... is the typical creationist that ignores science and instead attempts to confuse uneducated people with nonsense. When he comes up with a theory or creationism that disputes the theory of evolution then he might have a case but the fact is there are no scientific theories that support a belief in Biblical creationism. All of the scientific evidence, from the fossil record to DNA studies, supports the theory of evolution.
Exactly! Believers in evolution demonstrate again and again and again why they ignore physical laws of nature and why they are void of any understanding of the laws. Because the most of physical laws were discovered by Xns, and none was discovered by a denier of God. They ignore and pervert laws of genetics because they were discovered by a Xn monk. They still think that the sun is turning around the earth because the laws of planetary motion were written by a devoted Xn Kepler. They still believe in a perpetuum motion machine because all laws of thermodynamics were written by Xns. All their logic and evidence are just smoke and mirrors, all what is behind them and what the believers in evolution come to express again and again is just pure hatred of God, and, as the result pure, hatred of people, pure hatred of what they cannot understand, cannot comprehend. No surprise that their best scientist Darwin could make out no base math and as the result no basic physics. He hated Xnty because it was the only obstacle for extermination of lower races in accordance with his theory. And so believers in evolution just blindly hate and come to express their hatred. Did somebody say that there was science in the Bible? Nobody did. But any mentioning of the Bible raises an uncontrollable hatred in the believers in evolution. For them abandoning atheism is abandoning science. For them their hatred to God is science.
How about one? Can you find ONE example or verifiable instance of 'macro' evolution, that is not extrapolated or based on belief? ONE provable, scientifically repeatable process, mechanism, or law that can make the kinds of wholesale changes in the genetic structure, that will do the things that are claimed.. that of increasing complexity & accumulated minor changes. The ONLY thing you can observe is micro evolution.. simple variability WITHIN the gene structure.. brought about by selective pressures, either natural or man made. The OP is right. No scientist can understand it, because it is based on a mythical process.. something mysterious & undefinable. It is not science, it is voodoo. ..a religious belief to prop up a naturalistic view of the universe. They cannot define it, repeat it, observe it, or understand it.. they can only believe it, which many do with religious fervor.
You're making the claim that this happens. Observation says it does not. The burden of proof is on you to show HOW this happens, not to demand that others prove it cannot happen. Simple observation, repeated science, & centuries of experiment have proven this to be impossible, yet you assert it happened, & still happens. HOW? Mutations & time cannot do this. You cannot show any correlation between mutations & time, other than wishful thinking. You merely BELIEVE or extrapolate this process via mutations & time. You cannot show any vertical, MACRO changes in the genetic structure by mutations & time. Time is a dodge, since you can't see it happening. You BELIEVE that given enough time, anything is possible, so you use that assumption as proof of your theory.. but that is circular reasoning, using the premise to prove the assumption, which proves the premise. But you have no facts, & no evidence that this is even possible. It is a belief system only.
Again, because you never respond to this when explained to you and obviously cannot understand the concept due to some undefined affliction of the brain. Due to the fundamental aspects of "Macro-Evolution" it cannot be put into a slideshow of photographs, can't be captured on video, and will never be seen by any animal anywhere. Think of it this way....you cannot walk outside right now and watch an apple tree make an apple. You can however go pick an apple and eat it. You know that this apple was once a bloom on the tree several months ago because we know how fruit trees make their seeds. You can see, touch and eat the end product but have to go by experience of past evidences to understand where it came from. The apple represents us and every other creature on todays Earth. The bloom represents what they once were as a species, and you eating the apple is knowledge you will not accept.
It would seem you completely missed the entire point...However it is likely both trees developed from a common tree a very long time ago.
