Seven Reasons Why Evolution is a Fraud

Seven Reasons Why Evolution is a Fraud

Posted in the Seattle Forum

First Prev
of 12
Next Last
Jesse

Fort Worth, TX

#1 Jun 9, 2007
1. It's not science. You cannot observe, test and repeat the ever-changing ideas that are little more than wild speculation.

2. It devalues real science. Chemistry, physics and biology don't have the same problems of legitimacy because they are real sciences, not philosophical wannabes trying to appear legit.

3. Complex engineering. Do you ever drive past a skyscraper and think to yourself 'Gee, I guess billions of years of random chance could have just as easily assembled all of that glass, steel and concrete as well as a team of engineers, architects, construction workers working from blueprints? Of course not! But that's what evolutionists would have you believe in when it comes to living organisms.

4. Genetics. The programming code of life, according to evolutionists, is just a series of biochemical accidents and mutations. If you believe this, I have a bridge in New York that's for sale. The infinitely complex engineering of this code means that it did not come about via 'natural selection,' aka random chance.

5. Mathematically Impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds.

6. Evolution is a religion. Yes, evolution is the faith of atheism because it replaces God with man. When you've conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science.

7. Racism. This is the ugly secret that evolutionists don't want to discuss; that Darwin, Huxley and many of the early advocates of evolution stated publicly that Asians, Africans, Australian Aborigines and other non-white, non-European groups were evolutionary throwbacks. Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, was a pioneer in the early field of eugenics which was the study of skills by ethnic groups. While Galton's work was relatively harmless, Hitler's work -- to synthesize natural selection by exterminating a race of people -- was not.

More info at http://www.evofraud.com
Foxy

Des Moines, IA

#2 Jun 11, 2007
Maybe God is the guiding force behind evolution... Evolution and Creationism can walk hand in hand. Genisis wasn't meant to be taken literally. What exactly is a day to God? Do you really believe that it's our 24 hour period?
Tim356

Fort Worth, TX

#3 Jun 12, 2007
Foxy wrote:
Maybe God is the guiding force behind evolution... Evolution and Creationism can walk hand in hand. Genisis wasn't meant to be taken literally. What exactly is a day to God? Do you really believe that it's our 24 hour period?
What you are referring to is adaptation, not evolution, which happens all the time. Darwin did show adaptation with the finch beaks on the Galapagos Islands.

“Cristianity is not the answer”

Since: Mar 07

Seattle, WA

#4 Jun 14, 2007
Jesse wrote:
1. It's not science. You cannot observe, test and repeat the ever-changing ideas that are little more than wild speculation.
You limit your mind with this. You can take samples with provable ages (through various means), you can perform tests on the samples and repeat those tests and observations. It is science. And while there is admittedly conjecture and assumption, it is based in factual evidence. This is hardly wild speculation.
jesse wrote:
2. It devalues real science. Chemistry, physics and biology don't have the same problems of legitimacy because they are real sciences, not philosophical wannabes trying to appear legit.
Each of those three sciences have been used to prove the theory of evolution, unlike faith which discounts the finding of said sciences.
jesse wrote:
3. Complex engineering. Do you ever drive past a skyscraper and think to yourself 'Gee, I guess billions of years of random chance could have just as easily assembled all of that glass, steel and concrete as well as a team of engineers, architects, construction workers working from blueprints? Of course not! But that's what evolutionists would have you believe in when it comes to living organisms.
No I don't because its not a living mass.
jesse wrote:
4. Genetics. The programming code of life, according to evolutionists, is just a series of biochemical accidents and mutations. If you believe this, I have a bridge in New York that's for sale. The infinitely complex engineering of this code means that it did not come about via 'natural selection,' aka random chance.
Genetics is a fairly new science, one which they are still studying to find their proofs and in doing so have opened the minds of many scientists into other things, one of which is curing some diseases. Not in the market for a bridge right now but thanks…
jesse wrote:
5. Mathematically Impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds.
Mathematically [i]Improbable[/i], not impossible. You cannot reject fact based on statistics. Those scientists cannot use, and most likely you cannot fathom, numbers big enough to approach appropriate statistics. That statement is as ridiculous as me claiming that albino's don't exist, because I've never seen one.
jesse wrote:
6. Evolution is a religion. Yes, evolution is the faith of atheism because it replaces God with man. When you've conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science.
Evolution is a theory. Theory does not equate to religion. By-the-by, faith doesn't equal religion either. Founding a group based on a belief system [i]can[/i] be a religion.
jesse wrote:
7. Racism. This is the ugly secret that evolutionists don't want to discuss; that Darwin, Huxley and many of the early advocates of evolution stated publicly that Asians, Africans, Australian Aborigines and other non-white, non-European groups were evolutionary throwbacks. Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, was a pioneer in the early field of eugenics which was the study of skills by ethnic groups. While Galton's work was relatively harmless, Hitler's work -- to synthesize natural selection by exterminating a race of people -- was not.
And that has to do with proof that evolution is false how? I wish people that have no basis for their argument would stop trying to tie past atrocities to the likes of those that believe opposite of them. What Hitler tried to do was more based in a skewed religion than any form of science, he just used one to justify the other.
Sally45

