Evolution Disproven.

Is that the pungent stink of troll on the breeze?

RvX:

quote:

---

K... this really is laughable, it's just so funny to see how you guys actually believe this lie (evolution)

---

You are absolutely correct. Here's what the evolutionists don't want you to know:

quote:

---

They are trying to sneak metaphysical naturalism and atheism into public-school curricula. By constructing an ingenious but hopelessly convoluted and ad-hoc theory to explain the glorious order and design of nature without God, they are propping up the feeble hopes of atheist philosophy. By this underhanded method they intend to breed whole generations of atheists who will spread a sort of anti-Gospel, eventually wiping out Christianity entirely and ensuring that all souls are condemned to damnation in the fiery pit of Hades with the poking and the jabbing and the burning and the divine wrathfulness and the hey-hey-hey it hurts!

​

The evolutionists probably do not consciously plan all of this, nor, necessarily, do they consciously worship Satan. Rather, they are easily manipulated by the Lord of the Flies because they are so prideful that they cannot see the forest for the trees. They are so addicted to their mitochondrial DNA and their peppered moths and their population-genetics equations that the blindingly apparent truth of God's presence has been snuffed out in their minds. I imagine Satan first realized how useful scientists could be at spreading verminous lies when he observed callow Darwin hunched over his barnacles and pigeons in the hull of the Beagle, scribbling his scribulous scribulations and encrusticating his meticulous mind with all manner of irrelevant details about anatomy and mollusk-naughty-bits and so forth, and letting his Bible and his Paley gather dust while he eagerly studied Malthus with its dire and farcical implications. And as each generation of evolutionist becomes more overtly prideful and unabashedly atheistic -- the breathtakingly evil Richard Dawkins being the latest and most illustrious example -- Satan's influence grows by leaps and bounds. Unless the Creationists valiantly oppose this materialist agenda, which has circumvented the First Amendment by leaking atheism into the public schools, millions of souls will be lost in the future. (Courtesy "IesusDomini" from here.)

---

[Weird double post edited]

​

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 06-07-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
--Hey, evo's; RvX's logic is a bit comical, but his conscience is right, and you know it!

---

Passing on lies and misquotes (ala that lying sack of fecal matter Hovind) is not good conscience in my opinion.

quote:

---

--You evo's are 'played' by subconscious forces you don't understand: Like ‘frolic’, ‘research grants’, ‘arrogance’ and/or ‘power’ (even as YECs like myself are equally guilty of). Face it or defraud the public. All of us are guilty of scientifically theorizing the impossible, period! That’s why we ‘discuss’.

---

Philip, while trying not to be rude I have to say that after I read your "fallen theory' I came to the conclusion that you really do not have much knowledge as to what constitutes a theory in the scientific sense. Evolution, the fact, and evolution the theory are more than possible, despite your claims to the contrary. Every day more info becomes available that supports this view. Oh, and I do not apply for research grants (I am in industry), I have precious little time to frolic and I get no power from this debate. Sorry.

quote:

---

--I hear a mutationalist scorn: human’s don’t have a ‘heart’, let alone a ‘soul’, ‘mind’, or ‘power’ because such and such aren’t measurable empirically? Go tell that to our own children (if we haven’t aborted them all)!

---

Philip, I strongly suggest that you back up.

quote:

---

--Someone here just stated that man’s APERCEPTIVE ‘mind’ and ‘affections’ evolved from slime! -- That’s fraud in all cultures but an evo’s, and its cursing our nation’s integrity. We indeed state the impossible when we state these 2 supernatural aperceptive phenomenons evolved.

---

Prove your assertion of fraud.

quote:

---

Hear him out. He’s right in his own conscience. Encourage his scheme. Have you ever converted a YEC to the ToE? Has a YEC ever converted an Evo? Conversions are rare. Both camps have innumerable serious gaps in their ‘science’ discussions. Why do we want to convert or sooth our own consciences anyway? (Hint: see ‘subconscious forces you don’t understand’, above)

---

I do not think that conversions are likely what I am aiming at, who might be a better term, are the people who are looking for the data to make up their own minds. I try to help provide that data. As to my conscience, that is not involved here for me other than to provide a better society for my child. One based both on knowledge and honor.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

Originally posted by RvX:
*No offense to anyone, just the truth*
It's mainly filled with a bunch of ignorant, insulting evolutionists who haven't even thought of how impossible evolution is and just continue to slag any newcomers... pssh, how nice of you...

