The theory of Evolution disproved in 20 questions
-
Khi- Evolution is NOT science. Its pseudo science n in fact the majority of scientists dont support it. Even evolutionists have 2 admit of the fallacies in of their theory. The new n true sceintific era is tht of Intelligent Design. Let me give u a simple example. 4 evolution 2 be true trans forms need 2 exist. However if these existed it wld be a fatal disadvantage 4 such creatures n they cld not survive. eg a half developed wing on a bird is a fatal disadvantage. In fact if even a single organ is slightly altered or the structure of the wing tht creature cannot survive. This is know as the Irreducible Complexity of Life n has been proven by modern science.
I think an introductory biology course in either the 13th grade or freshman university year will help you reconcile your thoughts. Based on this paragraph, you clearly don't understand what and how the mechanisms of evolution works, so thus it is advisable you refrain from writting/posting articles pertaining to it.
-
There's observational proof for evolution.
Khi- If u mean micro "evolution" or variation within a kind then i already know tht. If u mean macro evolution show me. GOD Bless!
-
The difference between micro and macro evolution is only one of scale, not of quality. Thus your rant about anti-evolution is moot.
-
The moth pbservations post-chernobyl is a good an example as any.
-
Don't even get me started on the inconsistencies that are derived from the creationist view of life. Evolution may not be 'completely' correct, but it's less wrong.
-
-
I think an introductory biology course in either the 13th grade or freshman university year will help you reconcile your thoughts. Based on this paragraph, you clearly don't understand what and how the mechanisms of evolution works, so thus it is advisable you refrain from writting/posting articles pertaining to it.
Khi- This is the gobbledygook all evolutuionists come up when theres nothing 4 them left 2 say. "U see if u studied evolution thoroughly as i did u wld surely believe as i did". With this they indirectly imply tht all those who dont believe in evolution r dumb while they r smart. lol GOD Bless!
-
-
The difference between micro and macro evolution is only one of scale, not of quality. Thus your rant about anti-evolution is moot.
-
The moth pbservations post-chernobyl is a good an example as any.
-
Don't even get me started on the inconsistencies that are derived from the creationist view of life. Evolution may not be 'completely' correct, but it's less wrong.
Khi- Again i see may... but... wht if? The whole theory of evolution is based upon speculation n guesswork. All we ever observe is VARIATION within the kinds. Add me 2 ur yahoo, skype or msn messengers n well talk. GOD Bless!
-
-
Khi- This is the gobbledygook all evolutuionists come up when theres nothing 4 them left 2 say. "U see if u studied evolution thoroughly as i did u wld surely believe as i did". With this they indirectly imply tht all those who dont believe in evolution r dumb while they r smart. lol GOD Bless!
Well, you exhude the qualities of all the people that don't understand evolution and yet try to disprove it.
First of all, you say it's 'not a science'. This is false. It is extremely scientific. Science progresses through falsification, and that is exactly how the theory of evolution progresses. Scientific theories also account for observation, which is again the forte of evolution. It observes the various fossils recorded, as well as portrays a logical path for life to progress on Earth. Also, the theory of evolution does not rely on presumptions for it to verify itself - that is what creationists use, which is in reality what is 'pseudo scientific'. Science has no presumptions. Science starts with observation, and applies a general theory upon said observation to explain it and predict future observations. There is nothing unscientific about the theory of evolution.
Then you say that the majority of scientists don't support it. This is absolutely baseless. Most scientists support evolution. Anyone who studies it with an open mind supports it. Most religious people with their heads screwed on right support the general ideas of evolution.
Then you say this ' The new n true sceintific era is tht of Intelligent Design.' Another baseless point. 'Intelligent Design' promotes a presumption upon scientific thought, which is not allowed within science. See, I don't think you fully understand what 'scientifc thinking' actually is, because you're trying to prove a theorem (creationism) with an answer in mind. This is not falsification. Science is falsification.
And last but not least
However if these existed it wld be a fatal disadvantage 4 such creatures n they cld not survive. eg a half developed wing on a bird is a fatal disadvantage. In fact if even a single organ is slightly altered or the structure of the wing tht creature cannot survive. This is know as the Irreducible Complexity of Life n has been proven by modern science.
