I Am An Atheist Forum & Chat Board | Science Disproves Evolution

Pahu, I would like to ask you; have you studied any of this yourself or simply looked up a quote from some individual that you probably don't even know...? 

I'm studying biology in college, and so far what I've learned is that the biochemical pathways (which is, I think, what you are talking about) are actually supposed to have evolved "backwards".  In other words, the last step in the pathway is actually the one that existed before the others, and as time went on, the pathways became more and more complex as the organisms themsleves became more complex. 

So, in short, I guess I fail to see how your "scientific facts" disprove evolution.  

unless I have been deceived, I believe there is a faction of creationists who renounce the theory of gravity, that might be fun to look into.....as we float away

Timeline:

1. Nothing.

2. Religion.

3. Religion is science - and not only in the medieval ages.

4. Religion makes science - and THE ONLY science for MANY centuries. 

5. Even NOWADAYS - THERE ARE MANY CONSEQUENCES TO THAT.

6. Even many of the atheists nowadays are quite brainwashed by what the religion did and is doing for so many centuries.

7. MANY of the most 'scientifically' looking theories EVEN NOWADAYS have at least SOME ROOTS WITH RELIGION. Look at the Big Bang Theory only that has many roots with many beliefs taken from the cosmogony of the more earliest times on Earth. Nobody notices that of course, and SO MANY similar things AS WELL.

Most people - including almost all scientists - are like sponges, and ONLY ACCEPT THE IDEAS PREVIOUSLY EXISTING, AND TRY TO ENLARGE AND DEVELOP THEM FURTHER.

Almost NO ONE EVER THINKS TO THE DEEPEST - whether all that IS TRUE OR NOT, WHERE IT COMES FROM, AND SO ON.

8. The very same is with the Evolution. The roots TO THIS IDEA COME FROM THE BIBLE.

How CAN NO ONE SEE THAT REALLY?

The religion MAKES MOST OF THE 'SCIENCE' EVEN NOWADAYS. The roots OF ALL THOSE IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE AND SO DEEP IN FACT THAT NO ONE NOTICES THAT.

Back to reductionist theory of evolution. Million previous posts on this can't be bothered to go over it all again. The steps didn't evolve in the complex form of now. Gradual process with some reactions being selcted over others. Thinking from the point of view that mankind was the idea behind evolution is the arrogance of the believers. It makes u blind to the truth You need ot be made more aware.

Nonsense sympatric and allopatric speciation have been observed. Get a life.

This ill informed crap about the fossil record does my loaf in. The timetable of the fossil record is based upon layer of sedimentary rocks. Whilst quoting that there are no definite transitional fossils two points are missed. Firstly the timetable of the fossil record is not impugned. show me a rabbit fossil in the Precambrian. Secondly the fossil record demands hard tissue and the transitional phases are going to be represented by soft tissue changes. the expression of genotypic plasticity in the phenotype only occurs in the reductionist nightmares. Look at the biochemistry if you want to understand evolution. Polymeric mutation is evident.  

Oh Pahu, you are hopeless...

lol!

I guess I don't have to answer since you got my username wrong...  ;)

...creationscience.com?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

OF COURSE they would post this story. These people would try to discredit evolution with any farfetched theory they could come up with. Why do you think the website has CREATION in the title? Because they're scientists? No, because they are silly creationists who have to resort to propaganda (how strange for theists, they never do that o.O) to prove a point which is wrong in the first place. This source is no more credible than if Nick Nolte had said it.

haha, wtg godsmack!  I myself had given up on Pahu because they don't seem to be listening, and then they go and post a whole 5 paragraphs of nonsense from that christian website of theirs... how unfortunate.  :(

Sorry Pahu, you can spout off all the psuedo-science bullshit you want, but that still won't make it true buddy.

Pahu, I get the feeling if a new species evolved right in front of your eyes, you would find some rationalization to deny the fact.

