If God doesn't Exist Explain To Me How This Happened By Chance

PREMIUM3G said:
Boris said:
No, it doesn't. All evolution states is that genes are changing over time. Hopefully you are aware of antibiotic resistant bacteria or the new strains of viruses that come about every year. That is the result of evolution. This is a fact of life whether you willfully ignore it or not.


Really? Because here (http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/index.html
) we see empirical evidence of evolution. In other words, DATA exists. And that's just one example! So either you are ignorant of the evidence or you conveniently ignore it.

Please educate yourself and stop spewing false information. 
Click to expand...
the evolution of E.Coli and the human genome is entirely 2 different subjects. Stop quoting things you learned last semester in Bio 201.

empirical evidence of HUMAN evolution. not E.Coli evolution... children always point to the LAST thing they saw. forgetting entirely of all they learned previously...
Click to expand...
You might want to think before you write next time. Here's exactly what you said:
PREMIUM3G said:
Darwins theory isnt backed by DATA per se.
Click to expand...
I provided data that directly supports evolutionary theory. Now, surely you understand that evolution was intended to account for all organisms? You never specifically singled out humans. My guess is that you're flopping because you were just shown to be wrong. Your fault. 

I'm just not so sure you understand what genes are or how they work. I mean, can you actually provide any substantial argument for why the genes of E. coli would be subject to mutation and natural selection and humans genes wouldn't? You can't. I'm not going to bother presenting examples of human evolution because you'll make excuses for why those don't adhere to your misunderstanding of what evolution is. 
 
Boris said:
You might want to think before you write next time. Here's exactly what you said:


I provided data that directly supports evolutionary theory. Now, surely you understand that evolution was intended to account for all organisms? You never specifically singled out humans. My guess is that you're flopping because you were just shown to be wrong. Your fault. 

I'm just not so sure you understand what genes are or how they work. I mean, can you actually provide any substantial argument for why the genes of E. coli would be subject to mutation and natural selection and humans genes wouldn't? You can't. I'm not going to bother presenting examples of human evolution because you'll make excuses for why those don't adhere to your misunderstanding of what evolution is. 
Click to expand...
do as you please. You win bro
 
THE FOLLOWING IS NOT MY WORDS.... I JUST STUMBLED UPON THIS A FEW MINUTES AGO LOOKING UP "DARWINS THEORY" 

SOME PEOPLE FEEL THE SAME WAY I DO BUT TO AN EXTREME.. HERE .. WE ... GO....

((Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is Wrong, False and Impossible)) 


Now before the Mods delete this, I would like to explore this as I am doing so in the wrong threads, so please bear with me. Please do not delete any of this as I want folks to at least read it, if you must, fine me points if necessary, but let me keep the text as I have presented it please.


The scoffers will immediately dismiss the source, but some who would like to discuss this would maybe like to dispute the information presented. If the source is absolute bunk then the brilliant minds here should be able to dismiss these 'theories' outright no? 

I would like to do it this way if you don't mind, Pick a number and then discuss only that number in your reply. Please title each of your responses with the number so readers can follow. 

I will post mine first.........as a reply to another thread with BH. It was brought up that evolution is only theory but supported by Science and that no Creation can be supported as such....so lets see. 

Please lets keep it civil, (ME INCLUDED)  


The body and soul of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates. 






Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

 
Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small. 


The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense. 



Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong  

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution. 
 

Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong  

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals. 


Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong  

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons. 


Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong  

 

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed. 


Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong  

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory. 


Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong  

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom. 


Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong  

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere. 



Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong  

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.


Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong  

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone. 

LIFE WAS FOUND ELSEWHERE IN THE FORM OF MICRO ORGANISMS
 
wow.... that rant above was written by somebody who doesn't understand natural selection.... then they go off into bio-genesis and lack of life on mars to support their argument, both of which have nothing to do with natural selection.

please post the source of the article and I will start to break down each section.

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed.
Click to expand...