So you believe. ..with NO evidence, NO mechanism, & NO way to test this 'hypothesis'. It is a belief system, only. You merely assert the same fantastic claims over & over, with not evidence. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. ~Christopher Hitchens
Observation clearly shows that it does. you've been shown how it happens. YOU assert this is scientifically impossible because........you say so. You have presented zero evidence that refutes known and accepted science. what has shown this to be impossible? baseless assertion for which you've presented zero evidence for. simple hand waiving. why not collect your nobel prize and publish a paper which refutes the foundation of modern biology and medicine? you'd be the most famous scientist in history if you could actually do this.
This is absurd. You have not provided any evidence.. .just assertions. Merely claiming that, 'I already did, & you're too stupid to see it', is not evidence, nor even an argument. I've tried to reason with you, but you seem bent on lies & propaganda, not reasoned debate. I'm tired of dealing with your illogical retorts, the ignoring of my points, & the ad hominem.
this is about the 20th time you've threatened to take your ball and go home. what are you waiting for? by the way, have you published your paper yet "debunking" the foundation for modern biology and medicine? Your nobel prize awaits.
As previously stated and clearly shown in this very thread....the evidence has been presented to you many times but you refuse to or are not capable of seeing it, just as you ignore the last post I placed for you.
You do not know what you are talking about. You do not understand that there is a difference between Quantum Level and Macro Level BEHAVIOR and this is specific to PHYSICS. You also do not understand that a CHEMICAL REACTION....which is how species evolve by changes in their Genome.....exists upon a QUANTUM LEVEL as Chemical Reaction is about Electron Orbital Fields either becoming full by taking on additional electrons to fill outer orbits to BOND elements into Molecules or losing electrons if they have more electrons than they need and thus become unbonded. You don't understand ANY of this...at all....not even a little. AA - - - Updated - - - Unreal isn't it? AA
I will tell you what.....educate yourself first and then we can talk. For now it is like I am talking to a 2 year old. AA - - - Updated - - - We do understand that every White Hole is attached to a Black Hole. AA
We can from the Genomes of plants create a map that shows us how different plants evolved from others. AA
This is a schematic drawing of cytochrome-C, a polypeptide of approximately 500 amino acid residues in length. Its synthesis, whether very fast, or very slow, involved the precise addition of one specific amino acid to the chain being constructed. Since there are 20 different amino acids in human polypeptides, the probability of assembling this sequence in the correct order is 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20 . 500 times. This equates to 1 chance in 10 to the 650th power. Moreover, this calculation does not even take into account: The probability of folding the chain in a precise manner How L-amino acids were isolated from a racemic mixture of both D and L components (They respectively rotate plane-polarized light right, and left.) The very hateful and militant evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, claims that any event with a probability of 1 in 10 to the 40th power is impossible. One chance in 10 to the 650th power is hundreds of orders of magnitude more impossible than Dawkins definition. But wait, it gets worse. Much, much worse. This is only one of the many hundreds of polypeptides (proteins and enzymes) in the human body. And many of those are much larger than a 500 link sequence. Not only that, but also the process of selection always cited by evolutionists as the driving force demands a preferential advantage conferred by any random mutation in order for evolution to proceed. Therefore, for each of the 10^650 different steps in the gradual synthesis of this particular polypeptide, there had to be a selectable function, or use. These functions have never been extensively documented by evolutionary biologists. They simply cannot be. Richard Dawkins favorite explanation for evolution and polypeptide synthesis is A>B>C. Sometimes he gets really sophisticated and adds >D. This isnt science. Its alphabeticization. As a means of comparing a number as enormous as 10 to the 650th power, consider that the number of fundamental particles in the universe is approximately 10 to the 80th. _________________________ This is the schematic for a NEC monitor. This monitor performs a valuable function and is clearly designed, that is to say, it did not develop itself. This is the schematic for a single cell. Note the similarities of the two schematic designs. However, unlike the NEC monitor schematic, the cell schematic: Cannot be constructed by humans in a laboratory, but only by another living cell, Can feed (provide power) to itself, Can repair itself, Can reproduce itself, Can transport itself from place to place via chemical means, Can modify its own structure, as when muscles are developed through exercise. To pretend that sophisticated electronics were designed by educated engineers, but far more sophisticated cells and animals made themselves, via absurd and statistically impossible syntheses is pseudoscience. It is absolute fraud.
