LMAO - EVOLUTIAFAIL!!!!

***Crickets chirping inconspicuously in the background***

so i can kill myself now ?

play your own worm game then.

Those who think creation makes more sense than evolution are retarded. The evidence is all around, everything evolves...

...except the intelligence of religitards who have had their minds cauterised.

Religion or no religion. Show me one example where this addition of information took place?

If evolution were true, then we would have literally trillions of transitional fossils. To date. ZIP. NADA, nothing but a bunch of proven frauds and a side of birth defects.

There was a child born last year in India with 8 arms and legs. Had that been a fossilized find today, they would claim we used to have 8 arms and legs, even though no other fossils were like that...

This whole thing is nonsense

Johny777


Now get off your computer. Poland misses their national idiot

Last Edited by UNThredded on 09/21/2010 01:08 PM

if ya'll go to the matrix ,i'm i will cry alot

but i will not be their to save no-one unless anyone comes help me


neo out.deal with stuff on your own now!

A 5 second Google search yields...

TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS!

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

WIKIPEDIA

There are NO "TRANSITIONAL Fossils" that have stood up to any level of scrutiny... NONE...


Did you even read the disclaimer?

This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2010)

This documentation needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. WikiProject Paleontology or the Paleontology Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. (April 2010)

Last Edited by UNThredded on 09/21/2010 01:19 PM

Why are you so against it anyway? The evidence is there as clear as day.

[link to evolution.berkeley.edu]

[link to www.livescience.com]

[link to www.pbs.org]

[link to www.youtube.com]

[link to www.youtube.com]

[link to pandasthumb.org]

People are so easily confused.
Evolution takes place within each species. This is obvious. What did not happen is evolution from one species to another.

Why is this so hard to grasp? Why are so many so determined to be the descendant of an ape?

If the evidence were clear as day, we would have transitional fossils washing up on our beaches daily as well as countless discoveries on land.

Bottom line is that none of this has stood the genetic test, and because of that, it is called a "theory".

Look at the recent discovery they heralded as the "Missing link!!!!!!OMG-OMG-OMG!!!". [link to news.nationalgeographic.com]

So we learn from this "missing link" that Lemurs had, in fact, evolve into lemurs... No surprise there

Based purely upon speculation and hyperbole Nikki, and they are using wikipedia as a source which is never a good sign.

Bottom line, there is not a single proven example of an existing species adding genetic material, which would be an absolute requirement for the change to occur...

Last Edited by UNThredded on 09/21/2010 02:06 PM

Here's where the problem stems from. Some people are for whatever reason too proud to acknowledge the fact that they are descended from an ape-like species. The evidence is there. The transition between now and then is better documented than most species. Open your eyes.

They wanna git all that good ape sex,like Michelle Obama.
Oh, man ...

Great Catch!


Thread: Debunking Evolution: Problems, Errors, and Lies EXPOSED, in plain language for non-scientists

THE ALTOGETHER MISSING EVIDENCE

No Evolution at Present.
The lack of a case for evolution is most clearly recognized by the fact that no one has ever seen it happen.

"Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer." 1

"Horizontal variations" (e.g., the different varieties of dogs) are not real evolution, of course, nor are "mutations," which are always either neutral or harmful, as far as all known mutations are concerned. A process which has never been observed to occur, in all human history, should not be called scientific.

No New Species.
Charles Darwin is popularly supposed to have solved the problem of "the origin of species," in his famous 1859 book of that title. However, as the eminent Harvard biologist, Ernst Mayr, one of the nation's top evolutionists, has observed:



"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his On the Origin of Species."2

Not only could Darwin not cite a single example of a new species originating, but neither has anyone else, in all the subsequent century of evolutionary study.



"No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it. . . ." 3

No Known Mechanism of Evolution.
It is also a very curious fact that no one understands how evolution works. Evolutionists commonly protest that they know evolution is true, but they can't seem to determine its mechanism.



"Evolution is . . . troubled from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery--speciation itself." 4

One would think that in the 125 years following Darwin, with thousands of trained biologists studying the problem and using millions of dollars worth of complex lab equipment, they would have worked it out by now, but the mechanism which originates new species is still "the central mystery."

No Fossil Evidence.
It used to be claimed that the best evidence for evolution was the fossil record, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils have not yet yielded a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.



"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition. . . ." 5

This ubiquitous absence of intermediate forms is true not only for "major morphologic transitions," but even for most species.



"As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly. . . ." 6

As a result, many modern evolutionists agree with the following assessment:



"In any case, no real evolutionist . . . uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. . . ." 7

No Order in the Fossils.
Not only are there no true transitional forms in the fossils; there is not even any general evidence of evolutionary progression in the actual fossil sequences



"The fossil record of evolution is amenable to a wide variety of models ranging from completely deterministic to completely stochastic." 8



"I regard the failure to find a clear "vector of progress" in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. . . . we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." 9

The superficial appearance of an evolutionary pattern in the fossil record has actually been imposed on it by the fact that the rocks containing the fossils have themselves been "dated" by their fossils.



