|Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New|
Stats: 2,191,456 members, 4,778,382 topics. Date: Saturday, 23 February 2019 at 06:34 PM
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! (41658 Views)
|Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by Nobody: 6:13pm On Dec 10, 2016|
[b]For a while now i have been piecing together truth about evolution and deconstructing the false science behind it. This has been painstakingly put together and studied by me alongside other scientific material and i will be presenting this in a 6 part series so please bear with me.
I would like to appeal to everyone reading not to make any posts until the entire 6 parts are up here so there would be no muddling up of the process and no derailing. I appreciate your cooperation in advance.
This expose takes a look at this issue of evolution, showing that there is a lot more to the story than what is generally said and commonly taught everywhere. After laying a truthful foundation and building up on it, you will see that the theory of evolution falls flat o its face, and that the confusing series of explanations, definitions and suppositions supporting it are weak and lack depth. Each part builds upon the last, and the entire series should be read to understand the fullest picture and the vital implications that flow from its conclusions.
The origin of life has for many generations been an aggressively contested and unnecessarily complicated issue in science.
Scientists, educators and theologians immovably stand at opposites of each other, unable to see the full picture. Their deeply rooted biases have turned an interesting subject into one filled with bitter controversy. This need not be.
Throughout this expose, the issue of evolution will be laid bare. Many of its foundations will be unveiled and the error filled assumptions exposed. You will be left with a conclusive picture about the theory of evolution. Your thinking and understanding about the foundation of the world will be forever changed.
You have but one task as you read: with an open mind, review the evidence. Do not allow any bias you might already have to blind you to this all important understanding. The implications are far greater than you probably know.
Many scientists assume that evolution is the foundation for many aspects of science. archaeologists, Biologists, biochemists, geologists, etc., would declare that evolution is the take off point for further study.
Why is evolution cemented in the minds of many as fact, when it is nothing more than theory?
How did this occur?
Certain areas of evolution may be confusing and hard to understand. Do not be surprised! The rationale invented to uphold evolution is bewildering and complicated. It is tiresome and boring. Certain facts are conveniently left out, and tedious scholarly language is used to stop most people from examining the subject in detail. Left frustrated, most assume evolution to be fact.
This expose will remove every mystery attached to the subject. You will know if evolution is science fact or science fiction. Complex and unfounded theories will be made very simple in a way probably never before put forward. While some aspects are technical, the more detail given, the better you will be able to see through the theory’s “mirage.” Clear and simple logic always destroys ill-conceived assumptions.
Once evolution is dismantled, you will be left with many questions and serious implications.
Even a casual review of this issue clearly shows that many years of scientific research have only been able to provide us with little more than assumption, disagreement and widespread confusion.
Collin Patterson (deceased), once the world’s most respected fossil expert penned it thus: “One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it occured to me that I had been working on this stuff (evolution) for 20 years and there was not one thing I knew about it.”
He expressed his concerns to both the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, saying, “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?” Each time, he was met with weak explanations, hypotheses and theories.
The only sensible and worthy of note comment came during the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar, in which one participant stated, “I do know one thing though it should not to be taught in high schools.”
This brought Mr. Patterson to the conclussion that, “It does look like to me that the level of knowledge about evolution is amazingly weak and lacking in depth. We know it should not to be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.”
What are the facts about the theory of evolution? What is it about it that we really know? What is the reason behind its near global acceptance?
You will be amazed at what the scientific evidence reveals!
Science is Logical
No matter the discipline, when one is presented with a vast array of empirical data, sound logic must be used to sift through it. Right conclusions can only be reached when proper logic is employed. Faulty logic often called logical fallacies cause error, confusion and misinterpretation. Sometimes these fallacies are used by mistake; other times the motives are more diabolic.
In the latter case, fallacies are meant to cause the reader to wrongly read data and reach a wrong conclusion. By creating a deliberately tangled web of confusion, the data is impossible to navigate and correct conclusions are lost.
While it should not be so, science is decorated with logical fallacies. This is no more true than with the subject of evolution. These seven lies found below are the most commonly employed to explain evolution. As the evidence is opened up, try to recognize these lies in the evolution pundits positing.
Hasty Generalization: A little sample is used to arrive at a grand conclusion. Lets assume your local Motorcycle seller sells Bajaj bikes; a hasty generalization is to conclude that all motorcycle sellers in Nigeria only sell Bajaj Motorcycles.
Begging the Question or circular logic. An assumption is used as the basis to prove a conclusion; in turn, that conclusion is used as a basis to prove the original assumption.
Misuse of Authority: Pointing to a group of experts to validate a conclusion, even if those experts disagree with each other or with the conclusion. An instance would be stating that Ladies prefer a certain brand of soap, but never actually taking a poll about their preference in the first place.
Appeal to the People: taking advantage of the general public as a basis for proving a hypothesis, instead of depending on relevant evidence. Stating, “Of course, everyone accepts that as fact,” would be an example.
Argument to Future: Stating that even though a theory is not yet proven, it will be with further research and investigation.
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: Repeating as new a theory or hypothesis already disproven. This is similar to asserting that the there is no such thing as the speed of sound, when evidence already demonstrates otherwise.
Chronological Snobbery: When a theory is either refuted or proven by dating “proof” as very old, making it either no longer available or impossible to verify.
One similarity flows throughout all fallacies: They are false! Through dishonesty and lies, a presentation attempts to deceive. It is shocking how often scientists use such deception to promote the theory of evolution as irrefutable fact.
There is an overarching law ruling over the entire universe. It is so much a part of everyday life that most apply it without knowing. It is inescapable. Everyone is impacted by it.
This is the law of cause and effect.
Drop your car key and it falls to the ground. The effect is the key hitting the ground; the cause is gravity. Jump into a swimming pool on a hot day and you are refreshed. The effect is feeling refreshed; the cause is jumping into the water.
Cause and effect is so universal and proven, it carries the respectable tag of being a scientific law: causation, which states that every effect can be traced to a cause that happened before (or simultaneous to) the effect.
All effects must have causes. It is that simple.
Connecting cause and effect with another set of scientific laws such as thermodynamics, makes the understanding clearer. The word “thermodynamics” comes from the Greek words therme, meaning “heat or energy,” and dunamis, meaning “power.” It is the study of how energy is transferred, and is usually defined by three fundamental laws, on which all disciplines of science are based.
I will focus on the second law in this instance (covering all in more detail later in the expose). The second law states that the total entropy (unusable energy) of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. In ordinary words, it can be summarized by saying that when left alone, everything “burns” its usable energy, eventually reaching a point of no usable energy.
Lets look at this: Water is heated on a burner to the boiling point. If the stove is turned off, the water’s temperature will drop instead of rise. Water will dissipate heat until it reaches room temperature.
Here’s another example: Connect a light bulb to a battery, and it will produce light. Over time, the battery will fully drain, and you will be left with no light and a dead battery. Instead of having two usable items, both will eventually reach a state of complete entropy—no usable energy.
Left alone, energy always changes from usable to unusable.
This is closely related to the law of cause and effect. Scientific laws are immutable and complement one another.
merging cause and effect with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, we reach a fascinating conclusion. Every effect has a cause and, over time, all systems have less usable energy. This means that the effect always has less usable energy than the cause. let me say it in another way, every cause results in a lesser effect. The effect must have less energy, be less complicated, be less advanced than its initial cause.
The theory of evolution states that a more “evolved” life-form (the effect) stems from a simpler one (the cause)—in violation of both cause and effect and the second law of thermodynamics.
