Obamanation In South Carolina

[BenSavage 0]

another cool little link:scientific arguments against evolution

Another link to demolish, oh yeah! Kid, you are making my day."Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.""That is probably the number one argument from creationists. Too easy. Evolution by natural selection is the opposite of "originating from accident". This dolt is saying evolution is like jumping off a cliff, natural selection is comparable to climbing a mountain an inch at a time for 10 million years. Read up on some natural selection, fascinating stuff can be found outside of your worldview. Funny stuff!"On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring."In rare instances, more like 1/100 babies are "damaged" in some way. But to call it a "mutant child?" These guys are heartless!All evolutionary success come from mutations, a mutation happens and produces a slightly different offspring. That offspring just happens to live longer and breed more, so that mutation is preferred and spread more. Natural selection"It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures."Of course, no one has held a lab for 10 million years either. I mean I had lab last semester for 3 hours, and that was pretty long. "Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747."Sir Fred Hoyle of Cambridge University is a retard. I guess bacteria make a lot of 747s, since they evolve all the time to the buttload of antibiotics we throw at them. And they are just "one cell evolving"Give me some more

[jmkiser 0]

(1) When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the incredible, organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance, plus time, are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible. In fact, the more we discover about the incredibly intricate, organized complexity of the biological world which exists at the molecular level, the more amazing it is that the evolutionist can actually believe it is all a product of pure blind chance over time. The "intelligent design" model, based upon a Divine Creator, makes much more sense.

First off, it has nothing to do with evolution.Second off, the videos that I posted already COMPLETELY debunked the bullshit argument of mathematically impossible. The intelligent design model does not make more sense and I urge you to actually watch those videos before you copy paste more of this creationist propaganda.Yes, it's propaganda.

[bigkg 0]

This is interesting stuff, too. I especially like the one about the law of thermodynamics.

Paging LLY to the Obamanation thread, LLY to the Obamanation thread

However, there can be various explanations for such questions that may arise during the course of any detailed investigation. For instance, many scientists believe that the evidence of the fossil record is simply the result of Noah’s Flood because their empirical demonstrations and flood models can explain all of the data sufficiently. Furthermore, it is possible that the fossil record is actually a reflection of two catastrophic floods, i.e., the destruction of Satan’s pre-Adamite kingdom on earth before the creation of Adam and Eve, and then later in time, the destruction of Adam and Eve’s descendants except for Noah and his family.

This is gold.

[BenSavage 0]

Where did life come from then? Educate me.

No evolutionary scientist would say he knew where life came from. Since that is not evolution.If I knew that, I would win a Nobel Prize while simultaneously be shot down by the Pope for ending his money ring.

[herokid7 0]

No I do not want a link.I want you to explain to me why I am wrong, why "change over time" doesn't happen.Why 90% of all species that ever lived are extinct. (I thought they were all God's creatures?)And go ahead and tell me how God did it, while you're at it.

I think the reason that 90% of all species that ever lived are extinct (assuming you are correct about that figure) is because of the Great Flood.

[El Guapo 8]

Ummmm whats going on in here?I thought we were talking about Politicals and stuff?

[Suited_Up 2]

This is gold.

This is what is just baffling.All these ridiculous bible stories somehow sound more plausible to them than something that has actual hard evidence. I honestly just don't freaking get it.

[bigkg 0]

I think the reason that 90% of all species that ever lived are extinct (assuming you are correct about that figure) is because of the Great Flood.

Like those horrible vanity filled Unicorns.

[herokid7 0]

This question has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Will you ever start understanding that this stuff you're hearing is nonsense?

I think it has everything to do with evolution. You have to have life to have evolution correct? No life=no evolution, no evolution=no life, correct?

[jmkiser 0]

(2) There is a complete and systematic lack of transitional life-forms (i.e., "missing links") between the various kinds of life in the fossil record. This would not be the case if the theory of evolution was a valid hypothesis. Sometimes evolutionists have tried to make a case that this or that newly-discovered fossil was a "missing link," but all such attempts have ended in failure. No missing links have ever been discovered among the voluminous number of fossils found so far.

This argument is a flat out lie. We have tons and tons and tons of links that are "transitional" life forms. In fact, look at a human skeleton. It's all transitional life forms. This the word twisting bull shit that I was trying to point out to you earlier. Just because science doesn't have EVERY link doesn't mean a damn thing. Back to the analogy, you don't need to eat the last few bites of chocolate to know it's a chocolate bar.Look, I'm abolishing these points with only high school science accreditation (I think I copied most of my work off of my friends, too). Whoever wrote this crap to try and pass it off as science should be thrown in jail for slander.