Fort Worth, TX

#5 Jun 15, 2007
Mathematically [i]Improbable[/i], not impossible. You cannot reject fact based on statistics. Those scientists cannot use, and most likely you cannot fathom, numbers big enough to approach appropriate statistics. That statement is as ridiculous as me claiming that albino's don't exist, because I've never seen one.

So you the rules of statistics should be discarded because you think the values are too high? Come on!
Sally45

Fort Worth, TX

#6 Jun 15, 2007
**Genetics is a fairly new science, one which they are still studying to find their proofs and in doing so have opened the minds of many scientists into other things, one of which is curing some diseases.**

Even before the Crick and Watson we knew that enough about genetics to invalidate the claims of evolutionists. For instance, Ernst Haeckel's claim that embryoes have a fish, frog and dog stage before birth was proven to be bogus in 1911 -- nearly 100 years ago. Yet his phony graphics have been used in textbooks for decades following this exposure.

Speaking of dishonesty, the same could be said for the bogus photos of dead moths that Kettlewell made. This was an attempt to prove that white moths changed colors in response to increasing soot on the trees in Birmingham England. This scam was exposed in Miller's NYT best seller Of Moths and Men. The moths do not naturally land on the bark but in the fallen leaves on the ground.
Sally45

Fort Worth, TX

#7 Jun 15, 2007
Foxy wrote:
Maybe God is the guiding force behind evolution... Evolution and Creationism can walk hand in hand. Genisis wasn't meant to be taken literally. What exactly is a day to God? Do you really believe that it's our 24 hour period?
Whether it was a 24-hour day or not is irrelevant. Adding time does not add legitimacy to evolution. While adaptation does happen (change within a species), evolution (change from one species to another) does not.
TomDem

Seattle, WA

#8 Jun 16, 2007
So then, is belief in a Diety science? Is belief that the world is 6k years old science? Is belief in invisble Godhead science? No of course not, science and evolution are FACT, not belief systems, you can believe whatever you want, you can say whatever you want, you can also be wrong about evolution.......
Sally45

Fort Worth, TX

#9 Jun 17, 2007
TomDem wrote:
So then, is belief in a Diety science? Is belief that the world is 6k years old science? Is belief in invisble Godhead science? No of course not, science and evolution are FACT, not belief systems, you can believe whatever you want, you can say whatever you want, you can also be wrong about evolution.......
Science is fact-driven and that's why it's a shame that evolution masquerades behind biology for the appearance of scientific legitimacy. I find it interesting that you are so eager to jump to the conclusion that I'm pushing some kind of theistic agenda. I've stated why evolution is a fraud yet your defense of evolution consists of nothing that bolsters Darwin.

