Skip to content
March 25, 2015 / itsnobody

Problems with Evolution – A Science Fiction Story

What do you call a theory that relies on too many experimentally unverifiable assumptions? A science fiction story. – itsnobody

If we are to be completely honest and objective with ourselves we can see with 100% certainty that evolution the theory is nothing more than a nonsensical pseudo-scientific science fiction story put out in the media and sold as true.

Initially believing in evolution because I was taught to and because of authority figures I’ve come out to oppose evolution. The atheist-controlled media can’t protect evolution forever.

Anyone who objectively evaluates the facts going only by evidence, empirical observations, and valid reasoning (rather than by authority, incredulity, and other things popular in anti-science/atheist circles) would see that evolution as we know it is a borderline impossibility!

It’s time that people stop believing lies in the atheist-controlled media and start calling out “evolution” the theory as a whole for what it really is – a nonsensical pseudo-scientific science fiction idea just the same as “X-Men” or other science fiction ideas.

The atheist-controlled media has an issue with people questioning or criticizing evolution, a borderline pseudo-scientific idea, but delusional atheists like Ayn Rand and Daniel Dennett can spread their propaganda on “free-will”, an idea thoroughly falsified in science by repeatable experiments.

Why can’t atheists and evolutionists realize that believing in free-will is more irrational than denying evolution the theory as a whole?

Obviously denying physics, every field in modern science, repeatable experiments and direct observation to believe in “free-will” is more irrational than denying assumptions in evolution which are impossible to experimentally verify as true.

The only way that you can disagree with me is if you’re not going by evidence but by your bias.

The scientific issues, problems, gaps, and unknowns in evolution are much much bigger than the scientific issues with saying there’s no free-will.

It’s pretty funny to talk to people who believe in evolution but then deny the evidence on free-will, it proves their bias and how they don’t really care about evidence at all.

Even worse, evolution requires determinism to be true, yet the fools (atheists) who believe in free-will usually attack determinism, so they are attacking evolution as well. Non-determinism would falsify evolution!

The atheist-controlled media and atheist/anti-science community has no issue with people questioning the repeatable experiments telling us that there’s no such thing as “free-will”, so why do they have an issue with people questioning assumptions in evolution that aren’t even based on anything experimentally verifiable?

The answer is because the media is CONTROLLED and BIASED towards evolution. That’s the only rational explanation.

Have you ever heard even one time anywhere any Professors getting fired for believing in free-will or even one time in the media a “free-will believer” being attacked? I haven’t.

On the other hand lots of Professors who are critical of evolution get fired, people who deny evolution are attacked in the media because the media and society is biased and doesn’t care about evidence, science, or proof.

“The Problem of Free-Will” argument is usually used against religion, so of course the atheist-controlled media won’t come out to force the non-existence free-will belief onto society like how they’ve tried to force the science fiction story called “evolution” onto society.

Otherwise we would predict that the media would be attacking free-will believers and saying you’re not allowed to say or teach that free-will exists, if the media actually cared about evidence, but this isn’t case.

So we can be around 100% certain that not even one atheist or evolutionist actually cares about evidence, science, or proof.

What a terrible thing the media has done.

Just imagine how much better society would be if people gave up on the “free-will delusion”, stopped blaming people, holding grudges, refusing to forgive and forget, saw the true innocence in all beings, and focused on the scientific causes of negative behavior.

One of the main principles in science is criticism and scrutiny, so why are evolutionists trying to stop people from questioning, criticizing, and scrutinizing evolution?

It’s simple, they know that if a theory really is true that it will stand up to any amount of criticism so they have to stop everyone from criticizing evolution because they know how weak of a theory it is and that it will be falsified.

Although I can’t be sure as to exactly how life started, I can be 100% certain that whatever happened isn’t modern day evolution as we know it.

We do not respect these anti-science atheist clowns intent on protecting their science fiction idea from criticism and scrutiny.

On my blog site full-fledged free speech is allowed, so anyone is free to refute any statement that I made (since I know that I’m right I encourage criticism).

Now onto my main arguments:

How is evolution equivalent a science fiction story that COULD be true?

It’s pretty simple, assumptions, hypotheses, or speculations that have never been experimentally verified as accurate but could be true are equivalent to stories. Almost everything in the theory of evolution is impossible to experimentally verify as accurate, so it’s basically the same as a science fiction story.

What if I made up a story about how a long time ago in the past there were giant humanoid insect-like creatures on Earth, but they went extinct, and all their fossils disappeared…wouldn’t that be nearly the same as the modern day theory of evolution?

Or what about the “X-Men” story…a story of humans that mutate and gain superhuman powers…it’s nearly the same as evolution as well.

Lots of science fiction stories are nearly equivalent in terms of how “scientific” they are to the theory of evolution.

The laws of physics should be modified to fit into clown evolutionists science fiction ideas?

The difference between physics and evolution is that engineers have experimentally verified the accuracy of physics literally BILLIONS of times already whereas so many assumptions in evolution are impossible to experimentally verify as accurate!

Since when did we change physics to match into assumptions that have never been experimentally verified as accurate?