So begins the quagmire of evolution
In Part Two, i will show you what the theory actually means. You may be shocked at how many differing definitions it has. Then we will investigate how a scientific law and theory are defined and whether evolution fits into either category! Also in Part Two, I will attempt to tackle the first assumption of evolution which is : survival of the fittest.
After learning the facts, as a right thinking person you would be forced to ask the question of how is it that this theory is accepted. Again, if you keep an open mind, you will find yourself agreeing with the comments from the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar that evolution “should not be taught in high school”!
Will continue shortly.......[/b]
9 Likes 8 Shares
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by Nobody: 6:28pm On Dec 10, 2016|
But for the life of christianity, you haven't been able to explain clearly how God simply emerged from nothing.... You failed woefully at it the last time you attempted it.
First tell how something can come from nothing, then come back let's discuss business.
Joke's on you, buddy...
10 Likes 1 Share
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by Nobody: 6:40pm On Dec 10, 2016|
Please respect my request when i said nobody should post anything until i am done. That surely isnt rocket science.
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by Nobody: 6:44pm On Dec 10, 2016|
Didn't see that bit of info. Oya Sorry. No vex oga. Carry on...
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by Nobody: 8:26pm On Dec 10, 2016|
Having an Origin as the brainchild of Charles Darwin, the definition of evolution has itself evolved into many shapes and sizes. In Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, Darwin said that all living creatures (inclusive of even matter) evolved from a simple less complex life form or substance. His theory pushes forward that life began by accident blind chance and that everything we know today is the result of happenstance.
As far as we know, the common view of evolution is still debated, even among pundits of evolution, we can possibly split up it into 6 major sections: stellar & planetary, cosmic, chemical, organic, macro, and micro.
Cosmic evolution is made up of the origin of the universe, time and matter. The Big Bang theory falls within this area.
Chemical evolution talks about the origin of complex elements. This aspect also attempts to explain the process in which those elements came to be.
Stellar and planetary evolution zooms in on the origin of stars and planets. This is not the same thing as cosmic evolution, yet at times can overlap it.
Organic evolution attempts to shed some light on the origin of living matter. Origin of life study is concentrated upon this area.
The 2 bottom areas, macro & micro evolution, are often erroneously mish mashed. They are not meant to offer explanations to the origin of living matter, but attempt to explain the uncountable variety of flora and fauna.
Micro evolution says that every living organism experiences mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations, within a species. Macro evolution goes beyond this by stating that such adaptations and mutations will, in time, bring about a new species of flora and fauna.
This surely sounds complex doesnt it? Well thats because it is! Often, evolutionists cannot even agree on where the roles begin and end. They even say that macro evolution is just micro evolution over extremely long periods of time.
There is enough proof supporting micro evolution. For example, when a virus becomes resistant to antibiotics, it is a pointer to micro evolution. Such proof is often used to “prove” macro evolution, thereby employing the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. There is absolutely no solid proof for macro-evolution...... absolutely none!
Putting a veil over these specialties has led to much confusion among the general public and to heated debate among scientists.
Assumptions Are Not Proof
Remember the logical fallacy of begging the question. It occurs when an assumption is used to prove a conclusion; in turn, that conclusion is used to prove the original assumption. The core of evolution is based upon this fallacy. So many areas of evolution’s position are nothing more than assumptions used to explain and “prove” other hypotheses. This is not the scientific method and not how legitimate science operates!
I implore every reader to approach this subject like a scientist. As you read, remember that if any assumption can be shown to be false or impossible to validate, any conclusions based upon it crumble to pieces.
To erase all doubt, most of the core foundations of evolution will be shown to be nothing more than assumptions. Many are so important that disproving even one causes the entire theory to collapse.
As we go step by step over each point, the logical lies evolution makes use of will become clear. Get ready to be amazed by the “science” used to substantiate this nearly globally believed theory.
Neither Theory nor Fact
The first assumption is the slow metamorphosis of referring to the theory as a tried, tested and proven scientific fact in essence, assuming evolution to be true. The sureness with which such statements are declared leaves a lot of people convinced that scientists have supporting proof.
Such blind trust and belief among some evolutionary scientists has led most schools to teach evolution as both a scientific and historical fact.
Pierre-Paul Gressé, a world renowned zoologist and author of more than 300 publications, and former president of the Academie des Sciences, stated,
“Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved”
Even though these quotes are very profound the purpose here is not yet to disprove evolution, only to demonstrate that it is not a tried and tested fact.
A scientific fact is defined as “an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true.” From just the quote above, we can see that observations and tests show inconsistencies, and that such a well respected zoologist did not accept evolution as fact. How could evolution be considered fact when such divergent opinions exist?
Speaking realistically, by true scientific standards, evolution is not even a theory! A scientific theory is defined as a “theory that explains scientific observations; scientific theories must be falsifiable.”
To make it through as a genuine theory, there must be some test or tests attesting to its validity or else it should be tossed out. Without a test, it is not a scientific theory.
For example, a theory arising from observing a blue sunset could state that the sunset is always bblue. A test then exists to prove or disprove the theory. (One could watch sunsets for a year and record their color.) This means the theory fulfills the requirements to be scientific. Of course, if a purple, green or pink sunset is observed, the honest scientist would abandon the hypothesis and develop a new theory. The cycle would continue until a theory is proven as fact. This is the basis of the scientific method.
Does the theory of evolution meet these two conditions? Is it the result of scientific observation, and can it be put to the test? It could be said that with no observed examples of macro evolution on record, the theory is more based on faith, hope and belief than scientific study. Going further, nearly all evolutionists declare that most major evolutionary changes occurred millions of years ago. But events in the distant past are not testable and, therefore, cannot ever be proven. True or False?
When evidence that is no longer accessible or available (because it is very old) is used to prove a premise, the logical fallacy of chronological snobbery has been employed!
Evolutionists should realize that their “theory” is neither a scientific fact nor even a theory.
Such thinking is aptly summarized by world renowned biochemist Dr. Michael Denton:
“Darwins general theory that all life on earth began and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of chance mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe”
Evolution is not a fact; it is not even a scientific theory. As Dr. Denton stated, it is no more than a “extremely speculative hypothesis.” Again we have to ask: How can something so debated, even by those who profess to believe it, be taught in schools as fact?
One of the most basic foundations of evolution is the assumption of “survival of the fittest.” in a nutshell, it is the concept that nature grants preference to the fittest and most adaptable of a species to produce offspring and therefore survive.
You may have heard this so many times that you have never questioned this seemingly logical statement. Remember, you must approach evolution scientifically, not based on assumption or ingrained bias.
Famous polymath author Arthur Koestler addressed this subject well:
“Once upon a time, it all looked so simple. Nature encouraged the fit with a reward for survival and punished the unfit with the curse of extinction. The trouble only started when it came to defining fitness...Thus natural selection looks after the survival and reproduction of the fittest, and the fittest are those which have the highest rate of reproduction...We are trapped in a circular argument which totally begs the question of what it is that makes evolution evolve”?
Another way of saying it is that the fittest are those who survive; and those who survive are considered the fittest. This is circular logic! It presumes that simply because something survived, it is the fittest.
In science,you can't build a conclusion on an assumption, especially if you then use the conclusion to prove the original assumption. This would not pass scrutiny in a high school debate class, but has tragically become all too common in evolutionary science.
