Why Evolution is False and is the biggest fairy tales EVER in our human history

[Ringtone]

Explain

The paleontological record generally evinces that species of increasing variety and complexity have appeared over geological time, yes?

It does not necessarily follow from that that all species are of a common ancestry, that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause and effect, dummy! Why does that have to be explained to you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. What!? LOL!

I'm not asking you trick questions here, for crying out loud. You don't know what you believe or why?

As opposed to a biological history of an evolutionarily branching and transmutatioinal history of speciation, which would necessarily entail an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation over geological time.

Why is an unbroken chain wrong?

 

[Ringtone]

Why is an unbroken chain wrong?

What's wrong with a series of creative events over geological time?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's wrong with a series of creative events over geological time?

Post your proof.

 

[rightwinger]

The paleontological record generally evinces that species of increasing variety and complexity have appeared over geological time, yes?

It does not necessarily follow from that that all species are of a common ancestry, that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause and effect, dummy! Why does that have to be explained to you?

The geology is unquestionable

There were no complex creatures in eras with just simple lifeforms

 

[Ringtone]

The geology is unquestionable

There were no complex creatures in eras with just simple lifeforms

Dude, I agree with you on that score. The paleontological record generally evinces that species of increasing variety and complexity have appeared over geological time. So? Once again, why do you assume a common ancestry?

 

[rightwinger]

Dude, I agree with you on that score. The paleontological record generally evinces that species of increasing variety and complexity have appeared over geological time. So? Once again, why do you assume a common ancestry?

The only other explanation is magic

Poof…there is a fish
Poof….a bird
Poof….a mammal

 

[BackAgain]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY

Actually, evolution is a theory and an opinion. It is one I happen to subscribe to. But it hasn’t been proved. It may not be possible to prove it. But there is plenty of evidence to support the theory, the opinion and the belief.

The existence of God hasn’t been proved, either. I doubt it can ever be proved in this life.

 

[Ringtone]

Post your proof.

Why would I prove that the paleontological record generally evinces that species of increasing variety and complexity have appeared over geological time? That's common knowledge. You're not making any sense, dude. Something's wrong with your thinker.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would I prove that the paleontological record generally evinces that species of increasing variety and complexity have appeared over geological time? That's common knowledge. You're not making any sense, dude. Something's wrong with your thinker.

You're not going to post proof of a series of creative events over geological time?
Ok.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Once again, why do you assume a common ancestry?

You have any evidence that argues against common ancestry?

 

[Ringtone]

The only other explanation is magic

Poof…there is a fish
Poof….a bird
Poof….a mammal

Magic? Because God doesn't exist? But I already exposed you for a damn fool on that very point. Maybe you weren't paying attention or couldn't connect the dots. Toddsterpatriot's having the very same problem.

Your fallacious syllogism:
1. The evidence evinces a biological history wherein species of increasing variety and complexity appear over geological time.
2. God doesn't exist; i.,e., metaphysical/ontological naturalism is necessarily true.
3. Hence, evolution is necessarily true.

LOL! Your second premise has an odious smell. We're talking beaucoup-junk-in-the-trunk funk here. You assume evolution all along. You presuppose the conclusion in your premise. Your silly-ass argument amounts to evolution is true because evolution is true.

Hey, don't feel too stupid. The very same sort of stupidity flies right over the heads of many evolutionary theists too. Their fallacious thinking is similar:

1. The evidence evinces a biological history wherein species of increasing variety and complexity appear over geological time.
2. God preprogrammed nature to naturally evolve in all aspects of its development; i,e., naturalism is necessarily true.
3. Hence, evolution is necessarily true.

 

[Ringtone]

You're not going to post proof of a series of creative events over geological time?
Ok.

First of all, why do you babble about proofs regarding scientific matters in the first place, especially regarding biological matters that are not subject to direct observation? Proofs pertain to mathematics and sometimes to logic. The scientific method proper is not used to prove things. It tentatively verifies or falsifies things at best, most especially regarding biological questions that are not subject to observation.

In any event, are you implying that the common ancestry of your metaphysical presupposition of biological naturalism can be scientifically demonstrated?

crickets chirping

In the meantime, and this is the point that exposes the disingenuousnous of your evasive shuck and jive, the evidence would look virtually the same whether biological history were a series of evolutionary events per a common ancestry or a series of creative events per a common design over geological time!

Of course, it's that admission that you're avoiding or pretending not to grasp. I see right through you.

 

[Hollie]

First of all, why do you babble about proofs regarding scientific matters in the first place, especially regarding biological matters that are not subject to direct observation? Proofs pertain to mathematics and sometimes to logic. The scientific method proper is not used to prove things. It tentatively verifies or falsifies things at best, most especially regarding biological questions that are not subject to observation.

In any event, are you implying that the common ancestry of your metaphysical presupposition of biological naturalism can be scientifically demonstrated?

crickets chirping

In the meantime, and this is the point that exposes the disingenuousnous of your evasive shuck and jive, the evidence would look virtually the same whether biological history were a series of evolutionary events per a common ancestry or a series of creative events per a common design over geological time!

Of course, it's that admission that you're avoiding or pretending not to grasp. I see right through you.

Are supernatural events of the godly kind subject to direct observation?

Biological processes actually are subject to direct observation which evinces the strength of the reality-based argument vs. the argument that relies on magic and supernaturalism.