But here we have the media and society saying that we should make an exception to evolution based off nothing. Apparently evolution is an exception to the second law of thermodynamics.

“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.” – Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1915), chapter 4

“[Thermodynamics] is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced will never be overthrown, within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts.” – Albert Einstein

“The second law of thermodynamics is, without a doubt, one of the most perfect laws in physics. Any reproducible violation of it, however small, would bring the discoverer great riches as well as a trip to Stockholm. The world’s energy problems would be solved at one stroke.” – Ivan P. Bazarov, “Thermodynamics” (1964)

Evolutionist response: “The Earth is not an isolated system, therefore the law does not apply. The Sun’s energy could increase order on Earth.”

LOL! I guess everyone needs a good laugh at the clown science fiction evolutionist response.

There’s a big problem with this claim: Engineers know that entropy applies ON EARTH and in open systems.

Using the clown evolutionist reasoning engineers can give up on entropy and come up with “magical” devices since the “Earth is not an isolated system” or whatever, lol.

I guess this means that 100% efficient heat engines and perpetual motion machines that violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics are now possible ON EARTH because “the Earth is not an isolated system” LOL!

How can anyone be this stupid? I guess since the media has protected evolution like a religious belief rather than treating it as another scientific theory physicists are forced to remain silent about their doubts of this ridiculous science fiction idea called “evolution”.

“if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable” – Granville Sewell, Mathematician

The physicists most biased towards evolution only admit that “it could still be theoretically possible, but it would still be a strange phenomena, if it’s true”.

The physicists biased towards evolution have come up with nonsensical calculations showing that there’s enough energy for an entropy decrease enough to allow evolution to occur.

This claim however is borderline nonsense, nearly the same as calculating that a “99.99% efficient solar panel is easily possible” or calculating that on other planets like Mars or Venus or Mercury “the Sun’s energy could decrease entropy enough for evolution” or calculating that “the Sun provides us with 63 MW of power per square meter”.

The main issue with their calculations is not factoring in reality (they just use elementary calculations that no engineer would rely on) and that the Sun’s energy would only decrease entropy if and only if there was a mechanism that used the Sun’s energy to do so.

In reality even if there’s theoretically enough energy from the Sun to cause the entropy decrease it would never happen realistically because the Sun’s energy increases entropy and only decreases entropy if and only if there’s a special specific mechanism that uses the Sun’s energy to decrease entropy!

Solar storms from the Sun release energy, but they may one day cause the Earth to end instantly being equivalent to more than 10 billion Hiroshima atomic bombs!

Why don’t solar storms and atomic bombs decrease entropy? Because an increase in energy would increase entropy and disorder, not decrease it. An entropy decrease only comes if there’s a specific mechanism that uses energy to decrease entropy, not magically.

They’re just calculating nonsense, fantasy imagination science fiction stuff not reality!

Using similar elementary calculations physicists have used to show that evolution is possible we can say that the Sun provides us with 63 MW of power per square meter!

However upon closer inspection we see that only around 1366 W of power per square meter is actually available because the intensity of the power drops with the squared distance from the Sun as the sphere of this emission is expanding (around 46,000 times).

If we assume that solar panels are around 25% efficient this comes to only around 340 watts per square meter!

However the actual amount is even lower since direct sunlight isn’t available 24/7.

But if we went by elementary calculations similar to the ones the physicists biased towards evolution use we would still believe that 63 MW/sq meter is provided by the Sun, so with a 25% efficient solar panel we would have 15.75 MW per square meter!

Using engineering and applying the calculations to reality shows you how ridiculous their claims are!

In other words if we go by reality-based calculations not theoretical calculations the entropy decrease from evolution would violate or almost violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

With engineering we can see the truth. Only a certain percentage of the Sun’s energy would be usable energy, and among that usable energy only a certain percentage could be used to cause an entropy decrease.

So the overall picture is that the entropy decrease required for evolution is impossible with the Sun’s energy alone!

The elementary calculations the physicists biased towards evolution use are merely theoretical and basically just fantasy and imagination.

Physicists don’t have an issue with claiming that evolution on every other planet in the universe is impossible but the physicists biased towards evolution make an exception for Earth, lol.

Can you believe that? Most physicists already have no issue with saying that on every single Earth-like planet in the entire universe evolution would be so extraordinarily unlikely that it’s basically impossible. It’s also impossible on Earth too, lol.

The media is trying to convince people to accept evolution based on the possibility that it could be true. But why should we assume that something is true because it COULD be true even if it’s extraordinarily unlikely to be true? Only because evolution is a belief protected by the media.

Using this reasoning I can assume that even if it’s extraordinarily unlikely that I would win the lottery 7 times in a row since it COULD happen it WILL happen….what backwards nonsensical reasoning.

The nonsensical science fiction response from evolutionists shows how weak of a theory evolution really is.

The main problem with their argument is that the Sun’s energy would only increase order if and only if there was a mechanism that used the Sun’s energy to increase order, not just magically!

