The Fraud of Evolution

[899]

---

@gareb

okay but i aLready read its definiton and those parts w/c really matter.

This is what ive learned:
1) micro evolution can be observed and it is happening within species.

for example female sheep and male sheep both black gave birth to a spotted sheep, mother sheep gave birth to a one legged sheep, fruitflies changing colors,horses breeding a different kind of horse, human eyes changing colors and others more...

But no cat changing into dogs, snakes grew wings and flew, a pool of amoeba changing into a school of fish.

2) Our DNA carries information and it will tell and command our system on how it should grew and adopt characteristics. Like a computer it only works as far as the program(information) tells it to work.

For example:
Your dna carries an information telling your system that you are going to have five fingers now becasue of some
fluctuations you were born with only one hand. Is that macro evolution? Did you changed from being a human into something else? NO.

A horse breeding another kind of horse,its still a horse.

Human eye changes color, they are stil human.


3) it is mathematically impossible

how much time does it take fro one specei change into another specie? millions according to darwin and other evolutionists. So how many species do we have right now? 4.4 billion of years is not even enough(by the way thats the age of the earth according to them).

[899]

@gareb

By the way They dont have a mechanism, only definiton. Well, we can have millions of definition about it but according to the law of science,a mechanism is needed for it to become a valid science.

[burn_my_eyes]

@899
Or how did htese reptiles got wings and flew over? And dont juts give an answer of this kind- "They evolved". cos thats not an answer. Give me a mechanism pls.

lets keep it simple.
have you ever tasted reptilian cuisine?(snake, frogs,etc.)

i you haven't, let me tell you, they taste like chicken. :mrgreen:

[Mr.Ho_chia]

so meaning these reptiles because they taste like chicken could be from chicken?

But mao lagi, tanang ako pangutanun tao mo eat ug exotic food, like frog, rat, snakes, dogs, pawikan ang isulti mura manok daw.

[The_Child]

3) it is mathematically impossible

how much time does it take fro one specei change into another specie? millions according to darwin and other evolutionists. So how many species do we have right now? 4.4 billion of years is not even enough(by the way thats the age of the earth according to them).

what's that? is that a serious attempt to falsify Evolution. ? How could you directly conclude that? ugh.


Do you have any other alternative most probable than Evolution then?

[Mr.Ho_chia]

Para nako there is no point in falsifying a theory hence it is not proven to be true. let the theorist or his followers prove his theory first.
mao rana ako masulti. :mrgreen:

Youp but nither true or false? what will it make? trulse? anything that is not true even if it is not false is actually false already, or can never be true hence not proven and therfore we can consider as false out right. but that's just my 2 cents. I know you have your own opinion as well..........

[gareb]

@899

1.) you are comparing two different things. please research on the process of speciation.

2.) it's called mutation and it can accumulate throughout generations.

3.) this statement, obviously, is a result of an assumption, since i do not believe you have actually calculated the amount of time, as well as the rate of change, that a species can undergo in 4.4 billion years.

the mechanism is there. it's called 'natural selection'

@Mr.Ho_chia

'falsifiability' an element of a valid scientific theory.

technically, a theory is neither "true" nor "false". it is only "useful" or "not useful". a scientific theory is what ties scientific facts and observations together. it establishes coherence and organization among these facts. these ties are useful if they can accommodate all the relevant facts and explain them in a manner that leads to the uncovering of new facts that reinforce the theory. if new facts are discovered that conflicts with the theory, the theory is then rendered "useless" and another theory should be made to accommodate new data and information.

falsifiability is precisely that which leaves the theory open for new facts that may come in and challenge the validity of a theory. it renders the theory, and theoretical science in general, flexible. bear in mind though that in this usage, "falsifiable" does not necessarily mean "false".

[gareb]

im locking this thread. continue relevant discussion here:

https://www.istorya.net/forums/index.php?topic=109981.0