in any local areas, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears suddenly all at once and "fully formed". According to Gould, there is no evidence of gradual evolution, since there are no transitional creatures. Species are fully formed when they first appear in the record.

Evolutionist Mark Ridley admitted, "No real scientist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."

Dr Mano Singham an evolutionary college prof in this attached article admits to teaching using brainwashing and propaganda techniques to teach his students. Yet, as all evolutionist do he makes it to be religion vs science. Which I find funny with all the other admissions he made. You will have to open the PDF file to read it.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/53/6/10.1063/1.1306373

From Physics Today of June 2000

Dr. James Tour, a prof at Rice who specializes in chemistry, nano engineering and computer science said, Despite decades of research into the origin of life, he does not understand how it all could have happened. And when he challenges his peers on the subject, they too sheepishly admit its a mystery. He says: Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science with National Academy members, Nobel prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public, because its a scary thing if you say what I just said. I say, "Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from and how this happened?" The answer I usually get is "No". "Every time I have sat with people who are synthetic chemist, who understand this, They go "Uh-uh, Nope". Dr. Tour said "And if they're afraid to say "yes", they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can't sincerely do it."

See Evolutionist own words betray what evolution really is. Bad science, full of proven frauds etc.

I've exposed it too by my questions that you can't answer. IT proves I actually know it better than you do.

I challenge you to educate me with proof and examples to disprove what I have said.

Your opinion that I don't know what I am talking about means nothing. I have given you points. You MUST disprove my points with provable and proven science. Not just opinion. If you asked evolutionist to explain various bodily or other systems in depth they as could creationist.

We, as does atheist mathematician Fred Hoyle, acknowledge the obvious. Behind it took and demands an Intelligent Designer, Engineer and Programmer etc far above what we are capable of.

That my friends is common sense and logic. Yours takes more faith than I could ever muster. At least I stand on what the world and experience and worlds history tells me.

Plus science is never decided by popular vote. Otherwise the world would still be flat and the earth still the center of this solar system etc.
All you did was just switch threads and cut and paste more stuff.

Zzzzzzzzzz.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
6.You say it ALL started with the Big Bang. Therefore all the order, precision, laws of nature, science. math, cosmology and it goes on came ultimately as a result of an explosion energy! (Yet nothing in our experience of today's world do we ever see order, precision etc as a result or aftermath of an explosion of energy!) If so please give me examples other than what you SAY evolution did. But if I go by % of the evidence then explosion of energy doesn't produce order, precision etc. So very illogical and not common sense based on real world experience. I Live in Texas. The explosion in West didn't leave order. Nor did 9/11, nor Oklahoma City bombing and this goes on. Heck the bombing of Japan to end WWII sure didn't either.
This is where you show how you flunked highschool science. The Big Bang was not an explosion in the traditional sense of the term. It was an expansion-point.

Plus science is never decided by popular vote. Otherwise the world would still be flat and the earth still the center of this solar system etc.
You mean like how the Old & New Testament thought the earth was flat while the Ancient Greeks had already figured out the circumference?
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Lets see.
...
6.You say it ALL started with the Big Bang. Therefore all the order, precision, laws of nature, science. math, cosmology and it goes on came ultimately as a result of an explosion energy! (Yet nothing in our experience of today's world do we ever see order, precision etc as a result or aftermath of an explosion of energy!) If so please give me examples other than what you SAY evolution did. But if I go by % of the evidence then explosion of energy doesn't produce order, precision etc. So very illogical and not common sense based on real world experience. I Live in Texas. The explosion in West didn't leave order. Nor did 9/11, nor Oklahoma City bombing and this goes on. Heck the bombing of Japan to end WWII sure didn't either.
Big Bang is a misnomer. It wasn't an explosion. It never did go "bang!" The term was invented to make it simple for simple people to understand, but in reality, it never was a bang at all. That you don't know this or the difference, only confirms what people think of you. Get your facts straight and accurate to what science says, or you're only making it worse for your defense.