The Sun’s energy would certainly increase entropy and not decrease entropy unless there was some specific mechanism that used the Sun’s energy to decrease entropy.

In the future the Sun may cause the world to end, as solar storms are one of the things that could instantly destroy the Earth at any moment at any time!

Engineers know this to be true…it doesn’t matter if someone calculates and estimates that a “99.9% efficient solar panel” is possible…they know that it’s not possible in reality because you need to come up with mechanisms that use the sun’s energy.

Engineers haven’t even come close to breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics (it would be a miracle even if they came up with a 70% efficient solar panel, even in labs coming up with a 40% efficient solar panel has been a challenge).

But according to evolutionists with their calculations this should be easy, since it’s on Earth, and you can calculate and estimate it as possible without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Using the evolutionist reasoning we can conclude that “if you stay out in the Sun you won’t ever die or grow old”….LOL.

Evolutionists often claim that this criticism should mean that “babies can’t grow into adults” but being foolish with their science fiction ideas they ignore that “adults grow old and die” (because of entropy), the decrease in entropy is only very temporary with the overall increase in entropy still prevailing!

They also ignore the fact that in the past (and still today in many developing countries) infant mortality was one of the leading killers (because of entropy) meaning many babies never grew into adults.

Evolutionists also come up with other examples to protect their crackpot science fiction ideas, ignoring the fact that the overall trend is still an increase in entropy!

A temporary decrease in entropy is possible, but the overall trend is always with entropy increasing!

The 2nd law of thermodynamics has been experimentally verified as accurate billions of times whereas almost everything in evolution has never been experimentally verified as accurate…yet we are supposed to deny experimentally verification to protect this science fiction story called “evolution”!?

“The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth.” – Jeremy Rifkin, Evolutionist/anti-science fan

Evolutionists claim that anyone critical of evolution misuse the 2nd law of thermodynamics when in reality it is the evolutionists who have come up with a near “magical” science fiction idea to escape the 2nd law of thermodynamics!

The entropy decrease required for evolution is definitely like “magic”!

Instead of physicists coming out to tell the public the unbiased objective truth on this matter they are forced to remain silent and protect the science fiction idea “evolution”.

If physicists had been unbiased they would’ve already falsified evolution, viewing it the same as other crackpot ideas like perpetual motion machines.

Evolutionists are trying to stop physicists from seriously looking at evolution because they know that physicists if they unbiasedly look at it will come to the conclusion that evolution is definitely impossible!

So to summarize the issues with evolution and physics:
– Engineers have experimentally verified the accuracy of physics billions of times whereas almost everything in evolution is impossible to experimentally verify as accurate
– The theoretical calculations used to support evolution contain errors and are unrealistic as the intensity of the power of the Sun’s energy decreases as it hits Earth
– The Sun’s energy would increase entropy and only decrease entropy if there was a specific mechanism that used the Sun’s energy to decrease entropy, not magically only decrease entropy as evolutionists believe
– Since the Sun’s energy would increase entropy it’s not realistically enough to explain the entropy decrease required for evolution
– No rational explanation to how such an entropy decrease is realistically possible (from a primitive form of bacteria to a human) is given, it’s basically equivalent to “magic”

 

So basically modern physics already has falsified evolution! It’s just because of the media and society that it’s given a free pass.
Evolution the theory is almost equivalent to a perpetual motion machine idea that has never been experimentally tested, basically the same as a crackpot idea that the media has protected.

What does physics predict?

Physics which has been experimentally verified as accurate billions and billions of times by engineers, predicts extinction, not evolution in almost every case.

Physics tells us that any entropy decrease would be temporary, with the overall trend of entropy increasing prevailing!

Physics predicts that species would gradually become weaker and eventually die off (become extinct), the idea that a species would instead “evolve” into something superior and more complex fundamentally goes against physics.

Evolution would only be remotely possible in these cases:
– Short term micro-evolution (and then extinction)
– Species with extraordinarily high reproduction rates

Everything that physics predicts matches into all of the data we have perfectly (physics has been experimentally verified as accurate by engineers whereas almost everything in evolution is impossible to experimentally verify as accurate).

This means the species that aren’t reproducing like quadrillions per day or week have a near ZERO chance of ever evolving into anything more complex and extremely high chance of either remaining the same, becoming weaker, or dying off.

So for a species like humans the chance that humans evolved is essentially zero. You have to assume that the common ancestor from which humans and chimpanzees came from somehow didn’t go extinct before it evolved, and also assume that all the ancestors of that species didn’t go extinct before it evolved, and so on all the way back to a primitive form of bacteria, which is so extraordinarily unlikely we know that it never happened!

Chance that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees didn’t go extinct before it could evolve – extremely unlikely
|
Chance that the common ancestor of that species didn’t go extinct before it could evolve – extremely extremely unlikely
|
Chance that the common ancestor of the above species didn’t go extinct before it could evolve – extremely extremely extremely unlikely
|
All the way back to a primitive form of bacteria – chance is so extremely low we know it it’s impossible

Obviously if a species goes extinct it can’t evolve into anything else.

The fossil records and biology support what physics tells us, extinction, not evolution.