Survival of the fittest is a careless and floppy “tautology,” a way of saying something in a loquacious manner. For instance, survivors survive; water is wet; matter is material; etc. statements of this nature do not prove anything, because they are nothing more than truisms.
Yet even in the face of such information, pundits of evolution "willingly" ignore the facts:
“What is most troubling is that some evolutionary biologists have no problem with proposing tautologies as explanations. One would immediately reject any lexicographer who tried to define a word by same, or a thinker who merely restated his proposition, or any other instance of gross redundancy; yet no one seems scandalized that men of science should be satisfied with a major principle which is no more than a tautology”
Surviving vs. Arriving
Some scientists may declare, “We have witnessed natural selection. It happens everywhere in the world on a daily basis. It is provable!” They point to natural selection as a means to remove the unfit not a process that favors the “fittest.” At best, you could call natural selection a “survival of the average.”
Natural selection is a method that removes the weak and unfit from species. This makes sure that populations are healthy and flourishing. It can be seen by the instinctive actions of a cheetah attacking the weakest of a Gazelle herd. The herd remains healthy, because the weak are removed. In no way at all does it propel some supposed “fittest” to the front! Pundits of Evolution must account for new species by, as Darwin declared, successive series of minor changes. Natural selection removes the weak and promotes stability among a species, the exact opposite of what evolution pundits require!
A famous Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries aptly explained this problem by stating, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest”
Shockingly, natural selection did not begin with Darwin. In fact, it was recorded about 20 years earlier by Edwarrd Bllyth, a Chemist and zoologist. Darwin changed the proper observation of a passive “natural process of selection” to the active “natural means of selection.” He changed it from a readily understood and accepted theory to a circular logic cliche!
Like all such attempts, the fallacious interpretation of natural selection attempts to explain all about evolution, but, in reality, explains absolutely nothing. Falsely assumed by so many, this foundation of evolution is nothing more than a useless statement proving nothing!
A House of Cards
Even with just 2 assumptions of evolution presented, you should already have begun to decipher how so many scientists unjustifiably see evolution as fact. The scientific theory of evolution has already fallen apart just by the use of logic
I ended Part One by asking the question, why should it be taught in high schools; we could now go further to ask why it is believed by anyone. There is a whole lot more to cover as this faulty science is laid bare and the house of cards completely falls.
To be continued shortly...[/b]
5 Likes 3 Shares
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by EyeHateGod: 8:38pm On Dec 10, 2016|
why don't You take all this your Copied and Paste points and use it to win a noble price?
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by taurus25(m): 10:47pm On Dec 10, 2016|
Submit your fidings to journal of evolutionary biology, get it peer reviewed and then we can talk science
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by randomperson: 11:07pm On Dec 10, 2016|
1. Is this original? Are they totally your ideas?
2. U ask for proof of evolution but don't ask for evidence that God created humans... That's double standards
10 Likes 1 Share
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by benzics(m): 11:23pm On Dec 10, 2016|
I stopped reading when I read this nonsense! Do you know that gravitation is also a theory?? ?
You just claimed evolution has no scientific observations, so much stupid in one post! We humans share similar DNAs with most animals, which comes to the conclusion that we had a similar descendant... I don't even think wasting my time on this bullshit of an "exposé" is worth it .
You claim things without observations and evidence are FALSE... there you go.. Religion and Gods are all false (even though we already know this).. And if you try bringing your double standards here again, then once again "Keep wallowing in your ignorance"
5 Likes 1 Share
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by benzics(m): 11:26pm On Dec 10, 2016|
randomperson:Christians and double standards! The thing is really stupid!
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by Nobody: 11:29pm On Dec 10, 2016|
Kindly shut up as i asked everyone else to do while i continue. Ignorance may be your curse but not to me.
Pls do not interrupt this thread again. If you wish to counter it, you can open your own thread to that effect
4 Likes 4 Shares
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by Nobody: 12:21am On Dec 11, 2016|
As we have seen, the theory of evolution comes in many shades, shapes and forms. But all tales have a beginning, and evolution should not be different. It should be able to explain the beginning of the universe. This is the very first step from which every evolutionary transformation must take place.
Evolution Pundits are always quick to state that the universe has nothing to do with evolution. It is dismissed as a different discipline of science.
You cannot get to the top of the ladder without climbing from the very first rung. Evolution was supposed to have started when gas was affected by some unknown catalyst and formed a more complex organized state, leading to life. Trying to navigate this part of the process leaves evolution pundits confused and in a dilemma. They are left with no choice but to toss away cosmic evolution as not pertaining to evolutionary theory.
Nobody should settle for weak theories that pass themselves as fact. Scrutinize the facts! Use logic and determine the answer. When understood, there are only two possibilities.
An Eternal Universe?
Option A is that the universe appeared/began at a specific point in time. Option B is that the universe is eternal and that it always existed. Each options requires some scrutiny.
Since nobody is able to go backwards in time, the universe’s age may seem impossible to determine. However, there are several ways for scientists to find out and prove whether it had a beginning or has always existed. This is partly due to an amazing property of matter: decay!
Everything, in one way or another, decays. If you clean your house, it will eventually become messy again. Even if the house was not inhabited, layers of dust would build up and its general state would decline. The human body also evidences this. Keeping yourself in top physical shape requires work. Stop exercising or eating properly and health conditions will deteriorate much faster than you would expect. These examples are a wide spread application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the total entropy in any isolated thermodynamic systems tends to increase over time, approaching a max value. In simpler words: When left alone, everything “depreciates” its usable energy, eventually reaching a point of no usable energy.
What does this have to do with proving the universe’s origin?
since the appearance of the Atomic Age, starting with Madame Curie’s discovery of radium in 1898, came the knowledge that all radioactive elements give off radiation. As Uranium breaks down, it gives off a helium atom thrice. When each is given off, the element’s nature changes. The first helium atom gives off results in radium. Even though this process takes a huge amount of time, eventually the final product is the dormant element of lead.
This clearly shows that there was a particular time when the uranium could not have possibly existed! Otherwise, we would only find lead today. Radioactive elements always decompose in a highly arranged, organized manner. This also means there was a particular time when all radioactive elements began to exist. It is ridiculous to assume that the elements have existed forever. Each element had a beginning.
This is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics playing out here! “The Second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning” or as it is called, Scientific Creationism. It represents total evidence that the universe came into existence in other words, the universe is not eternal! This much is obvious.
We can therefore categorically say that something or someone caused the universe to come into existence. Remember cause and effect? The universe is the effect but what is the cause? We have been able to ascertain earlier that every effect must be less than the cause. So, as massive as is our universe, something greater must have caused it. This is consistent with the scientific laws earlier brought forward.
Scientists understand that the universe had a beginning. To facilitate this, there needs to be what is often called the “first cause.” Ignoring the true first cause, which cause and effect has shown that something greater had to be the cause of the universe, they preferred to formulate other theories to explain the origin of the universe. The most common is the “Big Bang” theory.
Big Bang or Big Hoax?
At its very center, the Big Bang theory states that something caused the formation of matter, with our modern universe expanding from that initial singular event. After this first cause, another theory is now brought into play. The inflationary model. This theory attempts to explain how the universe expanded and grew from microscopic to billions of light-years across. It was created to explain how a single event caused the expansive universe that exists today.
Both the Big Bang and the inflationary model go against the basic laws of science. We have determined that energy is continually moving into a more chaotic state with less usable energy. Ths is entropy and not into larger, more complex and organized systems, such as the universe.
