Evolution is proven false

Level 1

Since: Oct 12

UK

#487 Oct 30, 2012
I am afraid I am not agree with you.I am in favor of evolution.In my spare time,I like to buy diablo 3 gold at www.angrygold.com when I play the diablo 3 game.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#488 Oct 30, 2012
I just noticed T Leary's post on the last page. Damn shame.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#489 Nov 1, 2012
MikeF wrote:
I just noticed T Leary's post on the last page. Damn shame.
Yeah, a sad reminder. Poor bastard.:(
frogdoctor

Walsall, UK

#490 Nov 4, 2012
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))


Erm ........don't want to make you sound silly but regarding water running uphill in the Grand Canyon. Have you ever heard of uplift? It's a basic principle of geology. Since the Grand Canyon was started to be formed the strata has been pushed up- the river has never run up hill. That strata is still being uplifted today- measurably so. It's all here http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rowley/Rowley/Pub...
GET

Lebanon, IL

#491 Nov 4, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is a great indicator that you don't know much about geology.
<quoted text>
Or thermodynamics.
<quoted text>
Or fossils.
<quoted text>
Or evolution.
<quoted text>
Or DNA
<quoted text>
Or dogs.
<quoted text>
And this is the real gem. There is NO SUCH THING as wild corn. Never has been. Never will be.
Maize (the REAL word for corn) CAN NOT GROW WILDLY. If humans stopped planting it, it would disappear entirely from the earth in less than a decade.
<quoted text>
Addition uses the proven fact that 1+1=2 and jumps to the fact that 2+2=4.
You admit that changes occur in the DNA ("micro" evolution) but deny that changes occur in the DNA ("macro" evolution).
If it can change and those changes are passed down then it is ALL the same thing.
If you have some evidence of a MAGICAL BARRIER that prevents changes from adding up - present it. Otherwise, you are just blowing sh!t out your ass.
Very impressive scientific comeback. I have found that many (some) proponents of Darwinian evolution and the general theory of ontological self-creation to be very rude when they are misunderstood, or stood up. There is evidence to the contrary of facets of evolution; it is not the only fish in the sea. There are many scientists who find difficulty with the theory and many who have found it lacking. Regardless of details, you can begin with a presupposition and then fill in the details. However, since there are many who find details other than the ones strict evolutionists find, and since there is a story that begins with another beginning, perhaps the beginning was personal. Or, as C.S. Lewis put it, the meaning of the universe might be the question of right and wrong. I am not one to fight the scientific battles, this is not my area, but there are those who can. Sam seems to be able to hold his own..But there are others who can yield other explanations for the phenomena that we see.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#492 Nov 5, 2012
MikeF wrote:
I just noticed T Leary's post on the last page. Damn shame.
?? What happened?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#493 Nov 5, 2012
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>?? What happened?
His son died of a overdose after relapsing following rehab. He was never the same afterwards. One night, for whatever reason, he took a nosedive in the bathroom, cracked his head and died. They found him the next morning if I remember right. Great guy. I was looking forward to meeting him the next time I went to Austin.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#494 Nov 5, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
His son died of a overdose after relapsing following rehab. He was never the same afterwards. One night, for whatever reason, he took a nosedive in the bathroom, cracked his head and died. They found him the next morning if I remember right. Great guy. I was looking forward to meeting him the next time I went to Austin.
Yes, it was a horrific few months and a terrible ending for T_Leary.

Was it you that got the news from his sister and alerted us?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#495 Nov 5, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it was a horrific few months and a terrible ending for T_Leary.
Was it you that got the news from his sister and alerted us?
Yeah. He and I had PM'd a couple of times about guitars, the Austin scene and his son. I guess his sister must have noticed that.

When his son died, I contacted him with my condolences and he started to open up. The son was apparently an excellent guitarist and well known in the area. They found his body not far from their house.

I used to go to Austin every once in a while. Chip Todd (who started Peavey's guitar program) is a friend and some of us would get together at Chip's house for a weekend jam. I was hoping T could join us sometime but it was not to be.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#496 Nov 5, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
His son died of a overdose after relapsing following rehab. He was never the same afterwards. One night, for whatever reason, he took a nosedive in the bathroom, cracked his head and died. They found him the next morning if I remember right. Great guy. I was looking forward to meeting him the next time I went to Austin.
That f'ing sucks. May he rest in peace.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#497 Nov 5, 2012
Raymond wrote:
The neanderthal man skeleton was acctually that of an old man with arthritis. Hence the huncback and stuff
This would be a LIE!

Why do you "fundaMENTALshit xristian creotards" LIE so much?

Isn't LYING a sin in your religion?

I know I read a commandment about it somewhere.

BTW there are a number of fossil Neanderthal CHILDREN . By DEFINITION children are NOT "Old man" with arthritis.