We also observe just what physics tells us about species gradually becoming weaker as well. Many ancient species were larger and stronger than their modern day versions. Instead of “evolving” into something more complex as evolution predicts they became weaker over time just like physics predicts.

Biologists estimate that 99.9% of species went extinct in the past, just what physics predicts (Newman, Mark. A model of mass extinction. 1997. Journal of Theoretical Biology 189: 235-252).

Biologists and evolutionists already agree with me, mostly

The overwhelming evidence in biology and physics supports extinction as opposed to evolution. Biologists already agree that extinction is far more likely for a species than evolution, they just claim that “somehow by some unknown means when there were mass extinctions in the past and nearly 100% of species died off life just started back later on” which of course is nonsense.

In modern times we observe extinctions going on everywhere.

Everything matches in perfectly with what physics tells us.

Problems with the evidence evolutionists and evolutionist fans provide:

Computer models aren’t evidence of anything

A lot of evolutionists use computer models to support their delusions…the problem with this is that you can use computer models to say that anything is true, they also ignore the computer models that match into physics (showing extinction rather than evolution).

With computer models and simulations you can say that perpetual motion machines are real.

Computer models aren’t equivalent to experimental verification of anything.

Fossil evidence is weak, not objective, not empirically testable as accurate

Fossil evidence is often used as the strongest evidence that evolution is true, but a closer look shows that it’s just junk and not real evidence of anything.

Problems with the fossil evidence:
– Different biologists interpret the same fossils differently
– No DNA for most fossils, meaning nothing objective
– Are we actually observing evolution or extinction?

Since you can interpret the same fossils in different ways what biologists do is interpret fossils to fit into their invented models. When however real DNA is discovered usually more questions are raised than answers. This is what has happened time and time again.

For instance recently, a 400,000 year old human fossil thought to have definitely been homo heidelbergensis by biologists has now been revealed to actually be Denisovan when mtDNA was obtained, a real HUGE shock to biologists:

“The story of human evolution is not as simple as we would have liked to think,” Meyer said. “This result is a big question mark. In some sense, we know less about the origins of Neanderthals and Denisovans than we knew before.” – http://www.livescience.com/41679-oldest-human-dna-reveals-mysterious-homnid.html

Most certainly biologists would still have thought of this fossil as “homo heidelbergensis” it’s only because of the mtDNA sample (something objective) that are they forced to reclassify it.

This recent find (from December 2013) forces biologists to rewrite the model of human evolution since the earliest Denisovans were supposed to have been from 40,000 years ago, not 400,000 years ago.

That is just one example of how fossil evidence is weak without an objective verification (actual DNA).

Without an objective verification of something you can just make up a story or model and say that it’s true.

This is exactly what biologists and paleontologists do with fossil research, they just make up a story or model and try to fit the fossils into the models. Since usually there’s no way to objectively verify or empirically test the accuracy of their models they can basically say that anything is true.

DNA evidence is the most objective way to empirically test the accuracy of transitional fossil models, so I predict that in the future if more DNA is gathered from fossils that we can falsify evolution.

I’m very confident that many fossils labeled as “transitional” are not in reality, they are just extinctions of different species or other things misidentified that may look somewhat similar and are classified to fit into an invented model.

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record.  By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” – Ronald R. West, Evolutionist/anti-science fan

Hopefully in the future if more DNA or mtDNA can be obtained from fossils we can completely falsify evolution!

 

Tactics used by evolutionists and the atheist-controlled media whenever evolution is criticized:

Go by authority, incredulity, polls

Usually the media will say something like “most biologists believe in evolution therefore it must be accepted or is true”…the problem with this is just an appeal to authority.

Authority figures saying something is true isn’t equivalent to evidence that it’s true. What authority figures believe is only relevant if it’s accompanied with evidence.

Most biologists don’t understand anything about physics so who cares what they think? It’s just like someone making up a science fiction story about a perpetual motion machine.

I remember in middle school I had an idea for a perpetual motion machine, in my imagination it worked great, if I had no way to empirically test out if my machine worked I might still have believed that it worked. It’s only because we can experimentally test out machines like that that I know that my machine doesn’t work in reality.

In the same way biologists can imagine evolution working well in their minds, since they have no way to empirically test the accuracy of so many of their claims they can continue to remain in delusion.

If we go strictly by evidence, evolution the theory as a whole is so extremely unlikely that I KNOW that it never happened.

Label anyone who criticizes evolution as a Creationist / throw personal attacks

In order to prevent physicists, engineers, and others from criticizing evolution evolutionists have come up with a great anti-science strategy – just label anyone who criticizes evolution (something not experimentally verified as accurate) as a Creationist, crackpot, crazy, etc…these same people would have no issue with people criticizing General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Neuroscientists who say there’s no free-will, etc…even though these sciences have been experimentally verified as accurate whereas evolution has not!

Can you believe anyone could be that much of an anti-science fan?

One of the main principles in science is criticism and scrutiny, so why shouldn’t people be allowed to criticize evolution like how they are allowed to criticize anything else in science?