That pretty much convinced me that you, in fact, do not understand evolution at all. I'm not going to address this fully as it will require me to first explain to you the concept behind evolution, but I will say this evolution works via the extremely slow progress of favourable mutations. Key word is favourable. A one winged bird is not favourable. However, a stronger winged bird is. This isn't a problem of irreducible complexity at all. In fact, evolution does not deal with the IC factor of life, it deals with its progression. Abiogenesis is what deals with the IC of life.
So as you can see, I have plenty to say. I'm not hiding behind some excuse, I just didn't think it was necessary for me to say it (I was wrong.) There's nothing wrong with not knowing what evolution is, I don't know a lot of it either. But please don't come in here and pretend to lecture people on what you think it is when you don't even know the basis of scientific thinking.
Again i see may... but... wht if? The whole theory of evolution is based upon speculation n guesswork. All we ever observe is VARIATION within the kinds.
'What if'? Isn't that 'guess work' in and on itself? You're trying to disprove apparent 'guesswork' by using your own 'guesswork'?
And it's not just simple variation, it's speciation.
-
Peace,
What Harun Yahya and his followers (inc. Khizar in this case) actually follow is Judaeo-Christian OT based creationism. The Koran does not suport this view. Khizar needs to wake up and understand that the traditionalists have adopted from Judaeo-Christianity the belief in creationsim and this is witnessed in the ahadeethic belief in creation of a woman from a man's rib for example.
Harun Yahya believes in the woman from rib theory which is Juadeo-Christian dogma, and not a truth.
How does Khizar explain the existence of a woman then? Which source other than the Koran does he uphold for this view?
Regards.
-
Peace,
What Harun Yahya and his followers (inc. Khizar in this case) actually follow is Judaeo-Christian OT based creationism. The Koran does not suport this view. Khizar needs to wake up and understand that the traditionalists have adopted from Judaeo-Christianity the belief in creationsim and this is witnessed in the ahadeethic belief in creation of a woman from a man's rib for example.
Harun Yahya believes in the woman from rib theory which is Juadeo-Christian dogma, and not a truth.
How does Khizar explain the existence of a woman then? Which source other than the Koran does he uphold for this view?
Regards.
None of that is necessary to prove him wrong. Simply look at his fallacious arguments for proof of that.
-
First of all, you say it's 'not a science'. This is false. It is extremely scientific. Science progresses through falsification, and that is exactly how the theory of evolution progresses.
Khi- This is false. Evolution, ecept micro evolution, better termed variation, is a RELIGION. U have 2 believe in it on faith. There is no scientific evidence 4 it whtsoever. Wht u can infer from lloking atz the variety of species on earth n the cosmos is tht they were clearly DESIGNED. So actually the conclusion of Intelligent Design wld be a scientific inference.
Scientific theories also account for observation, which is again the forte of evolution. It observes the various fossils recorded, as well as portrays a logical path for life to progress on Earth. Also, the theory of evolution does not rely on presumptions for it to verify itself - that is what creationists use, which is in reality what is 'pseudo scientific'. Science has no presumptions. Science starts with observation, and applies a general theory upon said observation to explain it and predict future observations. There is nothing unscientific about the theory of evolution.
Khi- Fossils cannot possibly cnt as evidence 4 evolution. There r a bunch of bones in the dirt u know without any date stamps on them. U have 2 apply ur PRECONCEIVED idea of evolution on the fossils 2 arrange them in a way tht they support this theory. This is wht has been done. No court in the world wld accept fossils as evidence. U dont know whether tht fossiled creature had any offspring. All u know is tht it died. N again ur slandering creationists not knowing tht theyve done a lot of observations which led them 2 the conclusion tht their is an Intelligent Designer behind all things.
Then you say that the majority of scientists don't support it. This is absolutely baseless. Most scientists support evolution. Anyone who studies it with an open mind supports it. Most religious people with their heads screwed on right support the general ideas of evolution.
Khi- R u talking abt micro (variation) or macro(fictious) evolution? If the 1st one then well i agree with tht too. If the latter one then id say so wht, the majority aint always right. I dont care wht the majority believes. I personally cannot believe in such garbage which falsely takes upon being scientific.
