CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTIONISTS

For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Ecclesiastes 3:20




He's not trying to trick us. If you think this blindly evolved, you're deluded. And this is based on dated information of cell anatomy.


[link to www.youtube.com]

God will give you over to delusion if you willingly deny him in the face of so much evidence of his creation.

If you insist. ;-D


Exactly. And as a programmer, I know code by one person from code designed by a committee. That is, I see evidence of only one God/Designer.


God formed all land animals from the dust of the earth (lit. "Let the land produce..."). The only exception was Eve.

And I find your conclusions to be non-sequiturs.

Pretty much the same thing most creationists do when you ask them very easy questions about proving their own pov...

Call me red herring all you want, but until you can prove creation as fact, youll never disprove evolution...no matter whos on the witness stand first.

'I dont have to prove my philisophical theory, cause I asked you first'...

When someone starts a debate, they choose the topic. So yes, they did ask you first. And yes, it's a red herring to refuse to answer but instead keep trying to dodge the question.

Evolution is your burden to prove.

Why would anyone expect to find a dog (or a rabbit) in the same place as underwater organisms? Has Evolution disproved the "deep-sea canine" theory? Congratulations!

It's quite telling that this is the best predictions Evolutionists can come up with. I don't think Evos dare predict anything much more specific because they know they'll probably be proven wrong.

Keep2theCode,
Can you elaborate about your single programmer/God Designer theory? I just finished the movie 'Prometheus' and this thread is coincidental.

Last Edited by uscrusader1 on 02/18/2013 11:54 AM

Evolution disproves itself.... There is no need to prove creation, it is a faith based religion.

Evolution is MORE of a religion, but is passed off as science to make it OK to kill fetus's, grandma, and anyone with different color skin or "less evolved" than whatever political party is in power.

If you want to go over dis-proving evolution, I can give you some facts, but I suspect you don't want to hear them.

I don't know, that is just one way to falsify evolution. I am not the one saying evolution is unfalsifiable.

LOL. Well thank goodness theories don't have to rely on their own scientific merits any longer. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

It's really not a formal theory or anything, just an observation and opinion from experience.

Code that has more than one writer tends to be bloated and difficult to maintain. This is because programming is not as cut-and-dried as some may think. Each programmer has a style or approach that is unique, even within the same language or environment. There are certain conventions or accepted practices, but there is still latitude for the individual within them. Code by one person, on the other hand, tends to be efficient and consistent.

So when I understand that the universe, especially life, exhibits much interaction, similarity, and coding rules, I see one Designer, not several. I see efficiency, redundancy, error-checking, modularity, and many other aspects or characteristics of a programming language.

Hope that helps.

To believe in God or believe in Intelligent Design is the same, only it has different consequences for our thinking.

However, it is much more acceptable to infer intelligent design because it does not involve any feelings. Thus scientists are not offending anyone and can go on with their theories without much confrontations, as long as it fits with the evolution theory.

Intelligent Design is ad-hoc, because if you want to explain the forming of the DNA, the forming of different organs, or to explain the transition between species as a result of mutation, you have to infer an intelligent force of some sort. The probability that the process could go by itself is too small.

For example the first formation of eyes, how did that occur. By trial and error? May be suddenly an animal was born with eyes? Or may be any little cell tissue was formed accidently, that could be precursor for the eyes it would be an error from the start without functioning at all. Even there are two eyes also. So the ones born from that animal with such cell tissues would not have any better chance for surviving than the other that were born, may even smaller.

So we have to infer that two eyes had to be formed at once through some mutational process. It is so improbable that it can occure by simple chance. And it becomes very convenient then to infer that an intelligent force must exist so we can explain it.

And we can for example say that the intelligent force caused a need in the animals to see, because they can then more easily track their prey for food. Or for example the Giraff to get a long neck so they can reach up higher in the trees and at the same time deal with the large force that the heart has to excert to pump the blood all the way up to the head.

For this theory to be proved we then we must also prove that this invisible force actually exist. How can this be proven?

It can not, we must believe in it only. And it will be just ad-hoc scientifically.

No, it isn't falsification. Did the discovery of the coelacanth or blood cells in dino bones cause anyone to stop believing in ToE? Not at all, though any other theory would be considered debunked at that point. If a theory predicts certain things cannot happen, but they are discovered to have happened, then that theory should be discarded. Yet there is nothing any evo will accept as proof against their theory, as these discoveries show. Even if a pterodon were to fly across their university campus, they would refuse to abandon ToE. That is the meaning of unfalsifiable.

So which evo scientist would actually abandon ToE if their personal demand for proof against it were provided?

Last Edited by Keep2theCode on 02/18/2013 12:07 PM

Let's hear what the man who wrote The God Delusion has to say about evolution and intelligent design

I disagree. Evolution is not something that can really be proved within an internet forum. Professionally speaking I do not believe in evolution as such but I accept it as the strongest theory we have to describe the range of life on this planet.

Personally I believe in evolution and do not believe in any supernatural phenomenon at all.

I definitely accept that there is allot we do not know about evolution (by whatever means mundane or otherwise). However this does not invalidate the theory of evolution.

Do not forget that the theory of evolution was not accepted by the science community for some 70 years after Darwin + Co. The success of evolution was an uphill struggle. In the beginning there was almost total acceptance of theistic explanations and over time this changed almost everywhere.