---

Actually they originally just slaged your statements. I do not think that they went after you until your responses.

quote:

---

I have already provided the proof for you... evolution has been disproven...

---

Actually you have provided nothing that has not already been seen and easily refuted. There are many, and far better, arguements than the ones which you have stated and while I disagree with all of them I have to respect some of their positions.As the arguements against your statements on this board are extensive I will not repeat them. However, your misstatement of the second law of thermodynamics was largely glossed over and I would like to expand on it as it is one that generally pisses me off due to its extreme dishonesty.Most of these pieces of info on thermo were drawn from Atkins "Physical Chemistry" as it is the source that I am most familiar with. Your statement concerning order is based on a misapplication of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT) which says
"No process is possible in which the sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and its conversion to work" which has also been restated as
"The entropy of an isolated system increases during any natural process"
Now, this says nothing about energy and entropy flows within the system. Here is a true fact for you, the entropy in a system which INCUDES evolving organisms will increase. Let's look at a simple example of one organism. Many of the proteins in your body contain sulfer bridges resulting from cysteine forming cystine, these sulfer bridges help to stabilize proteins. The formation of the cystine has an entropy change of -60J K^-1 mol^-1, a NEGATIVE entropy. The reaction is driven by the enthalpy an -22000 J K^-1 mol^-1 for a total energy change of -4120 J K^-1 mol^-1 (number from Changs "Physical Chemistry with Applications to Biological Systems", negative means a forward reaction). A simple way of looking at it was that heat was dissipated into the system, increasing the system entropy (heat is a very disordered form of entropy) while allowing for a localized entropy decrease in the cystine bond. Evolution, and life, works
the same way; by locally decreasing entropy while increasing the entropy of the system (the overall environment) generally by the release of heat or other high entropy waste products. Actually work by Wiken et al. indicates that many aspects of abiogenesis (different from evolution) also work via the same reversible entropic processes. FYI the area of thermo is called reversible thermodynamics and the definition of entropy within the system is often called the Clausius inequality in case you want to look it up on your own.

quote:

---

what matters is if you understand true science or not.

---

having been doing science for about 20 years now I think that I am beggining to get a grasp on how it works. Recently I have started looking into he philosophical underpinnings of science (as all human endevors have philosophical underpinnings to them, even religion).

quote:

---

Evolution is NOT science.

---

Not according to every definition of science that I have exmined.

quote:

---

Did you observe evolution or the Big Bang happen?

---

You have never observed gravity, yet I am sure that you think that it exists. Now, I am pretty sure that I know what your response will be and it is going to make my point for me.Well, I am back to the lab to try to define some really irritating problems , have a good day all .------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

​

[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 06-07-2002]

[QUOTE][b]It's mainly filled with a bunch of ignorant, insulting evolutionists[/QUOTE][/b]You're quite the one to condemn insults, aren't you? [QUOTE][b]I have already provided the proof for you...[/QUOTE][/b]Where? All your posts were quickly devoured. [QUOTE][b]Did you observe evolution[/QUOTE][/b]See the above post, in which you were asked if you have ever observed gravity.The evidences that both (BB and evolution) occured is recreatable, evolution itself is a dynamic process that is observable and recreatable, and coherent mathematical models to explain past events have been devised. In short, yes, they are (1) observable (2) recreatable and (3) coherent with what is observed in nature. (3) basically means that we don't have to have a global Flood to miraculously put the fossils where they 'need' to be to explain the fossil hierarchy, etc.By the way, you don't like being called a little leaguer. We call you this not because you are new to the forum, but because you understand little of the nature of science and are trying to convince actual, practicing scientists that they are wrong about the *definition* of science. This is the trademark of a poorly informed Creationist new to the debate. My suggestion would be that you ask TC for advice/assistance and learn as much as you can.Now, is your flood recreatable? Observable? Is it science? [QUOTE][b]Tell me... if "apes evolved to humans", why are there apes still left?[/QUOTE][/b]If British colonists became Americans, why are there still British people left?

