Evolution is Impossible....

Need similar accounts? Yahoo? Are you telling me that there is a whole class of Americans somewhere who have never heard of Hotmail? Or even Gmail?!

What's worse? Bible bashing Texans or Red Neck Christians from Georgia? Serious question.

Need similar accounts? Yahoo? Are you telling me that there is a whole class of Americans somewhere who have never heard of Hotmail? Or even Gmail?! What's worse? Bible bashing Texans or Red Neck Christians from Georgia? Serious question.

It was also easy to keep up with...

I'd say Bible bashing Texans... but thats because they are bible bashers...

Bible bashers are better than christians.

Need similar accounts? Yahoo? Are you telling me that there is a whole class of Americans somewhere who have never heard of Hotmail? Or even Gmail?! What's worse? Bible bashing Texans or Red Neck Christians from Georgia? Serious question.

Dude I can put up with Texicans, but hillbillies are just too stupid. I live in a hillbilly state right now because it's cheaper to fly to Japan from here. No one can read, spell, or write with a readable penmanship.

Also christians are stupid. No matter who becomes one they always lose a lot of their intelligence and wisdom and they are terrible cooks as well!

My vote for Red Neck Christians.

For those of you that have looked at the website:

http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/rewards.html

I believe that if you could prove evolution possible, those rewards would have been taken already... and most of these have been going on for years....

Of course we can prove it POSSIBLE. But we can't prove it to be FACT.

I'll give you a thousand dollars if you can prove to me that your religion and your god are FACT. Seriously. If you can give me hard evidence proving to me that your god is indeed real, I will give you a thousand dollars.

Just because we can't PROVE it doesn't mean it's not true. Same goes for your god and your religion. You can't prove it's real, I can't prove it isn't. I can't prove evolution is real, you can't prove it isn't.

It comes down to faith vs evidence when the evidence is so far to one side of an arguement. I'm not saying your beliefs are wrong, but the evidence points to evolution. I chose to believe the evidence rather than put my faith in the opposite. You chose to put your faith into something that is almost completely lacking evidence, which is a brave thing to do, and could be rewarding in the end if you were right.

For all we know, you could be right and I could be wrong, I'll end up in hell and you wont. Until then, I'm a science man, not a religion man, and science tells me you are wrong.

Of course we can prove it POSSIBLE. But we can't prove it to be FACT. I'll give you a thousand dollars if you can prove to me that your religion and your god are FACT. Seriously. If you can give me hard evidence proving to me that your god is indeed real, I will give you a thousand dollars. Just because we can't PROVE it doesn't mean it's not true. Same goes for your god and your religion. You can't prove it's real, I can't prove it isn't. I can't prove evolution is real, you can't prove it isn't. It comes down to faith vs evidence when the evidence is so far to one side of an arguement. I'm not saying your beliefs are wrong, but the evidence points to evolution. I chose to believe the evidence rather than put my faith in the opposite. You chose to put your faith into something that is almost completely lacking evidence, which is a brave thing to do, and could be rewarding in the end if you were right. For all we know, you could be right and I could be wrong, I'll end up in hell and you wont. Until then, I'm a science man, not a religion man, and science tells me you are wrong.

Let me put it to you as best as I can.... this should help....

You know the universal code for help, S.O.S (dont worry I am going somewhere with this) means distress. S.O.S. isn't distress but it means it.... back when these simple letters were too big to transmit somone sat down and divised a way to re-represent this... he decided to represent S as three dots(...), and O as three dashes(---), so S.O.S. is (...---...). This is the way he wanted it and that is the way everyone now accepts it. Similarly, in DNA the acids Thymine(T), Guanine(G), Cytosine(C), and Adenine(A) in certain patterns represent different chemicals, Similarly to the dots and dashes represent certain chemicals except there are no dots and dashes... In cells the ribosomes(which act like the reading head of a tape player) read the DNA sequences and from that determines the next chemical to go into the chain that is being built. Say the ribosome reads GGC. If the ribosome reads GGC it will know that the next chemical to go in will be Glycine(I believe is how it is spelled)... GCC does not make Glycine it just represents that particular chemical, so you know that intelligence has predrtermined what this represents. Here is an experiment... say I have a bowl, and I take 1,000 cards that have the letter 'A' on them and put them into the bowl, and I take 1,000 cards of B, C, all the way to Z in to the bowl(now I have 1,000 cards of every letter in the alphabet in the bowl) then I mix them up in to a random assortment... then say I reached in and grabbed the letter 'J', then say we do it again and I pull out 'A'... so now I have 'JA' as a completely random sequence of lettrers. Now I ask you, what does 'JA' mean? It means absolutely nothing... there is nothing that is set in stone that says 'JA' means something...