Then you say this ' The new n true sceintific era is tht of Intelligent Design.' Another baseless point. 'Intelligent Design' promotes a presumption upon scientific thought, which is not allowed within science. See, I don't think you fully understand what 'scientifc thinking' actually is, because you're trying to prove a theorem (creationism) with an answer in mind. This is not falsification. Science is falsification.
Khi- NO NO NO! Evolution is a presumption. Intelligent Design is based on everyday observations. When we see such a perfect structure everywhere obviously any sane person will conclude tht there was a designer. If u see even a somewht good painting in the woods n there were no footprints, etc, u wld still conclude there was a painter wldnt u? So how the hell can one say tht living things 1000s of times more complex than all computer progs on the earth has not been intellgently designed. It doesnt make any sense. Wht is wrong with u?
And last but not least
That pretty much convinced me that you, in fact, do not understand evolution at all. I'm not going to address this fully as it will require me to first explain to you the concept behind evolution, but I will say this evolution works via the extremely slow progress of favourable mutations. Key word is favourable. A one winged bird is not favourable. However, a stronger winged bird is. This isn't a problem of irreducible complexity at all. In fact, evolution does not deal with the IC factor of life, it deals with its progression. Abiogenesis is what deals with the IC of life.Khi- How do u know it works like tht? Again this is a guess, conjecture. If a half winged bird or a transission from dino 2 bird is not favorable then it cld not survive n we wldnt have birds as we have them 2day. In fact if we look at the universe everything is DECAYING i.e. exactly the oppsite of evolution. N then wht abt the pyramids n other such strucures. Nobody ever claimed them 2 be evolved n it wld be silly 2 do so. Similarly it is silly 2 claim tht such incredible n remarkable things as living beings came abt by evolution.
So as you can see, I have plenty to say. I'm not hiding behind some excuse, I just didn't think it was necessary for me to say it (I was wrong.) There's nothing wrong with not knowing what evolution is, I don't know a lot of it either. But please don't come in here and pretend to lecture people on what you think it is when you don't even know the basis of scientific thinking.
Khi- U sure have plenty 2 say n so do i. N plz stop ur prejudice regarding me.
'What if'? Isn't that 'guess work' in and on itself? You're trying to disprove apparent 'guesswork' by using your own 'guesswork'?
And it's not just simple variation, it's speciation.
Khi- Yes but tht was already in the original gene pool of the DNA so it cld produce a variety later on n adjust 2 the environment. GOD Bless!
-
How does Khizar explain the existence of a woman then? Which source other than the Koran does he uphold for this view?
Regards.
Khi- As i said i dont support all of HYs beliefs neither Kent's. I dont believe Eve came from Adam's rib but tht they both were created separately with destinct designs. GOD Bless!
-
First of all, can you please type properly? I feel like I'm talking a 13 year old girl everytime I read your posts. It's not 'u', it's 'you'; 'to', not '2', etc. Thanks.
The difference between microevolution and macroevolution is one of scale. To simply call it 'variation' is to say the differences between a dog and a cat is variation. The time-scale applied to all macro-evolutionary theories make it hard to observe it in front of one's eye; and even so, there are plenty of evidence for speciation or the on-going process of speciation. The post-chernobyl moth incident is one of them. Thus, looking at the different species in the world doesn't necessarily imply intelligent design, unless you want it to - which is what the creationist's latest bunch of BS comes from. It's extremely presumptious to say 'intelligent design' because then you have to provide proof of who this intelligent designer is, and the proof of god is beyond the realm of science. Also, to assume that it is 'god' is going back one thousand years in terms of scientific progress. I'll tell you one more time intelligent design is not a scientific idea; it is not a scientific inference; there's no observational evidence for intelligent design.
Terming the theory of evolution as a preconceived idea is idiotic. Do you even know what 'preconceived' means? By this regards, the theory of relativity is preconceived and presumptious too. Hell, anything known by science could then be termed as a 'preconceived notion'. No one rearranges the fossils in a way to support the theory, what kind of conspiracy theory crap is that? And what's this about a court accepting fossils as evidence? Do you even know how a scientific theory is accepted? If you think that fossils are just an account of something that died, then you don't understand the concept of fossil analysing (along with everything else you don't understand about science and evolution, but that's not surprising). And I'm slandering creationists on the basis of pure illogicality and irrationality.