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 06-07-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RvX:
K... this really is laughable, it's just so funny to see how you guys actually believe this lie (evolution)

---

Hello RvX. I am a YEC at this board, and I would like to make some friendly suggestions.First of all, I don't agree with people who are making harsh or mean-spirited comments. However, I would like to make some constructive criticisms.The first thing you need to do is read some good material: www.answersingenesis.org
trueorigin.orgGo to those sites and learn what Creationists believe and why they believe it. Also, at the answersingenesis site, go to the QandA topic entitled "Arguments Creationists Should NOT Use." It is very, VERY important that you do not use an argument found on this list. Also, go to the media section of the website and listen to some debates. Listening to debates can help you alot because then you can understand the arguments of both sides.It's also a good idea to read some critic material, such as found at talkorigins.org Perhaps you should rent an anti-creationist book like Abusing Science from the library or something like that. It is important to analyse critical arguments of your position and decide for yourself if they have any merit. I have found that, in some areas, critics are right about Creation Science. Creationists also bring up valuable criticisms about evolutionary theory. You should also read Creationist material. Try Refuting Evolution for a very simple introduction into YEC. Also read Creation: Facts of Life. Start simple and then start to read more in-depth material as your knowledge increases."Evolution = Trash."I think you should refrain from saying such things. Evolution is a formidable theory- it's not complete nonsense as you seem to think. I'm sure someone like Quetzal or Tazimus could make an extremely good defense of evolutionary theory. I also am a YEC like you, but we must give credit where credit it due- evolution has some compelling evidence going for it.I hope you consider my advice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
The first thing you need to do is read some good material:

---

Actually I would have recommended
http://switch.to/evolution it actually has links to both.By the way Cobra, if you have time please read my earlier post to RxV. It contains some info concerning 2LOT and evolution that you may find interesting.Arghhhhh, my %^*@ timer just went off, back to the lab ------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