The reason why evolutionists discourage criticism and scrutiny of evolution is because they are anti-science (in opposition to science), know that their science fiction story WILL be proven wrong, and want evolution to be protected like a religious belief.

Suppress embarrassing finds for evolutionists

Did you know that soft tissue was found in dinosaur fossils dated to 68 million – 150 million years ago (Schweitzer, Mary H.; Wittmeyer, Jennifer L.; Horner, John R. (2007). “Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present”. Proc Biol Sci 274 (1607): 183–97. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3705. PMC 1685849. PMID 17148248.)?

You probably don’t because the media has suppressed this embarrassing find for evolutionists.

I remember reading an article a long time ago where someone said something like “if they find soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil evolution would be falsified” as a joke…this actually showed up, is real, has been peer-reviewed, but where is it in the media?

But this doesn’t actually falsify the accuracy of the dating techniques…evolutionists have come up with another pseudo-scientific science fiction idea that “somehow by some unknown means iron can preserve soft tissue for 68 million years”…which is obviously another nonsensical crackpot science fiction idea.

Microbiology (based on experimentation) tells us that soft tissue can only last a maximum of around 1 million years in the best conditions……microbiologists are told to remain silent about the doubts they have about the dating techniques because they know that the hypothesis that “the dating technique is inaccurate” will be ignored and thrown out because of the anti-science nature of evolutionists (the dating technique cannot be experimentally verified as accurate or even compared to other dating techniques for accuracy by the way).

From direct observation we absolutely know with 100% certainty that all soft tissue within human remains decomposes and disappears in just 50-100 years or less!

But here we have evolutionists claiming that soft tissue can survive for 68 MILLION years! How ridiculous!

The only reason that the hypothesis that “the dating technique is inaccurate” is thrown out is because with anything connected to evolution authority and incredulity matters more than hard evidence.

Dating techniques can’t be experimentally verified as accurate (we don’t have a time machine) but they can be compared to other dating techniques. The reasoning is that it’s extremely unlikely that different dating techniques would give the same date if the technique was inaccurate.

This reasoning works well for things dated to 1 millions years or more recent, you can compare the radiometric dating to other things like ice core dating or tree ring dating to check the accuracy.

But for anything dated as older than a few million years, like 68 millions years old, there’s no way to even compare it to other dating techniques to verify the accuracy of the dating!

So basically the radiometric calculated date of 68 million is essentially the same as a science fiction number, can’t be experimentally verified as accurate or even compared to other dating techniques for accuracy, and it also directly contradicts the physical evidence (soft tissue being found).

An analogy would be your watch telling you that it’s 2 AM but you look outside and it looks like it’s 2 PM, if you have other clocks available you can check to see if your watch is wrong or not, but if somehow every other clock or time-measuring device was unavailable, what would you think?

So will evolution be falsified in the future?

Of course it will. A theory as weak as evolution that doesn’t rely on many assumptions that are empirically tested as accurate will most certainly be overthrown in the future.

Now that’s what you call a weak theory.

The two weakest things in science are evolution and history since they rely on many assumptions that are impossible to experimentally verify as accurate.

If you are really pro-science or pro-empiricist you would know that you can only trust conclusions drawn from repeatable experiments and that assumptions that are impossible to experimentally verify or empirically test as accurate cannot be trusted.

I predict that by the 2100s-2200s or earlier evolution will either be completely falsified or be radically changed (maybe new mechanisms or something?).

This science fiction story called “evolution” can’t be protected forever.

Eventually scientists are going to have to look at the objective facts instead of protecting evolution like a religious belief.

Conclusion: What we have here is a story that fundamentally contradicts physics that cannot be experimentally verified as accurate basically the same as a perpetual motion machine idea!

Obviously the story isn’t true.

Biologists and evolutionists can keep imagining evolution as true in their minds just as someone can imagine a perpetual motion machine working great in their minds! It’s just fantasy and imagination.

Evolutionists can keep hiding away from their superstitious science fiction belief being falsified since it relies on so many assumptions that are impossible to experimentally verify as accurate, but it won’t last.

Based on the overwhelming evidence we have, evolution as we know it is so extraordinarily unlikely to have occurred we can be 100% certain that it never happened.

I’m 100% certain that this science fiction story called “evolution” is definitely wrong and false!

Hopefully one day physicists and engineers will call out evolution for what it really is – a crackpot theory the same as believing in perpetual motion machines.

Advertisements

12 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. Brian Dunning / Oct 12 2016 6:45 pm

    Debating with a Young Earth Creationist is actually really easy, because they only have a few standard arguments, and haven’t come up with any new cogent ones for some time. These standard arguments have been published time and time again, and a practiced Young Earth Creationist can handily draw them like a six-gun at the drop of a hat. All of their arguments are silly in their wrongness and easily debunked, and if you’re prepared in advance, it’s easy to beat down any Young Earther with a quick verbal body slam. You’re not going to change their mind, since Young Earthers do not base their opinions upon rational study of the evidence; but you might help clear things up for an innocent bystander who overhears.

