PROOF against evolution

Ah, yes, I remember the 9th grade, when I, too, could wax eloquently on the most profound subjects without actually knowing anything.Let me ask you, k, which seems more likely:a bumbling, foolish, bad-tempered god as expounded in contradictory collection of bronze age myths,
or a scientific theory that has passed every test for the past 150 years?By the way, welcome to EvC.

Red-Shift Radiation - most evolutionists agree is the echo of the creation of the world. The echo of red-shift radiation has been followed and it has shown the origin of the real 'big bang!' It is earth. The odds of us happening to be the center of all life are... WOW long. Also being the center of life shows we are here for a purpose - the center of ALL life. But evolutionists changed their theory of the 'big bang' being an oval shaped explosion, which would make earth not be the center of all life. A circular ExPlOsIoN is far more likly. There would be no reason for the explosion to be oval.

Someone earlier said the following:"Also, finding a skull that is half-human and half-ape DOES NOT prove evolution (it just proves that there was an animal that had both ape and human characteristics).
FYI, there are several human fossils that has been discovered, and put in context (time & morphological change) each made a part of a good, if incomplete, sequence. They're in the right age and shape to serve as a model for desecent with modification.
Anyway, consider your statement: if the apeman was a separate creation from apes and humans, then what purpose does it serve to be created for? To trick us into postulating that humans evolve from primitive apes?"If evolution happened the apeman would serve no purpose in being created because there would be NO purpose in life..00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001That is the chance of evolution creating any form of organism.
Assume that chance came around, there is one organism. WOW! ok, wait. we are forgetting this organism actually has to be self-suffictiant and have some form of reproductive system. Not only would it have to have that but then it would have to further evolve.
Really the chances of evolution happening in the first place are far greater than that organism evolving FURTHER! HOLY COW! that would be millions of times more unlikly.
The one answer that has a 1/1 chance is God. Why can't people accept that, really, why not?

Come back when you understand evolution. Untill then you are just wasting our time.Edit: BTW i'm in 9th grade bio too.[This message has been edited by Rand Al'Thor, 01-14-2004]

I won't even respong to your stupid insults regarding my grade.You called God "bumbling, foolish, bad-tempered". Where did you get any of those ideas?I see a car with 3 passengers. Bob here saw the same car, but he only saw one. Are our ideas contradictory? You said the BIBLE contricts itself, I disagree.This theory, cannot be proven scientificlly.The sciencific method requires that is can be reproduced. Can you reproduce Earth?God is easier to believe than evolution.

Like I said, Come back when you understand evolution.Try TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

**** OFF TOPIC ****
Rand, you weren't kidding in the age thread???I really can't quite believe you are only 15.

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Ya, i'm really 15.

quote:

---

2LTD has nothing whatsoever to say about information. Why do you think it does?

---

Some think it does.

quote:

---

"Boltzman's entropy concept has the same mathematical roots as the information concept; the computing of the probabilities of sorting objects into bins - a set of N into subsets of sizes n. By computing how many ways there are to assemble a particular arrangement of matter and energy in a physical system, he arrived at the expression of entropy (S), the statistical mechanical expression of the thermodynamic concept

​

S = -k [summation i] Pi ln Pi

​

where k is Boltzman's constant (3.2983 x 10^-24 calories / C[degree]).

​

Shannon's and Boltzman's equations are formally similar. S and I have opposite signs, but otherwise differ only by their scaling factors; they convert to one another by the simple formula S = - (k ln 2) I. Thus, an entropy unit equals -k ln 2 bits." (The Touchstone of Life: Molecular Information, Cell Communication, and the Foundations of Life, Werner R. Loewenstein, Oxford University Press, 1999, p9)

---

Where in h... did you get an oval shaped explosion? Is it, lol, from the fact that some galaxy maps are shown as an oval? If there is actually some scientific publication that suggests that it would be something new for me to learn. Please refer to your sources.You have no clue what you are talking about. By it's very nature everywhere is the origin of the big bang. Yes, Earth, yes some planet in Andromeda all are.

---

Common sense isn't

I second that. k, you are soooo far off base it is unlikely you will learn a darn thing. Until you realize you don't know much at all that is.

---

Common sense isn't

quote:

---

And everytime there's a copying error with DNA thereby adding information (which happens all the time, including in your own body), it's just chemistry.

---

Wait a minute....are you saying that you believe that DNA contains information? How come you aren't over in the other thread helping me in my "debate" against Peter?

Fine, I surrender the oval shaped explosion thing. It's just something I heard. Second-hand info.[This message has been edited by k.kslick, 01-15-2004]

The scientific method required repeatability of observations, not necessarily repeatability of the events observed. That said, the fact is that one can repeatedly observe the stratification of fossils in the geologic column, and the fact is that one can repeatedly compare the genomes of humans and chimpanzees and see that they are 98% similar, and the fact is that similar genetic comparisons can also be made repeatedly amongst additional species to determine their degrees of relatedness, and the fact is that a 9th grader like yourself can repeatedly observe the evolution of resistance to a T4 phage in an E.Coli bacteria population, and the fact is that ALL of these facts and more are consistent with the theory of evolution, whereas virtually NONE correspond to a strictly literal reading of Genesis.Gee, why would that be?

quote:

---

The scientific method required repeatability of observations, not necessarily repeatability of the events observed.

---

Strictly speaking, science doesn't even need repeatability of observations, just that the observations be objective (i.e. visions and hunches do not count). Neutrinos coming from a supernova were observed in 1987, and have not been seen since (because there haven't been any supernovas close enough). Even without anyone being able to repeat those observations, they're still perfectly valid scientific data.In general, telling scientists that they're not following the scientific method is likely to be a losing effort, since the practice of scientists is what defines the scientific method (which may only bear a loose resemblance to what's taught in ninth grade as the scientific method).