the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

[Faust]

evolution is SO popular, because it sounds and looks cool. BUT it's NOT TRUE, it's just a theory, not a law, not a concrete phenomenon backed by scientific evidence. Just THEORY, RUBBISH theory, and rubbish phony evidence to try and back it up. Darwinian evolution, is FALSE, there is NO such thing. No life forms have evolved from 'simpler' life forms. There's no such thing as simple life forms. bacteria, is very COMPLEX!! And we don't even know fully how it works. Scientists have been unable to make the 'simplest' life in a lab. the theory that everything has a common ancestor is FALSE, just RUBBISH, said by vain and arrogant academics. resistance to anti-biotics occurs like this: there are many types of bacteria, some resistant to it and some aren't, the ones that aren't perish, that ones that ALREADY ARE resistant, continue to live, nothing has EVOLVED from a previous organism!! Natural selection may be true, but evolution is certainly not.

There is in fact, no such thing as evolution through time!! Time does not change or evolve organisms into more complex creatures!! Evolution theory infact, violates the second law of thermodynamics, which states that you cannot have organization coming from chaos.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=myth+of+evolution

http://www.etcsa.org/GJackson/PtsOfOrigin20010711.html

http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

[Imadrongo]

If http://www.biblelife.org says so it must be true.

Do you want to explain how evolution is false rather than just shout it over and over? I'm not interested in reading links and refuting them for you.

[Tomas]

\

Agreed. Even Darwin 'altered his thinking' after visiting the Galapagos Isles. Ever been there, it is one, fantastic place. We'd like to visit again -- especially since the Internet hit my brain. We were there in the late 1980s (forget the year).

Yeah, all those critters, plants, fishey's, birdey's... absolutely everything! What a wonderful planet to experience it all :-)


Thanks, Faust.



Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason

.

evolution is SO popular, because it sounds and looks cool. BUT it's NOT TRUE, it's just a theory, not a law, not a concrete phenomenon backed by scientific evidence. Just THEORY, RUBBISH theory, and rubbish phony evidence to try and back it up. Darwinian evolution, is FALSE, there is NO such thing. No life forms have evolved from 'simpler' life forms. There's no such thing as simple life forms. bacteria, is very COMPLEX!! And we don't even know fully how it works. Scientists have been unable to make the 'simplest' life in a lab. the theory that everything has a common ancestor is FALSE, just RUBBISH, said by vain and arrogant academics. resistance to anti-biotics occurs like this: there are many types of bacteria, some resistant to it and some aren't, the ones that aren't perish, that ones that ALREADY ARE resistant, continue to live, nothing has EVOLVED from a previous organism!! Natural selection may be true, but evolution is certainly not.

There is in fact, no such thing as evolution through time!! Time does not change or evolve organisms into more complex creatures!! Evolution theory infact, violates the second law of thermodynamics, which states that you cannot have organization coming from chaos.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=myth+of+evolution

http://www.etcsa.org/GJackson/PtsOfOrigin20010711.html

http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

[Imadrongo]

Is this thread supposed to be a joke? Forgive me for missing it if it is. =\

LOL @ biblelife.org. Is this site a joke? Scary -- it doesn't appear so.

If natural selection were true Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes should have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except for the Eskimos. Many evolutionist argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

[ChochemV2]

There are far better websites to choose from if you want to try refuting evolution.

And I'd just like to point out that entropy has nothing to do with evolution since it requires a closed system. Organisms do not live in a closed system, they have external forces acting upon them constantly so the second law has jack diddly to do with evolution.

[Cory Duchesne]

Evolution theory in fact, violates the second law of thermodynamics

I agree with Chocem. The second law of thermodynamics is only applicable to man-made things, closed loop systems like a motor running on battery and alternator. If the motor is constantly working the alternator, which charges the battery, at first you might think that the motor should run forever. But due to entropy, the battery, the alternator and the motor will all wear out and degrade over time.

The totality of life however, since it has no boundary, is not subject to such entropy.

In nature, the death of one thing is the life of another.

[Ryan Rudolph]

I think biology should make it more clear that that there is no actual division between the organism and its environment, but I do agree that ‘Nature’ as a whole seems indifferent to what survives or doesn’t, although it is interesting that natural selection blindly works towards greater consciousness in a hit and miss sort of way - perhaps that is one of the ultimate goals of natural selection, to produce greater consciousness. Perhaps to the scientist tediously working at his microscope, the process seems blind and indifferent, but from a more ultimate perspective, the process could actually have some sort of long-term intelligent direction. Moreover, to simply settle for any theory or explanation as the final say in the matter seems incomplete to me.

Overall Evolution is a much more sane alternative than its competitor the creationist, who is a species that will probably go extinct very soon…

[Nick]

I'm not a fan of the term evolution either. To me it implies that organisms follow a linear path changing from one thing to the next. I prefer to describe the manner in which all organisms were created with the terms mutation and survival of the fittest. To make a statement out of it I would say; Organisms tend to mutate from one generation to the next resulting in different characteristics to arise. Whichever mutations increase an organism's ability to survive get passed on, while the orgranisms with less helpful, or harmful mutations die off, resulting in the survival of the fittest.

