Evolution is proven false
First Prev
of 27
Next Last
sam

Newcastle, CA

#1 Apr 19, 2008
Any one who believes in evolution I challenge you to show me any evidence. Please use science not bs

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#2 Apr 19, 2008
sam wrote:
Any one who believes in evolution I challenge you to show me any evidence. Please use science not bs
First, let me ask you a question. What evidence would convince you that evolution is true?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

United States

#3 Apr 19, 2008
sam wrote:
Any one who believes in evolution I challenge you to show me any evidence. Please use science not bs
This is not "proof" that evolution is false. This is a statement of your personal disbelief.

This may be news to you, but the fact that you don't believe something doesn't make it not true.

You demand "evidence" of evolution? Have you bothered to read ANYTHING on the subject? No. Of course not. If you had, you wouldn't be here making this sort of ridiculous statements.

So, rather than us trying to "prove" to you what ALL of science already knows, why don't you go ahead and read up on the topic then try and disprove it to us.

Oh, and just a heads up, if you want to disprove evolution, you are going to have to disprove ALL of science, since it's all connected.

You can start with disproving nuclear fusion and we'll work our way up to evolution.

Good luck, retard.
Sam

United States

#4 Apr 19, 2008
I can give you proof that evolution is false so rather than non intelligent personal attacks why dont we have a scientific discussion. I Have read up on multitutdes of evolution so give me your best shot.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not "proof" that evolution is false. This is a statement of your personal disbelief.
This may be news to you, but the fact that you don't believe something doesn't make it not true.
You demand "evidence" of evolution? Have you bothered to read ANYTHING on the subject? No. Of course not. If you had, you wouldn't be here making this sort of ridiculous statements.
So, rather than us trying to "prove" to you what ALL of science already knows, why don't you go ahead and read up on the topic then try and disprove it to us.
Oh, and just a heads up, if you want to disprove evolution, you are going to have to disprove ALL of science, since it's all connected.
You can start with disproving nuclear fusion and we'll work our way up to evolution.
Good luck, retard.
Sam

United States

#5 Apr 19, 2008
Proven Facts, Logical thinking, evidence
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
First, let me ask you a question. What evidence would convince you that evolution is true?
Dewhickey

Lawrenceburg, IN

#6 Apr 19, 2008
Sam wrote:
Proven Facts, Logical thinking, evidence
<quoted text>
Produce evidence you're able to write grammatical, complete sentences,
spell simple words correctly, and use capitalization and punctuation as any well-educated person does. Maybe someone will find it worthwhile to converse with you. Otherwise, it's a waste of time.
Sam

United States

#7 Apr 19, 2008
always with the personal attacks. Evolutionist claim that the Grand Canyon was created by slow erosion by the river that runs through it over millions of years. For that to happen the river would have had run up hill since the middle of the canyon is thousands of feet higher than the beginning of the canyon (at the rim where the the erosion process would have started). Last I checked rivers do not run uphill

Evolution goes against the theory of thermodynamics

The Fossil record does not show any transitional processes.

There has never been observation of Macro evolution that is that one species changes to another by mutation.

The dna of all varieties from a species is proven to be less complex than the original. example Wolf versus pure breed dogs. Wild corn versus sweet corn.

Evolutionist use the proven fact of micro evolution (the adaptation of species to its invironment) to jump to the disproven fact of macro evolution ( one species changes to another species through mutations))

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#8 Apr 19, 2008
Sam wrote:
always with the personal attacks. Evolutionist claim that the Grand Canyon was created by slow erosion by the river that runs through it over millions of years. For that to happen the river would have had run up hill since the middle of the canyon is thousands of feet higher than the beginning of the canyon (at the rim where the the erosion process would have started). Last I checked rivers do not run uphill
Evolution goes against the theory of thermodynamics
The Fossil record does not show any transitional processes.
There has never been observation of Macro evolution that is that one species changes to another by mutation.
The dna of all varieties from a species is proven to be less complex than the original. example Wolf versus pure breed dogs. Wild corn versus sweet corn.
Evolutionist use the proven fact of micro evolution (the adaptation of species to its invironment) to jump to the disproven fact of macro evolution ( one species changes to another species through mutations))
Well, we see here how little Sam understands proven facts.

Fact...The Pacific Plate moving under the North American Plate has cause the plateau where the Grand Canyon is to rise over the last several million years. The Colorado river has not actually changed height. Rather, it has remained the same altitude while cutting down through the rising rock. Read about geology.

Fact...There are many transitional sequences shown by the fossil record. Read about paleontology.

Fact...The rise of new species of bacteria happen all the time in laboratories. Read about microbiology.

Fact...This statement actually doesn't make sense. I suspect that you mean there is less variation in the species DNA, which is exactly what would be expected since the parent species has a larger, older population. The daughter species started from a smaller population and has had less time for genetic variations to occur. Read some population genetics.

Fact..."Micro" and "Macro" evolution are creationist terms. The mechanisms for the two are exactly the same. The only difference is the time scales involved. Thus, if micro-evolution is proved, so is macro-evolution. A lot of little changes add up to some big changes. There is no magical barrier that says a species can have no more mutations. Read some genetics.

