disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less

[Still Alive]

11 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

In a sense, I am completely supportive of ID. I absolutely believe that an Intelligent Designer is essential for what we see today. In fact, I'm willing to go beyond what some ID proponents will state and claim that the Intelligent Designer is Jesus Christ, who is also my personal Savior and Lord. But as a competing scientific hypothesis, ID just plain lacks evidence. ID proponents are single-minded in their focus, which is to attempt to explain why standard evolution is not sufficient to match with the available evidence (often, without good reason). They simply have not put forward any competing evidence to date. Believe me - I would LOVE to have some stronger scientific evidence to support my concept of ID, it just doesn't exist at this point. 

I'm with you. I'll add that it is very, VERY dangerous to try to take genesis literally. The bible is not a science book and is not intended as such. If it was, we would have to insist that God said the world is flat, because that is obviously the mindset of the writers of the first books of the bible. It's all they knew. And that appears to be fine with God. It never really discusses the methodology God used to create life and the species. One could argue that he designed all creatures with the ability to biologically adapt to change. The part I disagree with is that some species "must have" evolved from others. 

I use this example: The 2001 Chrysler 300M and Dodge Neon both used the same exterior door handle. It is not because the Chrysler evolved from the Neon. It is because they were both DESIGNED for the same use, and in the same environment. And that was the most efficient way to do it.

i.e. the similarities in dna and species in general is a proof not only for evolution, but ID as well. 

[one.opinion]

17 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

the similarities in dna and species in general is a proof not only for evolution, but ID as well.

Perhaps some, but ID does not equally fit some pieces of evidence like shared location and sequence of endogenous retrovirus (and other random DNA insertions). These thousands of genetic "scars" left from viral infection in the same location and with the same sequence strongly indicate that the initial insertion occurred in a common ancestor. ID proponents attempt to argue that these ERVs are function and indeed, a function has been discovered for a handful of these, but that still leaves many thousands of these shared sequences unexplained. The similarity of DNA sequences not directly involved in protein production, whether between genes or in introns of genes, is also surprisingly high between humans and hypothesized primate relatives. This evidence is better explained by common ancestry.

Regardless of any differences of opinion we might have regarding the development of life, I am deeply thankful that as followers of Christ, we have a shared experience that is much more important and uniting.

[Behold]

23 hours ago, one.opinion said:

There are multiple different fields that contain evidence of evolution. I would argue that although there is considerable evidence in the fossil record, there is more compelling evidence in our anatomy, physiology, and genetics.

This is not true.

I find it interesting that you follow up a completely untrue statement by stating that others lie.

 

Ok, i'll try you again.

There is no extant connecting "fossil" record, and you stating that there is, is not proof.

There is no connecting fossil record that links chimps, apes, and similar.... to Man.      It does not exist, tho science pretends it exists, and creates colorful charts to fool the kiddies..

Im sure there is also an ancient jawbone and an upper arm, and maybe a fossil tusk and the tooth of a T-REX.. all "mystically"  laying in the same hole in Mongolia, that proves that some people will believe anything, if the word "Science" is attached to the photos.

The reason a chimp is a chimp, and an ape is an ape and a green monkey is a green monkey, and  Man alone  is created in "the Image of God", is because that's reality.

God literally made "everything after its KIND".....which means, that He created each living thing, from His imagination, and called it by word, into existence, as completed.

Everything that God created is the "original" (completed)., and science does not want to accept it because if they do, then existence can only lead back to the Creator, of which Science rejects.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Behold

[Mike Mclees]

22 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Perhaps some, but ID does not equally fit some pieces of evidence like shared location and sequence of endogenous retrovirus (and other random DNA insertions). These thousands of genetic "scars" left from viral infection in the same location and with the same sequence strongly indicate that the initial insertion occurred in a common ancestor. ID proponents attempt to argue that these ERVs are function and indeed, a function has been discovered for a handful of these, but that still leaves many thousands of these shared sequences unexplained. The similarity of DNA sequences not directly involved in protein production, whether between genes or in introns of genes, is also surprisingly high between humans and hypothesized primate relatives. This evidence is better explained by common ancestry.

Regardless of any differences of opinion we might have regarding the development of life, I am deeply thankful that as followers of Christ, we have a shared experience that is much more important and uniting.

It is amazing to me how so many scientists that we were a product of mathematical and physics equations. to produce hypothetical reasoning. While the keep scratching their heads how we got here with out an Intelligent creator. This is impossible.  I think evolution is connected to design . Here I am going to make a dot  

                                                     

                                                   .                     

 

Imagine that the field around the dot there is nothing. we call the field  void. I typed the dot from my keypad, but lets say there was no keypad or any other device to put it there. Before the dot there was nothing. Complete void. How did the dot get there? Neither math or physics put it there. Who put the dot there, and from it the universe began. The scientist are blinded by equations that will never really answer the questions.