For the universe to begin in that manner there would have to be a nearly infinite amount of energy that triggered the Big Bang. This simple fact is usually ignored!
An even bigger quagmire is the First Law of Thermodynamics, often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. It is a basic fundamental law of science. It clearly states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change form. This totally goes against the Big Bang theory!
If energy cannot be created, then an immensely mind boggling amount of it cannot appear from nothingness. Evolution pundits understand this problem. Often, focus is quickly diverted from how the universe started, to an explanation of how it inflated. By burying the initial creation of matter as an irrelevant point, scientists have created a series of twists and turns and mirages which, as we have seen before, is often the best—and only way to explain nearly every facet of evolution.
Many scientists, such as professor of physics Alan Guth, have also brought up the issue of sweeping aside the universe’s origin:
“First of all, I will say that at the purely technical level, inflation does not explain how the universe came from nothing. Inflation itself takes a small universe and produces from it a very big universe. But inflation in itself does not explain where that very small universe came from”
These are strong, clear statements!
So, like so many aspects of evolution, even when proof shows otherwise, it continues to be purported as fact.
So how did the universe begin? The First Law of Thermodynamics points to God’s eternal existence. Remember, this law defines that something could not come from nothing. Science has conclusively shown that if there was not an eternal God being to create the universe, there would never have been a universe!
Since something can never come from nothing, then a Creator had to always exist! Since a cause must be greater than the effect, an eternal Maker an all powerful God had to exist! unbeknownst to science, it has conclusively given evidence of God’s existence and at the same time thrashing evolution!
Nobel Prize physicist Louis Neel said,
“The progress of science, no matter how awesome and great always appears to be leads to dead ends and shows our final inability at producing a rational explanation of the universe” and let me also add to it, any rational explanation for plants, animals and people as well.
Instead of seeking the reality of creation, science has chosen confusion, assumptions and deceit. Ignoring the evidence, evolution pundits and others are coerced into conjuring illusions and assumptions.
To be continued tomorrow.[/b]
4 Likes 4 Shares
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by smartngentle(m): 1:59am On Dec 11, 2016|
' Could a man be placed in a situation, and endowed with the power of vision, to behold at one view, and to contemplate deliberately, the structure of the universe; to mark the movements of the several planets, the cause of their varying appearances, the unerring order in which they revolve, even to the remotest comet; their connection and dependence on each other, and to know the system of laws established by the Creator, that governs and regulates the whole, he would then conceive, far beyond what any church theology can teach him, the power, the wisdom, the vastness, the munificence of the Creator; he would then see, that all the knowledge man has of science, and that all the mechanical arts by which he renders his situation comfortable here, are derived from that source; his mind, exalted by the scene, and convinced by the fact, would increase in gratitude as it increased in knowledge; his religion or his worship would become united with his improvement as a man' . have a blessed day.
2 Likes 1 Share
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by Nobody: 6:19am On Dec 11, 2016|
Off to Church now! I will continue when i return! God bless your sunday!
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by randomperson: 6:50am On Dec 11, 2016|
4everGod:Pray for the atheists ooh... So that they won't get burnt for eternity
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by wirinet(m): 7:28am On Dec 11, 2016|
I have not seen so much bulshit concentrated in one place.
I am certain the OP did not even take time to read the rubbish he is copying and pasting not to talk of understanding it. I certainly would not waste my time by debunking each paragraph, I will only debunk two fundermental fallacies about the laws of thermodynamics you stated.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the total entropy in any isolated thermodynamic system increases over time. The keywords here are isolated thermodynamic system . Can you prove that the universe a strictly isolated thermodynamic system. For starters, dark energy and matter ( of which very little is known) make up to 95% of our observable universe.
First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. This simply insinuate that the universe is eternal. Put in another way, it state that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. The problem with you pseudo and religio scientists is that you do not understand that matter is energy.
So it is either the universe is eternal or you God is eternal. If it is your God that is eternal, then the laws of thermodynamics cannot be valid, as your God can always add more energy or reduce entropy in the universe at will.
3 Likes 1 Share
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by benzics(m): 7:40am On Dec 11, 2016|
4everGod:Take your own advice and shut your shits.. Don't you know how to book spaces and modify them later? It's like something is wrong with your head..
Just look at the crap above, I know religious people who don't even know physics will take the above trash serious.
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by benzics(m): 7:44am On Dec 11, 2016|
wirinet:Do you even mind these people? Now their might be a possibility of a God, but IF it is the Jewish yahweh, we all know that gay do not exist.
And how these people wrap their heads around an "intelligent design" that was made possible by "speech" I just can't fathom, intelligent designer my ass..
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by Nobody: 9:49am On Dec 11, 2016|
Well, I have nothing much to say to the mumu who opened this thread. But since you seem to have made "logic" your God and the scientific method/empiricism your criterion for determining that which is true, as your tool for investigating reality, OVERNIGHT (a Christian Scientist? lol.... The oxymoron), I'll like you to use that same approach (confidence in empiricism and logic) to prove Creationism, the existence of the Biblical God and all the outrageous claims made in the Bible.
Hehehehe....... Oponu. I'm waiting to see you hoist with your own petard.
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by Nobody: 12:30pm On Dec 11, 2016|
Is it possible for a rock to come to become alive? Could a rat grow from a lump of coal? You would agree that Such questions are silly. However, this is in essence what the theory of evolution teaches. It stands or falls on whether non living matter can change, through a series of random events, into organic living matter. This concept is called by several names and explained in several ways, but often, it is said to be known as “spontaneous generation, chemical evolution, abiogenesis” or biopoiesis.
Do not allow evolution pundits to avoid the “origin of matter” question. Many claim that the origin of life is in no way related to the appearance of living matter.
Should evolution be limited to the study of organic matter? Allow noted geneticist and evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky to answer:
“Evolution is made up of all the states of development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to limit the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life”
If evolution pundits try to split biological evolution from the origin of life (or even the origin of the universe), an overwhelming question remains: If evolution applies only to plants and animals, what caused the appearance of the universe and life on earth? How can life evolve if it never existed? Evolution must totally embrace the whole process from the beginning of the universe to the diversity of plant, animal and human life today. No amount of scientific rigmaroll can change this.
Why would such a prominent evolutionist veil the facts?
At the very core of the “origin of life” quagmire is the fundamental scientific law of biogenesis. It is the process that new life can come only from existing life that is, only living organisms produce other living organisms.
Simpson and Beck’s biology textbook titled, Life: An Introduction to Biology is definite about this: “There is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life emerges only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the offspring of another cell.”
Martin Mooe, who writes for Science Digest, declared, “A century of startling discoveries in the biological science has shown us that life emerges only from life...”
These are two plain, conclusive and irrefutable statements. How then do evolution pundits bypass something as vital as biology? Again, throwing aside the something so obvious, they are forced to split the origin of life from the evolutionary process.
Do not be deceived by discussions of scientists who claim to be able to produce a synthetic version of the polio virus. Every honest and even minimaly trained biologist knows that viruses are non living organisms, because they must have a living host to reproduce. Any biologist who claims otherwise is either untrained or dishonest.
Even if this was true, it took decades of scientific research and advancement to facilitate a carefully planned process in order to create synthetic polio. Random events did not create it!
So how do evolutionists explain life on earth?
A Land Far, Far Away!
When one tries to push a false assertion, he must quickly change focus from obvious holes or weaknesses. So, the thinking goes thus, if abiogenesis cannot happen on earth, then perhaps it could happen in space.