Now how could a random collection of acids possibly come together and form something if it has no idea what to do with certain chemical sequences if there is nothing to be represented...

Genetic Mutations. How do Genetic Mutations fit into all of this perfect creation? Surely, if everything was designed perfect, then there would be no genetic mutations along the strand of DNA, right?

It'd probably be in the best interest of religion to adapt to science rather than try to fight it fully x_x.

Genetic Mutations. How do Genetic Mutations fit into all of this perfect creation? Surely, if everything was designed perfect, then there would be no genetic mutations along the strand of DNA, right?

Well... acutally the plan was perfect, not the design... Adam and Eve had perfect Genetics, but over time due to Genetic mutations and the pulling of ourselfs out of natural selection(by use of medicine and stuff like that) we slowly corrupted our genetics...

In cells the ribosomes(which act like the reading head of a tape player) read the DNA sequences and from that determines the next chemical to go into the chain that is being built. Say the ribosome reads GGC. If the ribosome reads GGC it will know that the next chemical to go in will be Glycine(I believe is how it is spelled)... GCC does not make Glycine it just represents that particular chemical, so you know that intelligence has predrtermined what this represents.

Coming from you, that sounds surprisingly accurate aside from the last statement. Yes, codons determine which amino acid is to be made, but that does not imply that some sort of intelligent being matched codons with amino acids. Codons match a particular amino acid due to a complex set of biological reactions. Exactly why a particular codon matches a particular amino acid is not well known yet, I believe, but that does not mean we can conclude that some supreme intelligence sat around one day and matched the two up. You're simply creating a god of gaps. Earlier, people did not know why there was lightning or thunder. They explained it by God. You're using the same methodology here. Once scientists figure out why one codon is code for creating a particular amino acid, god will simply go away again.

Here is an experiment... say I have a bowl, and I take 1,000 cards that have the letter 'A' on them and put them into the bowl, and I take 1,000 cards of B, C, all the way to Z in to the bowl(now I have 1,000 cards of every letter in the alphabet in the bowl) then I mix them up in to a random assortment... then say I reached in and grabbed the letter 'J', then say we do it again and I pull out 'A'... so now I have 'JA' as a completely random sequence of lettrers. Now I ask you, what does 'JA' mean? It means absolutely nothing... there is nothing that is set in stone that says 'JA' means something... Now how could a random collection of acids possibly come together and form something if it has no idea what to do with certain chemical sequences if there is nothing to be represented...

Adenine, thynine, cytosine and guanine are not random collections of acids. They are nitrogenous bases. And codons are translated into amino acids by ribosomes, as you already stated. I thought you would know that. It is not nearly as random as drawing letters and making a word. Every tri-nucleotide chain that is not responsible for determining the genotype of an organism codes the creation of a particular amino acid. There are only 64 possible tri-nucleotide combinations, and each of them are code for a particular amino acid.

A more accurate analogy than the one you presented would start off with four letters thrown in a hat. The language you spoke would only consist of 64 word. Each word in your language was only three letters long. What would be the chance that if you drew 3 random letters you would form a word? Easy. 100%.

Well... acutally the plan was perfect, not the design... Adam and Eve had perfect Genetics, but over time due to Genetic mutations and the pulling of ourselfs out of natural selection(by use of medicine and stuff like that) we slowly corrupted our genetics...