It's like a very good adage to remember. When people accuse you of being an idiot, keep your mouth shut, unless you will open it and confirm their accusations.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Lets see.
1. It does not have an actual thinking brain! True!
2. It is a force of nature (Natural Selection ie Survival of the Fittest) Yes
3. Forces of Nature don't have actual brains! (Mother Nature etc) True
4.Evolutionist give it credit as if it has the powers of a brain to Design, Engineer and Program etc. Yes you do.
5. Yet, In all of human history and all we see in the world today. Anytime we see Design, Engineering, Programming it always takes Intelligence for it to occur! Yes
6.You say it ALL started with the Big Bang. Therefore all the order, precision, laws of nature, science. math, cosmology and it goes on came ultimately as a result of an explosion energy! (Yet nothing in our experience of today's world do we ever see order, precision etc as a result or aftermath of an explosion of energy!) If so please give me examples other than what you SAY evolution did. But if I go by % of the evidence then explosion of energy doesn't produce order, precision etc. So very illogical and not common sense based on real world experience. I Live in Texas. The explosion in West didn't leave order. Nor did 9/11, nor Oklahoma City bombing and this goes on. Heck the bombing of Japan to end WWII sure didn't either.
7. Computer programming controls the computer and all it does. True. So likewise does DNA/RNA for all of life. Yet you can't explain this. Computer Programs are like language that communicate directions. Have we ever seen anything of a language, esp that complex evolve from simple to complex and esp w/o Intelligent brain behind it. Real life experience tells me NO! Even Darwin in chapter 6 of his book Origins said if ever proven anything was so complex that it couldn't have evolved from simple to complex by evolutionary steps it would disprove his theory. DNA/RNA did that.
8. In real life when we see Design, Engineering, Programming etc we instantly recognize behind it was Intelligence. We don't immediately say, Look what evolved by natural forces w/o a brain directing it.
9. Like my example on the other thread about Mother Nature deciding, which has no brain but is a force of nature, to unite the forces of nature and form the faces on Mt Rushmore. Using rain, wind, erosion etc. It shows design but of course since mother nature has no real brain it couldn't have done it as it requires a brain to design it. Yet real life is much more complex and you say natural forces of evolution out designed, engineered, programmed what man still can't match. Not only that did it before man had "evolved" to the point to even learn about it. Much less study nature and copy it to make life better for mankind.
10. You can take so many processes of life and systems and explain them in depth. Yet you can't take not ONE example of evolution and take it from one species to the next species and explain where it started, the no.of steps it took and what each step it entailed to get there. All the while battling survival of the fittest since after it adapted it was already fittest and had no need to change. To change further put its survival at risk and vulnerable to extinction.
11. Evolutionist own words betray evolution. Quote from Dr. Richard Lewontin A geneticist that is very revealing

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Sounds like materialism atheism first over good, true, honest, science at all cost.

Stephen J. Gould once admitted, "The history of most fossil species includes... features particularly inconsistent with gradualism..(like) sudden appearance...in any local areas, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears suddenly all at once and "fully formed". According to Gould, there is no evidence of gradual evolution, since there are no transitional creatures. Species are fully formed when they first appear in the record.

Evolutionist Mark Ridley admitted, "No real scientist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."

Dr Mano Singham an evolutionary college prof in this attached article admits to teaching using brainwashing and propaganda techniques to teach his students. Yet, as all evolutionist do he makes it to be religion vs science. Which I find funny with all the other admissions he made. You will have to open the PDF file to read it.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/53/6/10.1063/1.1306373

From Physics Today of June 2000

Dr. James Tour, a prof at Rice who specializes in chemistry, nano engineering and computer science said, Despite decades of research into the origin of life, he does not understand how it all could have happened. And when he challenges his peers on the subject, they too sheepishly admit its a mystery. He says: Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science with National Academy members, Nobel prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public, because its a scary thing if you say what I just said. I say, "Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from and how this happened?" The answer I usually get is "No". "Every time I have sat with people who are synthetic chemist, who understand this, They go "Uh-uh, Nope". Dr. Tour said "And if they're afraid to say "yes", they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can't sincerely do it."

See Evolutionist own words betray what evolution really is. Bad science, full of proven frauds etc.

I've exposed it too by my questions that you can't answer. IT proves I actually know it better than you do.

I challenge you to educate me with proof and examples to disprove what I have said.

Your opinion that I don't know what I am talking about means nothing. I have given you points. You MUST disprove my points with provable and proven science. Not just opinion. If you asked evolutionist to explain various bodily or other systems in depth they as could creationist.

We, as does atheist mathematician Fred Hoyle, acknowledge the obvious. Behind it took and demands an Intelligent Designer, Engineer and Programmer etc far above what we are capable of.

That my friends is common sense and logic. Yours takes more faith than I could ever muster. At least I stand on what the world and experience and worlds history tells me.

Plus science is never decided by popular vote. Otherwise the world would still be flat and the earth still the center of this solar system etc.
Correct! It is absolutely, painfully - stunningly clear that you do not understand evolution.

FYI (hint) There is no such thing as an 'evolutionist', it is not an ideology.
 
Top