Evolution is Impossible....

Hahaha! You can talk!

You and me both. I wish I could debate like that. I think it just takes a little more effort than most are willing to exert is all.

If you do not want to hear what I have to say... just tell me so I dont have to waist time.... but if you are unwilling to look at the facts then you are just lost in the first place... Science sometimes can disprove itself... science in some cases can contradict itself... you cannot take science at face value, I do believe that scientitst said that we are experiencing "global warming", but diddn't they also say that we are coming out of an Ice Age? Isn't it supposed to warm up?

Anyone and just about everyone here is willing to hear what you have to say, but if you give us an uninformed and unintelligible opinion, we're going to judge you and everything you say based on that. Present us with intelligent posts and an informed opinion or factual information and we will listen to you. You type and talk like a 12 year old, everything you say is incredibly biased, and any time anyone gives you anything that hints that you might be even slightly wrong, you avoid that and comment on something else(and usually give some more unintelligible bullshit.)


For instance, a few years ago MJordan typed very similar to how you do, and I thought he was an idiot and a moron at the time, but he presents himself as a very intelligent young man, and that's how I see him now. I've got almost 3 years on him and he talks like a professor compared to me.


I feel I must comment on your "unable to look at the facts" statement. The irony of this statement is that you're pretty much just describing yourself. Mjordan presented numerous facts to you and you ignored them.

So if the origin of species can be outlined... how come scientists cant piece anything together? Do they not have anything to back their theroies?

THEY HAVE EVIDENCE TO BACK THEIR THEORIES. The electromagnetic force can't be put together piece by piece. That doesn't mean we don't have significant evidence towards the existence of an electromagnetic force in the natural world. That was the whole point of my "building a computer" analogy. I guess you missed it. What I was trying to say is you don't need to know something piece by piece to put together something working, whether that be a working computer or a working theory.

Lets try another, less subtle analogy. Though legal vernacular and scientific vernacular are significantly different, I think the American government attempts to use the scientific method in their judicial system, so I think this is a valid, and far less subtle analogy.

Lets say you're a homicide detective. It's 8 AM, you get to work, and find out you have a new case. A woman was murdered last night at 10:22 PM in a hotel. You go and investigate the case. You discover that the woman was killed by blunt force trauma to the head. After the autopsy is performed, you discover by the shape of the indentions in her skull that the most likely weapon used to kill her was a baseball bat. You also find that she suffered vaginal tearing. This indicates that she was most likely raped. Luckily for you, the medical examiner also find semen on the woman. After running the DNA sample through the database, you find that it is a perfect match to a John Doe, a registered sex offender. You go back to the hotel and get security tapes. You don't see the murder itself, but at 10:24 PM you see John Doe on the same floor as that woman with a bloody baseball bat walking towards the elevator. You get a search warrant, go to John Doe's house. You find the baseball bat. After running the residual fluids on the bat through some testing, you find that the blood on the bat matches our victim's blood. John's shoes also have some traces of her blood on them.

Here, any logical person would deduce that John murdered our young woman. There is apodictic evidence pointing towards it.

The evidence:
- indentions in the victim's head
- vaginal tearing
- John being a registered sex offender
- the DNA match of the semen to that of John
- the seucirty tape
- the bat
- the blood on the bat
- the blood on the shoes

Though detectives have a good outline of how the murder was performed, they can not put it together piece by piece. They can not show the jury how John swung at the woman. They can not show the jury exactly how she was raped. They can not tell the jury what went through her head while she was being raped. They can not tell the jury just what went through his head while he was beating her with the baseball bat. But any reasonable person would conclude that John Doe killed our young woman. It would be lunacy to assume that she raped and bludgeoned herself to death, or that the four year old across the hall raped and bludgeoned her to death. Which is, for all practical purposes, what you are doing. Lunacy.

The sad thing is, the evidence towards John Doe's guilt in this case is far less conclusive than the evidence we have pointing towards the validity of evolution.

Man made creations are very simple compared to an organism... a computer does not have the ability to replicate itself unless it is told how to do it... I dont think that animals accidentially learned how to survive.... The problem with evolution is probibilty... not everything happens perfectly. Unlike a computer(which can be built by precision and in one day), evolution is a chance based system... evolution is completely based on chance... so by chance we happened to get the brain power that we have today... by chance we exist today.