You believe a lot of misinformation. You should try educating yourself. Ignorance AND arrogance.
Sam

United States

#9 Apr 19, 2008
Catastrophic deposition: Geologists of all persuasions are returning to catastrophism, and nearly every stratum has recently been reinterpreted as the result of water-related processes operating at increased rates and intensities in the past. Evidence of underwater turbidity currents is found in the Tapeats Sandstone, the Redwall Limstone, and others.
Sam

United States

#10 Apr 19, 2008
Fossils: The fossils at every level are extremely complex, but the ones in the bottom layers, such as the trilobites, are even more complex than the ones nearer the top, such as corals. No evolutionary sequence here!
Sam

United States

#11 Apr 19, 2008
Erosion of Grand Canyon: The Canyon was eroded but the present Colorado River was not the erosive agent. Erosion was rapid, not so long ago according to dating efforts, and the waters carried the debris far to the west, not like the modern Colorado River. Furthermore, the main erosional features are typically those of soft sediments, not hard rock
Sam

United States

#12 Apr 19, 2008
Radioisotope dating: Results from radioisotope dating efforts are not at all consistent with the old-earth study. In fact, volcanic basalts on the rim date as older than the deeply buried Cardenas Basalts.
Sam

United States

#13 Apr 19, 2008
Let us examine Neanderthal Man, a supposed forerunner of modern man in the light of paleopathology. In 1856 workers blasted a cave in the Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. They discovered limb bones, pelvis, ribs, and a skull cap. These bones were examined by scientists in various parts of the world. An ardent evolutionist, T.H. Huxley, ruled this specimen out as an ape-to-man link. A German anatomist, Rudolph Virchow, said in essence that the fossil was the remains of modern man (Homo sapiens) afflicted with rickets and arthritis. In 1886, two more skulls of the same general configuration were found at Spy, Belgium. In the early 1900's, a number of similar specimens were found in Southern France and by now were lumped together as Neanderthal Man. There are now over one hundred specimens of Neanderthal Man. A paleontologist named Boule reconstructed a set of Neanderthal bones into a very ape-like creature but was severely criticized for this by other evolutionists who noted that the fossil represented Homo sapiens, or modern man, deformed by arthritis.
Sam

United States

#14 Apr 19, 2008
The use of "index fossils" to determine the geologic age of a formation, for example, is discussed in an interesting way in an important recent paper by J.E. O'Rourke.

"These principles have been applied in Feinstratigraphie, which starts from a chronology of index fossils, and imposes them on the rocks. Each taxon represents a definite time unit and so provides an accurate, even 'infallible' date. If you doubt it, bring in a suite of good index fossils, and the specialist without asking where or in what order they were collected, will lay them out on the table in chronological order."1
Sam

United States

#15 Apr 19, 2008
quotes by evolutionist

Likewise, paleontologists do their best to make sense out of the fossil record and sketch in evolutionary sequences or unfossilized morphologies without realistic hope of obtaining specific verification within the foreseeable future
Sam

United States

#16 Apr 19, 2008
evolutionists quotes

"The abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle.— If we read the record rather literally, it implies that organisms of new grades of complexity arose and radiated relatively rapidly."4
Sam

United States

#17 Apr 19, 2008
evolutionist quote

But the danger of circularity is still present. For most biologists the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. There is another difficulty. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation, which necessarily presupposed the non-repeatability of organic events in geologic history. There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis."6
Sam

United States

#18 Apr 19, 2008
evolutionists quote

The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."17
Sam

United States

#19 Apr 19, 2008
look it up
J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 51.
2 Gareth V. Nelson, "Origin and Diversification of Teleostean Fishes," Annals, New York Academy of Sciences, 1971, p. 27.
3 Donald R. Griffin, "A Possible Window on the Minds of Animals," American Scientist, Vol. 64, September-October 1976, p. 534.
4 James W. Valentine and Cathryn A. Campbell, "Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record," American Scientist, Vol. 63, November-December 1975, p. 673.
5 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, p. 47.
6 David G. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 466.
7 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, p. 48.
8 Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1973) p. 62.
9 Derek V. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record," Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p. 132.
10 Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism," Compass, Vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216.
11 B. Schaeffer, M.K. Hecht and N. Eldredge, "Phylogeny and Paleontology," Ch. 2 in Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 6 (edited by Th. Dobzhansky, M.K. Hecht and W.C. Steere; New York Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972) p. 39.
12 J.E. O'Rourke, op cit, pp. 47-55.
13 Ibid, p. 49.
14 Ibid, p. 50.
15 Ibid, p. 51.
16 Ibid, p. 54.
17 Ibid, p. 53.
Sam

United States

#20 Apr 19, 2008
circular reasoning

That is, the fossil evidence that life has evolved from simple to complex forms over the geological ages depends on the geological ages of the specific rocks in which these fossils are found. The rocks, however, are assigned geologic ages based on the fossil assemblages which they contain. The fossils, in turn, are arranged on the basis of their assumed evolutionary relationships. Thus the main evidence for evolution is based on the assumption of evolution.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 27
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 24 min Blitzking 197,255
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Eagle 12 13,222
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Kenedy njoroge 150,927
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr renee 31,152
News RANT: Is "global warming" today's version of th... 21 hr bearings 2
Another "gap" gets closed Tue MIDutch 1
Christianity and why its wrong + evolution debates May 21 Zog Has-fallen 15
More from around the web