Evolution takes a long time hun. Man's recorded history is how long ? Even less when we could travel abroad and chronicle species in every corner of the planet. If you are so good at odds, what are the odds that in our blip of travel capable recorded existance, a new species would have popped up ? Our travel capable recorded existance is "the blink of an eye" compared with the age of the planet and evolutionary record. Not to mention there are places so remote we might not even know a new species existed for 10's of thousands of years until they branched out and grew into a form that would grab our attention in some way. Evolution is not magic. It is not instant. If I am still alive in a million years or so and nothing new has cropped up, I will concede to your argument.

Your disbelief in uncreated complexity seems not to account for chaos and order working in unison on the macro and micro levals. The nature of the universe is paradoxical and there could be infinite quantum signatures where life just did not make it as you say. We would happen to live in a signature that did survive. Ah but that's my belief in quantum theory talking, not fact. There is a difference.

Okay, I have to step in here. In college, I studied to be a geneticist-- I wanted to be a research scientist. It's painfully obvious to me that our friend Pahu has no schooling or training in the discipline of molecular biology (nor paleontology, for that matter--Pahu's understanding of the fossil record is simple at best).

Pahu, you are sorely misinformed.

"Creation science" is not science. It's silliness. Period. End of story. Citing that site was only one of your numerous mistakes.

Pahu, I admire your attempts to understand that which you clearly do not; you have so dutifully cut-and-pasted from a site of ill repute and even posted [misinformed and plagiarized] rebuttals. Your determination is as amazing as your gullibility. Your arguments, while colorful, are invalid and credulous.

Now STFU with the pseudo-science already.

Perhaps, with your own bizarre conclusions. (slaps forehead) Just because YOU can't believe more than 10 molecules in a body can come together without an invisible magician, does'nt mean the rest of us can't. I can quite easily see that that it is all driven by potential.

I was up late last night. had a bit of ice cream and turned on what I thought was a science fiction movie. It was on one of the normal cable channels, not a christain network. It turned out to be a christian propoganda movie loosly disguised as sci-fi. The "heroes" of the movie were like watching the Stepford Wives. I watched it for quite awhile simply in incredulity.

The scientist heroes of the show were also Christians. They built a time machine and went from the late 1800's into the present and saw how terrible we were because even when we had good morals, Christ was not involved so that made it a terrible thing. They would go into classrooms and teach kids that science was a great thing but if their scientific findings did not match up to the word of God in the bible that they must be wrong. In this case they were to throw out all of their findings until someone found an explanation that matched God's word in the Bible. ( I could agree with that if it were MY translation of the Bible LOL ) You know it makes me wonder how many Christian scientists out there have skewed their findings in favor of a sorely mistranslated book of religion. I know, someone credible would catch it eventually but... man this movie was scary. I've never seen anything like this on a non christian channel before.

Pahu, the problem is that just because the quote comes from a reputable publication does not mean that the periodical gives credence to the statement.

No scientist of any merit gives credence to the notion of creationism, why, because it does not meet the criteria of scientific reason. It all boils down to either "then god made it" or " then the aliens did this or that"

This is not science...its religion.

OMG, I can't help but be swayed by such a pervasive body of evidence. Evolution is wrong, the only possibility is that we were created by HORRIBLE MAUVE ALIENS!

That's right, our whole universe exists only as a computer model of a giant Petri dish, we're just subjects in an unnatural experiment. THE EXPEREMENTS MUST END! WE MUST ALL KILL OURSELVES AND DEPRIVE OUR ALIEN MASTERS OF THE PLEASURE OF ABDUCTING US AND PROBING OUR *****!

Wow what a train wreck. Quoting Behe and creationscience at the same time.

Hahahaha, you just don't give up do you?

Pahu...you're the ONLY one actually stating FACTS and has a LOGICAL trend of thought and making sense....well done.....don't get discouraged....keep it up!

Haha, RightandWrong, he isn't doing anything remotely close to that. All he is doing is copy/pasting creationist jargon meant to sound like science. There is nothing reputable about a single one of his posts, lol.