The Failure Of Evolution Theory . . . in a nutshell, information

[toobfreak]

organic material = biochemical organisms?

Nope, just organic chemistry.

The imperatives of logic, mathematics and science absolutely prove God's existence.

As a devout theist, I'd love to see the mathematical and scientific proof of God!

60-80 years of tests?! LOL! You don't seem to even grasp what abiogenesis would be.

Failure to recreate what took 500 million years in just 50 years is no shame.

There's no way in hell the rudimentary chemistry of prebiotic materials could ever produce even the simplest life form

Arguing in a vacuum really since there is no way for man to know in finite time what happened over essentially infinite time under unknown circumstances, but we know that it DOES happen since we are here. And apparently it TENDS to happen giving every possible chance there is liquid water.

 

[abu afak]

The Failure Of Evolution Theory
by Christian von Wielligh

Also, get a copy of The Collapse of Darwinism: How Medical Science Proves Evolution by Natural Selection is a Failed Theory

Excerpt:

Most people intuitively understand that Darwin's theory of evolution-natural selection acting upon random mutations-is a wholly inadequate theory for the creation of a human being. And most people feel unprepared to debate those scientists, professors, and scholars who use their academic authority to defend Darwinism, often bullying and belittling those of us who dare doubt Darwin.​

​

Now, Bredemeier identifies and succinctly encapsulates why Darwinism fails. Using anatomy and physiology as only a physician can, Bredemeier exposes the errors and false logic that Darwinian acolytes continue to employ as they protect their mortally wounded theory. Any reader with a high school or college education will become armed with straightforward examples of exactly why Darwinism fails.​

​

From anatomy and physiology of the human body-including neuroscience, genetics, embryology, and other fascinating fields of the increasingly numerous biological sciences-Bredemeier provides indisputable and damning evidence for which academicians, scientists, and even Nobel laureates, who zealously defend Darwinism, have no adequate answer.​

What a link/source by RingHollow!

The Failure Of Evolution Theory - Joy! Digital

Evolution theory began to infest our world when Charles Darwin first published his book, On the Origin of Species, in 1859. Now it’s everywhere – in our ...

www.joydigitalmag.com

Joy! Digital
Christian Portal
Articles - Interviews - Videos - Teachings




`

 

[Grumblenuts]

I brought down virtually straight A's in advanced courses on the topic in college

Uh oh, someone fears being dismissed as stupid in the worst way..
Meanwhile,.. this crap AGAIN? Seriously, wtf?

 

[alang1216]

The Failure Of Evolution Theory
by Christian von Wielligh


Excerpt:

For neo-Darwinism to be plausible, it must overcome the problem of the origin of new biological information. Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism (even if it was a simple single-celled organism). And secondly, it must be able to give an accurate account of how existing organisms gain new information, because without it they cannot evolve into more advanced forms with new body plans.​

​

Neo-Darwinists place their trust in random mutations (aided by natural selection) to generate new information. But mutations, which are copying errors, cause the loss of, or corrupt, existing genetic information. Small-scale changes due to mutations are insufficient to cause evolution, and various experiments have shown that large-scale changes are harmful and lead to the early deaths of organisms.​

​

So it’s not surprising that the examples of evolution by mutations that are included in our textbooks and presented by the media comprise of the loss of information. And although mutations can sometimes be beneficial, such as the defective gene in Tomcod fish that enable them to live in PCB-polluted water, such small-scale changes does not cause creatures to evolve into new types of creatures. A fish with mutations is still a fish.​

​

Natural selection is also often used in an attempt to convince us that evolution actually happens. But this too cannot generate new information. It can only ‘select’ traits from a pool of existing genetic information (that may include mutations) to produce an assortment of animals of the same kind. Darwin’s Galapagos finches with their various beak sizes, is such an example. Although variations occur between these finches, they’re all still finches. They didn’t evolve into something new.​

Read More

Also, get a copy of The Collapse of Darwinism: How Medical Science Proves Evolution by Natural Selection is a Failed Theory

Excerpt:

Most people intuitively understand that Darwin's theory of evolution-natural selection acting upon random mutations-is a wholly inadequate theory for the creation of a human being. And most people feel unprepared to debate those scientists, professors, and scholars who use their academic authority to defend Darwinism, often bullying and belittling those of us who dare doubt Darwin.​

​

Now, Bredemeier identifies and succinctly encapsulates why Darwinism fails. Using anatomy and physiology as only a physician can, Bredemeier exposes the errors and false logic that Darwinian acolytes continue to employ as they protect their mortally wounded theory. Any reader with a high school or college education will become armed with straightforward examples of exactly why Darwinism fails.​