Not that anyone ever expects you "fundaMENTALshit xristian creotards" to actually ever learn anything.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#498 Nov 6, 2012
GET wrote:
<quoted text>Very impressive scientific comeback. I have found that many (some) proponents of Darwinian evolution and the general theory of ontological self-creation to be very rude when they are misunderstood, or stood up. There is evidence to the contrary of facets of evolution; it is not the only fish in the sea. There are many scientists who find difficulty with the theory and many who have found it lacking.
And, the majority of those "scientists" are not involved with the biological/geological sciences. In other words, they're talking out of their asses. If a dentist was trying to tell you that everything we know about astronomy is wrong, would you just accept that person's claims? You let your bias get in the way of your rational skepticism. Science works. Bible stories don't. Get over it.
GET wrote:
Regardless of details, you can begin with a presupposition and then fill in the details. However, since there are many who find details other than the ones strict evolutionists find, and since there is a story that begins with another beginning, perhaps the beginning was personal. Or, as C.S. Lewis put it, the meaning of the universe might be the question of right and wrong. I am not one to fight the scientific battles, this is not my area, but there are those who can. Sam seems to be able to hold his own..But there are others who can yield other explanations for the phenomena that we see.
There isn't special evidence that scientists find that creationists don't, or vice versa. Scientists do their due diligence; creationists try to figure out how they can make discoveries sound like they're horribly flawed if not outright wrong. Creationists don't do any scientific research. Creationism is merely a claim that a story is true, and until you can conclusively disprove it, it must be accepted as true. It's the stupidest method of understanding the universe you can adopt. Just because you were raised to do that with the Bible (but nothing else) doesn't mean it's good. Dogs get trained to attack; that doesn't mean it's good. Don't be so stupid.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#499 Nov 7, 2012
GET wrote:
<quoted text>Very impressive scientific comeback. I have found that many (some) proponents of Darwinian evolution and the general theory of ontological self-creation to be very rude when they are misunderstood, or stood up. There is evidence to the contrary of facets of evolution; it is not the only fish in the sea. There are many scientists who find difficulty with the theory and many who have found it lacking. Regardless of details, you can begin with a presupposition and then fill in the details. However, since there are many who find details other than the ones strict evolutionists find, and since there is a story that begins with another beginning, perhaps the beginning was personal. Or, as C.S. Lewis put it, the meaning of the universe might be the question of right and wrong. I am not one to fight the scientific battles, this is not my area, but there are those who can. Sam seems to be able to hold his own..But there are others who can yield other explanations for the phenomena that we see.
I am unaware of this evidence allegedly contradictory to evolution.

But then neither are you.

This IS why you didn't present it and said you won't fight scientific battles anyway.(shrug)

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#500 Nov 14, 2012
sam wrote:
Any one who believes in evolution I challenge you to show me any evidence. Please use science not bs
Why is it that dipsh!t fundamentalists like to start out by lying and trying to make people think they are really an evolutionist,but were turned into believing by ALL the evidence.

lying for Jebus...there ought to be a law.

And they always want to use 'science'...as defined by them. Sick

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#502 Nov 24, 2012
Raymond wrote:
The neanderthal man skeleton was acctually that of an old man with arthritis. Hence the huncback and stuff
Hey Raymond, Are you aware that the complete genome of the Neanderthals was run a few years ago and they are not humans.

The really big surprise came last year when it was found that that most humans on earth carry a small percentage of Neanderthal genes/blood in them

You see what this information does is establish the human link to the proto-humans that preceded us, such as; Homo-habilis, Homo-erectus, Homo-heidelbergensis, etc. The other members of the great-ape line.

Ain't science wonderful??

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#503 Dec 1, 2012
.
Creationism is proven false
Raykieth

Victorville, CA

#504 Dec 9, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Raymond, Are you aware that the complete genome of the Neanderthals was run a few years ago and they are not humans.
The really big surprise came last year when it was found that that most humans on earth carry a small percentage of Neanderthal genes/blood in them
You see what this information does is establish the human link to the proto-humans that preceded us, such as; Homo-habilis, Homo-erectus, Homo-heidelbergensis, etc. The other members of the great-ape line.
Ain't science wonderful??
No it's not

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#505 Dec 9, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>

Ain't science wonderful??
Raykieth wrote:
<quoted text>No it's not
....says Raykieth, posting on a COMPUTER WEBSITE.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#506 Dec 10, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
....says Raykieth, posting on a COMPUTER WEBSITE.
Ironic, eh?

“There is no such thing”

Level 3

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#507 Dec 10, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Raymond, Are you aware that the complete genome of the Neanderthals was run a few years ago and they are not humans.
The really big surprise came last year when it was found that that most humans on earth carry a small percentage of Neanderthal genes/blood in them
You see what this information does is establish the human link to the proto-humans that preceded us, such as; Homo-habilis, Homo-erectus, Homo-heidelbergensis, etc. The other members of the great-ape line.
Ain't science wonderful??
Link, references, something?
My google search gives me nothing relevent.. I r wanna read..

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 14 min dirtclod 20,475
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr MikeF 171,544
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 1 hr Zog Has-fallen 202
Darwin, Marx, and Freud 2 hr Zog Has-fallen 1
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr MikeF 142,471
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 13 hr Zog Has-fallen 1
Terms need to be defined better 21 hr MikeF 7
More from around the web