What should be seen as irrational insanity is entertained as a valid hypothesis. This does not follow the scientific process.
Evolution seems immune from basic logic. The hypothesis that the precursor chemicals for life came from space is gaining popularity in the scientific community. Note that all forms of living matter, but especially simple forms of life, are highly unstable. Plants, animals and people die and decompose, while rocks and minerals last for millennia.
These highly unstable, simple forms of life must survive being ejected from a faraway planet (customarily by a catastrophic event or explosion), peregrinate through the rigors of space (radiation, acerbic cold, extreme heat, a vacuum, etc.), withstand the tremendous heat of perforating earth’s atmosphere and, determinately, survive the rigorous surface impact. How cockamamy! One does not require a degree in science to visually perceive cockamamy nature of such a theory—yet, incredibly, it is discussed as a possibility!
Recollect. This hypothesis is not designated to be an authentic theory. The attention had to be taken away from biogenesis. It is nothing more than a scientific “bait and switch.” In lieu of addressing the law of biogenesis, which evolutionists cannot circumvent, they endeavor to appeal to the great unknown of space as the answer, thus evading the pristine quandary.
Biogenesis is a ECUMENICAL law. Just as it applies on earth, it must apply throughout the macrocosm. Moving the quandary to outer space is silly and mendacious!
So what is the solution proposed by evolutionists who are at least veracious enough to admit no reply to biogenesis ? They simply parrot a non-answer, and apply the argument to future logical fallacy, claiming further scientific improvement will reveal the inception for life story on terra firma.
Evolutionist avoid the doubt and springiness no real number response —because they have no answer! Such fallacies and lack of grounds are the reasons Dr. Louis Bounoure, former Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Inquiry at the National Center of Scientific Research in France, stated, “Theory of evolution is a poove tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”
The Law of Laws
For the next posit, we can play the game of “let’s suppose.” Suppose the anterior postulation was not erroneous, and that at some future time we will discover the naturalistic method in which living matter came into subsistence.
Conspicuously, with the proof, logic and verbalizations above, this is quite the supposition. But for the sake of argument, postulate there was a time when only very simple organic compounds, such as amino acids, subsisted. We can even elongate the game a few steps further and suppose these amino acids had already composed into enzymes. This is an exorbitantly munificent leap, but it will accommodate to prove a point.
With this in mind, the most bedrock, central laws of science come into play the Laws of Thermodynamics. Albert Einstein called this the premier law of all sciences. Sir Arthur Eddington verbalized, “The second law of thermodynamics holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature…If it [a theory] is found to be contradicted by an observation—well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation
These are very strong words from two world-renowned scientists. Other writers have noted that the more one works with these laws, the more respect he gains for them.
The Natural law of Thermodynamics are immutable and apply to all disciplines of skill . To even be considered, evolution must function within the restraint of Thermodynamics. Most applicable to this assumption, it must follow the second law of thermodynamics
Open or Closed—Still Impossible
Thermodynamics emanates from two Greek words, therme, designating “heat,” and dunamis, designating “power.” In essence, thermodynamics is the study of “heat power.” The second law of thermodynamics states that, in a system, all processes will result in incremented entropy—the scientific term for “unusable energy.
The second law expresses that, over time, and ignoring certain variables, things incline to even out in an isolated system. And entropy is a quantification of how stabilized—or evened out—a system has progressed.
Another way to optically canvass it is best expounded by world-famous science inditer and scientist Isaac Asimov: “Another way of verbalizing the second law then is ‘The macrocosm is perpetually getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way we can visually perceive the second law all about us. We have to work strenuously to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very expeditiously and very facilely. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How arduous to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: How facile to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the second law is all about.
This poses quite a challenge for a theory predicated on an incrementation of order, involution and intricacy. But evolutionists have not given up!
In an endeavor to make the theory work, a debate between “open” and “closed” systems has arisen. The distinction between the two is quite simple. In a closed system, there is no interference from an external source, so the second law applies without any complications. The system becomes more disorderly, entropic and stable over time stringently in line with the second law. On the other hand, it is argued that in an open system, external sources of energy sanctions a process to have more sustained energy—increase in useable energy.
In the case of evolution, because our sun is supplying ample amounts of extra energy, earth is no longer a closed system and can become less entropic (have more utilizable energy). And, since the sun is winding down, efficaciously transferring energy, all of the Laws of Thermodynamics in a closed system (the macrocosm) are satiated
Energy Alone does not Make Evolution
Can simply applying raw, undirected energy to a system sanction a lower caliber of entropy? Can it authentically be that simple? There are parameters to address the application of an external energy source on a closed system. Withal, there are mathematical constructs demonstrating that the second law of thermodynamics applies in an open system.
While many evolutionists endeavor to blur the correct application of an open thermodynamics system, there are some that are more veracious. Charles J. Smith verbalized, “The thermodynamicist immediately elucidates the latter question by pointing out that the second law classically refers to isolated [closed] systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explication, however, is not thoroughly satiating, because it still leaves open the quandary of how or why the injuctively authorizing process has arisen (an ostensible lowering of the entropy [an increase in useable energy]), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy called the cognation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved quandaries in biology”
Decades ago it was understood there are “fundamental unsolved problems.” Nothing has changed today.
Raw energy alone is not enough to reduce entropy! For this to transpire, multiple conditions must be met. Three are summarized in another quote from Life: A Prelude to Biology: “But the simple expenditure of energy is not ample to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither engenders nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow designations; it requires information on how to proceed” (accentuation mine).
“Particular work” is more than just raw energy; it is focused. Of course, there must be energy, but that energy must be directed. It cannot simply be a “bull in a china shop.” Such uncontrolled, undirected energy will never build—it always and only ravages! The simple example of photographs left in sunlight demonstrates that, over time, undirected, raw energy deteriorates and eradicates. There must additionally be a mechanism to convert energy into the form required for a categorical application. Without a conversion, there is nothing more than raw, unbridled energy that eradicates.
Consider the process at work in plants, photosynthesis. The parallel is most intriguing because the energy source is sunlight—the same energy source to which evolutionists point. This involute energy conversion system is the process utilized by plants to transmute sunlight into utilizable energy needed to grow. Because this is biological, we are dealing with the second law of thermodynamics in an open system. In such a case, raw energy is available in the form of sunlight. And because plants have information-opulent DNA, there is a highly designed and detailed designation for this “particular work” to be carried out. All needed conditions are met and, in such a case, there is a lowering of entropy—an increase in utilizable energy.
There are also similar systems in our body—digestion, respiratory, etc. Yet in all cases, the three conditions are satisfied.
To perform concrete work, there must be “information”—instructions—for the process to proceed, and a mechanism for those injuctive authorizations to be carried out. This transpires in the leaves of plants, as well as with the systems in the human body.
Highly concrete work—evolution—is infeasible by supplying energy from the sun and “hoping for the best.” The work must be categorical, there must be a conversion process and this must be supplemented with detailed injuctive authorization. No matter the argument, no matter how stentorian voices get or how intensely arms are waved, no one can circumvent thermodynamics.
Some scientists will admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are plenarily incompatible: “Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (macrocosmically accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will incline to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, ‘It would scarcely be possible to conceive of two more thoroughly antithesis principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As [Aldous] Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of intricacy. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true’” .
Evolution cannot account for the appearance of life on this or any other planet. Mendacious, yet clever, arguments cannot sidestep the laws of biogenesis or thermodynamics.