Down syndrome = extra chromosome

..checkmate
 
Last edited:
Scientific fact #1 - Seriously? Do Darwin's finches mean nothing here? The same birds that all changed differently in order to match their environment's needs? There are not many flightless birds, but off the top of my head, it's been the advantage. Penguins for example. They need to dive in the water and swim, so wings are needed more for swimming than flying. Why wasn't the bird that was at its disadvantage named?


Scientific Fact #2 - Actually monkeys, giraffes, and whales have been tested pretty equally. As well as bats. The reason they get attention is because it is believed we all evolved from a common ancestor. The proof, certain organs/bone structures that we all share that mean nothing to certain organisms. The same structures are slowly leaving this organism by the process of natural selection. Monkeys, however, receive a lot of attention when speaking about humans because they are our closest "cousin" species.

Scientific Fact #3 - "scientists a century ago"

Scientific Fact#4 - Natural Selection works externally. Here is an example. A fox is born albino, compared to his brown fox friends. The environment is a snowy plain. The albino fox fits naturally in this environment and finds food with no problems. The brown foxes are seen before they are able to catch food and therefore, they die. The albino fox lives on to reproduce and that albino gene is now passed on through the generations. Over time, the foxes born white will out live the brown fox in the snow plain.

Scientific Fact #5 - Again, natural selection works externally. The genes that survive are then introduced into the rest of the population through reproduction. And the introduction of the albino gene is pretty plausible since it happens everyday.



I don't think I need to continue, as well as the fact you disproved number 10 yourself :lol:
 
PREMIUM3G said:
THE FOLLOWING IS NOT MY WORDS.... I JUST STUMBLED UPON THIS A FEW MINUTES AGO LOOKING UP "DARWINS THEORY" 

SOME PEOPLE FEEL THE SAME WAY I DO BUT TO AN EXTREME.. HERE .. WE ... GO....

Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong  

 

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed. 
Click to expand...
Do you know what cancer is? 
 
Has anyone on NT ever say, "Ooohh shoot, I think I believe in God now. Wow, you did it son!" Based on any of these discussions ???
 
Last edited:
Boris said:
PREMIUM3G said:
THE FOLLOWING IS NOT MY WORDS.... I JUST STUMBLED UPON THIS A FEW MINUTES AGO LOOKING UP "DARWINS THEORY" 

SOME PEOPLE FEEL THE SAME WAY I DO BUT TO AN EXTREME.. HERE .. WE ... GO....

Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong
 



 


The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed. 
Click to expand...

Do you know what cancer is? 
Click to expand...

Please do explain (I'm not coming at you, I'm genuinely interested on your take of how cancer works)
 
Last edited:
fac3 tak30v312 said:
Boris said:
PREMIUM3G said:
THE FOLLOWING IS NOT MY WORDS.... I JUST STUMBLED UPON THIS A FEW MINUTES AGO LOOKING UP "DARWINS THEORY" 

SOME PEOPLE FEEL THE SAME WAY I DO BUT TO AN EXTREME.. HERE .. WE ... GO....

Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong
 






 




The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed. 
Click to expand...
Do you know what cancer is? 
Click to expand...
Please do explain (I'm not coming at you, I'm genuinely interested on your take of how cancer works)
Click to expand...
In short, damage to DNA can eventually result in uncontrolled cell growth. The fact is that changes to DNA do happen and are not stopped or reversed. 
 
You're partially right and so is the person you're quoting. There is built in error checking in DNA replication but not in RNA replication and cancer is essentially the deletion of the stop sequence of a given cells dna codons. It can also result from the damage to the receptor site (if I'm remembering the correct name) that is suppose to be looking for that stop signal
 
fac3 tak30v312 said:
You're partially right and so is the person you're quoting. There is built in error checking in DNA replication but not in RNA replication and cancer is essentially the deletion of the stop sequence of a given cells dna codons. It can also result from the damage to the receptor site (if I'm remembering the correct name) that is suppose to be looking for that stop signal
Click to expand...
Cancer can result, for example, from changes to oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes, and DNA repair genes. How is what I said only partially correct?
 
fac3 tak30v312 said:
You're partially right and so is the person you're quoting. There is built in error checking in DNA replication but not in RNA replication and cancer is essentially the deletion of the stop sequence of a given cells dna codons. It can also result from the damage to the receptor site (if I'm remembering the correct name) that is suppose to be looking for that stop signal
Click to expand...
that is not how cancer works. 
 