"K... this really is laughable, it's just so funny to see how you guys actually believe this lie (evolution)"
--It isn't 'laughable', it is enjoyable to discuss and compile a model for the history of the earth and the universe. The ToE is just one theory which happens to be the dominantly accepted theory for biological evolution in the scientific community (referred to as the conventional view or the mainstream science). It is not that I find Evolution a 'stupid theory' as you and Hovind may, I simply disagree that it is and was the mechanism which has [driven] our universe."1. I made a big mistake by saying "living organism." What I meant to say is, "No species can become superior to itself."
Ex: A dog can't make or become a human... etc, you get the point..."
--You give no limitation, nor refute a mechanism which is applied to the progression in development of a population genetically. After listening to all those Hovind tapes/DVD's and what-not, I'm sure your going to flop all around his misuse of macro/micro evolutionary development."2. Do you really think that an extremely small dot of nothing exploded and created all this intelligence, this whole universe? I mean, think about it!
--Yes, there is more than enough people thinking about it, much more in-depth and detailed than you or Hovind may wish to imagine or want to see. Though see above, I do not agree with it as what actually brought about space, time, and matter, and neither may many others in this forum despite their Evolutionary belief.
--Also, despite its name, the 'big bang', does not necessarily imply an 'explosion', I must still urge you to refer to the astronomy texts which I cited in my last post. Or do a search on the internet for links on the big bang and inflation theory."3. There is nothing wrong with Kent Hovind... fake PHD? Gimme a break.. just cause he's smart doesn't mean you evolutionists can insult him..."
--Believe me, there is serious problems with Kent Hovind, keep iterating/parroting his arguments and you may see why. Also, Kent Hovind himself admitted that his Ph.D was not from an accredited university. Patriot university is labeled as a Diploma mill."4. Evolution is a hypothesis, NOT the theory they claim it to be."
--The ToE (emphesis on the 'T') has been tried and tested, while through its flexibility, it has endured numerous experimentations and observation shows its effects successfully predictable by the theory. The hypothesis quickly graduates to giving it the stamp of it being a theory after you look over these details.". An evolutionist (I believe his last name was Haecker or something) made a big book about evolution, years ago... he was showing the similarities of different species by their embryos... it turns out he actually faked the pics of the embryos... he finally figured out how idiotic evolution is."
--Good for him. And its significance?"6. Do you really believe that we came from something so small and dumb to something so big and intelligent? I mean, come on guys, you have brains, think about it... evolution CAN NOT be true, and is not true."
--Why should anyone in this forum take you seriously in the least with your extreme and tedious lack in detail, logic, or reason? Again, you have been brainwashed."7. Charles Darwin admitted this about his evolution hypothesis... I read about it in some book, can't remember its name..."
--Can't remember its name, I know don't you just hate it when that happens. Gosh darndit!"8. If you get the Philadelphia Trumpet, read their article of the EVOLUTION OF FRAUD... it just came out."
--I don't think I'm going to take the time to read it, if you really wish, take the time and post a quote. Otherwise, I feel you have just parroted the included dogma all over this board."9. There is evidence of a huge catastrophe (the Flood).. for example, there are fish in places where water has never flowed... there is real evidence of this."
--My goodness, please don't touch the Flood, while I do believe and people here have acknowledge the existence of evidence for the flood (however they still see the evidence against and/or lack in evidence for some observations which I may or may not be able to argue or have addressed yet) if you start arguing the Global Flood on this board, I'm afraid that you will turn it into a spoiled bowl of rotten geology. When you have read some earth science/geology related text books come back and I would be happy to argue with you. Hovinds propaganda will only make you look like a fool here."10. How dare you compare God with earthly things? Duh, thats why he's called God... of course he can create anything from nothing... thus the name God!"
--Whatever you say sir! :\"Evolution = Trash."
--Evolution = Entertaining scientific study"FINALLY: it is a huge mistake to even call evolution science. It is neither observable or reproducabe (or recreatable, whatever )"
--Please stick around. Evolution, as it predicts, will suffice the desired observation again and again. Speciation is highly observable. And its cause, mutation. If your going to argue that 'no new information can come about!', you may want to refer to the biology text I cited in my first post here.Wow, that was easy "Thanks."
--Your welcome------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-08-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RvX:
8. If you get the Philadelphia Trumpet, read their article of the EVOLUTION OF FRAUD... it just came out.Here is a quote from the article in the paper that you cite.
"Duane T. Gish, Ph.D., in his book Evolution: The Fossils Still Say NO!, states, Even though this transition is supposed to have taken 100 million years, not a single intermediate [fossil] has ever been discovered.
While I will leave aside the documented number of times that Gish has been caught misrepresenting the words of scientists the above statement is flat out wrong. There are scores, here are a few references to get you started.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm
http://biology.semo.edu/courses/bi120/stdygd20.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html
http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/evol/miscon.shtmlBut then, Gish has been spinning tall tales for quite some time anyway .------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