 

[Ringtone]

Are supernatural events of the godly kind subject to direct observation?

Biological processes actually are subject to direct observation which evinces the strength of the reality-based argument vs. the argument that relies on magic and supernaturalism.

 

[Hollie]

As for having studied evolution carefully through your home-skooled, snake handling christian point of view, I would simply ask that you try to describe the processes, (it's called speciation), by which species evolve. If you can do this to the satisfaction of an evolutionist, then you can truly say that you have studied evolution.

The evidence for speciation in large mammals comes from modern genetic research, taxonomy, and the well documented fossil record, which speaks to us unambiguously about the "descent with modification" of life on earth, including humans.

What is remarkable is just how little the hyper-religious know about something that they reject so vehemently.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First of all, why do you babble about proofs regarding scientific matters in the first place, especially regarding biological matters that are not subject to direct observation?

So post your evidence for a series of creative events over geological time.

 

[Ringtone]

As for having studied evolution carefully through your home-skooled, snake handling christian point of view, I would simply ask that you try to describe the processes, (it's called speciation), by which species evolve. If you can do this to the satisfaction of an evolutionist, then you can truly say that you have studied evolution.

The evidence for speciation in large mammals comes from modern genetic research, taxonomy, and the well documented fossil record, which speaks to us unambiguously about the "descent with modification" of life on earth, including humans.

What is remarkable is just how little the hyper-religious know about something that they reject so vehemently.

You said hyper-religious again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First of all, why do you babble about proofs regarding scientific matters in the first place, especially regarding biological matters that are not subject to direct observation? Proofs pertain to mathematics and sometimes to logic. The scientific method proper is not used to prove things. It tentatively verifies or falsifies things at best, most especially regarding biological questions that are not subject to observation.

In any event, are you implying that the common ancestry of your metaphysical presupposition of biological naturalism can be scientifically demonstrated?

crickets chirping

In the meantime, and this is the point that exposes the disingenuousnous of your evasive shuck and jive, the evidence would look virtually the same whether biological history were a series of evolutionary events per a common ancestry or a series of creative events per a common design over geological time!

Of course, it's that admission that you're avoiding or pretending not to grasp. I see right through you.

In any event, are you implying that the common ancestry of your metaphysical presupposition of biological naturalism can be scientifically demonstrated?

I'm willing to examine your evidence against common ancestry.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

By whom?

Scientists.

By satanic Freemasons who turn humanity to Hellfire?

Those guys are the worst.

I lent one $10 and he still hasn't paid me back. Fucking asshole!

Can you spot me another ten?

Evolution is a fake theory created by Satan to provide our souls to Hell.
I advise you to read the article and to think how many souls were lost for ever ?


HAS EVOLUTION BEEN PROVEN?
Over the years, being hard-pressed for real evidence, the evolutionists have managed to conjure up a number of "proofs" that Darwin's theory is a scientific fact. This so-called "evidence" is worshipped by all evolutionists, while all contrary evidence is ignored. Let's consider some of their evidence.

VESTIGIAL ORGANS are believed by evolutionists to be parts of the human body that are no longer needed. Therefore these useless body parts must be "left-overs" from our ancestors, the monkeys. These "useless" body parts include the appendix, the coccyx (tail bone), the pineal gland, the plica semilunaris, the tonsils, and the ear lobes.

Naturally, the facts are ignored. Many medical doctors agree that all of these organs have important functions in the human body, and aren't "vestigial organs" in any sense. The appendix contains a rich blood supply which serves as some defense against cancer. The tail bone isn't where your monkey tail used to be, as Darwinians believe, but it instead provides support for the muscles which control elimination. The pineal gland contains important hormones which the body needs. The plica semilunaris helps to keep foreign particles out of the eye, and the tonsils help to keep foreign particles out of your child's throat. The tonsils also help to keep infection from spreading. Yes, even the ear lobe has a purpose, for it helps to keep our ears warm during cold weather.

Another "proof" for evolution is found in the field of BIOCHEMISTRY. This is where scientists mix genes and chromosomes in their effort to prove relation between man and animal.

Is there any conclusive evidence? No there isn't. Any learned scientist should be familiar with the rather embarrassing test conclusions of Dr. Nutall back in 1904. Nutall's tests concluded that baboons and hoofed animals are related to whales, that pigs are related to tigers, and that black people are related to monkeys! There isn't one ounce of real evidence anywhere in the entire field of biochemistry which proves that men and animals are kin--just theories and wishful thinking.

EMBRYOLOGY is another field of study. This is where unborn embryos are studied in order to detect the preformed shape of humans and animals. This is the field where we find Haeckel talking about "ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY" This is the belief that every individual passes through the many evolutionary stages while still in the mother's womb. That is, you body took on the shape of an amoeba, then a paramecium, then a jelly fish, then a fish, then a bunch of other creatures during the nine months prior to your birth. Of course, this theory ignores the fact that respiratory systems develop LATE in the human embryo. So how did early mammal life exist without breathing? They've also ignored the fact that the head of an unborn baby is larger than the body, which is NOT the case with fish.



You can continue read here:

Evolution: Fact or Fiction? by James Melton

Evolution and a divine can coexist if people can open their minds and understand their is so much more to life and we are just kids in the history of the Universe!