Overall Evolution is a much more sane alternative than its competitor the creationist, who is a species that will probably go extinct very soon…

It wouldn't be accurate to describe an unconscious process as either sane or insane. Besides, why make the distinction between evolution and what man creates? Both are fundamentally identical in that they both begin with mutations, one done unconsciously, the other consciously. If anything I favor conscious mutation because the chances of unconscious mutation being successful enough to produce any successful life forms is a shot in the dark and much, much slower. Oberving our immediate universe and seeing that we are the only planet with life, not to mention conscious life, is enough to tell me that we can't put our money on natural mutation to lead us any further. I'd certainly like to upgrade my body from this fragile one I currently reside in with some mental and physical enhancements. Wouldn't you?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nick wrote:

It wouldn't be accurate to describe an unconscious process as either sane or insane. Besides, why make the distinction between evolution and what man creates? Both are fundamentally identical in that they both begin with mutations, one done unconsciously, the other consciously. If anything I favor conscious mutation because the chances of unconscious mutation being successful enough to produce any successful life forms is a shot in the dark and much, much slower. Oberving our immediate universe and seeing that we are the only planet with life, not to mention conscious life, is enough to tell me that we can't put our money on natural mutation to lead us any further. I'd certainly like to upgrade my body from this fragile one I currently reside in with some mental and physical enhancements. Wouldn't you?

No, No. By creationist theory, I was referring to the commonly held Christian belief that the earth was created in seven days by their limited notion of god, who created Adam, Eve, the snake, and all that other madness that I can't be bothered to remember....

[Imadrongo]

I'm not a fan of the term evolution either. To me it implies that organisms follow a linear path changing from one thing to the next. I prefer to describe the manner in which all organisms were created with the terms mutation and survival of the fittest. To make a statement out of it I would say; Organisms tend to mutate from one generation to the next resulting in different characteristics to arise. Whichever mutations increase an organism's ability to survive get passed on, while the orgranisms with less helpful, or harmful mutations die off, resulting in the survival of the fittest.

Umm that's exactly what evolution is.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

The first 5 definitions of an overused word (dictionary.com):

ev·o·lu·tion /??v??lu??n or, especially Brit., ?iv?-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I would suggest to all evolutionists to stop associating "evolution" with "life". The logical theory of natural selection works regardless of what it is applied to, and is based on only a few fundamental principles. It has been applied with great success to computer simulations. It is, in itself, a complete science.

Biology, the study of life, uses the theory of natural selection -- but I would suggest that since life is only an appearance, "natural-selection-ology" is a functional science, whereas biology is not. Belief in biology is a delusion: it is an attempt to restrict a greater science to only one hasty generalization.

[Imadrongo]

Trevor Salyzyn,

I would suggest to all evolutionists to stop associating "evolution" with "life". The logical theory of natural selection works regardless of what it is applied to, and is based on only a few fundamental principles. It has been applied with great success to computer simulations. It is, in itself, a complete science.

It is actually associated with life. You will need to explain your vague computer simulation statement. Was it like a worm that modified itself randomly as it went, trying to make more destructive or constructive variants that would survive anti-viruses better? Does that not count as life?

Biology, the study of life, uses the theory of natural selection -- but I would suggest that since life is only an appearance, "natural-selection-ology" is a functional science, whereas biology is not. Belief in biology is a delusion: it is an attempt to restrict a greater science to only one hasty generalization.

The way you deem biology a delusion I can deem anything a delusion. Language is a delusion. Life is a delusion. Death is a delusion. Thinking is a delusion. Etc etc. Okay okay... everything is a delusion. So what?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

WW,

It is actually associated with life.

It should be the other way around.

You will need to explain your vague computer simulation statement.

It was a specific statement. It was referring to cutting-edge research in the pseudoscience that's "biology", where they simulate natural selection on computers. I used to have a 3 meg piece of software on my computer that was highly customizable that treated a grid of objects as natural selection agents. They were fed numbers, and their success in adding, subtracting, etc. the numbers was used to measure their success in their environment. The URL is probably somewhere in the history of this forum, but not in the history of my latest computer.

Was it like a worm that modified itself randomly as it went, trying to make more destructive or constructive variants that would survive anti-viruses better? Does that not count as life?

No, that was not what I was referring to. However, that would not count as life. That would be an example of a more abstract principle. Life is but one example. That would be another.

The way you deem biology a delusion I can deem anything a delusion.

Not quite anything:

Language is a delusion.

Yes.

Life is a delusion. Death is a delusion.

Yes, and yes.

Thinking is a delusion.

Yes.

Okay okay... everything is a delusion.

Everything is not a delusion. Everything is most certainly not nothing whatsoever, so I can be certain that when there is a consideration of "everything", a fact of reality is being considered.

So what?

Biology is a pseudoscience, like alchemy and quantum physics.

[xerox]

...

[Dave Toast]

It should be the other way around.

Indeed. Evolution is a universal process, a particular recognisable subset of causality. Natural Selection (encompassing sexual selection, genetic drift, etc.) is a subset of the process of evolution.

