Why the theory of evolution is a fraud

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

When dealing with atheists, you always lose because atheism is not a fair playing field.

Theists lose because they're not even on the playing field.

 

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

In fact, creation scientists would not even be likely allowed to speak or present their view in so-called science periodicals. 

That's because it's not science.

Edited April 13 by eyeball

[blackbird]

45 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Theists lose because they're not even on the playing field.

 

That's because it's not science.

That is a simpleton view.  The subject is far more complex than that.  Creation scientists look at things from a scientific point of view as well as a Biblical view.  The two actually fit together if you understand what real science is.

I assume you have not been raised from a Christian family or background and perhaps have been evolutionized in school.  So it is understandable why you would be skeptical of the creationist viewpoint.  You need to read a few things in the Bible and learn there is a spiritual realm outside the material universe.  The universe did not create itself.  Everything that exists had a cause.  The universe is an effect.  Every effect (the universe) had a cause.  That cause was an intelligent creator we call God.

I assume you are familiar with evolutionist's claims of the earth being hundreds of millions or billions of years old.  Perhaps you could read some articles from the Creationist's point of view and at least understand where they are coming from.

"

3) Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly, and could not have taken long time-spans.

a) Common fossils.

There are billions of fossil fish in rock layers around the world which are incredibly well-preserved. They frequently show intact fins and often scales, indicating that they were buried rapidly and the rock hardened quickly. In the real world, dead fish are scavenged within 24 hours. Even in some idealized cold, sterile, predator-free and oxygen-free water, they will become soggy and fall apart within weeks.3 A fish buried quickly in sediment that does not harden within a few weeks at the most will still be subject to decay by oxygen and bacteria, such that the delicate features like fins, scales, etc. would not preserve their form. Rapid burial in the many underwater landslides (turbidity currents) and other sedimentary processes accompanying Noah’s Flood would explain not only their excellent preservation, but their existence in huge deposits, often covering thousands of square kilometres."

The earth: how old does it look? (creation.com)

This article was written by

Dr Carl Wieland M.B., B.S.

 

Edited April 13 by blackbird

[eyeball]

19 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That is a simpleton view.

No, it's just simple.

[SkyHigh]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

You fail to read articles from scientists and highly educated scholars that I refer to and dismiss it all.  So how do you expect to have a reasonable discussion?  You only accept a completely biased, one-sided view.   If you can't accept there are some scientists, who disagree with Darwinists from a scientific point of view, then that doesn't leave much leeway for reasonable discussion.

 

If that's what you need to tell yourself to support your non scientific fairy tales, go right ahead 

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, it's just simple.

It's simple for you because you read nothing, and know nothing.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

It's simple for you because you read nothing, and know nothing.

You're taking that on faith in the absence of evidence.

In any case I was introduced to the silliness of the supernatural when I was scientifically tested for my psi abilities as a kid. I'm absolutely certain your creation science falls into the same realm.

[Moonlight Graham]

On 4/13/2024 at 5:41 AM, blackbird said:

Your argument is false from the start.   The theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory are pure speculation, not science to begin with.  There is no "observable evidence that's tested and re-tested".  You have bought into the great lie.  It is impossible to observe something that supposedly happened millions of years ago.  It's not science.  I rest my case.

Those theories are the best explanation we have based on the observable evidence.  They are called theories because science is about probability of truth.  People just didn't make this stuff up out of thin air, like in the Bible.  Every single person who believes in Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark over the theory of evolution is a gullible fool.

[blackbird]

46 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Those theories are the best explanation we have based on the observable evidence.  They are called theories because science is about probability of truth.  People just didn't make this stuff up out of thin air, like in the Bible.  Every single person who believes in Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark over the theory of evolution is a gullible fool.

That's your opinion.  The theory of evolution is in fact not observable evidence.  Some people might feel strongly that it is plausible, but that doesn't make it a fact.

You are blinded by the Satanic world system, which is what secular humanism is.  