ROTFLOL!!! "We slowly corrupted our genetics." AHAHAHAHA. "Adam and Eve had perfect genetics." You crack me up. Sadly, I'm not sure you even understand why I'm laughing at you.

You don't remember the cold war do you? It was a war of power and technology lead the way... Everyone did and still do want atomic power...

It's already been mentioned, but I think it's significant enough to reiterate that the Cold War was not a war with millions dying. Yes, it was a race to be more scientifically advanced, but that was it.

I will get back to you on all of this... I just need to find some time to be able to sit down for atleast an hour and reply.... If it looks like I forgot about it, tell me...

K.

Hey, I found a video about a guy who once believed in evolution but after looking at certain animals he realized they don't fit into the evolutionary process... with this one he was looking at a bug called the bombardier beetle... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAFLIPSSU5M

I have watched 28 seconds of the video and realized that this guy is a moron. First of all, he says evolution starts with the big bang. This has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Ever since Darwin wrote the Origin of Species, biologists have vehemently denied that the origin of the universe, or even abiogenesis for that matter have anything to do with evolution. Evolution starts after abiogenesis.

Second, he describes the big bang as "basically everything went kaboom." What. The. Fuck. Honestly. This guy is a doctor? THERE WAS NO FUCKING EXPLOSION IN THE BIG BANG!

I'll get back to you after I watch the next 30 seconds. Or maybe after I watch the rest.

Now I'm at 1 minute. This guy makes me laugh almost as much as you. He's either a make-believe doctor, or he's recently suffered memory loss.

"Somewhere in the water on earth something got zapped by an x-ray or something and then all of a sudden you have this little spec of life." I'm paraphrasing, but that's the essence of what he said. This guy isn't presenting any scientific facts. It's evident in his tone that all he's doing is setting himself up to belittle the idea of evolution with fabricated facts. He goes on to say that this little spec of life somehow became the first cell. Riiight. If he was a doctor he would know that the cell was the basic unit of life. Anything before that wasn't really considered life.

I'll get back to you when I feel like it.

I am now at 1 minute and 6 seconds. In the previous 6 seconds, the moron has managed to claim that cells began forming 600 million years ago. The ediacaran period already had animals. We know this due to sparse, yet real (a concept this man might want to learn about) fossilized records. The reason I am responding this frequently to this video is because I can't remember all the misinformation this guy gives out without having to reply to each one individually when he says it.

I am now at a 1:21 in the video. During the last 15 seconds, some random guy popped up and gave us a brief background of "Dr." Jobe Martin. I decided to do some research on my own. From the minute I spent on google, I found out that Martin is an evangelical, which of course implies a hidden agenda. His masters is in theology. So basically, here's a guy who took basic biology courses, and we're supposed to believe him over professors and doctors actually in the field of biology? Especially considering the fact that after 30 seconds he gave out enough misinformation on any scientific topic that after hearing that any major university would consider him a quack. Please. He may be able to be a professor of theology, but he's a joke of a scientist. You don't need a huge biology background to become a fucking dentist.

I'm now at 2:23 in the video. He goes on talking about assumptions that evolutionists make. He does not actually name the assumptions, he just says that we make them. The one assumption that he does specify is the age of rocks. I suppose he does not understand the concept of radiometric dating? And yes, it is accurate. Carbon-14 dating loses some of its precision past 50,000 years due to earths changing environment, however there are other methods of radiometric dating which do not. They match up well against each other, and other independent forms of dating such as tree rings, Milankovitch cycles, and luminescence dating methods.

I have now finished the video. "Dr." Martin simply gave us an argument of incredulity. He can not conceive how the beetle would have formed, therefore it could not have formed is not a sufficient argument. And, in fact, I've heard this bullshit about the bombardier beetle quite a few times before. He's not original. And there are many plausible evolutionary paths that this animal could have taken, and they're not difficult to find if you search google. I'm not going to actually look for one right now, but they do exist. Look them up.

Evolution is so unforgiving, isn't it?

Scientific theories aren't compiled because they seem nicest, they are compiled because they fit the evidence.