Absolute idiocy as far as applying an incorrect assumption to existence specific to a probability already proven to be 1 chance in 1. AA
We must also account for however many quadrillions of interaction transpired over however many minutes there are in 4 Billion years.
What such people do not understand is that in order for LIFE to exist there must be very specific conditions for it to exist. Now if we did not have over 200 BILLION GALAXIES in the Universe each having on average between 100-200 Billion Stars each and of course an almost incalculable number of planets and other celestial bodies such as Moons and Asteroids......which of course when you are dealing with such vast numbers even a tiny percentage of these celestial bodies are going to be in the Goldilocks Zone around a star and have water as this is just about all that is needed for life to come into existence via Quantum Evolution over billions upon billions of years. An analogy would be......that a person has a better chance of being struck by lightning....TWICE....while wearing a rubber suit while being in a submarine under 800 feel of ocean water....ON A TUESDAY DURING A FULL MOON....then they would of winning Mega Millions. STILL....someone always does win. WHY?? Because MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF PEOPLE PLAY!!! AA
And...whos to say life follows the same rules everywhere? For all we know there are silicone based creatures swimming in methane lakes on Titan.
Very Good Post!! Exactly! We are only talking about Carbon based life and I would think in a Universe as vast as ours....there would also be Non-Carbon based life forms as well. AA
Well perhaps that is just so for the conditions on our planet or the conditions we are just now capable of duplicating. On another world perhaps with a different sun or even our sun and a different atmosphere...etc...who knows? AA
I do. Spectral analysis has long been used to determine the chemical composition of distant stars. The same people who claim "billions and billions of universes" and "silicon based life forms" and "travel to the stars" (Carl Sagan to name but one), will in their desperation to deny God, propose circumventing the sum total of human knowledge, amassed at profound effort and expense, over thousands of years. Miracles are spoken of as exceptions to the laws of nature, but it seems obvious that the laws of nature themselves constitute the greatest miracle of all. – The Wonder of the World, by Roy Abraham Varghese, p 23 The Universe itself with its laws and fields and forces is the ultimate Signal of Intelligence. – p 25, Ibid Now imagine this scenario: we assemble the world’s most brilliant scientists, living and dead, Einstein and Edison, Maxwell and Marconi, Newton and von Neumann. Is it conceivable that, given any amount of time, they would be able to create a universe like ours with all its precise parameters and laws? If we can’t imagine the greatest human intellects bringing the universe with its incredible intelligence into being, why would we assign the role to a vacuum (but who brought that into being?) or chance (which is the absence of all intelligence)? – p 33, Ibid Stanley Jaki, the great historian of science, has shown in numerous scholarly volumes, most notably in his Gifford Lectures, The Road of Science and the Ways to God, that a belief in the divine creation out of nothing of the universe was essential to the genesis of modern science. – p 79 I’m familiar with the visceral fury with which many evolutionists tend to lash out at anyone who raises the slightest doubt about their belief-system. It’s almost as if there’s an element of religious fanaticism, so that a mere query is perceived as a dangerous threat to the faith. – p 289 Gerald Schroeder points out that there’s no evidence of evolution in the five million years of the Cambrian explosion because every animal of the time emerged fully formed. – p 290 One way of looking at the hierarchy of the universe is in terms of different kinds of seeing. 1. On the lowest level, we have the seeing of frogs, fishes and insects. 2. Second, there is the physical perception of higher animals that involves certain forms of consciousness. 3. Third, the seeing of the mind, which is the ability to perceive meaning. 4. Fourth, the seeing of infinite Intelligence in the workings of the world. 5. Finally, the direct and immediate vision of the divine that is possible only after death. – p 391