[herokid7 0]

No evolutionary scientist would say he knew where life came from. Since that is not evolution.If I knew that, I would win a Nobel Prize while simultaneously be shot down by the Pope for ending his money ring.

What good is the theory of evolution if it doesn't show us where life came from?

[jmkiser 0]

I think it has everything to do with evolution. You have to have life to have evolution correct? No life=no evolution, no evolution=no life, correct?

again, your ignorance with science and evolution. You're asking for a cook to understand how farmers grow their crops. Cooks don't know and don't give a shit.Sure, you and I can get in a religious debate about the beginning of life, the big bang, etc etc etc... But none of that has ANYTHING to do with evolution. Evolution does not CLAIM to know the origins of life.

[Suited_Up 2]

no evolution=no life, correct?

No.Evolution doesn't cause life.Life needs to come first, then you can have evolution of said life. But evolution isn't meant to explain how the life came about in the first place, it can only take place after the fact. This is what everyone is trying to tell you.

[BenSavage 0]

I think the reason that 90% of all species that ever lived are extinct (assuming you are correct about that figure) is because of the Great Flood.

Fail The correct answer was:SuperAIDS!Pat Robertson should've taught you better!

[jmkiser 0]

What good is the theory of evolution if it doesn't show us where life came from?

BECAUSE IT SHOWS US HOW LIFE PROPAGATES!!!ohmy godI can't believe you just said that.:: pulling hair out :: :D :D :) :icon_dance:

[Suited_Up 2]

Fail The correct answer was:SuperAIDS!Pat Robertson should've taught you better!

Sure is a lot more plausible.

[herokid7 0]