A system that lets the weak fall to the wayside... atleast the vast majority was given a warning about eternal suffering and yet people ignore it, and the system allows anyone to be pulled away from the eternal suffering(which is the forgivness)...

I disagree. If God exists, he is a horrible deity. How dare the potter blame the pot for its flaws. If his standards are so fucking high, why would he make his vessels so flawed. And he holds them accountable. You're saying that a system without any intelligence that is only guided by the laws of the universe is less forgiving than an intelligent, omnipresent and omnipotent being who allows children and babies to die as the flood waters slowly rise over their heads? And what about the mothers who had to watch their babies die before they themselves were drowned. You're telling me that this guy who has control of everything is more forgiving than a system which can't control itself when he lets the first-born be slain by the pharoah? Hell no. This is a perfect being who controls everything. He allows and condemns his creation to suffer and die, when he made us flawed. Evolution does no such thing. If God does exist, I'd take my chances in hell rather than join a sadomasochistic, megalomaniacal asshole.

Hey, did you know that Hitler himself believed in evolution? That was the main reason behind his 'perfect race' of blond haired, blue eyed people... he thought they were the closest to Arian so he started to kill anyone that did not fit the discription... too bad he didn't look in the mirror...

This is irrelevant to the validity of evolution. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

All I was saying is that if science had not created the power we woulden't have had the war....

The space race was part of the cold war, not the reason behind the cold war. The cold war was a war of ideological differences. And science makes the art of war more deadly and precise. It does not actually cause wars.

I know there were no war casualities, but if it had begun a full scale war, we possibly would not be here posting right now... Also, you are missing the point... the only reason I brought up hitler was to prove that science can lead to war, in this case a world war....

Science did not lead to WWII. Hitler's bogus ideologies did.

Now tell me... after all the scientific proof I have shown you you still believe in evolution?! I mean come on... the bombardier beetle could not have evolved, no matter how fast or slow... it would have killed itself(loud pop, then silence...) or been killed off...

Google it.

... also, if you think about evolution, it is a perfect system... in order for evolution to work the 'evolved' creature would have to be only survivor in order for the benifit to survive, otherwise the benifit would have been spliced back into the gene pool...

For the love of God, please be more coherent with your writing. I would like to respond to what you said, because from the little I could make out from that it seems like you are confused, but I can't make much out from that.

the more you breed the less of a gene pool you have to pull from...

That's simply not true. Why do you say that?

take a toy poodle(example) it's smaller than a normal poodle, but if you breed two toy poodles together you can only get a toy poodle(of equal or lesser size)...

1.) A toy poodle can be bigger than both of its parents.

2.) Yet, even at birth, the child's genome could not be traced simply by knowing its parents genome, even if every single permutation of the parents genome was found. This is due to genetic variation. Enough genetic variation, and the animal stops being a toy poodle.

his is a loss of information, everytime a dog is breeded to be smaller or longer or whatever the genetic traits from being tall or short are weeded out....

Breeding isn't natural selection, is it. And even dogs that are bred to be tall or short can gain a gene which codes the opposite phenotype by genetic variation.

so for evolution to work our ancestors must have had similar genetics to our ancestors....

Our ancestors have similar genomes to our ancestors.

Don't take this the wrong way, but this is the first time I've fully read one of your posts in an argument, MJ. Usually I just skim over it looking for key phrases that indicate ridicule.

I wonder if Draco has any unexplained gingers in the family. That might help to explain genetic variation to him a bit. Either that or a large hammer will do the trick.

Coming from you, that sounds surprisingly accurate aside from the last statement. Yes, codons determine which amino acid is to be made, but that does not imply that some sort of intelligent being matched codons with amino acids. Codons match a particular amino acid due to a complex set of biological reactions. Exactly why a particular codon matches a particular amino acid is not well known yet, I believe, but that does not mean we can conclude that some supreme intelligence sat around one day and matched the two up. You're simply creating a god of gaps. Earlier, people did not know why there was lightning or thunder. They explained it by God. You're using the same methodology here. Once scientists figure out why one codon is code for creating a particular amino acid, god will simply go away again.

so tell me... how is it that the biological reactions in the codon know when to and how to react to a certain acid way back in the beginning... how is it that the DNA was able to be interpreted and read when it was just formed? Thats like comming up with the CD before the CD player or wrighter...