Evolution does not happen by accident or chance. It is stupid to assume it does. It is very precise. That does not, however, mean that there is some intelligent, omnipotent, omnipresent force guiding it. You really should do some reading on evolution. You seem to be grossly misinformed about how it works.

Yes scientists can create some organisms synthetically, but they dont leave it up to chance for the organism to form.... they controll the process...

Again, it is not chance. Consider the Miller-Urey experiment. After simulating the conditions of a young earth, 15% of the carbon introduced in the experiment had formed organic compounds after only a week. 13 of the 22 amino acids found in proteins had also formed within one week. This experiment strongly indicates that the building blocks for life could be produced by inorganic processes, and do not require life first to synthesize them. If, like you said, that this is a simple one in a trillion chance then it just happend again. That's twice. In a row.

Yet, these animals need these traits to survive

That's the entire point. Most transitional abilities are not vestigial. They are useful to the animal. These traits make them more fit to survive in their given environment. After further evolution, they will become even more adept at surviving in their environment.

Correction, photons are packets of electrons... when they hit the eye the electrons are released and I already explained the rest...

Negative. Photons are quanta of light, or energy. By light I mean anything on the electromagnetic spectrum. Light, of course, observes the phenomenon of wave-particle dualty. When an electron is excited it moves to an outside orbital. This gives the electron more potential energy. This extra energy comes from absorbing a photon of particularly the right frequency. To calculate the right frequency, you divide the increase in potential energy by Dirac's constant. When an electron moves back to an inside orbital, it emits a photon. The frequency of this photon can be calculated in a similar manner. Don't take my word for it, though:

. . . light itself is quantized; the quanta of light are photons.

He wrote how the eye could have evolved... in a perfect world. Just because it can dosen't mean it will... you just cant say that that probibility will turn out to help a species unless you can also say that probibility will also harm a species as well... It is almost like rolling a die with a trillion different sides and saying that you could roll the same number twice in a row, its not going to happen... the odds are completely against you...

But natural selection makes it very different from rolling a die with a trillion different sides. Evolution is not random. It is precise. Darwin's verson of the evolution of the eye very much coincides with fact, and our natural world.

If you look at evolution so critically, why not examine your own theory as critically? I believe if you look at it objectively, you will find it has far more flaws.

Science sometimes can disprove itself... science in some cases can contradict itself... you cannot take science at face value, I do believe that scientitst said that we are experiencing "global warming", but diddn't they also say that we are coming out of an Ice Age? Isn't it supposed to warm up?

I do not know much about meteorology, however I have a friend who will own you, chew you up, and spit you out on this topic. If you would like, I can get her. However, this is not the appropriate thread to discuss global warming. You can create another one if you like, and I will have her post on behalf of myself, or her give me the facts anyway.

I also presented many other facts in my previous two posts which you ignored completely. If it is possible for you to do so, I would like to see a rebuttle on those points. Or can you not rebuke them?

Also, you never answered my original question. What would it take for me to reasonably convince you of the validity of evolution?

mj amazes me at times. I actually need to wake up my freaking brain so I can read and comprehend his posts. I hate meteorology but I gotta take it to get a Physics Degree so plz have her post something on that.

I also presented many other facts in my previous two posts which you ignored completely. If it is possible for you to do so, I would like to see a rebuttle on those points. Or can you not rebuke them?

He's obviously plugging his ears and going "LALALALALA".

No more flash

Thank you.

It's still on every other page of this thread. I felt it necessary.

You ripped off what I said earlier!

Actually I believe on page 2 I said something similar and then on page 4 you ripped off what I said. So there.