The fundaments of science are predicated on these laws. They are SURE! They are absolute and have subsisted since the commencement of our macrocosm. These laws are immutable—and, as such, make evolution infeasible![/b]
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by Nobody: 12:53pm On Dec 11, 2016|
[b]Continuation...... Part 5
The story of evolution perpetuates. In this component of the series, we visually examine two postulations that are flimsy when conscientiously inspected. At the heart of the evolution edifying is the postulation that mutations engender more advanced traits or characteristics. However, all geneticists admit that this requires incipient information.
The blueprint for all living organisms is locked inside DNA. For cells to develop and organs to compose this detailed blueprint is required. For variants of cells to appear, incipient information is needed—the blueprint must be expanded. Evolutionists understand this. To explicate the infusion of incipient information, they have put their hope in mutations. This is fraught with quandaries.
The first quandary is that proximately all mutations are negative in effect.
As discussed earlier in this series, inferior organisms (such as those with negative mutations) are abstracted by the process of natural cull. This is withal true of what are termed “neutral” mutations. Natural processes are designed to eliminate defects from the gene pool. In the light of congruous interpretation of natural cull, consider the following from the head of the international Human Genome Diversity Project, evolutionist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza:
“Evolution additionally results from the accumulation of incipient information. In the case of biological mutation, incipient information is provided by an error of genetic transmission (i.e., a vicissitude in the DNA during its transmission from parent to child). Genetic mutations are spontaneous, chance changes, which are infrequently salutary, and more often have no effect, or a deleterious one. Natural cull makes it possible to accept the good ones and eliminate the lamentable ones”
We have already shown that natural cull does “eliminate the lamentable.” In no way, shape or form has it been proven to “accept the good ones.”
We can again play the game of “let’s suppose.” Imagine that “positive mutations” are accepted and retained. Would such mutations explicate the appearance of incipient species? This is the core of evolution and proving that positive, sustainable mutations can result in an incipient species is critical.
An often cited example is that of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. It is purported that bacteria, through mutations, habituate to antibiotics. However, as the following quote asserts, what genuinely occurs is an information loss—not a gain: “In no kenned case is antibiotic resistance the result of incipient information. There are several ways where an information loss can confer resistance” (Confuting Evolution, Jonathan Sarfati).
A simple analogy: Imagine all of the components needed for a functioning dimmable light. There are electricity, wires, a potentiometer , a switch and a light bulb. These were all designed to function in a concrete way. If the contrivance controlling the flow of electricity were abstracted from the system, the light would get much more effulgent. The room appears better lit and it seems akin to the entire system has ameliorated with the loss of a contrivance (information). This may seem akin to an amendment.
However, the one who designed the system would ken that this change was stressing the system. Each component was designed to handle a certain amount of electricity. While the boost in current may not appear to be a quandary at first, over time, the circuit will overload and stop functioning thoroughly. So is the case with mutations. Albeit something may appear to be an amelioration (as in the case with antibiotic-resistant bacteria), the overall “health” of the organism is diminished.
Evolution cannot sustain itself with the loss of information. Over time, the result would be no information. The only way higher life-forms could develop would be with more—in fact, MUCH more—information. For instance, imagine a fish “evolving” into a bird. While this may sound astounding (yet is genuinely cockamamy), it is considered a valid possibility in evolution. How could all the compulsory changes to skin, bones, organs, limbs, etc., develop without incipient information?
Regardless of one’s notion concerning life’s inchoation, most understand that incipient information is required for more advanced life forms. And, conversely, any information already present must be sustained. Ultimately, the perpetuated loss of genetic information will result in the ravagement of the life form—not an amelioration!
Conclusively, regarding the formation of incipient forms of life, British physicist Dr. Alan Hayward verbalized, “Genes seem to be built so as to sanction changes to occur within certain narrow limits, and to avert those inhibitions from being crossed. To oversimplify a little: Mutations very facilely engender incipient varieties within a species, and might infrequently engender an incipient (though kindred) species, but—despite cyclopean efforts by experimenters and breeders—mutations seem unable to engender entirely incipient forms of life” (Engenderment and Evolution: The Facts and the Fallacies).
Yet each and every day, millions of children are edified that mutations—defects—have resulted in the millions of plants and animals and, ultimately, human beings.
The Authentic Record of the Rocks
Often, news organizations run stories about revelations at archeological digs. These could be fossils dated millions—even hundreds of millions—of years old. Customarily, these promulgations are accompanied by colorful renderings of the creature as it had once appeared.
Most postulate that such drawings are predicated on whatever is the revelation. They seem to be able to determine minute details needed to engender astounding illustrations. Surely, this must be predicated on mountains of evidence and research, which is cross-checked with past revelations. At this point, you may have commenced to develop marginally of cynicism toward modern science. If so, you will not be surprised that the “facts” used to prove and draw these “ancient” creatures is predicated on little more than bone shavings, lamentable science and invalid posits.
Despite all the splash and splendor that accompany such revelations, the evidence abaft them is more artistic and ingenious than scientific and factual.
To understand why evolutionists have become so ingenious with the fossil record, you must first understand the gaps in it. What was once hoped to be the glue bonding all aspects of evolution, the fossil record has torn it asunder.
The gap in the fossil record engenders two interrelated quandaries for evolution.
First some background. The fossil record is disunited into certain eras—or strata. Each of these eras contain certain types of creatures, and is thought to be categorical to a period in history. For instance, the Cambrian stratum is dated to about 530 million years ago (according to evolutionist dating methods).
The first quandary lies in that, out of nowhere, plenarily composed creatures appear in the fossil record. The Cambrian era, for example, contains the oldest kenned vertebrates. However, as verbally expressed by evolutionist Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, “We find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history”.
Indeed, “just planted there”—or, better phrased, they were put there! The fossil record does not show the formation of any creature; they all appear to be “just planted there.”
The second issue is cognate to the lack of any transitional forms. World famous evolutionist and paleontologist Dr. Gaylord Simpson liberatingly verbalized, “This customary absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an virtually ecumenical phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of virtually all orders of all classes of animals…and it is ostensibly additionally true of the analogous categories of plants”.
Just five years later, Dr. Simpson was coerced to admit, “It is thus possible to claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist”
The lack of evidence has caused some evolutionists to adopt revisions of evolution. Others perpetuate to embrace the conception of gradual transitions, asserting that transitional fossils do not subsist yet, and will be discovered in the future. Not only is this the logical fallacy of “argument to the future,” it ignores a well-established pattern of revelation.
Another analogy makes this clear. Imagine an opaque jar full of hundreds of marbles. Gradually, one-by-one, the marbles are abstracted. Each is examined for color and texture. At first, it would be just as probable that each marble could be red, blue, yellow or any other color. However, if over time, only red marbles were abstracted from the jar, the natural conclusion would be that the jar is plenary of red marbles. Of course, an incipient color could be abstracted from the jar, but as more and more red marbles are abstracted, the likelihood becomes less and less. This is precisely what is found in the fossil record.
Well over a century of revelations have perpetually demonstrated there are only “red marbles.” There will be no magic fossil to transmute this, albeit some scientists have endeavored to engender “magic fossils” from minuscule bone fragments.