“Cristianity is not the answer”

Since: Mar 07

Seattle, WA

#11 Jun 18, 2007
Allyce Elbaum Sucks wrote:
<quoted text>
Miller didn't write "Of Moths and Men," Judith Hooper did. The book suggested that Kettlewell committed scientific fraud. Careful studies of Kettlewell’s papers by D.W. Rudge (2005) and Matt Young (2004) have revealed that Hooper’s allegation is unjustified, and the argument in favor of it is without merit.
It always amuses me to see a bag of rocks like yourself pretend that you actually know something. You never tell the WHOLE story; you conveniently leave out the parts that would obliterate your nonsensical ideas. There will always be someone like myself there to expose you for the nutcase that you are.
Oh, Rev_Dave, evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. Darwin's theory is just that, but every legitimate scientist that developed his or her own theory on evolution came to the very same conclusion that Darwin did. People mistakenly say "Darwin's theory OF evolution," but in fact it is called "Darwin's theory ON evolution."
Gravity is also a "theory," by the way.
Actually by strict definition Evolution is a theory. As what has occurred in the past cannot be irrefutably proven, as it was not witnessed. While the evidence at current leads it to be the most prominent theory, many assume that conjecture is fact.(I am an eveloutionist so don't think I am trying to disprove it in place of faith).
Gravity on the other hand, was a theory, that was proven in fact due to science that can be applied while watching it occur. Admittedly there are aspects of the entire gravitational theory that are out of the bounds of real world testing, but Isaac Newton's original thesis holds true, and is no longer theory.
The difference is that one can be proven by a layman's viewing of scientific evidence, and real world experience, while the other cannot.

“Cristianity is not the answer”

Since: Mar 07

Seattle, WA

#12 Jun 18, 2007
Sally45 wrote:
Mathematically [i]Improbable[/i], not impossible. You cannot reject fact based on statistics. Those scientists cannot use, and most likely you cannot fathom, numbers big enough to approach appropriate statistics. That statement is as ridiculous as me claiming that albino's don't exist, because I've never seen one.
So you the rules of statistics should be discarded because you think the values are too high? Come on!
No the rules of statistics cannot be used to state something is impossible. Statistics can only show a rate of probablity not whether or not something is impossible.
"There are lies. There are damnable lies. And then there are statistics." - Mark Twain

“Cristianity is not the answer”

Since: Mar 07

Seattle, WA

#13 Jun 18, 2007
Sally45 wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether it was a 24-hour day or not is irrelevant. Adding time does not add legitimacy to evolution. While adaptation does happen (change within a species), evolution (change from one species to another) does not.
And to put the task to you.
How far can a species adapt/change before it is no longer the same species?

“I Love You More!”

Since: Jun 07

Warren Mi

#14 Jun 19, 2007
I don't believe in Evolution Can't won't so there:)Your all free to believe in what you want.It's stupid if you ask me even if I didn't believe in the lord or the bible which I do.

I still couldn't believe we all just became the whole idea is so silly.
Besides if you do beieve in Evolution then your life has no meaning because you will die and have no where to go no heaven or hell.Nothing.

MY LIFE HAS MEANING GOD MADE ME AND HE LOVES ME AND.Believe that or go to HELL.It's all up to each one of you thats free will have a great day all.Great topic.

“I Love You More!”

Since: Jun 07

Warren Mi

#15 Jun 19, 2007
I don't believe in Evolution Can't won't so there:)Your all free to believe in what you want.It's stupid if you ask me even if I didn't believe in the lord or the bible which I do.

I still couldn't believe we all just became the whole idea is so silly.
Besides if you do believe in Evolution then your life has no meaning because you will die and have no where to go no heaven or hell.Nothing.

MY LIFE HAS MEANING GOD MADE ME AND HE LOVES ME AND YOU.Believe that or go to HELL.It's all up to each one of you thats free will have a great day all.Great topic.
Eric

Olympia, WA

#16 Jun 19, 2007
Im not going to hell cuz I dont believe in it.