Biology is a pseudoscience, like alchemy and quantum physics.

Bit of a blanket statement there Trev. There's plenty of thoroughgoing science which would be classified as biology and the large proportion of quantum physics is as proven as any scientific theory in history. It's not all String theory!

Or do you mean pseudo-science in a sense other than how truly scientific they are?

Incidentally, glad to see nobody giving the original subject of this thread any credence whatsoever.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Xerox wrote:

In any event lm not sure that the competitve perceptions of one versus the other adds to philosophical appreciation.

I’m not interested in appreciating every theory out there because some of them are total nonsense especially the Creationist theory. It seems to me that comparing related theories to each other is one of the more effective ways at determining which theory gives a more accurate model of how things in the totality relate to each other within a specific context, whether that context be biological, cultural, astronomical, psychological and so on.

Each discipline gives a slightly different analysis because they are concerned with more specialized relationships within the totality.

However, some scientists come up with theories that do not coincide with how things actually relate to each other, so as critical thinkers, one can determine which theory works better than another, and the ones that don’t work very well shouldn’t be appreciated, they should be discarded, or modified or what have you.

Moreover, a scientific explanation is quite limited, which any true scientist knows. He knows that every theory is based on perceiving relationships of appearances within the totality, so his knowledge is always that. It’s just knowledge - always limited. He never mistakes his theories for a belief in his mind, although most academic scientists have minds that are littered with rigid belief systems. Science is a relative type of analysis aimed at describing the how and why of a specialized window within the totality.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Dave,

Or do you mean pseudo-science in a sense other than how truly scientific they are?

I mean pseudo-science based on whether or not it is "complete" (in the sense of having a totally sound and logically consistent theory) or not. Alchemy was a pseudo-science until a complete theory of chemicals (the periodic table) was invented. Physics was a pseudo-science until Newton transformed it with a coherent philosophic theory that could be applied to any empirical construct. Biology is based upon the false notion of "life". Its blunder inheret in the name of the science.

If there is scientific work done in the name of biology, that is because it is not actually biology. It should go under a different name, because it is not studying life -- but rather, processes that happen to occur within something we hastily give the appelation "life" to.

When biology is no longer called "biology", then it will no longer be a pseudoscience. There simply is not, however, a science of life. Such a concept is as meaningless as a science of philosophy.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Trevor wrote:

because it is not studying life -- but rather, processes that happen to occur within something we hastily give the appelation "life" to.

I still don’t see the problem in labeling things as life, here is why.

A label is given to a group of things when their qualities are so unique that they can always be distinguished from other groups of things based on their unique properties.

Here is an example of why I think the term ‘life’ should be retained for biologists.

Life as it is typically defined is composed of cells which can be soft-tissued or not, but they are always governed by cellular processes such as genetic, organelles interacting, and so on. And life always has some sort of reproductive component, as well as the ability to take nourishment from its environment.

So if you compare these properties to other things in the totality like a rock, soil, feces, cloud, car, computer, building, then you will see that all these things lack some of the common characteristics of how biologists typically define and label ‘life’ so I believe that it is still a useful term, if merely for the purpose of classification.

It would be like saying we should throw away the term technology because some forms of technology have some of the qualities of life, but eventually the two terms could merge with each other forming the term bio-technological life, if we ever create a machine that operates very similar to biological life, has both biological and technological components, and possesses all its typically defined properties.

[Dave Toast]

Ok Trev, I can understand if you're just saying that the term Biology is a misnomer. It's an arbitary distiction but then, aren't they all. I think you use of the term pseudoscience a little misleading though, being as that refers to how scientific a method for investigating any given phenomena is. Perhaps the term Biology is a pseudonym.

Regarding Quantum Physics, again I can understand your objections on its incompleteness (not capitalized) but most of the worthwhile study that's involved is scientific enough. And I can't think of a better nomenclature for it.

[Matt Gregory]

I don't have a problem with "biology", I have a problem with "boolean logic" and "symbolic logic". I think those should be called "boolean math" and "symbolic math" because I don't believe in different types of logic. We have different types of symbol manipulation - creating definitions and performing operations on them - but not logic.

[Imadrongo]

There is no such thing as a complete science. Chemistry starts at chemical molecules, biology at cells. In the end they are just models to describe our empirical observations. Trevor maybe should go debate with the dictionary on how to define life. Keep in mind science is practical.

[ChochemV2]

Well said Neil.

[Dan Rowden]

Faust, you are so badly in need of an education in science it isn't funny. Your original post in this thread is totally laughable.

[Faust]

If http://www.biblelife.org says so it must be true.

Do you want to explain how evolution is false rather than just shout it over and over? I'm not interested in reading links and refuting them for you.

this is quite idiotic. that link is good because it has scientific evidence, and YOU aren't INTERESTED in READING IT TO REFUTE ME?????!!! Wow, who's being an indolent idiot now?? It's much better to have links that provide so much evidence, then for me to copy and paste it, I mean it makes pure logical sense, of course you wouldn' see that.