One such “discovery” is worth reviewing. It received television coverage and was featured in National Geographic. Scientists believed they had found a “walking whale,” surmised to be a missing link between land mammals and whales. It led paleontologist Daryl Domning to state, “We essentially have every stage now from a terrestrial animal to one that is plenarily aquatic”
The following month, impressive renderings of this “walking whale” appeared in the same magazine in the article “Evolution of Whales.” It was now settled—the whale’s evolutionary path had been established and the theory had been proven true.
Or retained it?
All the hoopla emanated from nothing more than part of a jaw bone and some skull fragments—nothing else! The ingenious minds at National Geographic engendered a CONSUMMATELY FICTIONAL rendering from virtually no evidence. This could be compared to finding a scrap of metal, and then asserting that you can render the exact replica of the building from which it came. This is beyond cockamamy!
Later, a more consummate skeleton of this same creature was discovered. With more facts in place, it was conspicuous that this creature was solely a land animal. However, the later revelation received very little media attention and no rectification was published!
This is not the only example of data misconstrued to fit within the theory of evolution. The prodigious number of misrepresentations has led to verbalizations such as this by Jeremy Rifkin: “What the ‘record’ shows is proximately a century of fudging and finagling by scientists endeavoring to coerce sundry fossil morsels and fragments to conform to Darwin’s notions, all to no avail. Today the millions of fossils stand as a very visible, ever-present reminders of the paltriness of the arguments and the overall shabbiness of the theory that marches under the banner of evolution”
The veracious approach would be for evolutionists to admit their mistakes and dismiss the theory. In lieu of admitting the errors in gradual evolution, scientists proposed an even more cockamamy conception: punctuated equilibrium.
While many still hope for the long-sought undiscovered transition fossils, punctuated equilibrium has gained much traction within the evolution community. The theory states that ecumenical catastrophes accounted for the sudden leap in evolution. These events would cause sudden and drastic “systemic mutations.” What the theory fails to address is that such mutations would devastate an organism. In integration, seismic events would not provide the new—and vast—supply of information needed for the intricacy of life to increment.
The concept of punctuated equilibrium has withal been called “hopeful monsters.” For advanced life to appear—and not be destroyed—out of the ashes of a brobdingnagian volcanic eruption or catastrophic asteroid impact is definitely hopeful!
Doleful to verbalize for evolutionists, “…these theories amount only to giving more or less fancy names to imaginary phenomena; no one has ever observed the occurrence of a ‘systemic mutation’” (Theodosius Dobzhansky).
This is further fortified by the inditements of two evolutionists: “…the occurrence of systemic mutations, yielding hopeful monsters, can be omitted in view of current genetic knowledge”
So how do evolutionists expound the fact that neither gradual evolution nor punctuated equilibrium is consistent with the geological record? And how do they account for the sudden explosion of life in the first place?
They do not, because they cannot!
The body of evidence has led many scientists, like geologist William Dawson to conclude, “…the record of the rocks is thus decidedly against evolutionists” .
Paleontology is not a field of science in which evolutionists can find refuge or hope to rehabilitate their broken theory.
The Dating Dilemma
One of the most eminent quandaries with the fossil record is cognate to how fossils are dated. Like many “sciences” dealing with evolution, there are sweeping generalizations and postulations applied. Typically, two types of dating are used—radiocarbon and associative.
The first and most kenned, radiocarbon dating, measures the ratio of non-radioactive carbon (carbon-12) to radioactive carbon (carbon-14) to determine the age of the object.
In summary, scientists have discovered that when cosmic rays come into contact with earth’s atmosphere, they react with nitrogen-14 and engender carbon-14. In turn, carbon-14 then reacts with oxygen, engendering carbon dioxide. Plants take in carbon dioxide. Animals in turn consume plants, ingesting the carbon dioxide. When plants and animals die, their decay changes carbon-14 back into nitrogen-14. And hence, the cycle perpetuates.
For example, a sample of petrified wood could be quantified. When it was alive, the wood would have had a kindred ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 as the air circumventing it. However, when it died, decomposition would gradually release carbon-14 into the air, while the carbon-12 remained constant.
If a scientist kenned the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the air when a tree was alive, and the rate at which carbon-14 was relinquished from the sample, he could theoretically calculate its age. Scientists have generally surmised that the ratio of these isotopes has remained constant in the atmosphere.
The quandary? Evidence demonstrates dramatic shifts in the ratio!
Notice: “Not only then has open system comportment of these isotopes been demonstrated, but ostensible ‘isochrons’ and their derived ‘ages’ are invariably geologically nonessential. Thus none of the posits used to interpret the U-Th-Pb radiometric system used to yield ‘ages’ can be valid”.
No matter how loud the discombobulating and misguided endeavors to expound away the variations of these isotopes, there are variations. Findings are cross-referenced with items that have already been inopportunely dated. It sanctions them to declare the radiocarbon date “reasonable,” predicated on precedent finds, which are additionally predicated on other finds. And so the cycle perpetuates.
This is problematic because most samples utilized for comparison were additionally dated utilizing radiocarbon! Recollecting the logical fallacies covered in Part One, this is an impeccable example of “begging the question.” Predicating a conclusion on a posit is not only unscientific, it is mendacious!
For the last century, science has utilized radiocarbon analysis to engender a flawed chart on which to compare other finds. When an incipient fossil is discovered, it is compared to subsisting fossils at that stratum. It is surmised that millennia of time compressed the strata and, consequently, all fossils found at a particular layer are of homogeneous age. Faulty radiocarbon tests further “validate” the date and the sample is utilized as proof.
Much more could be verbalized about these dating methods. But as you can optically discern, they are far from reliable. It is troubling that science bases so much on an unsound and facilely manipulated method.
It has taken several pages to demonstrate the absolute absurdity of these two evolution posits. However, like many posits already revealed, the theory collapses when these are disproven.
Taking a break now. Will continue shortly[/b]
1 Like 1 Share
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by Eastactivist: 3:12pm On Dec 11, 2016|
Even physics point to a supernatural being governing it.
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by benzics(m): 3:56pm On Dec 11, 2016|
Eastactivist:Of course there "might" be a possibility of a supernatural being but surely not the Jewish yahweh!
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by Nobody: 4:06pm On Dec 11, 2016|
The acerbic arguments between scientists of competing disciplines of evolution provide incredible insight into the theory’s impotencies. Evolutionists querying evolution is more prevalent than one might postulate. Yet dissensions are often obnubilated or ignored.
Compare this to religion. Imagine an archeological find revealed that the first-century apostles doubted that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. Such a revelation would shake the very substructure of Christendom.
Why should verbal expressions from experts in evolution be viewed in a different light? Their verbalizations show a growing and deepening chasm in the theory of evolution one that the tenets of evolution are no longer able to bridge.
Experts on Evolution
At this point in the series, we have already exhaustively disproven evolution. Sanction the following quotes from evolutionists to close the case against evolution.
We commence with widely published French evolutionist Jean Rostand:
“The theory of evolution gives no answer to the paramount quandary of the inception of life and presents only fallacious solutions to the quandary of the nature of evolutive transformations…We are condemned to believe in evolution…Perhaps we are now in a worse position than in 1850 because we have probed for one century and we have the impression that the different hypotheses are now exhausted”
While we have denuded many posits, there are still others. Evolutionist and zoologist Dr. Gerald A. Kerkut, Dean of Science at University of Southampton, England, indited a revelation conclusion to his book Implicative insinuations of Evolution. Keep in mind that the term biogenesis utilized in the quote refers to “origin (genesis) of life (bio),” and not the Law of Biogenesis, as covered earlier. Notice: “The first posit was that non-living things gave elevate to living material. This is still just an assumption…It is ergo a matter of faith on the component of the biologist that biogenesis did occur…
“The second posit was that spontaneous generation occurred only once. This again is matter for notion rather than proof…”
“The third postulation was that Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all interrelated…We have as of yet no definite evidence about the way in which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated.”