THEY HAVE EVIDENCE TO BACK THEIR THEORIES. The electromagnetic force can't be put together piece by piece. That doesn't mean we don't have significant evidence towards the existence of an electromagnetic force in the natural world. That was the whole point of my "building a computer" analogy. I guess you missed it. What I was trying to say is you don't need to know something piece by piece to put together something working, whether that be a working computer or a working theory. Lets try another, less subtle analogy. Though legal vernacular and scientific vernacular are significantly different, I think the American government attempts to use the scientific method in their judicial system, so I think this is a valid, and far less subtle analogy. Lets say you're a homicide detective. It's 8 AM, you get to work, and find out you have a new case. A woman was murdered last night at 10:22 PM in a hotel. You go and investigate the case. You discover that the woman was killed by blunt force trauma to the head. After the autopsy is performed, you discover by the shape of the indentions in her skull that the most likely weapon used to kill her was a baseball bat. You also find that she suffered vaginal tearing. This indicates that she was most likely raped. Luckily for you, the medical examiner also find semen on the woman. After running the DNA sample through the database, you find that it is a perfect match to a John Doe, a registered sex offender. You go back to the hotel and get security tapes. You don't see the murder itself, but at 10:24 PM you see John Doe on the same floor as that woman with a bloody baseball bat walking towards the elevator. You get a search warrant, go to John Doe's house. You find the baseball bat. After running the residual fluids on the bat through some testing, you find that the blood on the bat matches our victim's blood. John's shoes also have some traces of her blood on them. Here, any logical person would deduce that John murdered our young woman. There is apodictic evidence pointing towards it. The evidence: - indentions in the victim's head - vaginal tearing - John being a registered sex offender - the DNA match of the semen to that of John - the seucirty tape - the bat - the blood on the bat - the blood on the shoes Though detectives have a good outline of how the murder was performed, they can not put it together piece by piece. They can not show the jury how John swung at the woman. They can not show the jury exactly how she was raped. They can not tell the jury what went through her head while she was being raped. They can not tell the jury just what went through his head while he was beating her with the baseball bat. But any reasonable person would conclude that John Doe killed our young woman. It would be lunacy to assume that she raped and bludgeoned herself to death, or that the four year old across the hall raped and bludgeoned her to death. Which is, for all practical purposes, what you are doing. Lunacy. The sad thing is, the evidence towards John Doe's guilt in this case is far less conclusive than the evidence we have pointing towards the validity of evolution.

Yes, the John Doe case has a lot more evedence... unlike evolution(which has none)...

Evolution does not happen by accident or chance. It is stupid to assume it does. It is very precise. That does not, however, mean that there is some intelligent, omnipotent, omnipresent force guiding it. You really should do some reading on evolution. You seem to be grossly misinformed about how it works.

So if evolution works the way you say, then the information for the evolutionary change must be in the DNA of everything, meaning that scientists would have seen a corrilation between animals, and humans...

[ Again, it is not chance. Consider the Miller-Urey experiment. After simulating the conditions of a young earth, 15% of the carbon introduced in the experiment had formed organic compounds after only a week. 13 of the 22 amino acids found in proteins had also formed within one week. This experiment strongly indicates that the building blocks for life could be produced by inorganic processes, and do not require life first to synthesize them. If, like you said, that this is a simple one in a trillion chance then it just happend again. That's twice. In a row.

If you knew about the entire experiment you would have known that the experiment also produced a toxic compound along with the proteins, no life could heve even begun...

[ That's the entire point. Most transitional abilities are not vestigial. They are useful to the animal. These traits make them more fit to survive in their given environment. After further evolution, they will become even more adept at surviving in their environment. Negative. Photons are quanta of light, or energy. By light I mean anything on the electromagnetic spectrum. Light, of course, observes the phenomenon of wave-particle dualty. When an electron is excited it moves to an outside orbital. This gives the electron more potential energy. This extra energy comes from absorbing a photon of particularly the right frequency. To calculate the right frequency, you divide the increase in potential energy by Dirac's constant. When an electron moves back to an inside orbital, it emits a photon. The frequency of this photon can be calculated in a similar manner. Don't take my word for it, though: But natural selection makes it very different from rolling a die with a trillion different sides. Evolution is not random. It is precise. Darwin's verson of the evolution of the eye very much coincides with fact, and our natural world. If you look at evolution so critically, why not examine your own theory as critically? I believe if you look at it objectively, you will find it has far more flaws.

Like I said before, if everything happened so perfectly wouldent it be in the DNA of everything to come out so perfectly?

[ I do not know much about meteorology, however I have a friend who will own you, chew you up, and spit you out on this topic. If you would like, I can get her. However, this is not the appropriate thread to discuss global warming. You can create another one if you like, and I will have her post on behalf of myself, or her give me the facts anyway. I also presented many other facts in my previous two posts which you ignored completely. If it is possible for you to do so, I would like to see a rebuttle on those points. Or can you not rebuke them? Also, you never answered my original question. What would it take for me to reasonably convince you of the validity of evolution?