Until God is put into the equation you will never find the answer 

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Mike Mclees said:

I think evolution is connected to design

That's my personal belief, as well. I have ultimate faith that God is the Creator of the universe and everything in it. I believe the scientific evidence is sufficient to support the idea that life forms developed over many millennia into what we see today.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Mike Mclees said:

Who put the dot there, and from it the universe began. The scientist are blinded by equations that will never really answer the questions.

To further the analogy, scientists are unequipped to answer where the dot came from. There can be all sorts of studies on the dot itself, but the scientific tools are simply insufficient to answer some very important questions - like whether or not God exists.

[JustPassingThru]

2 hours ago, Mike Mclees said:

Imagine that the field around the dot there is nothing.

I agree with what you are saying, ...I just want to point out one small fact, ...that nothing is something, before God created there was just God, ...not God and nothing, ...when/what God created, it was a thought in His Mind and the Son/Word spoke that thought into existence, ...Genesis 1:3 teaches us that.

Lord bless

[JustPassingThru]

Disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less...

That's simple, just study the intricacy of the human eye or ear! 

[childoftheking]

On 1/9/2017 at 3:21 AM, justme007 said:

i'm not a scientist, i'm just trying to think rationally. i see many ways to disprove evolution .

 

What intrigues me the most about science, is that a "Theory" is essentially enough facts to back an idea to call it proof.  So, this gives you the idea, there must be some solid facts involved within the process.   And then the first word you read is "Randomness."  And "Randomness" is not even stable enough to test for a conclusive hypothesis.  In fact, "Randomness" is exactly the same as flipping a full deck of 52 cards face down, then mixing them up, and pulling 2 cards hoping they are the same number or symbol.   The chances are literally slim to none.   This is the first clue that those following science are being "duped."

 

And how we get the "runaround answers," are when we toss in "Natural Selection," or "Inherited Traits/Genetics."   < Those 2 conditions are the very polar opposite to what "Randomness," is all about.   And that it because Science wants us to believe life-universe-all of it is basically a "Fluke," or "Accident."

 

And if you understand Mathematics, you will quickly see that Science takes a test subject from an "Unstable Condition" and tests them in a "Stable Condition."  This allows aging processes to be skewed.   

***Example, you dig up some dirt. 

(1)   Dirt naturally, is full of trillions of molecular cellular structures called bacteria.   In fact, what confuses Science is the bacteria we find in one Species, can be found in ALL Species.   This leads them to believe we are all related (Amoeba - Plant Structure - Fish - Amphibian - Mammals - Apes - eventually Hominids (Humans)).   This is what is tripping them up.   They find the same Bacteria in every living Organism, Life System, All Species.   But not once, have they considered that God created us from Dirt, and when we die, it's that same Bacteria in Everything that breaks us down to compost.

 

(2)   Dirt also comes from an "Unstable Environment."   From weather disturbing Dirt, to bacteria in it's multiple stages of decomposition, Dirt is changing at a very rapid rate.   So, if you wanted to test for the age of Dirt, you do it where you find the Dirt.   The problem with that, you won't get the age of Dirt to be Billions of years old, you get it maybe just a few Millions years old, if that.   So, Science takes the Unstable Conditioned Dirt, and then brings it to the Lab where it is a Stable Condition.   The lights alone change the reaction to Dirt, because man made light is nothing like natural light at all.   So after a day or 2 in this Stable Condition, Dirt begins to adapt.   Now when you test the age of Dirt, it appears to be thousands times older than you would get from being in the Unstable Condition.  ***

 

A second obstacle to how Science believes "Randomness" leads to a solid Theory, is called "DNA."   Basically, 1 strand of DNA is equivalent in knowledge, information to a Million Computers jammed packed with "Programs."   And we know a computer is Programmed.   And if DNA is similar in structure to a computer, it means All of the Information within DNA had to be programmed.

 

And that leads us to a third obstacle for Science, "Intelligent Design."   And no matter the argument, the way DNA is structured and full of millions of bits of information like a Computer Program.   Leads to a solid conclusion, DNA is programmed by a Programmer.   And that can only lead to one assumption, "Intelligent Design."

 

 

Ultimately, Science does serve many purposes!!

 

But if we took "Natural Selection" and applied to those who are Scientists vs those who are not.  We discover, those in Science are genetically weaker than someone who does physical work for a living.   And yet, we have allowed peons to have authority over those who can survive, naturally!!

 

Science cracks me up.   And they really get flustered, when you can prove their lies, and they know they are not able to pull the wool over your eyes

Edited April 26, 2019 by childoftheking

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, childoftheking said:

A second obstacle to how Science believes "Randomness" leads to a solid Theory, is called "DNA."   Basically, 1 strand of DNA is equivalent in knowledge, information to a Million Computers jammed packed with "Programs."

I agree that the incredible complexity of even the simplest life forms is strong evidence for a Creator. But there is no scientific reason to assume that the Creator could not have carried out His work through evolution.

3 hours ago, childoftheking said:

Science cracks me up.   And they really get flustered, when you can prove their lies

Can you back this rather bold assertion up with even a single example? What kind of "lie" have "they" told that you can "prove" wrong?