​

From anatomy and physiology of the human body-including neuroscience, genetics, embryology, and other fascinating fields of the increasingly numerous biological sciences-Bredemeier provides indisputable and damning evidence for which academicians, scientists, and even Nobel laureates, who zealously defend Darwinism, have no adequate answer.​

Evolution is a fact, proven over and over in every scientific field, there is a very good reason it is accepted by the vast majority of scientists in the field. Your arguments are flawed since they are based on false assumptions. You are essentially like those who studied the aerodynamics of flight and proved that bumblebees can't fly.

 

[alang1216]

Nonsense. The imperatives of logic, mathematics and science absolutely prove God's existence.

Which God do they prove?

 

[Ringtone]

Arguing in a vacuum really since there is no way for man to know in finite time what happened over essentially infinite time under unknown circumstances, but we know that it DOES happen since we are here. And apparently it TENDS to happen giving every possible chance there is liquid water.

Because we're here, abiogenesis necessarily happened? LOL! Abiogenesis tends to happen everywhere there's water?! LOL!

The only thing you're demonstrating here is your rank ignorance regarding the realities of abiogenetic research.

From the article:

Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism.​

Your direct response:

Easy. It had nearly a two billion year long period between when the first prokaryotes appeared. . .

So mere chemistry did all that, eh?

What else do biochemical organisms have but chemistry?

Nope! You lost the train of the discourse. Hence, I wrote:

So prebiotic, organic material = biochemical organisms?!

Failure to recreate. . . .

Failure to recreate?!

You have no idea what you're talking about. Abiogenesis is not what intelligence creates, recreates, demonstrates, shows, guides, manipulates, causes, let alone observes in the lab, dummy. Abiogenesis is life arising from non-living, prebiotic material up from the most fundamental, organic precursors in raw nature!

You're talking out the vacuum of your ass.

 

[Ringtone]

I brought down virtually straight A's in advanced courses on the topic in college

Uh oh, someone fears being dismissed as stupid in the worst way..
Meanwhile,.. this crap AGAIN? Seriously, wtf?

You're dismissed, brainwash.

 

[Ringtone]

Evolution is a fact, proven over and over in every scientific field, there is a very good reason it is accepted by the vast majority of scientists in the field. Your arguments are flawed since they are based on false assumptions. You are essentially like those who studied the aerodynamics of flight and proved that bumblebees can't fly.

Bald claims appealing to authority sans an argument anywhere in sight.

 

[Ringtone]

As a devout theist, I'd love to see the mathematical and scientific proof of God!

As a devout theist, you've never thought the matter through for yourself?

That's weird.

 

[toobfreak]

Arguing in a vacuum really since there is no way for man to know in finite time what happened over essentially infinite time under unknown circumstances, but we know that it DOES happen since we are here. And apparently it TENDS to happen giving every possible chance there is liquid water.

Because we're here, abiogenesis necessarily happened? LOL! Abiogenesis tends to happen everywhere there's water?! LOL!

The fact that you keep twisting my words putting words in my mouth I never said leaping to conclusions unsupported by the facts or statements made shows that you are not only not a scientist, are arguing in a total vacuum and a complete waste of my time.

You are just a desired outcome in search of a theory to support getting to it.

 

[toobfreak]

As a devout theist, I'd love to see the mathematical and scientific proof of God!

As a devout theist, you've never thought the matter through for yourself?

That's weird.

What's weird is your continual LEAPS from what a person actually says to some fantastic specious conclusion YOU throw in there then try to accuse ME of saying it! One more time and off to permanent IGNORE for you. If you can't hold up a sensible, rational discussion, I'll waste no more time on you.

PS: I note you also failed to provide the proofs you claim exist!

 

[Ringtone]

The fact that you keep twisting my words putting words in my mouth I never said leaping to conclusions unsupported by the facts or statements made shows that you are not only not a scientist, are arguing in a total vacuum and a complete waste of my time.

You are just a desired outcome in search of a theory to support getting to it.

False! I don't play those games. I didn't twist your words. I was obviously talking about chemical evolution (abiogenesis). It appears you're talking about abiognesis in the above. That is the logical train of the discourse.

Arguing in a vacuum really since there is no way for man to know in finite time what happened over essentially infinite time under unknown circumstances, but we know that it DOES happen since we are here. And apparently it TENDS to happen giving every possible chance there is liquid water.