I woulden't mind if you brought her to the debate... be my guest...

I answered this question... I said that if you could show me concrete evidence of evolution then I would be convinced... I guess nobody looks at my posts...

For pete's sake, man! Get your spelling sorted out! If there's one thing a lot of us hate, it's reading a post with spelling errors every other word.

Yes, the John Doe case has a lot more evedence... unlike evolution(which has none)...

Your claims that evolution has no evidence is irrelevant, since you've childishly ignored any evidence I have presented to you. Furthermore, the evidence I have presented does not even encompass a significant fraction for the evidence pointing towards the validity of evolution. Until you grow the balls to rebuke the evidence I have presented, I should take it that I have clearly and concisely presented a very small portion of the evidence pointing towards the validity of evolution, and that I have won that portion of the debate since you clearly have nothing else to say about it.

So if evolution works the way you say, then the information for the evolutionary change must be in the DNA of everything, meaning that scientists would have seen a corrilation between animals, and humans...

They have...

If you knew about the entire experiment you would have known that the experiment also produced a toxic compound along with the proteins, no life could heve even begun...

I have read extensively on the Miller-Urey experiment, and have no ever heard of any toxic compounds that would prevent the formation of life given ample amount of time. However, once again, biology completely shoots over your grimy, undersized cranium, and you once again have missed the point of the experiment. This experiment demonstrated that the building blocks of life could form on their own in the proper environment. That was its purpose. Any toxins that may have formed do not defeat that purpose. Furthermore, life needn't evolve exactly the way it is now. What is toxic for us needn't be for life that is somewhat chemically different from us, as it almost undoubtedly would be. However, I'm fairly certain no life-threatening toxins were found in the experiment. Furthermore, proteins were not formed in the experiment. Get your facts straight.

I woulden't mind if you brought her to the debate... be my guest...

Make a thread about it.

I answered this question... I said that if you could show me concrete evidence of evolution then I would be convinced... I guess nobody looks at my posts...

THEN READ YOU FUCKING FUNK-BUNNY! I will represent the very small amount of evidence I have presented:

. . . speciation has been observed. Here are four well-known examples. These do not encompass all or most of the available examples: Drosophila paulistorum developing hybrid sterility in male offspring A species of firewood that was formed by doubling the chromosome count from the original stock The faeroe island house mouse speciated in less than 250 years after being brought to the island by man Five species of cichlid fish formed after being isolated from the original stock.

. . .fossilized evidence towards evolution . . . Archaeopteryx fossils coelacanth fossils Fish Fossils Gish on Precambrian fossils Hominid Fossils Horse fossils Polystrate fossils punctuated equilibria trilobites whale fossils and oh yes...transitional fossils

Of course the fact that these fossils form a sort of phylogenetic tree . . .

. . .bacteria's increasing resilience to antibiotics is an observation of evolution.

- Bacteria's resilience to antibiotics - Mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS - Mutations in humans confer resistance to heart disease - mutations in humans makes bones stronger - Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity - Ribozymes - Adaptation to high and low temperatures in E. Coli - mutation which allows growth in the dark for Chlamydomonas - mutation which allows yeast to grow in a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment - new enzymatic functions by recombination

Again, it is not chance. Consider the Miller-Urey experiment. After simulating the conditions of a young earth, 15% of the carbon introduced in the experiment had formed organic compounds after only a week. 13 of the 22 amino acids found in proteins had also formed within one week. This experiment strongly indicates that the building blocks for life could be produced by inorganic processes, and do not require life first to synthesize them. If, like you said, that this is a simple one in a trillion chance then it just happend again. That's twice. In a row.

(Not really evidence for evolution, but evidence towards spontaneous abiogenesis.)

You can consider the following "transisional" in the sense that they do not have all the same features and abilities of similar creatures: - The flying squirrel, which could be on its way to becoming more batlike - The euglena, which appears well on its way to becoming a plant - Aquatic snakes - any animal with an "infrared eye" - various fish that can survive on land for extended periods of time

Darwin's verson of the evolution of the eye very much coincides with fact, and our natural world.