    So here are the standard arguments for a young Earth, and the standard rebuttals from the scientific consensus, starting with my favorite:

    Evolution is just a theory, not a fact. This is an easily digestible sound bite intended to show that evolution is just an unproven hypothesis, like any other, and thus should not be taught in schools as if it were fact. Actually, evolution is both a theory and a fact. A fact is something we observe in the world, and a theory is our best explanation for it. Stephen Jay Gould famously addressed this argument by pointing out that the fact of gravity is that things fall, and our theory of gravity began with Isaac Newton and was later replaced by Einstein’s improved theory. The current state of our theory to explain gravity does not affect the fact that things fall. Similarly, Darwin’s original theory of evolution was highly incomplete and had plenty of errors. Today’s theory is still incomplete but it’s a thousand times better than it was in Darwin’s day. But the state of our explanation does not affect the observed fact that species evolve over time.

    The next argument you’re likely to encounter states that Evolution is controversial; scientists disagree on its validity. Young Earth Creationists have latched onto the fact that evolutionary biologists still have competing theories to explain numerous minor aspects of evolution. Throwing out evolution for this reason would be like dismissing the use of tires on cars because there are competing tread designs. Despite the claim of widespread controversy, no significant number of scientists doubt either the fact of evolution or the validity of the theory as a whole. Young Earthers often publish lists of scientists whom they say reject evolution. These lists are probably true. In the United States, the majority of the general public are creationists of one flavor or another. But the scientific community has a very different opinion: Most surveys of scientists find that 95 to 98 percent accept evolution just as they do other aspects of the natural world.

    Young Earth Creationists also argue that Evolution is not falsifiable, therefore it’s not science. One of the fundamentals of any science is that it’s falsifiable. If a test can be derived that, if it were to fail, falsified a proposition, then that proposition meets a basic test of being a science. Something that cannot be tested and falsified, like the existence of gods, is therefore not a science. Young Earthers accept this to the point that they use it as an argument against evolution’s status as a science.

    In fact, evolution could be very easily falsified. Evolutionary biologist JBS Haldane famously said that a fossilized rabbit from the Precambrian era would do it. Another way to falsify evolution would be to test any of the innumerable predictions it makes, and see if the observation doesn’t match what was predicted. Young Earthers are invited to go through all the predictions made in the evolutionary literature, and if they can genuinely find that not a single one is testable, then they’re right.

    The next argument to be prepared for is that Evolution is itself a religion. This argument has become increasingly popular in recent years as creationists have tried to bolster their own position by decorating it with scientific-sounding words like intelligent design. And as they try to convince us that their own position is science based, they correspondingly mock evolution by calling it a religion of those who worship Darwin as a prophet and accept its tenets on faith since there is no evidence supporting evolution. Clearly this is an argument that could only be persuasive to people who know little or nothing about the concept of evolution or Darwin’s role in its development. This argument is easily dismissed. A religion is the worship of a supernatural divine superbeing, and there is nothing anywhere in the theory of evolution that makes reference to such a being, and not a single living human considers himself a member of any “evolution church.”

    Young Earth Creationists also like to argue that Evolution cannot be observed. Part of what you need to do to validate a theory is to test it and observe the results. Although there are evolutionary phenomena that can be directly observed like dog breeding and lab experiments with fruit flies, most of what evolution explains has happened over millions of years and so, quite obviously, nobody was around to observe most of it. This is true, but it misstates what observation consists of. There’s a lot of observation in science where we have to use evidence of an event: certain chemical reactions, subatomic particle physics, theoretical physics; all of these disciplines involve experimentation and observation where the actual events can’t be witnessed. The theory of evolution was originally developed to explain the evidence that was observed from the fossil record. So in this respect, every significant aspect of evolution has been exhaustively observed and documented, many times over.

    One of the most tiresome creationist arguments against evolution tries to claim that There is an absence of transitional fossils. If the ancestor of the modern horse Miohippus evolved from its predecessor Mesohippus, then surely there must be examples of transitional fossils that would show characteristics of both, or perhaps an intermediate stage. I use the horse example because the fossil record of horses is exceptionally well represented with many finds. If evolution is true, shouldn’t there be examples of transitional stages between Miohippus and Mesohippus? The creationists say that there are not. Well, there are, and in abundance. You can tell people that there aren’t, but you’re either intentionally lying or intentionally refusing to inform yourself on a subject you’re claiming to be authoritative on. Kathleen Hunt of the University of Washington writes:

    A typical Miohippus was distinctly larger than a typical Mesohippus, with a slightly longer skull. The facial fossa was deeper and more expanded. In addition, the ankle joint had changed subtly. Miohippus also began to show a variable extra crest on its upper cheek teeth. In later horse species, this crest became a characteristic feature of the teeth. This is an excellent example of how new traits originate as variations in the ancestral population.

    The layperson need look no deeper than Wikipedia to find a long list of transitional fossils. But be aware that many species known only from the fossil record may be known by only one skeleton, often incomplete. The older fossil records are simply too sparse to expect any form of completeness, especially if you’re looking for complete transitions. It’s not going to happen. However, the theory of punctuated equilibrium predicts that in many cases there will be no transitional fossils, so in a lot of these cases, creationists are pointing to the absence of fossils that evolutionary theory predicts probably never existed.