Adenine, thynine, cytosine and guanine are not random collections of acids. They are nitrogenous bases. And codons are translated into amino acids by ribosomes, as you already stated. I thought you would know that. It is not nearly as random as drawing letters and making a word. Every tri-nucleotide chain that is not responsible for determining the genotype of an organism codes the creation of a particular amino acid. There are only 64 possible tri-nucleotide combinations, and each of them are code for a particular amino acid.

I did not say the random letter drawing would make a word... I was merely stating the fact that randomly drawing any two letters would have no meaning unless it was predetermined....

Now, you say there are "64 possible tri-nucleotide combinations"... yet each combination stands for a certain amino acid.... what could have possibly read the DNA and understood what was going to happen if there was nothing but DNA and random collections of non-living matter floating around?

A more accurate analogy than the one you presented would start off with four letters thrown in a hat. The language you spoke would only consist of 64 word. Each word in your language was only three letters long. What would be the chance that if you drew 3 random letters you would form a word? Easy. 100%.

But what determined that the random collections of three letter words stood for somthing? thats my point... you cannot have meaning unless something gives it meaning....

ROTFLOL!!! "We slowly corrupted our genetics." AHAHAHAHA. "Adam and Eve had perfect genetics." You crack me up. Sadly, I'm not sure you even understand why I'm laughing at you.

I understand why you laugh...

It's already been mentioned, but I think it's significant enough to reiterate that the Cold War was not a war with millions dying. Yes, it was a race to be more scientifically advanced, but that was it.

Yes, but in order for one group to dominate they had to have the bigger gun... in this case, the atomic bomb...

I have watched 28 seconds of the video and realized that this guy is a moron. First of all, he says evolution starts with the big bang. This has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Ever since Darwin wrote the Origin of Species, biologists have vehemently denied that the origin of the universe, or even abiogenesis for that matter have anything to do with evolution. Evolution starts after abiogenesis.

Well, the earth had to be here in order for life to exist... all he was pointing to was that if there is no creator then this is the way it had to have started...

Second, he describes the big bang as "basically everything went kaboom." What. The. Fuck. Honestly. This guy is a doctor? THERE WAS NO FUCKING EXPLOSION IN THE BIG BANG!

So why do they call it the BIG BANG? If there was no bang, then why do they call it that?

Now I'm at 1 minute. This guy makes me laugh almost as much as you. He's either a make-believe doctor, or he's recently suffered memory loss. "Somewhere in the water on earth something got zapped by an x-ray or something and then all of a sudden you have this little spec of life." I'm paraphrasing, but that's the essence of what he said. This guy isn't presenting any scientific facts. It's evident in his tone that all he's doing is setting himself up to belittle the idea of evolution with fabricated facts. He goes on to say that this little spec of life somehow became the first cell. Riiight. If he was a doctor he would know that the cell was the basic unit of life. Anything before that wasn't really considered life. I'll get back to you when I feel like it. I am now at 1 minute and 6 seconds. In the previous 6 seconds, the moron has managed to claim that cells began forming 600 million years ago. The ediacaran period already had animals. We know this due to sparse, yet real (a concept this man might want to learn about) fossilized records. The reason I am responding this frequently to this video is because I can't remember all the misinformation this guy gives out without having to reply to each one individually when he says it. I am now at a 1:21 in the video. During the last 15 seconds, some random guy popped up and gave us a brief background of "Dr." Jobe Martin. I decided to do some research on my own. From the minute I spent on google, I found out that Martin is an evangelical, which of course implies a hidden agenda. His masters is in theology. So basically, here's a guy who took basic biology courses, and we're supposed to believe him over professors and doctors actually in the field of biology? Especially considering the fact that after 30 seconds he gave out enough misinformation on any scientific topic that after hearing that any major university would consider him a quack. Please. He may be able to be a professor of theology, but he's a joke of a scientist. You don't need a huge biology background to become a fucking dentist. I'm now at 2:23 in the video. He goes on talking about assumptions that evolutionists make. He does not actually name the assumptions, he just says that we make them. The one assumption that he does specify is the age of rocks. I suppose he does not understand the concept of radiometric dating? And yes, it is accurate. Carbon-14 dating loses some of its precision past 50,000 years due to earths changing environment, however there are other methods of radiometric dating which do not. They match up well against each other, and other independent forms of dating such as tree rings, Milankovitch cycles, and luminescence dating methods. I have now finished the video. "Dr." Martin simply gave us an argument of incredulity. He can not conceive how the beetle would have formed, therefore it could not have formed is not a sufficient argument. And, in fact, I've heard this bullshit about the bombardier beetle quite a few times before. He's not original. And there are many plausible evolutionary paths that this animal could have taken, and they're not difficult to find if you search google. I'm not going to actually look for one right now, but they do exist. Look them up.