"Ok, I'm really disgusted, I can't believe what the world has come to..."
--Neither can I! (Hovind needs a spanking)"*No offense to anyone, just the truth*"
--When it comes..when it comes..."It's mainly filled with a bunch of ignorant, insulting evolutionists who haven't even thought of how impossible evolution is and just continue to slag any newcomers... pssh, how nice of you..."
--I'm not an Evo and I can get it through my head, I wasn't brainwashed, I looked at the data, I didn't ignore it."There's too many things to quote and reply to here, and it's not going to get anywhere, because you evolutionists will just continue to deny and deny the truth... you have been brainwashed too much to realize the truth."
--Some replies would do you very well, I at least hope your reading what people are giving you too? Schraftinator supplied some links. And, you have given no logic or reason for our being brainwashed, you have supplied us with No, Zippo, nada information or data."I have already provided the proof for you... evolution has been disproven..."
--It was refuted right before your very eyes RvX, if you want to tell us specifically how this is not so, pick one of your arguments and argue against the refutations. I think you have a great misunderstanding of how science is done also."I care nothing of what your opinion of me is... you can call me a "little-leaguer" all you want, because I'm a new poster here or whatever... and I don't really care... what matters is if you understand true science or not."
--Thats why we called you a 'little leaguer', because you do not yet understand science. Your just randomly throwing crazy and wild arguments all over the floor to be refuted which you then ignore or plan to ignore."Did you observe evolution or the Big Bang happen? Is it recreatable?
NO! Thats all I need to know... it's not science, it's just a bunch of lies compiled together."
--Just to tell you just because something isn't reproducible, doesn't mean it isn't science. You might want to throw our bible right out the window then! Or our flood I work to critique. By the way, Evolution is observable, as it predicts (Evolution doesn't predict that dogs will birth humans in a single generation...not to mention that Evolution does not have a decided direction of development, nor does it say that dogs or humans are directly ancestral. It does however say that they are related)"Tell me... if "apes evolved to humans", why are there apes still left?"
--OMG!!!!!!!! Doctors, we are in great need for some major brain surgery here.
--Please, let me ask you, do you seriously believe this Hovind stuff? Because you should realize that this obviously indicates that he has no clue what he is talking about, or you need to read some text books. You have the highest degree of a misunderstanding of evolution you can possibly have. And I think you are ignoring the antidote."Really... this is pretty sick... I just cannot believe what the world has come to... rejecting God and developing a bunch of lies to explain how the world was created."
--See above, you have the highest degree of misunderstanding of the ToE you can possibly have. The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the existence of God, let alone which God. I thought you realized the concept of a 'theistic evolutionist'.------------------

Their talk on Evolution may be credible, though I wouldn't recommend the Flood Geology arguments, it reaks with Hovinds 'Evo' twin arguments. ------------------

Ok guys just answer something for me...Why do you hate Kent Hovind so much?Stop attacking him for what college he went to (ad hominem)... just tell me, what's wrong with him?

Hate? I don't think anyon here takes Hovind seriously enough to hate him. What your sensing is incredulousness and frustration that there are still people out there ignorant enough to buy his many lines of malarkey.Take just the retrograde motion item of Venus and Neptune. Hovind's statements were so far off the mark as to defy belief. The Big Bang, which took place roughly 15 billion years ago, has nothing to do with Venus or Neptune, which only condensed from the solar nebula about 4.5 billion years ago.What would you think of someone who claimed detailed knowledge of Christianity but thought the immaculate conception was just a really clean idea? Hovind is *that* ignorant about science, yet he apparently has a wide following. He explores depths of ignorance where few have ventured.Whether or not evolution is valid, Hovind is a loon.You can listen to TC or not, though I think it would be a good idea if you did. He's a Creationist like yourself who has learned a lot about science but still doesn't accept evolution or an ancient earth and universe. Rejecting evolution doesn't mean rejecting all science.--Percy

The good Dr is a propagandist, he deliberately misinforms (we call this LYING), & has no intention of discussing actual science, only misrepresenting it to further his own agenda.For example (this is my favourite, so apologies to those who have to put up with me reposting this), Kent claims that, as a refutation of molecular phylogenies that sunflowers appear closer to humans than chimps (when the molecule used to infer the phylogeny (evolutionary tree) is cytochrome c). This is in contradiction of evolutions prediction that humans closest relative is the chimp, & would indeed represent a serious embarrasment if it were true. http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/HovindLie.htmlAmino acid sequences of cytochrome c.Sunflower:
asfaeapagd pttgakifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan
knmaviween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylktst aHuman:
mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw
gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katneCommon Chimpanzee:
mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw
gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katneAs you can see, human & chimp cytochrome c is absolutely identical, the sunflowers amino acid sequence is significantly different.Kent Hovind knows he's talking bullshit, but doesn't give a toss. Why? He knows the people he sermonises to won't check his ridiculous claims because they WANT to believe him, they'll just take his word at face value.Fortunately most of his crap is easily refutable, & once you see him for what he is, he's actually worth it for the comedy value.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.