"And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?"10



"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" 11

No Evidence That Evolution Is Possible.
The basic reason why there is no scientific evidence of evolution in either the present or the past is that the law of increasing entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, contradicts the very premise of evolution. The evolutionist assumes that the whole universe has evolved upward from a single primeval particle to human beings, but the second law (one of the best-proved laws of science) says that the whole universe is running down into complete disorder.



"How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take, of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question. . . ." 12

Evolutionists commonly attempt to sidestep this question by asserting that the second law applies only to isolated systems. But this is wrong!



". . . the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not." 13



"Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems." 14

Entropy can be forced to decrease in an open system, if enough organizing energy and information is applied to it from outside the system. This externally introduced complexity would have to be adequate to overcome the normal internal increase in entropy when raw energy is added from outside. However, no such external source of organized and energized information is available to the supposed evolutionary process. Raw solar energy is not organized information!

No Evidence From Similarities.
The existence of similarities between organisms--whether in external morphology or internal biochemistry--is easily explained as the Creator's design of similar systems for similar functions, but such similarities are not explicable by common evolutionary descent.



"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced. 15



The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of an evolutionary series." 16

No Recapitulation or Vestigial Organs.
The old arguments for evolution based on the recapitulation theory (the idea that embryonic development in the womb recapitulates the evolution of the species) and vestigial organs ("useless" organs believed to have been useful in an earlier stage of evolution) have long been discredited.

". . . the theory of recapitulation . . . should be defunct today." 17

"An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures . . . leads to the conclusion that "vestigial organs" provide no evidence for evolutionary theory." 18

THE RESIDUAL CASE FOR EVOLUTION

In spite of these admissions, all the scientists quoted above continue to believe in evolution. Limited space precludes giving the full context of each quotation, but each point noted is fully warranted in context, and could be further documented from other authorities also. 19

What, then, remains of the case for evolution? Stephen Gould falls back on what he believes are "imperfections" in nature.

"If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence to favor evolution by natural selection over creation." 20

But this is essentially the same as the old discredited argument from vestigial organs, and merely assumes our present ignorance to be knowledge. Even if there are imperfections in nature (as well as harmful mutations, vestigial organs, extinctions, etc.) such trends are opposite to any imaginary evolutionary progress, so can hardly prove evolution.

There is one final argument, however: Gould's fellow atheist and Marxist at Harvard, geneticist Richard Lewontin, says,

"No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution." 21

That is, if one denies a Creator, the existence of life proves evolution!

But apart from its necessity as a support for atheism or pantheism, there is clearly no scientific evidence for evolution.

The absence of evidence for evolution does not, by itself, prove creation, of course; nevertheless, special creation is clearly the only alternative to evolution.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." 22

While we admittedly cannot prove creation, it is important to note that all the above facts offered as evidence against evolution (gaps between kinds, no evolutionary mechanism, increasing entropy, etc.) are actual predictions from the creation "model!"

Creationists prefer the reasonable faith of creationism, which is supported by all the real scientific evidence, to the credulous faith of evolutionism, which is supported by no real scientific evidence. The question remains unanswered (scientifically, at least) as to why evolutionists prefer to believe in evolution.

Thx...



Last Edited by UNThredded on 09/21/2010 02:13 PM

Oh yeah , creationists hate genetics it seems....

For you op idiot.


Did you know that we cannot even chimp remains?

Oh you ask why? Cause remains get eaten in nature.

To be fossilized there has to be really special situations.

E.g. A mudslide, a tar pit etc. everything that conserves the body without letting predators to the corpse.



and your creationist stupids always tell us we have no evidence.

Show me yours without pointing to the book....


Have you ever looked into genetics?

98,5% genes of chimps

Mouse has 85% of our genes

Or why are reptilians and birds closely related AND have a trasitional fossil called Archeopterix?

Creationist you fail....

good one nikki

THE ALTOGETHER MISSING EVIDENCE

No Evolution at Present.
The lack of a case for evolution is most clearly recognized by the fact that no one has ever seen it happen.

"Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer." 1

"Horizontal variations" (e.g., the different varieties of dogs) are not real evolution, of course, nor are "mutations," which are always either neutral or harmful, as far as all known mutations are concerned. A process which has never been observed to occur, in all human history, should not be called scientific.