Khi- NO NO NO! Evolution is a presumption. Intelligent Design is based on everyday observations. When we see such a perfect structure everywhere obviously any sane person will conclude tht there was a designer. If u see even a somewht good painting in the woods n there were no footprints, etc, u wld still conclude there was a painter wldnt u? So how the hell can one say tht living things 1000s of times more complex than all computer progs on the earth has not been intellgently designed. It doesnt make any sense. Wht is wrong with u?
lol This kind of pseudo-logical argument may work with your creationist buddies but please don't bring up this train of thought against me, it's insulting. The notion of everything being 'perfect' is a very subjective idea, so using it in something as objective as science is futile. And what if life's more complex' than computer programs? How does that somehow pertain to an Adam and Eve? I fail to see how complexity is an evidence in favour of creationism and against evolution. Complexity in structure can be defined easily by evolution - so what the hell are you smoking?
Khi- How do u know it works like tht? Again this is a guess, conjecture. If a half winged bird or a transission from dino 2 bird is not favorable then it cld not survive n we wldnt have birds as we have them
2day. In fact if we look at the universe everything is DECAYING i.e. xactly the oppsite of evolution. N then wht abt the pyramids n other such strucures. Nobody ever claimed them 2 be evolved n it wld be silly 2 do so. Similarly it is silly 2 claim tht such incredible n remarkable things as living beings came abt by evolution.Please shut up with some dignity while you still can.
I'll summarise your post for you "evolution is faith and there's no eidence for it even though I don't understand what evolution and evidence is".
Here's a list of BS that you have spewed forth in order to prove evolution wrong
How do u know it works like tht? Again this is a guess, conjecture.
In fact if we look at the universe everything is DECAYING i.e. exactly the oppsite of evolution.
N then wht abt the pyramids n other such strucures. Nobody ever claimed them 2 be evolved n it wld be silly 2 do so.
This is false. Evolution, ecept micro evolution, better termed variation, is a RELIGION.
There is no scientific evidence 4 it whtsoever.
Fossils cannot possibly cnt as evidence 4 evolution. There r a bunch of bones in the dirt u know without any date stamps on them.
lol...I should just quote your post in its entirety. Oh well - thanks for the laughs at least.
-
Salam,
Neo , Neo lsiten carefully. Im ready 2 talk with u at any time. R u ready? Then common n lets talk on any of the three messengers i mentioned or give me ur phone no so i can call u or call me. My no. is there. 2ndly in chat or posts abbrevations like u,4,shld,wht, etc r very common n u shld know this if u have been on the net 4 quite some time. GOD Bless! -
Salam,
R u a Muslim?The difference between microevolution and macroevolution is one of scale. To simply call it 'variation' is to say the differences between a dog and a cat is variation.
Khi- A cat n a dog r not the same kind of animal. A cat can never be observed evolving into a dog or vice versa.
The time-scale applied to all macro-evolutionary theories make it hard to observe it in front of one's eye; and even so, there are plenty of evidence for speciation or the on-going process of speciation. The post-chernobyl moth incident is one of them. Thus, looking at the different species in the world doesn't necessarily imply intelligent design, unless you want it to - which is what the creationist's latest bunch of BS comes from. It's extremely presumptious to say 'intelligent design' because then you have to provide proof of who this intelligent designer is, and the proof of god is beyond the realm of science. Also, to assume that it is 'god' is going back one thousand years in terms of scientific progress. I'll tell you one more time intelligent design is not a scientific idea; it is not a scientific inference; there's no observational evidence for intelligent design.
Khi- I said tht by looking for example at the amazing strucure of the DNA we can conclude tht someone must have deigned it n tht it did not come abt by chance. Then if we look at the harmony in the unicerse we again can notice tht there was a Designer unless ofcourse we r blinded by atheistic beliefs. U shld also note tht the atheists have made their own ego into god.
Terming the theory of evolution as a preconceived idea is idiotic. Do you even know what 'preconceived' means? By this regards, the theory of relativity is preconceived and presumptious too. Hell, anything known by science could then be termed as a 'preconceived notion'. No one rearranges the fossils in a way to support the theory, what kind of conspiracy theory crap is that? And what's this about a court accepting fossils as evidence? Do you even know how a scientific theory is accepted? If you think that fossils are just an account of something that died, then you don't understand the concept of fossil analysing (along with everything else you don't understand about science and evolution, but that's not surprising). And I'm slandering creationists on the basis of pure illogicality and irrationality.
