Evolution sciences biggest joke....

POST CREATED BY DELETED MEMBER YOURGRACEISENOUGH
I can't believe people fell for it...........

In the Beginning - By The Book

In the beginning God Created heaven and the earth. Quickly he was faced with a class action suit for failure to file an environmental impact statement. He was granted a temporary permit for the project, but was stymied with the Cease and Desist order for the earthly part. Appearing at the hearing, God was asked why he began his earthly project in the first place. He replied that he just liked to be creative.

Then God said, "Let there be light." Officials immediately demanded to know how the light would be made. Would there be strip mining? What about thermal pollution? God explained that the light would come from a huge ball of fire. God was granted provisional permission to make light, assuming that no smoke would result from the ball of fire, that he would obtain a building permit, and (to conserve energy) would have the light out half the time. God agreed and said he would call the light "Day" and the darkness "Night." Officials replied that they were not interested in semantics.

God said, "Let the earth bring forth green herb and such as many seed." The EPA agreed so long as native seed was used. Then God said, "Let waters bring forth creeping creatures having life; and the fowl that may fly over the earth." Officials pointed out this would require approval from the Department of Game coordinated with the Heavenly Wildlife Federation and the Audubongelic Society.

Everything was OK until God said he wanted to complete the project in six days.
Officials informed him it would take at least 200 days to review the application and the environmental impact statement. After that there would be a public hearing. Then there would be 10-12 months before...

At this point God created Hell.

mans alternative...



well we had this huge great, soup really, full of all sorts of chemicals and amino acids and it was hit by lightning and the first very basic life force emerged...

now for no better reason than it just did the basic single cell life force reproduced and so on untill other more complicated life forces emerged.

now these life forces "evolved" very slowly, they bit by bit evolved, hearts, lungs, stomachs, mouths, hang on what would be the point of evolving a heart without arteries and veins or lungs without a mouth or throat, so suddenly these simple creatures evolved full working metabolisms including hearts, lungs, throats, veins the whole lot...

now even though self replication was far easier and simpler instead two seperate genders appeared at the same time and sexual reproduction became the norm, even though this was far more costly in terms of pregnancy, protecting and feeding while pregnant and of course protecting and feeding the newborn after birth, plus finding a mate, so how this was an improvement on replication who knows...and you must be asking yourself what caused seperate genders to evolve to allow sexual reproduction but lets not look to close or the obvious may strike you...



THE obvious being evolution is a crock.....

Grace said above: 'now even though self replication was far easier and simpler instead two seperate genders appeared at the same time and sexual reproduction became the norm, even though this was far more costly in terms of pregnancy, protecting and feeding while pregnant and of course protecting and feeding the newborn after birth, plus finding a mate, so how this was an improvement on replication who knows...and you must be asking yourself what caused seperate genders to evolve to allow sexual reproduction but lets not look to close or the obvious may strike you...'


Grace, you haven't got a clue mate. You've been reading too many Watchtower and Awake magazines. Try reading some science books instead of comics.

so you just copy what I said and says it's wrong and that makes it wrong, wow great work sherlock....................

Here we go again ,
but this time I can put didge on ignore if he gets too boring

ONE WAY JESUS JOHN 3.16 wrote:Here we go again ,
but this time I can put didge on ignore if he gets too boring

didge get boring,you know thats bound to happen...............

It doesn't take belief in God/Jesus to have a clean heart, which means encompassing all good morals. 'Do unto others as you would be done by.' That is having a clean heart.

Well, here we go again, the grand old merry-go-round. So, after about 9 months and 19 times of asking, what animals were taken into the Ark?

still waiting for your science friends report on the biblical flood when you post that I'll tell you what the bible says about the animals in the ark, as you are clearly incapable of reading it for yourself, despite your extensive research on all religions...



back to subject, clearly evolution does not make any sense but nonne of the defenders of evolution can seem to show it does....

We've already covered the Flood impossibility, try comparing Genesis 7:19 with reality. Later on during the coming days I'll let you know about the impossible Ark and animals fable. But, for the time being, here below are the latest research results regards how life started. By the way, new research has found that life may, -yes I say MAY- have started in freezing conditions and not in a nice warm soup.

Since about 1996 virologists, biologists and geneticists have intensely explored the world of viruses. What follows is a summing up in an article in the Discover Magazine, 2011.

“We haven’t even begun to scratch the surface,” said biologist Mark Young of Montana University. “The number of viruses is mind-boggling. The general public thinks genetic diversity is us, birds, plants and animals, and that viruses are just HIV and the flu. But most of the genetic material on this planet is viruses. No question about it. They and their ability to interact with organisms and move genetic material around are the major players in driving speciation, in determining how organisms even become what they are.
The lesson coming from biology is that we have been looking for our designer in all the wrong places. It seems we owe our existence to viruses, the least of life’s myriad forms, and about the only thing they have in common with a divine prime mover is their omnipresence and invisibility. Once again, viruses have altered the way we view the world and, by extension, our place within it. As it turns out, viruses are not little break-away shards of our biology -we are, of theirs.”

And Prof’ Raoult of Marseille University said: “We have a lot of evidence with the Mimi virus that the virus phylum is at least as old as other branches of life, and that viruses were involved very early on in the evolutionary emergence of life.”

your usual stardesk plenty of words that say nothing, the fact we don't know it all does not support evolution it merely demonstrates how many blanks there are in evolution yet it still claims to be true....

Hi Gracey, what it does demonstrate is that research is ongoing, worldwide, and numerous bits of information finally come together to make the whole, or put an answer to the question.

Unfortunately for belief systems, there is no tangible proof, no way of testing the information, it is all down to one's own choice and not based on facts. I wouldn't want to deny you nor anyone their faith and beliefs but what does annoy me is when people state Creation and God etc as a fact, whereas it is not a proven fact.

stardesk wrote:Hi Gracey, what it does demonstrate is that research is ongoing, worldwide, and numerous bits of information finally come together to make the whole, or put an answer to the question.

Unfortunately for belief systems, there is no tangible proof, no way of testing the information, it is all down to one's own choice and not based on facts. I wouldn't want to deny you nor anyone their faith and beliefs but what does annoy me is when people state Creation and God etc as a fact, whereas it is not a proven fact.

so you admit evolution is still hoping time will come up with something to make it right, typical, who's going to apologise to all those people who where sold evolution as a lie when time doesn't prove it....



here's a question I have been asking for quite some time now......



JUST HOW LONG CAN THE EVOLUTION THEORY GO ON CLAIMING TIME WILL PROVE IT RIGHT??

Evolution itself is no longer a theory, it is a proven fact but, as regards how life started, this is still an ongoing research which has found several possibilities as a candidate for that original spark of life. There are several possibilities and it wont be long before the answer is found. Science is a lengthy process and here with the origins of life, we are dealing with something that is not immediately visible, it has to be researched until that elusive answer is found.

Now, as promised earlier, here's the start of my critique of Noah and the Ark:

The story of Noah and the Ark, and it’s logical contradiction could well develop into a lengthy manuscript which most of you would just gloss over and not respond to the finer points. Therefore I shall split it up and give a brief summary to start with:


Let’s start with indigenous animals such as we find in the USA, and those only found in South America, Australia, and the Galapagos Islands. But such a long list would become meaningless to the argument. Let it suffice to say that Noah would have needed a whole fleet of arks to house even just two each all the world’s species of animals, furthermore after the flood ‘receded’ there would not have been anything left on Earth for anyone, any animal, any bird to feed on, which can only lead us to two conclusions. Firstly the flood, covering the highest mountains, -and remember Everest would have been over four miles high in those days,- would have killed off all life worldwide, and six thousand years is not long enough for that many species to evolve and mutate to the vast amount of species we have today, which numbers over 30 million. Secondly, surely the story of the flood would have been an account of a more localised flood which may well have covered local high ground, certainly not ‘the highest mountain.’

The next post will cover animal habitats and food requirements, which will demonstrate admirable the absurd claim that Noah saved 2 of each species.

ha ha ha it is not a proven fact you said yourself you are still relying on time to fill in the blanks so how does that make it fact......



isn't it funny how science changes its own rules on provable facts when it suits it.....



has evolution worked out the use of developing a mouth without a stomach, or a heart without arteries, or what major positive mutation caused all the organs ect to develope all at once.....

allowing the fact mutations are neutral or harmful of course.....

stardesk wrote:Evolution itself is no longer a theory, it is a proven fact but, as regards how life started, this is still an ongoing research which has found several possibilities as a candidate for that original spark of life. There are several possibilities and it wont be long before the answer is found. Science is a lengthy process and here with the origins of life, we are dealing with something that is not immediately visible, it has to be researched until that elusive answer is found.