“The fourth postulation was that the Protozoa gave elevate to the Metazoa…Here again nothing definite is known…”
“The fifth posit was that the sundry invertebrate phyla are interrelated…The evidence, then for the affinities of the majority of the invertebrates is tenuous and circumstantial; not the type of evidence that would sanction one to compose a verdict of definite relationships.”
“The sixth postulation is that the invertebrates gave elevate to the vertebrates…As Berrill states, ‘in a sense this account is science fiction.’
“We are on marginally more vigorous ground with the seventh posit that the fish, amphibia, reptiles, birds, and mammals are interrelated. There is the fossil evidence to avail us here, though many of the key transitions are not well-documented and we have as yet to obtain a copacetic objective method of dating the fossils…The evidence that we have at present is inadequate to sanction us to decide the answer to these quandaries.”
James Watson, Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, indited,
“One could not be a prosperous scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception fortified by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but additionally just stupid”.
Concluding this series of quotes, an editor of Science magazine once remarked,
“One of the most astonishing characteristics of scientists is that some of them are plain, archaic bigots. Their zeal has a fanatical, egocentric quality characterized by disdain and intolerance for anyone or any value not associated with a special area of astute activity”.
Sanction these quotes to sink in! These are words straight from the mouths of leading scientific minds, not “biased” creationists or fringe religionists.
Unanswered, Unproven and Erroneous
You now understand many of the myths and fallacies circumventing evolution. It has been verbally expressed that it is much harder to unlearn error than to learn incipient truth. You should be able to confute the mendacious assertions made by evolutionists. And you should be able to optically discern past the illogic they employ. The theory of evolution can now be pellucidly visually perceived for what it is—ridiculous and absurd.
The intricate design inferred in biological science is why Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of DNA’s structure, Francis Crick, enheartened his fellow evolutionists that “Biologists must perpetually keep in mind that what they visually perceive was not designed but rather evolved”.
Rather, it is conspicuous that nothing has evolved! Yet, science perpetuates to blindly endeavor to prove this infeasible theory. They are doomed to failure, as verbally expressed by Nobel laureate Dr. Robert A. Millikan:
“The lamentable thing is that we have scientists who are endeavoring to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove”.
No longer should confounding arguments blur your cerebrating from the truth of the matter. Each posit has been systematically broken down, point by point. At the commencement of this series, it was verbally expressed that you were about to read something unlike anything you have read afore. And as you ambulate away from the ruins of evolution, you should now optically discern why.
However, clearing the slate and your thinking of this manmade theory is only the commencement. The Bible states, “For the invisible things of Him from the engenderment of the world are pellucidly visually perceived, being understood by the things that are made, even His aeonian power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20).
Evolutionists have corrupted the truth of life’s inchoations. Even when presented with the facts, they ignore them actually gainsay them drawing from a blind faith that “what they visually perceive was not designed but rather evolved.”
You can understand what so many have opted to ignore! You have unlearned many erroneous concepts. Your slate has been cleaned your cup emptied and now you are yare to understand the profound implicative insinuations of confuting the theory of evolution…[/b]
1 Like 1 Share
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by Nobody: 4:16pm On Dec 11, 2016|
[b]Before I conclude let me give you a taste of what intelligent creative design looks like:
Imagine a sultry summer day in which you spent an extravagant amount of time in the sun. Perhaps you were a little red or even lamentably sunburned. Over the following days, an astonishing process takes place as your body rejuvenates from overexposure. Through several processes, your skin sheds its damaged cells and supersedes them with incipient, salubrious ones.
Your entire body—including your skin, ocular perceivers, organs and brain—is comprised of cells. In fact, it consists of over 250 different kinds of cells, totaling about 100 trillion. The design of each type varies in shape, size, function, density and purport. The body is so efficient, so efficacious, that within seven years, all 100 trillion cells will be replaced!
The inner functioning of the cell is most fascinating. Each is like a miniature factory—and miniature it is! Red blood cells, for instance, are 10 times more minute than the width of a single human hair. Yet even though each cell is microscopic, if you placed all of the cells in your body end to culminate, they would encircle the earth 200 times!
Cells are made primarily of three components: membrane, cytoplasm and nucleus.
The membrane circumvents the cell and has the competency to “recognize” hundreds of substances. Acting as a “traffic cop,” it controls what enters the cell and what is purged.
The cytoplasm is the cell’s “factory floor,” on which are thousands of machines called organelles. At any given time, there are over 20 different chemical reactions transpiring in the cytoplasm, for purposes such as communication, waste abstraction, repair, pabulum and reproduction. There is even an elaborate convey system to move products and waste throughout the cell.
All of this is controlled by the “brains” of the cell—the nucleus. It stores all the information that the cell needs to rehabilitate and reproduce. This blueprint is composed of chromosomes and genes containing DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid).
When felicitously understood, DNA is one of the most awe-inspiring engenderments in the entire macrocosm. If one transcribed the genetic information for just one person, it would fill 600,000 pages! DNA is stored in a spiral “staircase” so efficient in design that if one were to unravel it from any human cell, the result would be about six feet in length. In fact, it has been estimated that if one placed all the DNA in the human body end to culminate, it would reach to the sun and back 400 TIMES!
Yet when in its natural form, all the genetic information needed to replicate the over 6.5 billion people on earth today fits into an area of about 1/8 of a square inch.
The nucleus, cellular membrane and all the machines in the cytoplasm make up every cell in your body. Recall that there are 100 trillion cells in it, with these little machines, factories and supervisors perpetually working and reproducing.
Genuinely, the human body is astounding!
I will let this sink in for a few minutes before i conclude![/b]
1 Like 3 Shares
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by dalaman: 4:54pm On Dec 11, 2016|
OP needs to be banned. He's a plagiarist.
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by Anas09: 7:50pm On Dec 11, 2016|
dalaman:Your mouth is full of sand. Dont foret he mentioned that he pieced the info together.
Start by debunking the Op.
3 Likes 1 Share
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by Eastactivist: 9:13pm On Dec 11, 2016|
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by Eastactivist: 9:36pm On Dec 11, 2016|
I doubt you know what plagiarism really is...
All the people he quoted throughout his texts is what?
You really have no arguments that's why you are shivering already, just accept the truth.
Nothing like evolution, nothing evolved.
Everything on earth breathing is how it was originally and efficaciously created by God.
3 Likes 1 Share
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by benzics(m): 9:56pm On Dec 11, 2016|
Eastactivist:lmao.. Definitely one we know nothing about, and he doesn't even want us to know about him!
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by Eastactivist: 10:02pm On Dec 11, 2016|
Which one lemme me get you? Or didn't he or she have a name?
|Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by benzics(m): 10:50pm On Dec 11, 2016|
What part of "we know nothing about" did you not get? There MIGHT be a God, but we don't know anything about him (if there is) because clearly, he doesn't want us to know
Osun Election: What Happened To Prophet Mike Agboola's Prophecy? / Can You Rock This Jesus And Mary Bathroom Slippers? (photos) / How To Quit Pornography Addiction And Gain Freedom In 2015.a Must Read For Every
|Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health |
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket
Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2019 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 918