More arguments, though you guys might say there more of the same.Definition The word 'evolution' is used in the following contexts: Stellar / Planetary Evolution - An explosion (the 'Big Bang') supplied non-living material and over billions of years, supposedly this material became organized into planets and stars Cellular Evolution - At some point non-living matter supposedly become living, forming cells that could reproduceEvolution of living things - Supposedly over time, living things appeared which include fish, reptiles, birds and mammals. Human beings were supposedly the last to appear in this process. According to evolutionary theory, this change in living things was achieved using time, chance, natural selection ('survival of the fittest') and mutation (random changes in genetic code)This evolutionary process is said to have taken place without an outside intelligence, plan or guiding force. 1. Living things never from non-living things To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing. Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living thing and this has never been observed. A textbook on Biology puts it like this: "As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis." 8So when it comes to science (i.e. things we can establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life. Evolutionists say life came from nonliving matter. But just saying something doesn't make it true! More information (external link)Why Is Abiogenesis Impossible? 2. The missing links are still missing If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record. These 'links' are conspicuous by their absence.After well over a hundred years of intensely studying the fossil record the 'missing links' are still well and truly 'missing'. Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould concede this when they say, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not based the evidence of fossils." 2 More information (external link)What does the fossil record teach us about evolution? Who's who & what's what in the world of "missing" links? Is there fossil evidence of 'missing links' between humans and apes? Did ancient humans live millions of years ago? 3. Complex systems never evolve 'bit by bit' No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation. Let's consider what Darwin himself said: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." 3 A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to survive and live each system requires all the other systems to be functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years. There is no evidence (in the fossil record etc.) of the evolution of such systems. More than that, not even an imaginary process can be thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive system could have evolved bit by bit over time! More information (external link)Can evolution be the source of life in all its complexity? 4. Mutation never produces evolution Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution to proceed. For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals.4 This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x 25) in human terms. Mutations are an example of the Second Law of Thermodynanics (things become more disordered over time) in action. It is amazing that evolutionists would put forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take place! What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly, they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly wings or stubby wings. Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) are processes going in opposite directions! Mutations are not a friend of evolution but an enemy that cut the theory down and destroy it! Mutations make things worst! Mutation does not supply a mechanism for organisms to evolve. More information (external link)Can genetic mutations produce positive changes in living creatures? 5. Second Law of Thermodynamics says "no" The second law of thermodynamics tells us that a system will always go from ordered to disordered unless there is a plan or outside intelligence to organize it. World-renowned evolutionist Isaac Asimov when discussing the second law of thermodynamics said:"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'" Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about." 1 As Isaac Asimov says, everything becomes more disordered when left to itself. The theory of Evolution puts forward the idea that the atoms produced after the 'Big Bang' organized themselves without a plan and finally produced the human body after billions of years. Some people argue that the earth is an open system therefore the Second Law of Thermodynanics does not apply. Simply pouring in energy (sunlight) into the earth does not override the Second Law of Thermodynanics. As shown in Isaac Asimov's quote above, the Second Law still applies on earth. Simply pouring energy into a system makes things more disordered! As Dr John Ross of Harvard University rightly states: "… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. …" 7 Evolution has no plan or outside intelligence and according to the second law of thermodynamics can never take place. More information (external link)Second Law of Thermodynamics - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? 6. Probability shows "no" to evolution Evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle concede this when they say "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (time and chance) is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'" 5 More information (external link)Probability Arguments in Why Is Abiogenesis Impossible? Great scientists from the past speak out "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words." (Lord Kelvin) "I am a Christian ... I believe only and alone ... in the service of Jesus Christ ... In Him is all refuge, all solace." (Johannes Kepler) "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God." (Louis Pasteur). Pasteur strongly opposed Darwin's theory of evolution because he felt it did not conform to the scientific evidence. Robert Boyle believed in Jesus Christ's "Passion, His death, His resurrection and ascension, and all of those wonderful works which He did during His stay upon earth, in order to confirm the belief of His being God as well as man.""Order is manifestly maintained in the universe … the whole being governed by the sovereign will of God." (James Prescott Joule) "There are those who argue that the universe evolved out a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye?" (Werhner Von Braun) "Almighty Creator and Preserver of all things, praised be all Thou has created." (Carl Linnaeus) "I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity." (Sir Joseph Lister) "Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance." "The true God is a living, intelligent and powerful being." (Sir Isaac Newton) Michael Faraday was careful to "Thank God, first, for all His gifts." If you believe that "Christians can't think for themselves" we encourage you to read "21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible" by Ann Lamont published by Answers in Genesis, P.O. Box 6302, Acacia Ridge D.C., Queensland, 4110, Australia, 1995. (The above 6 quotes were taken from this book.) Present day PhD. scientists speak out "The evidence points to an intelligent designer of the vast array of life, both living and extinct, rather than to unguided mindless evolution." (Nancy M Darrall, Speech Therapist at the Bolton Community Health Care Trust in the UK. She holds a PhD in Botany from the University of Wales.) "Evolutionary theories of the universe cannot counteract the above arguments for the existence of God." (John M Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University. John holds a PhD in Aeronautics.) "The correspondence between the global catastrophe in the geological record and the Flood described in Genesis is much too obvious for me to conclude that these events must be one and the same." (John R Baumgardner, Technical Staff Member in the Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. John holds a PhD in Geophysics and Space Physics from UCLU.) "We have already seen that no such system could possibly appear by chance. Life in its totality must have been created in the beginning, just as God told us." (John P Marcus, Research Officer at the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Plant Pathology, University of Queensland, Australia. John holds a PhD in Biological Chemistry from the University of Michigan.) "The fossil record is considered to be the primary evidence for evolution, yet it does not demonstrate a complete chain of life from simple forms to complex." (Larry Vardiman, Professor from the Department of Astro-Geophysics for Creation Research, USA. Larry holds a PhD in Atmosperic Science from Colorado State University.) "I … have no hesitation in rejecting the evolutionary hypothesis of origins and affirming the biblical alternative that 'in six days the Lord God created the heavens and earth and all that in them is'. (Dr Taylor is senior lecturer in Electrical Engineering at the University of Liverpool. Dr Taylor has a PhD in Electrical Engineering and has authored over 80 scientific articles.) "I believe God provides evidence of His creative power for all to experience personally in our lives. To know the Creator does not require an advanced degree in science or theology." (Timothy G Standish is an Associate Professor of Biology at Andrews University in the USA. Dr Standish holds a PhD in Biology and Public Policy from George Mason University, USA.) "At the same time I found I could reject evolution and not commit intellectual suicide, I began to realise I could also accept a literal creation and still not commit intellectual suicide." (AJ Monty White, Student Advisor, Dean of Students Office, at the University of Cardiff, UK. Dr White holds a PhD in the field of Gas Kinetics.) "So life did not arise by natural processes, nor could the grand diversity of life have arisen through no-intelligent natural processes (evolution). Living things were created by God, as the Bible says." (Don Batten, a research scientist for Answer in Genesis in Australia. Dr Batten holds a PhD in Plant Physiology from the University of Sydney and worked for 18 years as a research scientist with the New South Wales Department of Agriculture.) "In the words of the well-known scientist, Robert Jastrow, 'for the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story [of the quest for the answers about the origin of life and the universe] ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (Jerry R Bergman, Instructor of Science at Northwest State College, Archbold, Ohio. He holds a PhD in Evaluation and Research from Wayne State University and a PhD in Human Biology from Columbia Pacific University.) Read why 50 PhD scientists from all around the world choose to believe in creation in the book "In Six Days (why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation)" edited by John F Ashton PhD, New Holland Publishers, 1999. (The above 10 quotes were taken from this book.) Conclusion Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." 6 After well over a hundred years of intense scientific research and investigation, we must conclude that no-one has shown how the human eye could have come into existence by numerous, successive slight modifications. By using Darwin's own criteria and viewing the other aspects of science that relate to evolution we can conclude that Darwin's theory has broken down. "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). Useful reading > Is evolution true? (Ted's life story) > Read about the book "21 Scientists Who Believed the Bible" > Visit Christian Answers - a mega website on the origin of life and much more > Greg was quick to mock Christianity until he looked at the facts > One drink away from never waking up > What has happened to our world? > Breaking free from shoplifting Acknowledgements 1 In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even, Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p6. 2 Evolution's erratic pace, Natural History, vol. LXXXVI (5), May 1977, p14. 3The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, J.M. Dent & Sons ltd, London, 1971, p167. 4 Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation (Volume 1) , Dennis R. Petersen, Christian Equippers Ministries, Calfornia, 1987, p84. 5Hoyle on Evolution, Nature, vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p105. (Words in italics in the quote are added for clarification.) 6 Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, 6th edition, NYU, 1988, p154. 7Chemical and Engineering News, John Ross, July 7, 1980, p40; cited in Duane Gish, Creation Scientists Answer their Critics Institute for Creation Research, 1993. 8Modern Biology Teacher's Edition, Holt, Rinehardt and Winston Publishers, USA, 1977, page 19.