Khi- Its always easy 2 say tht we dont understand u know better. See now. Ur a perfect example of an evolutionist who becomes red hot when so much evidence is presented against the theory of evolution. I stand on my pt. Fossils cannot cnt as evidence 4 evolution.
lol This kind of pseudo-logical argument may work with your creationist buddies but please don't bring up this train of thought against me, it's insulting. The notion of everything being 'perfect' is a very subjective idea, so using it in something as objective as science is futile. And what if life's more complex' than computer programs? How does that somehow pertain to an Adam and Eve? I fail to see how complexity is an evidence in favour of creationism and against evolution. Complexity in structure can be defined easily by evolution - so what the hell are you smoking?
Khi- If u see a computer wld u say it evolved or if u see software like microsoft do u say it evolved from random binary mutations over millions of years? The complexity shows tht there was a design indeed. Lemme give u another good example
We have mathematical laws that tell us whether a certain event is probable or not. If we throw five numbered cubes up
in the air and let them fall into a guided straight line, the
probability laws tell us the number of possible combinations we can
get 1x2x3x4x5=120 combinations. Thus, the probability of obtaining
any combination is 1 in 120, or 1/120, or 0.0086. This probability
diminishes fast when we increase the number of cubes. If we increase
them by one, the number of combinations becomes 1x2x3x4x5x6=720, and
the probability of getting any combination diminishes to 1/720,
0.0014. Mathematicians, who are very exacting scientists, have agreed
that the probability diminishes to "Zero" when we increase the number
of cubes to 84. If we work with 84 cubes, the probability diminishes
to 209x10 (raised to the power of) -50, or
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000209Darwin's famous statement that "life began as a `simple' cell" is
laughable. As recently as 50 years ago, Wells, Huxley, and Wells wrote
in their classic textbook that "nothing can be seen inside the nucleus
but clear fluid." We know now that the cell, is an extremely complex
unit, with billions of nucleotides in the gene material inside the
nucleus, and millions of biochemical reactions. The probability laws
tell us that the probability of the haphazard creation of the exacting
sequences of nucleotides into DNA is Zero, many times over. We are not
talking about 84 nucleotides; we are talking about billions of
nucleotides that must be arranged in a specific sequence.Some evolutionists have stated that the human gene and the monkey's
gene are 96% similar. However, even if the similarity was 99%, we are
still talking about 300,000,000 nucleotides that must be haphazardly
re-arranged to change the monkey into a human. The probability laws
preclude this as an utter impossibility. The human gene contains
30,000,000,000 nucleotides; 1% of that is 300,000,000.A fitting quote here is that of Professor Edwin Conklin; he stated
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to|
|the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an|
|explosion in a printing factory. |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+Please shut up with some dignity while you still can.
Khi- Is this a way 2 talk? ( GOD Bless!
-
Whether I am a muslim or not is irrelevant in this discussion. And no, a cat won't 'evolve' into a dog because the cat doesn't need to, it's usually in perfect equilibrium with its environment. But this is the point I was trying to draw - variation isn't the word to describe speciation. Especially not in its scientific context.
Going back to 'intelligent design' (which is a nickname for creationism, so I'm going to be using that from now on) - proclaiming the 'DNA' as an amazing structure and saying it's an ode to intelligent design is inaccurate. This kind of reasoning is called inductive reasoning, and it starts with a presumption. The logical line of thinking behind such reasoning is 'well, I believe in God, so let's see how I can get this piece of evidence to fit in with my idea of God'. Well, this is not a scientific process, this is a religious process. So please stop trying to claim intelligent design as a subdivision of science.
Ur a perfect example of an evolutionist who becomes red hot when so much evidence is presented against the theory of evolution. I stand on my pt. Fossils cannot cnt as evidence 4 evolution.
You have no point. Your reasons for not including fossils as evidence are
- Fossils are dead (no, really?!)
- They don't have a time-stamp (actually Einstein, yes, yes they do)
- No court would ever accept them (because it is the justice system that decides the progress of science)
So as you can see, your evidence is largely based on your fallacious understanding of evolution, and are in reality not so much as evidence as it is childish bantering. I'm not 'red hot', I'm just flabbergasted at your lack of knowledge and persistence, that's all.