Because we're here, abiogenesis necessarily happened? Abiogenesis tends to happen everywhere there's water?!

If you're talking about something else or saying something I misinterpreted, then clarify.

 

[toobfreak]

The fact that you keep twisting my words putting words in my mouth I never said leaping to conclusions unsupported by the facts or statements made shows that you are not only not a scientist, are arguing in a total vacuum and a complete waste of my time.

You are just a desired outcome in search of a theory to support getting to it.

False! I don't play those games. I didn't twist your words. I was obviously talking about chemical evolution (abiogenesis). It appears you're talking about abiognesis in the above. That is the logical train of the discourse.

Arguing in a vacuum really since there is no way for man to know in finite time what happened over essentially infinite time under unknown circumstances, but we know that it DOES happen since we are here. And apparently it TENDS to happen giving every possible chance there is liquid water.

Because we're here, abiogenesis necessarily happened? Abiogenesis tends to happen everywhere there's water?!

If you're talking about something else or saying something I misinterpreted, then clarify.

OBVIOUSLY:

1. The Earth formed from space rubble.
2. There was no life.
3. At some point life began.
4. Therefore, life MUST come from non-life. There HAS to be a natural process where LIFE is the natural result of rather common organic and chemical processes.

 

[Ringtone]

What's weird is your continual LEAPS from what a person actually says to some fantastic specious conclusion YOU throw in there then try to accuse ME of saying it! One more time and off to permanent IGNORE for you. If you can't hold up a sensible, rational discussion, I'll waste no more time on you.

PS: I note you also failed to provide the proofs you claim exist!

Easy!

God's existence is self-evident from the imperatives of logic and mathematics alone:

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe (physical world) began to exist. 3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause. Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence? The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the...

www.usmessageboard.com

Only irrational twits hold that an actual infinity can possibly exist as anything else but a mathematical concept inside minds of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number, value or amount of something or deny the existential necessity of an eternal being.

You should be laughing at yourself.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I brought down virtually straight A's in advanced courses on the topic in college

Uh oh, someone fears being dismissed as stupid in the worst way..
Meanwhile,.. this crap AGAIN? Seriously, wtf?

You're dismissed, brainwash.

You too, stupid. So nothing fresh? Interesting to share? SSDD? That's all?

 

[toobfreak]

God's existence is self-evident from the imperatives of logic and mathematics alone: You should be laughing at yourself.

You DO understand that I believe in God?

But the only one who should be laughing is at you for foisting that load of far flung rubbish.

 

[Ringtone]

OBVIOUSLY:

1. The Earth formed from space rubble.
2. There was no life.
3. At some point life began.
4. Therefore, life MUST come from non-life. There HAS to be a natural process where LIFE is the natural result of rather common organic and chemical processes.

The emboldened is a conclusion that does not follow from your premises. Rather:

1. The Earth formed from space rubble.
2. There was no life.
3. At some point life began.
4. Therefore, life MUST come from non-life.
5. 
   
6. There HAS to be a natural process where LIFE is the natural result of rather common organic and chemical processes.

Your syllogism is missing a connecting premise, and I am telling you as one who is steeped in the pertinent science—as one who is steeped in the actual findings of the leading lights of abiogenetic research—(1) it is not possible to demonstrate or observe abiogenesis, and there is no way in hell (2) mere chemistry by natural means can produce life.

Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

 

[Ringtone]

You too, stupid. So nothing fresh? Interesting to share? SSDD? That's all?

Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

 

[Hollie]

What's weird is your continual LEAPS from what a person actually says to some fantastic specious conclusion YOU throw in there then try to accuse ME of saying it! One more time and off to permanent IGNORE for you. If you can't hold up a sensible, rational discussion, I'll waste no more time on you.

PS: I note you also failed to provide the proofs you claim exist!

Easy!

God's existence is self-evident from the imperatives of logic and mathematics alone:

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe (physical world) began to exist. 3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause. Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence? The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the...

www.usmessageboard.com

Only irrational twits hold that an actual infinity can possibly exist as anything else but a mathematical concept inside minds of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number, value or amount of something or deny the existential necessity of an eternal being.

You should be laughing at yourself.

All the same cut and paste ''stuff'' you dumped into a different thread of your failed appeals to gods, magic and supernaturalism.

 

[Hollie]

You too, stupid. So nothing fresh? Interesting to share? SSDD? That's all?

Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Atheism has nothing to do with the fact of abiogenesis.