Lol who ever wrote those "proofs" of evolution being wrong is the missing link. Industrial grade stupidity indeed. And of course people who don't believe in evolution no matter how much proof there is will take that nonsense as fact.
 
LOL. "Scientific" Fact 5 actaully helps prove evolution correct if anything. 
 
Last edited:
I see people have brought out the creationist vs evolutionist argument out. I think a lot of folk bring darwing out when they're corned just can't prove anything else, so they try to knit pick at the very basis of the long research about evolution. They attack darwins theories the same way they were attacked in the 1800's... in the 2013 LOL. You guys say humans haven't gone through any more evolution or try to refute the evolution and constant adaptation of micro-organisms and diseases to our antibiotics because you lack the knowledge or any for that matter, of how hard it's becoming to come up with more antibiotics to fight off diseases that are adapting too quick to our solutions. Now, we should also take into account cultural effects on the human evolution i,e; turning our lifestyles from foraging to sedentary peoples, domestication of animals, living in close groups next other humans, etc... I think a lot of you are focused on visual evolution, you know? Stuff that we can see in the human body. Since you're putting so much emphasis on the physical attributes (why don't humans have 4 arms?! durr durr), I think you're dismissing other evolutionary ways that humans have evolved over time, or very recently. I'll point one out that should be a given. Humans were unable to digest milk, but guess what, now we can, that is called evolution. I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that once humans became sedentary and relied on domesticated plants and animals, they had to figure out ways to get more food and milk was one of these ways, thus our systems adapting to the digestion of lactose.

2 articles that shed some light on this...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/science/02evo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://onthehuman.org/2009/12/does-culture-prevent-or-drive-human-evolution/
 
awww good ole philosphy debate

the theory of design, its only natural to feel this way sometimes but yea somethings just cant be explained yet
 
If someone was able to disprove the theory of evolution at this point they'd get a noble prize. It's not really a debate at this point, the evidence is there and it serves as a foundation for much of biology.
 
00david00 said:
If someone was able to disprove the theory of evolution at this point they'd get a noble prize. It's not really a debate at this point, the evidence is there and it serves as a foundation for much of biology.
Click to expand...

My bio professor at Amherst was a Christian and he said there is proof of horizontal variation (i.e. donkey and a horse mating) but not of vertical evolution (i.e. horse transitioning into a giraffe). He said evolution is a theory not a proof. Natural selection is different because it kills off existing species but does not create new ones .
 
AJIIIpLATINum said:
00david00 said:
If someone was able to disprove the theory of evolution at this point they'd get a noble prize. It's not really a debate at this point, the evidence is there and it serves as a foundation for much of biology.
Click to expand...

My bio professor at Amherst was a Christian and he said there is proof of horizontal variation (i.e. donkey and a horse mating) but not of vertical evolution (i.e. horse transitioning into a giraffe). He said evolution is a theory not a proof. Natural selection is different because it kills off existing species but does not create new ones .
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Natural Selection doesn't "kill off" existing species, it makes them stronger. Or weaker, depending on the environment.

Looking back on my white fox example.

Brown foxes live in a snow plain. They have trouble catching prey due to their color against the snow. A gene mutation causes a fox to be born albino. This fox has no trouble catching prey due to it's camouflage. This albino fox mates, and it's gene gets passed on. Creating more albino foxes, and removing the brown gene over time due to them starving from a lack of food. Thus, no species has been killed off, but it's been improved and more adapted to its situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest News

View All News

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom