CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTIONISTS

This thread is awesome.

I too used to believe this crap until becoming enlightened. Go get em OP.

Good blog, thanks.



Your questions/comments only serve to highlight the equality of both theories in that neither is provable. Yet only one claims to be scientific, but without following the constraints of the scientific method: observation and repetition.

The probability of many, many co-dependent life forms evolving in perfect synchrony is so low that I find intelligent design much more rational. The impossibility of selection to produce something new is also a major problem for ToE, as is also the incredibly poor odds of coding adaptations into gametes and getting them passed on to offspring, presuming the tiny percentage of offspring to be so lucky as to actually live long enough to reproduce. Life is simply too complex and designed to happen by unguided natural processes. Or as I like to put it, why do people look at the space shuttle and say "Design!", yet look at its designers and say "Accident!"?

Your last paragraph is completely irrelevant to a discussion of "challenge to evolutionists", and is an attempt to offer a red herring to shift focus off the defendant and onto the prosecutor. If you want to discuss that, see [link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

Last Edited by Keep2theCode on 02/18/2013 10:02 AM

And little Bo Peep Lost All of Her Sheep Yes I know you BELIEVE that story but where is the evidence?

You think that because life is made of the same chemicals that this supports evolution? Do you realize how utterly impossible life systems would be on this Earth if we did not share similar chemical make-ups?

Your argument is philosophical only, not scientific in the least. These are arguments the ancient greeks were making over 2000 years ago.



That isn't "evolution". That is an activation of pre-existing function in the organism. It has absolutely nothing to do with the selection of random variations.

You could use the same ad-hoc storytelling to explain ANY data, no matter what environment, a suitable niche to explain stasis could be thought of.

"Oh this population didn't evolve because it was well adapted to the environment because of X,Y,Z. We don't have any evidence, but it must be right because we know Evolution is true."

In the mean-time, while Nautiluses are kicking around for half a billion years, you are trying to convince people that fish populations eventually evolved into humans over your magical eons of time.

Utterly absurd. No science.

All around us is the 'evidence'. The fact that there are many of the same species spread across the earth in different areas, who are genetically the same, yet show major differences in appearance, function, or physical makeup.

You seem to simply be making the argument that life is just too complex for it to have done all this on its own..so it MUST have had help from a divine being...

Like I said, instead of trying to disprove evolution(or rather the adaptation of a species in order to survive environmental changes) how about you PROVE creation...

Im still waiting...

Your taking the word evolution and giving it one solid definition, that of the process of one celled organisms to present day life..thats not so. Evolution is simply adaptation in order to preserve life.

[link to www.lloydpye.com]

Dear Mr. Pye:
I agree with your conclusions [that humans are genetically engineered] and will give you a few hints, if you wish [speaking] as a “DNA Deep Throat.” First, look up the huge discontinuities between humans and the various apes for: (1) Whole mitochondrial DNA; (2) genes for the Rh Factor; (3) and human Y chromosomes, among others.

Regarding #3, I refer you to K.D. Smith’s 1987 study titled “Repeated DNA sequences of the human Y chromosome.” It says “Most human Y chromosome sequences thus far examined do not have homologues [same relative position or structure] on the Y chromosomes of other primates.” Human female X chromosomes do look somewhat apelike, but not the male’s Y.

This means that if humans are a crossbred species, the cross had to be between a female ape-like creature [i.e, “creature of Earth”] and a male being from elsewhere.

- DNA DEEP THROAT

There was no Big Bang.

Humans did not grow from being apes and monkeys.

Maybe ..some.. humans were designed from monkeys.

Yet, most of us are star born. The human body is a design that repeats throughout the universe.

Everyone has to remember that there is a chunk of human history missing. Think of Hyperbora, Atlantis, Mu, Lemaria, all advanced, ancient, and lost civilizations.

No one will ever know for sure how humans came into this world until they find out what happen in the ancient times.

Thread: THE BEIRING STRAIT THEORY IS BOGUS!!! WHY YOU ASK?

And your trying to convince people that a mystical spirit simply waved his hand and said 'Voila', and so it is...

Utterly absurd. No science.

Like an earlier poster said, people believe in evolution simply because it sounds more plausible. Regardless of how you see it, the evidence and timelines of history on this earth leans more towards evolution than it does creation. You speak of lack of evidence for evolution...well where is all the evidence FOR creation??

Still waiting...

No, all around us is data; what it's evidence of depends upon how it is interpreted. And how it's interpreted depends heavily on presuppositions from one's worldview.


This is evidence of common design, not common ancestry.


Design implies a designer. But you simply take the argument that complexity can arise from simplicity without any guided process toward a goal.


Red herring; it's ToE on trial here. See [link to www.youtube.com (secure)]


Is the defendant playing the prosecutor again?


The definition is the only thing that evolves. This is why it's unfalsifiable.

Last Edited by Keep2theCode on 02/18/2013 10:26 AM

No science for you!

No science for you!

CoughcoughAnnunakicoughcough...

I believe that in the case of humans in particular...we were genetically manipulated to the stage we are now. I personally think evolution got us to the 'neanderthal' stage.. then comes your 'creation' theory and we are crossed with one of us to one of them. The following crossbreeding leads to what we are now.

Thats about as close as I come to a 'creation' theory. Other than that evolution has done the rest across this planet. Though thats a whole 'nother bag of apples im not opening here..

Ahh, but see, if you could simply prove creation, you would by default disprove evolution.. Yet you cant, hence the reason your trying to put evolution on trial. You have no basis for your own theory, so you have no room to try and prove another false.

Yes I am neutral to the question.

But it is a fact that even most people tend to find it very unlikely that a Biblical God exists who created all life as we see it.
So they give a damn if the probability that life formed and evolved by itself is very little.

However, nothing is impossible if we have some intelligent design though, which means the cold and brutal cruel forces of the universe only are responsible, I guess. And by inferring some intelligent design into it, does not cause any problem for us if it has no consequences. We have to struggle though our lives nevertheless. And hope the best. And then we can safely rely upon that at least the personal God does not exist. No need for that luckily.

So, then we are really talking about two different things,
1. The biblical God that created all life after its own kind and 2. Intelligent design that is an impersonal feelingless creative idea without compassion.

If we talk about God of the bible then my last paragraph that life was created perfect is relevant, because a God would have compassion on his creation. So therefore the personal God cannot exist since so much death prevails.

If it is Intelligent Design then everything is possible. Intelligence only does not need to have compassion, but only that the best accustomed species survives. And it is a nice thought also.

I stated my personal beliefs in the OP but I'm not advancing a theory.

I'm asking for YOU to scientifically defend Evolution, which should be easy if it is such a solid theory based on facts and evidence. Apparently you aren't prepared to do this.

If you want to have a case for Creation made for you, then start your own thread.

Not necessarily. Disproving one theory does not prove another; this is a false dilemma. The fact is that the point on the table is "challenge to evolutionists", NOT "challenge to creationists", and every attempt to change it is a red herring.

In fact, it is you evos who are trying to put creationism on trial. Start another thread if you'd like to do that, but this one is where ToE is on trial.

These are interesting thoughts, but all of this is in the realm of philosophy. (Where most evolutionists are forced to retreat to when pressed, because in the end, all they have is philosophy)

But I would like to keep this thread on track. If you have any scientific evidence for Evolution, than by all means present it. Otherwise I would kindly request that you start your own thread for philosophical discussions. Thank you.

If they don't care, they don't debate. But since you're here in a thread where ToE is on the witness stand, it is ToE which has the burden of proof.


No, we're talking about whether the observable data shows evidence of intelligent design. Yet even that is off topic here, where ToE is on trial.

Dang, OP, we keep saying the same things at the same time!

African and European Americans? More PC BS
Caucasions and negroid haplotypes are dated as different sub-species dating 160,000 years ago! With NO diverging history. Caucasions pre-dating negroids.

Advances in Anthropology May 2012
Seven thousand five hundred fifty-six (7556) haplotypes of 46 subclades in 17 major haplogroups were considered in terms of their base (ancestral) haplotypes and timespans to their common ancestors, for the purposes of designing of time-balanced haplogroup tree. It was found that African haplogroup A originated 132,000 ± 12,000ypbp(years before present) is very remote time-wise from all other haplogroups, which have a separate common ancestor, named 'beta'-haplogroup, and originated 64,000 ± 6000 ybp. It includes a family of Europeoid (Caucasoid) haplogroups from F through T that originated 58,000 ± 5000 ybp. A downstream common ancestor for haplogroup A and 'beta'-haplogroup, coined the alpha-haplogroup emerged 160,000 ± 12,000 ybp.

Last Edited by uscrusader1 on 02/18/2013 11:05 AM

Stick around :)

Look at physical DNA, it's a 4 bit organic 'life' operating system. All organisms run it in variations similar to IPhoneOS, IpadOS, LaptopOS, DesktopOS, ServerOS machines, only DNA is organic!
Just like us doing some easy command line programming on those OS's. The intelligent designer(s) created 4 bit DNA organic OS's for living creatures, not 'computer hardware'.
DNA 'life' programming is what they do(knew).
Who knows, we may be some 'intelligent designer' kids' DNA programming experiment, for his grade school class. :)
For all intents and purposes intelligent designer=God.

Last Edited by uscrusader1 on 02/18/2013 11:19 AM

I would assume if God "poofed" plants and animals into existence, but for man formed him out of clay that our DNA/chemical make up would be completely different. DNA shows quite a different story. What an astoundingly strange thing for God to do. You'd think he'd make it OBVIOUS that we're not related at all as proof of himself, his hand in creation and our divine origins.
To me this signals that God wants to confuse us, that he's a cruel trickster or that he's insane.

Birds are not dinosaurs, this was proven utter horseshit many, many years ago.

Please define for me a "simple" organism.

Please provide proof that you can date something by where you dug it up.

Our brain isn't remotely smart enough to know what the Creator had in mind.
That whole "In his own image and likeness" thing makes sense to me, as we inherited the trait. The first cave pictures of 'us' hunting, our handprint, self portraits, "In our own image and likeness". :)

Last Edited by uscrusader1 on 02/18/2013 11:27 AM

was that proven to be horsehit? i dont recall ever seeing that. can you provide a link?

proof of dating can be done by observing the sedimentary layers and carbon dating.

There's no point in trying to convince someone that believes he or she came from a rock because a book or 1.000.000 others claim so without 0 proof.

You just ask them the evolution question and ask them the details about their own theory, pure awesomeness, every fcking time. :)

Most evolutionist and atheist don't know what they believe, aspecially if you keep asking them very easy questions.
Eventually they say you are not educated, naive, most likely blind and dumb.

And they are not, ofcourse. Because they are educated (Arians)! ^-^

People who say evolution is unfaslefiable...

Find a fossil of a dog in the same sediment as trilobites and you have found evidence that would falsify the entire theory of evolution.