The Bible has lots of evidence that it is true.  The miracles that Jesus performed including raising Lazarus from the dead and observed by eye witnesses are strong evidence.  The eye witness accounts of Jesus Christ being raised from the dead one of the most important facts.

People do make things up out of thin air.  That is what Charles Darwin did when he came up with the theory of evolution.  What evidence or proof did he have back in 1859?  None really.   The biological sciences have advanced incredibly since Darwin came up with his theory.  Today they realize the complexity of the most basic cell is immense.  The amount of information stored in DNA in cells is vast.  Random chance processes do not add information.  The complexity of everything is too great to claim it all happened by chance.  That is where the real foolishness comes in with Darwinists.

Even if you think the theory of evolution is true, you are still far short of explaining the universe.  What about the existence of atoms, molecules, the laws of physics which govern how how the particles operate.  Where did energy and gravity come from?  What about the earth following a path around the sun which gives us the four seasons.  Did this all just happen by accident?   That is another area foolishness comes in when some people say it just happened by some by some kind of cosmic accident.

Edited April 14 by blackbird

[blackbird]

Here is an excellent article explaining why evolution makes no sense and why creation is far more sensible.

"

Too-rapid genetic decay

Bad news, folks. We’re accumulating copying mistakes (mutations) in our genes at a rate of approximately 60–100 per person per generation. Here’s a video clip (duration 2 minutes 29 seconds) extract from a presentation on this topic by internationally-renowned geneticist Dr John Sanford (one of many PhD scientists who believe the Bible)⁹, inventor of the gene gun:¹⁰

We’re going downhill so fast in fact that geneticists wonder why we haven’t become extinct 100 times over! But their bewilderment is because they make the mistake of believing the world is older than the 6,000 or so years the Bible indicates.

Also, many wrongly think that mutations can be the ‘engine’ of evolution, i.e. that they can generate the sort of ‘uphill’ transformations necessary to validate the microbes-to-man idea. But the truth is very different. In the following video clip (duration 1 minute, 52 seconds), the response of the ‘champion’ of evolution in the west, biologist Richard Dawkins, when challenged on this issue is very revealing:¹¹

(Should you encounter some of the many Skeptics who have tried to question the veracity of the above film clip, you can show they are wrong with this analysis of the video timeline: Was Dawkins stumped? Frog to a Prince critics refuted again.)

Note that time, far from being the ‘hero’ of evolution,¹² actually makes matters worse for evolutionary theory. Here are two easy-to-read articles for readers interested in following this up further:

Supernovas demonstrate by their presence that the mooted billions-of-years age of the universe is nonsense.

Time—no friend of evolution
The evolution train’s a-comin’ (Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction)

And here’s a swag of further articles for readers keen to dig deeper on this topic, which clearly shows the genetic evidence points to the truth of biblical creation:

Q&A: Mutations

Incidentally, while on the subject of genetics, in this video clip (duration 1 minute, 5 seconds), CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati explains why our DNA similarity with apes points to a common designer and not evolution:¹³

For the whole article go to:

Created or evolved (creation.com)

[blackbird]

Darwin's central idea supporting his theory of evolution was the idea of "natural selection".  

This was a problem from the outset which he was never able to overcome.

Natural selection requires that there be existing genetic information to select from.  That really destroys the whole theory because if the genetic information does not exist, there is nothing to select from to cause evolution to a higher or different species.

quote

This is an important ‘equation’¹ that all people should be aware of, namely ‘Natural Selection does not equal (≠) Evolution’.² Christians should know it so they do not get conned, and evolutionists should know it as a reminder that they still have lots of work to do to be able to claim that they have a mechanism for evolution.

If we think of the word ‘selection’, in our common, daily experience, we select from something pre-existing.

How often we hear an example of natural selection being used as proof of evolution. Changing sizes, colours, skin patterns and shapes are often paraded as evolution’s honour roll. This bait-and-switch tactic has been so often exposed for what it is, it’s a wonder that it is still used, or that people are still taken in by it.