Now, as promised earlier, here's the start of my critique of Noah and the Ark:

The story of Noah and the Ark, and it’s logical contradiction could well develop into a lengthy manuscript which most of you would just gloss over and not respond to the finer points. Therefore I shall split it up and give a brief summary to start with:


Let’s start with indigenous animals such as we find in the USA, and those only found in South America, Australia, and the Galapagos Islands. But such a long list would become meaningless to the argument. Let it suffice to say that Noah would have needed a whole fleet of arks to house even just two each all the world’s species of animals, furthermore after the flood ‘receded’ there would not have been anything left on Earth for anyone, any animal, any bird to feed on, which can only lead us to two conclusions. Firstly the flood, covering the highest mountains, -and remember Everest would have been over four miles high in those days,- would have killed off all life worldwide, and six thousand years is not long enough for that many species to evolve and mutate to the vast amount of species we have today, which numbers over 30 million. Secondly, surely the story of the flood would have been an account of a more localised flood which may well have covered local high ground, certainly not ‘the highest mountain.’

The next post will cover animal habitats and food requirements, which will demonstrate admirable the absurd claim that Noah saved 2 of each species.

Hi Stardesk



Excellent post, but you would be better off watching paint dry, after the amount of times people have provided answers to evolution, he will always deny, is what he is best at, what i would like to see is his evidence for a creator, other than book compiled by many people long after many of the so called events.



Lets see what he brings to the debate and see if he can manage a sensible counter argument for creation!

because evolution does not answer questions it simply creates more....

again what mutations would cause a change in species...



all the vital organs and connections would have to all develope together.....

yourgraceisenough wrote:because evolution does not answer questions it simply creates more....

again what mutations would cause a change in species...



all the vital organs and connections would have to all develope together.....

So like I thought, no counter arguments to try and prove creationism then?



Well, well, no suprise there then!

if you bother to read the thread title this debate is about evolution....



if you would care to start a thread on creationism go ahead, knock yourself out...

yourgraceisenough wrote:if you bother to read the thread title this debate is about evolution....



if you would care to start a thread on creationism go ahead, knock yourself out...

So you are happy to make unsubstantiated claims against evolution, but cannot present counter arguments for creation, funny that!

Yet to see an argument from you that shows evolution is wrong, it may help if you back the up with concise answers!

Didge wrote:



So you are happy to make unsubstantiated claims against evolution, but cannot present counter arguments for creation, funny that!

Yet to see an argument from you that shows evolution is wrong, it may help if you back the up with concise answers!

..I have stated reasons why I believe evolution is completely flawed......



your only reply is that creatyionism is flawed, the only difference is this thread is about evolution and therefore your arguement about creationism is irrelevant....



what possible mutation would have caused all the major organs and all their connections and functions to appear and work all in one go???

Hi Didge. Watching paint dry might be more rewarding considering, as you said, we get no constructive counter arguements.

Gigatt, in any debate you'll usually find opposing sides and arguements, which usually results in both sides putting forward their ideas or proofs to bolster their claims. We keep posting evidence but as yet you haven't given your side of the story, therefore no discussion is possible for it is all one sided, our side. Your failure to counter our claims means you cannot offer any proof.

If you type in your search box the word/s 'beneficial mutations' and/or 'negative mutations' you'll find thousands of websites dealing with those subjects. By looking and researching for yourself it will stick in your mind and memory, rather than have people telling you about it. Surely you found out this fact at school?

Guest wrote:mans alternative...



well we had this huge great, soup really, full of all sorts of chemicals and amino acids and it was hit by lightning and the first very basic life force emerged...

now for no better reason than it just did the basic single cell life force reproduced and so on untill other more complicated life forces emerged.

now these life forces "evolved" very slowly, they bit by bit evolved, hearts, lungs, stomachs, mouths, hang on what would be the point of evolving a heart without arteries and veins or lungs without a mouth or throat, so suddenly these simple creatures evolved full working metabolisms including hearts, lungs, throats, veins the whole lot...

now even though self replication was far easier and simpler instead two seperate genders appeared at the same time and sexual reproduction became the norm, even though this was far more costly in terms of pregnancy, protecting and feeding while pregnant and of course protecting and feeding the newborn after birth, plus finding a mate, so how this was an improvement on replication who knows...and you must be asking yourself what caused seperate genders to evolve to allow sexual reproduction but lets not look to close or the obvious may strike you...



THE obvious being evolution is a crock.....

someone doesn't get geological timeframes, methinks

Guest wrote:Here we go again ,
but this time I can put didge on ignore if he gets too boring

sadly through the childish behaviour you exhibited you will not have the chance to put anyone on ignore.

stardesk wrote:It doesn't take belief in God/Jesus to have a clean heart, which means encompassing all good morals. 'Do unto others as you would be done by.' That is having a clean heart.

Well, here we go again, the grand old merry-go-round. So, after about 9 months and 19 times of asking, what animals were taken into the Ark?

unfortunately you will have to find him elsewhere to get an answer, or more likely not