If u see a computer wld u say it evolved or if u see software like microsoft do u say it evolved from random binary mutations over millions of years?
- Microsoft isn't a software, it's a software company. Get your facts and examples right, especially if you want to prove me wrong with them
- There's no such thing as 'random mutations' in the realm of computers, because computers are deterministic-machines.
The complexity shows tht there was a design indeed.
No, it doesn't. There's no objective measure of what 'complexity' is, therefore it does not pertain to a design, or anything really. Saying something is 'complex' and therefore must be designed is like saying 'it's black, so it must have come from africa'. There's really no relation.
The probability laws tell us that the probability of the haphazard creation of the exacting
sequences of nucleotides into DNA is Zero, many times over.Evolution does not deal with the creation of DNA, it deals with its progression. Case closed.
-
Whether I am a muslim or not is irrelevant in this discussion. And no, a cat won't 'evolve' into a dog because the cat doesn't need to, it's usually in perfect equilibrium with its environment. But this is the point I was trying to draw - variation isn't the word to describe speciation. Especially not in its scientific context.
Khi- Can u plz define speciation 4 me?
Going back to 'intelligent design' (which is a nickname for creationism, so I'm going to be using that from now on) - proclaiming the 'DNA' as an amazing structure and saying it's an ode to intelligent design is inaccurate. This kind of reasoning is called inductive reasoning, and it starts with a presumption. The logical line of thinking behind such reasoning is 'well, I believe in God, so let's see how I can get this piece of evidence to fit in with my idea of God'. Well, this is not a scientific process, this is a religious process. So please stop trying to claim intelligent design as a subdivision of science.
Khi- So evolution is the same. U find a bunch of bones in the dirt then arrange them according 2 ur preconceived idea of evolution. Both r religious but the idea of a Desgner makes much more sense.
You have no point. Your reasons for not including fossils as evidence are
- Fossils are dead (no, really?!)
- They don't have a time-stamp (actually Einstein, yes, yes they do)
- No court would ever accept them (because it is the justice system that decides the progress of science)
So as you can see, your evidence is largely based on your fallacious understanding of evolution, and are in reality not so much as evidence as it is childish bantering. I'm not 'red hot', I'm just flabbergasted at your lack of knowledge and persistence, that's all.
Khi- More gobbledygook. I hear such stetements from evolutionists every time.
- Microsoft isn't a software, it's a software company. Get your facts and examples right, especially if you want to prove me wrong with them
- There's no such thing as 'random mutations' in the realm of computers, because computers are deterministic-machines.
Khi- Sorry forgot the 's i.e. microsoft's. Is the DNA not a deterministic "machine". The codes there r fixed by the Designer.
No, it doesn't. There's no objective measure of what 'complexity' is, therefore it does not pertain to a design, or anything really. Saying something is 'complex' and therefore must be designed is like saying 'it's black, so it must have come from africa'. There's really no relation.
Khi- Ok so tht means watches, pyramids, etc all evolved too. If evolution were true we wld have found such simple things evolving 1st. The cells structure indicates design just like looking at a watch or a painting wld make any of us conclude tht it had a designer.
Evolution does not deal with the creation of DNA, it deals with its progression. Case closed.
Khi- But the DNAs of different animals r designed differently. Thts the whole pt. Therefore an ape cannot evolve into a human by random chance mutations. Case Closed! GOD Bless!
-
SaLaM bmbmm and idmkhizar
Here is one How is the genome get reprogrammed through evolution?
Since im no scientist, i will assume that this depends on the surrounding of the species. For example, giraffs have longer necks becoz their source of food came from high branches. Hence over time ( probably 100s of years ), their genes reprogrammed themselves to give the species a longer neck.
Another example would be, and correct me if im wrong, is that people living in africa, not all maybe, have a higher resistance to the UV light.
-
Hi Jaxal,
Good speculation. Actually adaptation is mostly true, when particular set of genes are activated and transcribed to produce an RNA and hence a change, but the DNA does not change. It is impossible to reprogramme DNA, undernormal conditions, and if it do occur it leads to diseases, hence evolution is rejected.
Peace