The very term should put people on their guard that something is missing. If we think of the word ‘selection’, in our common, daily experience, we select from something pre-existing. Think of being asked to select cards from a pack. You could select cards from a pack every second for the rest of your life and all you would only ever produce is different groups of the same cards. You would not have created anything new—only re-arranged cards, or removed cards or added cards from another pack.

If an illusionist asks you to select a card from a pack, and surprises you with something new, you know it is an illusion, a sleight of hand. We need to learn to see the evolutionists’ sleight of hand when they claim to have pulled something ‘new’ out of the pack. Selection is always from a pre-existing series or range; it creates nothing new.

This illustration applies equally to ‘selection’ in the biological context. The all-wise Creator knew the different environments that His creatures would have to adapt to after the Fall and Curse, and particularly after the Flood of Noah, in order to survive. He included in the genetic information of each ‘kind’ of creature He created a smorgasbord of variety in their makeup. This includes those features that would interact with the environment: the overall size of a plant, animal or person; the size of individual organs or limbs such as beaks and noses, leaf sizes, skin colours, hair and feather lengths, textures and colours. All of these and many more variations were programmed into the DNA of His creatures in order that as populations of the various kinds moved into new environments, expression of those variations enabled individuals to survive those environments. Individuals with those variations then passed them on to their young. When these variations and the habitat of the population expressing that variation are distinct enough, we might distinguish different ‘species’. In all of this selection process, new information is never added. It can be conserved or lost, but never gained.

© CMI

The creationist chemist/zoologist Edward Blyth (1810–1873) wrote about natural selection about 25 years before Darwin misappropriated it to support his theory of evolution. Blyth clearly saw this remarkable phenomenon as arising from the providence of the all-wise, all-knowing, ingenious Creator God.

Knowing God’s love for beauty (reflected in men and women who are made in His image), God probably also had in mind the spectacular array of birds, fish, dogs and cats that we have varied by ‘artificial selection’ purely for the sake of ‘beauty’ rather than survival.³

But whether variation is selected naturally by the environment, or artificially by breeders for a particular trait, it remains just that, ‘selection’ from existing genetic information. Nothing new is created.   unquote

For the whole article:

Natural selection ≠ evolution (creation.com)

 

[blackbird]

On 4/13/2024 at 8:19 AM, eyeball said:

Theists lose because they're not even on the playing field.

 

That's because it's not science.

Unfortunately you don't read much and don't know.  But you're great at making assumptions.

Edited May 20 by blackbird

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Unfortunately you don't read much and don't know.  But you're great a making assumptions.

Fortunately I do meaning you've just made an ass of yourself.

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

Fortunately I do meaning you've just made an ass of yourself.

What is it you have read or learned?  Something some Darwinist said?  What have you read about the other side, the creationists?

 

6 hours ago, blackbird said:

Theists lose because they're not even on the playing field.

You just proved you know nothing.  Tragically you just dismiss out of hand the scientific reasons why evolution doesn't hold up.  Many scientists have rejected the theory of evolution as not tenable.

Edited May 20 by blackbird

[eyeball]

30 minutes ago, blackbird said:

What have you read about the other side, the creationists?

Everything I need to know they're so far off the playing field it's ridiculous.

[blackbird]

54 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Everything I need to know they're so far off the playing field it's ridiculous.

You have not even tried to debate or discuss anything about the theory of evolution.  You obviously just claim to believe it because that is your argument or rather you have no reason, but just believe it because somebody said so.

Anything else is "ridiculous". 

What is ridiculous is believing a complex universe and complex atoms, molecules, cells, and living organisms just arrived by some sort of accident.  You live in a meaningless, hopeless world.  You believe you are just an accident of the chemicals I guess.  Kind of sad existence really.

Edited May 20 by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Everything I need to know they're so far off the playing field it's ridiculous.

All right, then why don't you answer the simple question:

Why do you believe we were evolved rather than created?

[blackbird]

"

Are you created or evolved?

Since Charles Darwin first published his Origin of Species in 1859, the idea that everything just evolved by itself over millions and billions of years has come to dominate our public media and educational institutions. Evolution is often spoken of as ‘fact’.