“Cristianity is not the answer”

Since: Mar 07

Seattle, WA

#17 Jun 20, 2007
IrishGoddess wrote:
I don't believe in Evolution Can't won't so there:)Your all free to believe in what you want.It's stupid if you ask me even if I didn't believe in the lord or the bible which I do.
I still couldn't believe we all just became the whole idea is so silly.
Besides if you do beieve in Evolution then your life has no meaning because you will die and have no where to go no heaven or hell.Nothing.
MY LIFE HAS MEANING GOD MADE ME AND HE LOVES ME AND.Believe that or go to HELL.It's all up to each one of you thats free will have a great day all.Great topic.
My life has meaning. But that meaning is not ordained by your god. Just because I do not believe in Creationism does not mean my life doesn't have meaning. The meaning to my life is purly dependant on what legacy I leave behind, for better or worse.
It's funny how many Christians revert to "you're going to Hell" with every argument that does not fit tidely into their scheme of faith. According to your own texts, you have placed judgement. Therefor, if you are right, I will see you there.
Tim356

Fort Worth, TX

#18 Jun 20, 2007
Allyce Elbaum Sucks wrote:
<quoted text>
Miller didn't write "Of Moths and Men," Judith Hooper did. The book suggested that Kettlewell committed scientific fraud. Careful studies of Kettlewell’s papers by D.W. Rudge (2005) and Matt Young (2004) have revealed that Hooper’s allegation is unjustified, and the argument in favor of it is without merit.
It always amuses me to see a bag of rocks like yourself pretend that you actually know something. You never tell the WHOLE story; you conveniently leave out the parts that would obliterate your nonsensical ideas. There will always be someone like myself there to expose you for the nutcase that you are.
Oh, Rev_Dave, evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. Darwin's theory is just that, but every legitimate scientist that developed his or her own theory on evolution came to the very same conclusion that Darwin did. People mistakenly say "Darwin's theory OF evolution," but in fact it is called "Darwin's theory ON evolution."
Gravity is also a "theory," by the way.
Gravity can be proven; evolution is conjecture.
Tim356

Fort Worth, TX

#19 Jun 20, 2007
Rev_Dave wrote:
<quoted text>
No the rules of statistics cannot be used to state something is impossible. Statistics can only show a rate of probablity not whether or not something is impossible.
"There are lies. There are damnable lies. And then there are statistics." - Mark Twain
Improbable is the better term and there's no doubt that the idea of a blob of primordial ooze magically morphing into a modern human being is statistically improbable.
josh

Canada

#20 Jun 20, 2007
my freind went to a conference and the speaker looked up "how do you determine how old a fossil is?by the stone around it."then he looked up"how do you determinehow old stone is?by the fossils araund it".
then there was a study on carbondating.they got 1 rock and smashed it in to 3 pieces and gave the pieces to diffrent 3 laboratorys and the labs gave 3 diffrent ansers hundread million year apart.

“I Love You More!”

Since: Jun 07

Warren Mi

#23 Jun 21, 2007
Rev_Dave wrote:
<quoted text>
My life has meaning. But that meaning is not ordained by your god. Just because I do not believe in Creationism does not mean my life doesn't have meaning. The meaning to my life is purly dependant on what legacy I leave behind, for better or worse.
It's funny how many Christians revert to "you're going to Hell" with every argument that does not fit tidely into their scheme of faith. According to your own texts, you have placed judgement. Therefor, if you are right, I will see you there.
Oh no I'm scared of you what you leave behinde are you kidding me.I'm sure leave your ET dvd behind lmao
I never said you had to believe what I believe but If you deny him you will be nothing sad but true I'll say a prayer for you and if you don't like it all well.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 12
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.

Seattle Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mad Max Provides Blistering Vicious Non-Stop Ho... 4 hr boodiewarrior 4
Seattle Mayor Abuses Homeless - Lawsuit Planned Aug 31 Go Blue Forever 6
News 'Daughters of the Samurai': between Japan and A... Aug 31 VeganTiger 23
colorado berthoud sergent joshua wilkes march 2013 Aug 30 joshua wilkes ser... 1
Reasons Why Washington State Sucks - Post Them ... (Apr '12) Aug 30 PTheRapper 359
News Seattle closes its first '$15 minimum wage' inv... Aug 29 VeganTiger 1
News Seattle Jews weigh becoming Spanish citizens Aug 29 VeganTiger 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Seattle Mortgages