Some people scientists included believe God may have carefully selected the physical laws of the (or this) universe to make it good for life to exist. Others believe god basically just set of a firework but still accept evolution.

And now we get to the exception in the accepted everywhere. It is accepted everywhere with the exception of the religious right in the USA and the majority of Muslims.

Anyway to conclude it is not possible for me to "prove" evolution here since I know so much more knowledgeable than you it is not possible to fit the information into this discussion. This is why many "evolutionists" as you say basically direct you to places where the information is. If you want to challenge evolution, which lets face you (OP) are basically doing here then you must learn about it first so that you can fluently converse about the subject.

Thx Keep2theCode,
Can you imagine the level of intelligence necessary?! Godlike... Almost need a whole planet to run this code!
I'm not sure there were 'updates' during the history of life on earth, but there seem to be DNA 'jumps/revisions' at certain points.
Croc's and Sharks seem to be doing OK so I'll let 'em run as is. :)
Took a REAL chance with the human species, the whole image and likeness thing, and undoubtedly much remarked out 'God traits' code. :)

Last Edited by uscrusader1 on 02/18/2013 12:16 PM

How do coelacanth or blood cells in dino bones provide evidence against the mechanism of evolution? It doesn't. Species don't HAVE to adapt/evolve. Red blood cells in dino fossils only proofs that red blood cells can remain intact after millions of years, it has nothing to do with evolution but rather with the mechanism of fossilisation.

A dog buried next to trilobites would infact disprove evolution cause evolution says life evolved from common ancestors. Trilobites are considered the ancestor for most vertebrates. If you would find a dog fossil (or any other fossil that is assumed to have formed millions of years after trilobites) that would mean animals didn't evolve from a common ancestor hence disproving one of the most fundamental principles of evolution.

I'm sick of replying to all you brainwashed evolutionists. Do you want proof why your theory is total bullshit?


The Earth's spin is slowing down 1 second every 18 years.

What is that over 4.5 billion years?

well it's 5.5 seconds every 100 years.

so 55 seconds every 1000 years, times another 1000 for one billion years,

Then multiply those numbers by 4, for 4 billion years.


Wow... that Earth is spinning like a top!


Then we can get into the Moon moving away from the earth... Or maybe the magnetosphere losing cohesion?


Whoops... guess it can't be billions of years old eh?

those statements prove or disprove nothing.

Science is supposed to observe without bias, then draw all possible conclusions to explain the data. And if the data shows the characteristics of design, the scientific response is to postulate a designer.

But inference is hardly the sole domain of the creationist, since ToE is absolutely saturated with it. In fact, it could not stand at all without heavy inference. For example, you state as fact that there is "transition between species as a result of mutation", yet there is not one proof of such a thing; it is inferred on the a priori assertion of ToE, which is circular reasoning. So both theories rely upon inference.


We don't have to prove anything at all about the Designer; we only have to conclude that there must be one. And if said Designer must be outside the laws of physics it created, then it cannot be proved or falsified by naturalistic science. By way of illustration, suppose we wanted to measure the range of temperatures inside a volcano. But we have no clue what that range is, so we make a thermometer that goes from 0 to 100 degrees. Then we take our data and conclude that volcanoes never get hotter than 100 degrees! Ridiculous, right? Yet how can the natural possibly observe or measure the supernatural? It's the same as that thermometer: it cannot go beyond its own limits, and wasn't designed to do so.

So how does one prove the supernatural? All naturalism can do is recognize its own limits and say "We don't know what or who the Designer is, but there has to be one".

As would a pteradactyl flying overhead in present day. Which they dont.. All we see are the modern day versions of what they have 'adapted' into due to environmental triggers.

Should be called the Dawkins Delusion. He can't explain how matter can support consciousness. (It can't.) He will be very surprised when he passes on.

UM NO

It completely disproves the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Unless you believe that thermodynamics somehow doesn't apply to evolution.

Oh and my math was wrong, 1000x1000 is only 1 MILLION!!! LOL now take that time another 1000!!!


WEEEEE carousel Earth!!

you make assumptions with your statements. one being that the slowdown and seperation are a constant from day one of earth's creation.

you are incorrect.

Yet somehow God is something that can be proved in an internet forum?

All I see here is a refusal to accept the challenge made by the OP.



And this is why it cannot be falsified.


Fallacy: "appeal to popularity", also "poisoning the well".


Ooo...

-- "special pleading": You can't prove your theory here but others must

-- "appeal to authority" and "ad hominem": Your 'students' are too stupid

-- "double standard": You can offer links we're supposed to read, but you can't be bothered to read ours

-- "red herring" again: You are not to be challenged

Game over, with that many fallacies.

[link to www.reasonablefaith.org]

This is my point exactly,

Using constants from what we have today is the ENTIRE argument for evolution...

Using that same methodology, I just shit all over the theory. SHAT all over it.

I do not believe we have always had the same environment, However, the Earths rotation is probably a better constant than say.. the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere? maybe?

Then there's that whole law of thermodynamics....

deep-sea canine theory, that's hilarious

Dinosaurs were exterminated 65-135 million years ago. How the chickens evolve from something that wasn't even walking the earth?

BTW yall's precious evolution theory isn't remotely water-tight when you consider one of the conditions of evolving genetically (according to the theory itself) is that it must take place before birth.

So all these animals that supposed evolved from others (dinosaurs/chickens) would have to exist on this earth at the same time.

We know this didn't happen...but keep eating whatever they are feeding you.