No New Species.
Charles Darwin is popularly supposed to have solved the problem of "the origin of species," in his famous 1859 book of that title. However, as the eminent Harvard biologist, Ernst Mayr, one of the nation's top evolutionists, has observed:



"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his On the Origin of Species."2

Not only could Darwin not cite a single example of a new species originating, but neither has anyone else, in all the subsequent century of evolutionary study.



"No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it. . . ." 3

No Known Mechanism of Evolution.
It is also a very curious fact that no one understands how evolution works. Evolutionists commonly protest that they know evolution is true, but they can't seem to determine its mechanism.



"Evolution is . . . troubled from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery--speciation itself." 4

One would think that in the 125 years following Darwin, with thousands of trained biologists studying the problem and using millions of dollars worth of complex lab equipment, they would have worked it out by now, but the mechanism which originates new species is still "the central mystery."

No Fossil Evidence.
It used to be claimed that the best evidence for evolution was the fossil record, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils have not yet yielded a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.



"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition. . . ." 5

This ubiquitous absence of intermediate forms is true not only for "major morphologic transitions," but even for most species.



"As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly. . . ." 6

As a result, many modern evolutionists agree with the following assessment:



"In any case, no real evolutionist . . . uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. . . ." 7

No Order in the Fossils.
Not only are there no true transitional forms in the fossils; there is not even any general evidence of evolutionary progression in the actual fossil sequences



"The fossil record of evolution is amenable to a wide variety of models ranging from completely deterministic to completely stochastic." 8



"I regard the failure to find a clear "vector of progress" in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. . . . we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." 9

The superficial appearance of an evolutionary pattern in the fossil record has actually been imposed on it by the fact that the rocks containing the fossils have themselves been "dated" by their fossils.



"And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?"10



"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" 11

No Evidence That Evolution Is Possible.
The basic reason why there is no scientific evidence of evolution in either the present or the past is that the law of increasing entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, contradicts the very premise of evolution. The evolutionist assumes that the whole universe has evolved upward from a single primeval particle to human beings, but the second law (one of the best-proved laws of science) says that the whole universe is running down into complete disorder.



"How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take, of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question. . . ." 12

Evolutionists commonly attempt to sidestep this question by asserting that the second law applies only to isolated systems. But this is wrong!



". . . the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not." 13



"Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems." 14

Entropy can be forced to decrease in an open system, if enough organizing energy and information is applied to it from outside the system. This externally introduced complexity would have to be adequate to overcome the normal internal increase in entropy when raw energy is added from outside. However, no such external source of organized and energized information is available to the supposed evolutionary process. Raw solar energy is not organized information!

No Evidence From Similarities.
The existence of similarities between organisms--whether in external morphology or internal biochemistry--is easily explained as the Creator's design of similar systems for similar functions, but such similarities are not explicable by common evolutionary descent.



"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced. 15



The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of an evolutionary series." 16

No Recapitulation or Vestigial Organs.
The old arguments for evolution based on the recapitulation theory (the idea that embryonic development in the womb recapitulates the evolution of the species) and vestigial organs ("useless" organs believed to have been useful in an earlier stage of evolution) have long been discredited.

". . . the theory of recapitulation . . . should be defunct today." 17

"An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures . . . leads to the conclusion that "vestigial organs" provide no evidence for evolutionary theory." 18

THE RESIDUAL CASE FOR EVOLUTION

In spite of these admissions, all the scientists quoted above continue to believe in evolution. Limited space precludes giving the full context of each quotation, but each point noted is fully warranted in context, and could be further documented from other authorities also. 19

What, then, remains of the case for evolution? Stephen Gould falls back on what he believes are "imperfections" in nature.

"If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence to favor evolution by natural selection over creation." 20

But this is essentially the same as the old discredited argument from vestigial organs, and merely assumes our present ignorance to be knowledge. Even if there are imperfections in nature (as well as harmful mutations, vestigial organs, extinctions, etc.) such trends are opposite to any imaginary evolutionary progress, so can hardly prove evolution.

There is one final argument, however: Gould's fellow atheist and Marxist at Harvard, geneticist Richard Lewontin, says,

"No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution." 21

That is, if one denies a Creator, the existence of life proves evolution!

But apart from its necessity as a support for atheism or pantheism, there is clearly no scientific evidence for evolution.

The absence of evidence for evolution does not, by itself, prove creation, of course; nevertheless, special creation is clearly the only alternative to evolution.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." 22

While we admittedly cannot prove creation, it is important to note that all the above facts offered as evidence against evolution (gaps between kinds, no evolutionary mechanism, increasing entropy, etc.) are actual predictions from the creation "model!"

Creationists prefer the reasonable faith of creationism, which is supported by all the real scientific evidence, to the credulous faith of evolutionism, which is supported by no real scientific evidence. The question remains unanswered (scientifically, at least) as to why evolutionists prefer to believe in evolution.



bravo to you my friend!