So it surprises many that there are an increasing number of voices speaking out against evolution. They say we are not evolved, but created. It’s even more of a surprise to discover many of those voices are from leading scientists across a range of disciplines. Not only are they pointing out the flaws in evolutionary theory, but they’re also showing that the evidence around us fits with the Bible’s account of the past, not evolution.

What is this evidence for creation that these scientists are pointing to? There’s lots. Here’s just a taste.

The design of living things

If we look at even just one aspect of our bodies, such as the dexterity of our hand, wrist and fingers, it speaks of design, and therefore, a Designer. Robotics engineers are still striving to copy that dexterity!1 And our movements are controlled by our brains—no mean feat! The immense complexity of the human brain, its creativity and power of abstract reasoning, with capacities vastly beyond that required for sheer survival, is perhaps the most obvious evidence for intelligent creation.  "

Created or evolved (creation.com)

[blackbird]

This fact alone should demonstrate the absolute necessity for an intelligent designer Creator.  Did you know there are biological motors.  This article and video shows that:

"

...there are linear motors, too, including the kinesin protein that ‘walks’ as it transports essential components to where they are needed in the cell, as this video (duration 1 minute, 11 seconds) shows:⁶

Note that every ‘step’ the kinesin protein takes requires one ATP molecule for energy—i.e. ATP which is generated by the rotary ATP synthase motor shown in the previous video clip. The eukaryotic cell needs both of these highly complex motors to be present and fully functional—and much more besides. No wonder the Psalmist wrote …

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. (Psalm 139:14)

… and the Apostle Paul said:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

Indeed, there’s no excuse! Especially as modern science continues to reveal the irreducible complexity in life’s biochemistry. This video clip (duration 2 minutes, 16 seconds) spectacularly demonstrates one essential aspect of this:⁷

Note that this whole system (DNA, RNA and fully functional enzyme machinery) must be present in any living cell. To get enzymes you need RNA, to get RNA you need DNA, to get DNA you need enzymes … get the picture? No one has any idea how such a sophisticated set of nanomachines could have made themselves without intelligent design. This had to be designed by a super-intelligence. This is one characteristic of the Creator of all described in the Bible: omniscient / all knowing.

What would Charles Darwin have made of all this new information available today? Even in his day, the sight of a peacock feather was enough to make him sick (!), as this one-minute video clip relates:⁸

We’re going downhill so fast in fact that geneticists wonder why we haven’t become extinct at least 100 times over!

For readers interested in a swag of further articles on how nature points undeniably to a Designer, see:

Q&A: Design features

unquote

I wonder if Darwin would have still come out with his theory of evolution if he had known about these biological motors.  They certainly can't be explained by evolution.  They absolutely required an intelligent designer /Creator.

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

You have not even tried to debate or discuss anything about the theory of evolution.  You obviously just claim to believe it because that is your argument or rather you have no reason, but just believe it because somebody said so.

I believe it because it's based on science not supernatural hooey. Debating creationism is just dumb.

I was told to believe in what you're saying but it just seemed ridiculous.

Recall I said my Mom had me tested for psi abilities, when I was about 8. The 'examiner' said move the pencil on the table so I pushed it with my finger and he said, 'No, without touching it'.

Trust me, I know hooey when I see it. People have been trying to sell me on it since I was a kid.

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

What is ridiculous is believing a complex universe and complex atoms, molecules, cells, and living organisms just arrived by some sort of accident.  You live in a meaningless, hopeless world.  You believe you are just an accident of the chemicals I guess.  Kind of sad existence really.

I was actually kind of astounded and inspired when guys like Stephan Hawking and Carl Sagan described consciousness as the means by which the universe appreciates itself - it puts you alright at the center of the story.

 

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

I believe it because it's based on science not supernatural hooey.

Actually you have a complete misunderstanding of what creationists believe.

Many scientists have found that the theory of evolution is not really based on science.  This is where you have somehow been led astray.  Give one proof that evolution is true.  

So you have heard that evolution is based on science and so you believe it.  There is no real proof.  Creationist scientists are much more discerning. 