    Here’s another Young Earth argument, and when I first heard it I said “What the heck are they talking about??” It’s that Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that there is no reverse entropy in any isolated system. The available energy in a closed system will stay the same or decrease over time, and the overall entropy of such a system can only increase or stay the same. This is an immutable physical law, and it’s true. Young Earth Creationists argue that this means a complex system, like a living organism, cannot form on its own, as that would be a decrease of entropy. Order from disorder, they argue, is physically impossible without divine intervention. This argument is easy to make if you oversimplify the law to the point of ignoring its principal qualification: that it only applies to a closed, isolated system. If you attempt to apply it to any system, such as a plant, animal, or deck of cards, you’ve just proven that photosynthesis, growth, and unshuffling are impossible too. Organisms are open systems (as was the proverbial primordial goo), since they exchange material and energy with their surroundings, and so the second law of thermodynamics is not relevant to them. Innumerable natural and artificial processes produce order from disorder in open systems using external energy and material.

    In a related vein, Young Earthers also argue that Evolution cannot create complex structures with irreducible complexity. This argument was made famous by Michael Behe, an evangelical biochemist, who coined the term irreducible complexity. Take a complex structure like an eyeball, and remove any part of it to simulate evolution in reverse, and it will no longer function. Thus, an eyeball cannot have evolved through natural selection, as a non-functioning structure would not be a genetic advantage. It seems like it makes sense at face value, but it’s based on a tremendously faulty concept. Evolution in reverse is not accurately simulated by taking a cleaver and hacking an eyeball in half. The animal kingdom is full of examples of simpler eye structures, all of which are functional, all of which are irreducibly complex, and all of which are susceptible to further refinement through evolution. For a dramatic visual example of how irreducible complexity can and does evolve through gradual refinement, and yet remain irreducibly complex, take a look at Lee Graham’s applet the Irreducible Complexity Evolver at https://www.stellaralchemy.com/ice/.

    Another effort to fight science using logic states that It’s too improbable for complex life forms to develop by chance. This is the old “747 in a junkyard” argument. How likely is it that a tornado would go through a junkyard, and by chance, happen to assemble a perfect 747? The same argument was made centuries ago by William Paley, except he referred to the exquisite design of a pocketwatch, and pointed out that such a thing is so complex and delicate that it had to have been designed from the top down by a creator. This argument is simply reflective of ignorance of the extraordinary power of evolution’s bottom-up design mechanism. Once you have an understanding of multigenerational mutation and natural selection, and also understand how structures with irreducible complexity evolve, there’s nothing unlikely or implausible about evolution at all. In fact, genetic algorithms (the computer software version of evolution), are starting to take over the world of invention with innovative new engineering advances that top-down designers like human beings might have never come up with. Bottom-up design is not only probable, it’s inevitable and nearly always produces better designs than any intelligent creator could have.

    You should also be prepared to hear that Evolution cannot create new information. Based on a misinterpretation of information theory, this argument states that the new information required to create a new species cannot suddenly spawn into existence spontaneously; new information can only come from an outside source, namely, an intelligent creator. This particular argument doesn’t go very far, since any genetic mutation or duplication can only be described as new information. Not all of that information is good. Most of it’s useless, called genetic drift, but once in a blue moon you get a piece that’s beneficial to the organism. New genetic information is observed in evolutionary processes every day.

    For a final blow from the logic department, be ready for the argument that Evolution does not explain some aspects of life or culture. This is an argument which is really just a logical fallacy: that since evolution does not explain everything, it is therefore entirely false. Evolutionary biologists are the first ones to stand up and say that there are still plenty of aspects of life we’re still learning about. That doesn’t make the things we’ve already learned wrong. It’s also increasingly common for Young Earthers to point to things that have nothing to do with the origin of life and speciation, like the Big Bang and the age of the earth, and argue that since the theory of evolution does not explain those things as well, it is therefore false. This is an even greater logical fallacy. Theories explain only those observed phenomena they are designed to explain. They are not intended to have anything to do with stuff they have nothing to do with.

    Those are the standard arguments. One thing I can’t easily prepare you for are the non-standard arguments you might get from a creationist who doesn’t know his business very well. For example, when evangelical actor Kirk Cameron and Christian author Ray Comfort were given a platform by ABC television in April 2007 to express their beliefs to the creators of the Blasphemy Challenge, they didn’t even know the standard arguments and just started throwing random stuff out left and right in a way that’s much harder to debate intelligently. Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy had a similar experience when debating moon hoax believer Joe Rogan, and he summed it up quite aptly by pointing out that it’s easy to know the science better than a believer does, but a believer can easily know the pseudoscience way better than you. Stick with what you know, and don’t allow an unpracticed creationist who’s all over the place to steer you off the track.

  2. itsnobody / Mar 30 2015 3:23 am

    I just can’t believe that the media can give this nonsensical science fiction story a free pass.