Now why don't you pull your head out of your ass and actually reply to the facts, Captain Oblivious? While you're at it, why not answer the simple fucking questions that I've been asking over and over. I'll put them in big font for you so you don't accidently miss them, because I know reading must be a bit of a challenge for someone so mentally challenged.

What would it take for me to reasonably convince you of the validity of evolution?

Evidence has been presented. Until you can learn to answer what's been presented thus far, I'm not about to bite and give you anymore. If you wanted to objectively look at the matter at hand, you could easily google it, but you're a fucking troll. Nevertheless, this is the most fun I've had on Zelaron for quite a while, so I'll continue to feed you facts as long as you continue to feed me your ignorance.

If you look at evolution so critically, why not examine your own theory as critically?

MJ, there's no other explaination than this guy is a troll. He's getting off on you doing all this pretty much. And it's really annoying.

I really cannot see any other way he could be so stupid. It's just not possible.

MJ, there's no other explaination than this guy is a troll. He's getting off on you doing all this pretty much. And it's really annoying.

Yea, but this is still the most fun I've had here for a while, so I'll continue to bite.

You know what's going to happen now, right?

He'll come on, and post a reply: "but you still havent given me any evedence".

And then say the bible is proof that christianity is right and science is wrong.

I admit, I haven't actually read his posts since Pg1... I skim them and use them as a summary of mj's posts!

Has Draco mentioned the Bible at all?

Your claims that evolution has no evidence is irrelevant, since you've childishly ignored any evidence I have presented to you. Furthermore, the evidence I have presented does not even encompass a significant fraction for the evidence pointing towards the validity of evolution. Until you grow the balls to rebuke the evidence I have presented, I should take it that I have clearly and concisely presented a very small portion of the evidence pointing towards the validity of evolution, and that I have won that portion of the debate since you clearly have nothing else to say about it.

Actually, I figured since no one showed me any evidence I had nothing elts to say... but, in light of what you said...
any evidence that pointed tward evolution was either a fake or just something that was 'believed' to be an evolutionary creature... yet all of those things were dissmissed...
I guess you could say that I am still waiting for the evidence that finally helps evolution...

I have read extensively on the Miller-Urey experiment, and have no ever heard of any toxic compounds that would prevent the formation of life given ample amount of time. However, once again, biology completely shoots over your grimy, undersized cranium, and you once again have missed the point of the experiment. This experiment demonstrated that the building blocks of life could form on their own in the proper environment. That was its purpose. Any toxins that may have formed do not defeat that purpose. Furthermore, life needn't evolve exactly the way it is now. What is toxic for us needn't be for life that is somewhat chemically different from us, as it almost undoubtedly would be. However, I'm fairly certain no life-threatening toxins were found in the experiment. Furthermore, proteins were not formed in the experiment. Get your facts straight. (Not really evidence for evolution, but evidence towards spontaneous abiogenesis.)

I found this web site on the Miller-Urey experiment...

<http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/MillerUreyexp.html>

I noticed the sentence last sentence where it talks about what formed in the flask... it said that various tars formed...

As a direct quote from Wikipedia, "Tar is a disinfectant substance, and used as such."...

Now if you think of a common single celled organism that we kill off using disinfectants, you can see that tar is your toxic compound ...

Now why don't you pull your head out of your ass and actually reply to the facts, Captain Oblivious? While you're at it, why not answer the simple fucking questions that I've been asking over and over. I'll put them in big font for you so you don't accidently miss them, because I know reading must be a bit of a challenge for someone so mentally challenged. What would it take for me to reasonably convince you of the validity of evolution?

Lets stay at a higher level than childish name calling...
And I have answered your question about four or five times now... it almost seems as if you don't like my answer and you want me to change it...

Evidence has been presented. Until you can learn to answer what's been presented thus far, I'm not about to bite and give you anymore. If you wanted to objectively look at the matter at hand, you could easily google it, but you're a fucking troll. Nevertheless, this is the most fun I've had on Zelaron for quite a while, so I'll continue to feed you facts as long as you continue to feed me your ignorance.

Like I said above, "...I am still waiting for the evidence that finally helps evolution...", untill you can give me proper facts on this you have nothing...