Hey.. I googled it... all I could find were pages that supported creation using the beetle in their arguments... seriously, check it out for yourself....

Scientific theories aren't compiled because they seem nicest, they are compiled because they fit the evidence.

Really? I would like to see the evidence for evolution... oh wait, there isn't any.... sorry....

I disagree. If God exists, he is a horrible deity. How dare the potter blame the pot for its flaws. If his standards are so fucking high, why would he make his vessels so flawed. And he holds them accountable. You're saying that a system without any intelligence that is only guided by the laws of the universe is less forgiving than an intelligent, omnipresent and omnipotent being who allows children and babies to die as the flood waters slowly rise over their heads? And what about the mothers who had to watch their babies die before they themselves were drowned. You're telling me that this guy who has control of everything is more forgiving than a system which can't control itself when he lets the first-born be slain by the pharoah? Hell no. This is a perfect being who controls everything. He allows and condemns his creation to suffer and die, when he made us flawed. Evolution does no such thing. If God does exist, I'd take my chances in hell rather than join a sadomasochistic, megalomaniacal asshole.

God does not blaim us for the flaws... we are responsible for it, not him...
Look, if the flood is your worry, blaim the parents for just sitting there and just watching the water slowly rise around their child...

the pharoh knowingly and willingly killed innocent children, blame him for his actions not God...

as you said before, "he holds them accountable", maening you are responsible for your own actions, not someone elts...

This is irrelevant to the validity of evolution. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

So your saying that Hitler was right? Twice? What are you trying to say?

The space race was part of the cold war, not the reason behind the cold war. The cold war was a war of ideological differences. And science makes the art of war more deadly and precise. It does not actually cause wars.

I said nothing about the space race...
You are right, science does make death quicker, but most people want that technology to blow up the enemy country, then the enemy country wants to stop them from using the technology, so they go over and try to stop them... thats how a war starts sometimes...

Science did not lead to WWII. Hitler's bogus ideologies did.

How did Hitler get his ideologies?

For the love of God, please be more coherent with your writing. I would like to respond to what you said, because from the little I could make out from that it seems like you are confused, but I can't make much out from that. That's simply not true. Why do you say that? 1.) A toy poodle can be bigger than both of its parents. 2.) Yet, even at birth, the child's genome could not be traced simply by knowing its parents genome, even if every single permutation of the parents genome was found. This is due to genetic variation. Enough genetic variation, and the animal stops being a toy poodle.

For someone who does not believe in God, you certainly use his name alot...

Anyway... the toy poodle would only have the genes of a toy poodle and its genetic variation... the genetic variation would only be that of a toy poodle, it would not have gained any new information... basically, the variation would not cause any differences in the dog that is not already there... the variation could cause the dog to have two different colors of fur(one color from each parent) or something of that nature, the dog would not gain something unless that trait it bred in...

Breeding isn't natural selection, is it. And even dogs that are bred to be tall or short can gain a gene which codes the opposite phenotype by genetic variation.

No, breeding is not natural selection...
The dog would already have that gene if the offspring were taller than it, the variation would be the different hights of the dogs...

Our ancestors have similar genomes to our ancestors.

Yeah, they were humans...