The fact is rational thinking as in some of the material I posted above points to a Creator.  That is the only rational conclusion.

When you say supernatural "hooey", you demonstrate a blind bias because you give no reason for such a statement.  

True science is not a blind belief in something.  The supernatural is not nonsense.  The fact is the universe and life has been found to be far more complex and even the best scientists cannot explain its origin.  It seems the more scientists think they know, the more they don't really know.  Often in science what was once believed as sound knowledge has been later rejected.  

 That is one reason many scientists reasonably point to an intelligent designer or Creator as the cause of the complex universe.

They have examined the theory of evolution and found it wanting and incapable of explaining things.  They found it flawed in a number of ways.  At the time of Darwin, biology and knowledge was very primitive or limited.  The basic idea Darwin had for his theory of evolution was based on something called "natural selection".  However, the idea of natural selection has been found to be faulty and not credible.  It has been rejected by many scientists.  Natural selection does not add information to the basic life forms like the DNA in cells. In Darwin's day (1800s) not nearly as much was known about biology and the basic cell's complexity.  Now many scientists believe evolution is faulty for a number of reasons.  For the theory to work, there has to be a way to add information to DNA, and the basic living organisms.  However, information is not added.  Therefore there is no way evolution would have worked.  Science has found that living organisms have vast amounts of information in order to live and function.    Evolution did not provide that information and many scientists understand and acknowledge that now. 

The only possible way the vast amounts of information in cells and living beings could exist is if an incredibly intelligent designer put it there is the first place.  There is no other rational explanation for its existence.

I would much prefer to keep the discussion cool and level-headed.  Just examine the facts involved in the subject.  If examined in a rational way and you can also examine science at the same time, you will come to the conclusion that there has to be a God behind it all.  God is a supernatural being.   He is a spirit that is present everywhere.  The material universe and time itself did not just happen without a cause.  God is the cause.  No sense letting the supernatural aspect make you think it can't be true.  We must admit our human minds are very limited and do not have all the answers.

The laws of reason, cause and effect only lead to God.

Edited May 21 by blackbird

[eyeball]

38 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Give one proof that evolution is true.  

Metallicity. It's written in the spectroscopic analysis of starlight and the elements we're made of.

[Scott Mayers]

On 5/20/2024 at 9:00 AM, blackbird said:

This is an important ‘equation’¹ that all people should be aware of, namely ‘Natural Selection does not equal (≠) Evolution’.² Christians should know it so they do not get conned, and evolutionists should know it as a reminder that they still have lots of work to do to be able to claim that they have a mechanism for evolution.

"Natural Selection" is a TYPE of rationale for "evolution" that contrasted with different arguments that exist for the same. Some, like your favored Creationists, used the older interpretation referencing how animals 'evolve' (genetically) by how they CHOOSE to change their genetic progeny by how they behave in life. Stepping forward into the field of genetics that was founded upon 'Natural Selection', we know that you cannot presume that your offspring's' genes record your environmental history. For instance, the initial old guess of 'evolution' was that one DOES pass on their 'culture' through their genes, something that our own non-Creationist governments tend to believe in practice when they support 'culture' as some intrinsic right to one who is born of some genetic class, like how many think it more appropriate to respect an adopted child's 'natural' family's heritage over the family they grew up with.

For example, the older version of 'evolution' interpreted that a giraffe's baby's grew longer necks simply because their parent's attempts to stretch their necks to taller trees. This implies that the genes would have to RECORD particular events one lives in order to decide what their children will be. 

So, before going into other arguments, can you try to give a proof of how say, two people of black colored skin (ie, Black or African genetics) can MAKE their children have white skin color? THAT would be 'scientific' proof that your Creationist idea of 'evolution' could work. 

What the 'Selection' part means and is easily provable by your own perspective, is that if you are Black and wanted 'white' skin for your child, you'd have to SELECT someone who HAS white skin TO MATE WITH in order to increase the likelihood of having white children.

Just stick to this simple argument for now. Do you agree or disagree and why?