[Suited_Up 2]

How about instead of copying and pasting a bunch of ridiculous propaganda that tries to put holes in science, you actually come up with some evidence that creationism is real. Have you posted one piece of evidence? Oh, there is none? Shame.

[jmkiser 0]

Herokid,that stuff is straight from Kent Hovind's presentations twisted in different words.You can't claim that you're estranged from him and then spout his crap.You have no idea what you're talking. I bet you don't even know what the stuff that you're posting is saying. There's no way that even you could agree with most of it if you actually took the time to think about it for two seconds.

[herokid7 0]

No.Evolution doesn't cause life.Life needs to come first, then you can have evolution of said life. But evolution isn't meant to explain how the life came about in the first place, it can only take place after the fact. This is what everyone is trying to tell you.

So would you concede then that it is possible that God could have created the universe using the evolutionary process?

[herokid7 0]

Fail The correct answer was:SuperAIDS!Pat Robertson should've taught you better!

I think Pat Robertson is a dick.

[Suited_Up 2]

So would you concede then that it is possible that God could have created the universe using the evolutionary process?

If you don't believe in evolution, how could god have used it?and sure, anything is possible, but it's way down at the bottom of the possibility list. And until someone shows me some hard evidence to support that, I'm going to go with no.

[ShakeZuma 585]

there's so many things I want to make fun of here but I really just don't know where to start. so in that case, herokid: really? really?

[herokid7 0]

Herokid,that stuff is straight from Kent Hovind's presentations twisted in different words.You can't claim that you're estranged from him and then spout his crap.You have no idea what you're talking. I bet you don't even know what the stuff that you're posting is saying. There's no way that even you could agree with most of it if you actually took the time to think about it for two seconds.

I'm reading bits and pieces...I'm just trying to show you guys that there are good(imo) arguments out there...and I did say I thought some of Kent's theories were interesting...even if I don't trust or like the man, personally.

[jmkiser 0]

So would you concede then that it is possible that God could have created the universe using the evolutionary process?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLI also concede that the tooth fairy really put that money under my pillow.Sure, anything is possible