    Out of all the scientific theories I’ve ever looked at evolution has to be the weakest ever.

    The strongest evidence for evolution (transitional fossils) is what would be viewed as very weak evidence for any other theory.

    Since the same fossils are interpreted differently by different paleontologists obviously it’s not objective evidence.

    In order to falsify the transitional fossil evidence all we have to do is encourage evolutionists to gather DNA of the fossils.

    Different biologists can’t interpret the same DNA differently, it’s objective and would most certainly ruin their invented science fiction transitional fossil models.

    Obviously if someone has a story that fundamentally contradicts physics that you can’t experimentally verify as accurate you would think that the story is false, so obviously evolution as a whole is false.

    Evolution the theory belongs in the same boat as perpetual motion machine ideas or other stories that fundamentally contradict physics that cannot be experimentally verified as accurate.

    You can’t keep lying about something, making up science fiction ideas to protect the theory from falling down.

    In the same way that someone could imagine a perpetual motion machine working in their mind so too do biologists imagine evolution working, since almost everything in evolution is impossible to empirically test they can keep their imaginations and delusions, but it won’t last.

    Evolution will fall down in the future, in the deepest humiliation, just as Eddington said.

  3. sbparrothead / Mar 27 2015 9:04 am

    Wow, this is huge. Will take some time. However you start out by quoting yourself, so that’s not a good sign. Also the ramblings about the “atheist media” aren’t racking up any credibility points. So let’s begin…

    Whoa, something we can agree on early! Nice! Ayn Rand was indeed a clown. 🙂

    “On the other hand lots of Professors who are critical of evolution get fired, people who deny evolution are attacked in the media because the media and society is biased and doesn’t care about evidence, science, or proof.”

    Failure to list any demonstrable examples of this means this is simply baseless assertion. Show examples of the claims you make that can be verified.

    “So we can be around 100% certain that not even one atheist or evolutionist actually cares about evidence, science, or proof.”

    This is a lie. I care. It’s the evidence and the science behind it that demonstrates the fact that evolution has and continues to occur by the way.

    “One of the main principles in science is criticism and scrutiny, so why are evolutionists trying to stop people from questioning, criticizing, and scrutinizing evolution?”

    The fact is that no one tries to dissuade criticism and scrutiny… as a matter of fact it’s required in science. What is dissuaded is bad science passing muster. If some crackpot is going to claim something ridiculous, like for example claiming the earth is only 6000 years or so old, they’d damn well better have some solid science behind them considering every piece of known evidence, without fault, shows an earth of approximately 4.6 billion or so years old.

    “What if I made up a story about how a long time ago in the past there were giant humanoid insect-like creatures on Earth, but they went extinct, and all their fossils disappeared…wouldn’t that be nearly the same as the modern day theory of evolution?”

    Well… no. Evolution has actual evidence supporting it. For example, there was indeed a time where giant insects dominated the earth. (No, not humanoid.) We actually have the fossils from that time period demonstrating this. Arthropleura comes to mind.

    You have no idea what thermodynamics is about. Here’s the proof… you state:

    “Evolutionist response: “The Earth is not an isolated system, therefore the law does not apply. The Sun’s energy could increase order on Earth.”

    LOL! I guess everyone needs a good laugh at the clown science fiction evolutionist response.

    There’s a big problem with this claim: Engineers know that entropy applies ON EARTH and in open systems.”

    First of all, no one claims “the law does not apply”. It’s true that in isolated systems entropy (the energy lost as heat and no longer available to do work) will increase as work is done. This is demonstrable. This is why there are no perpetual motion machines. What is also true is that when you add energy to a system (an open system) you can locally decrease entropy in that system but you will still have an increase in entropy on the larger scale (the universe for example). The earth is an open system and as such in no way violates 2LoT due to the amount of energy we get from the sun. Look, the sun is producing constantly around 3.8 x 10^26 Joules per second (or Watts) of energy radiating out in all directions into space. Of that, the earth is receiving 1.8 x 10^17 Joules/s of energy. Much of this energy is captured by plants and converted into a form that is consumed by animals and passed along through the food chain. This results in a constant decrease in energy in systems around the earth, yet even you should be able to agree that the solar system as a whole is increasing in entropy as most of the suns energy radiates off into space, lost forever from being able to do work. This is a simple fact. Any physics department will verify this as such. Your assertion is false that 2LoT is somehow a problem regarding life changing over time.

    “Physics predicts that species would gradually become weaker and eventually die off (become extinct), the idea that a species would instead “evolve” into something superior and more complex fundamentally goes against physics.”

    I’m having a difficult time absorbing the absolute stupidity of this statement. Physics predicts nothing about evolutionary theory or speciation events. As demonstrated already, there are no “violations” of the laws of physics regarding life as it is. To take it to another level, biology doesn’t predict that “species would evolve into something superior”. Superior has nothing to do with it. Life evolves to best survive in it’s current environment. That’s effectively it, it’s that simple. Whether or not it would be deemed “superior” is irrelevant from a human perspective. Things are either selected for or their not based on the current environment.

    The fossil record does indeed show that the vast majority of species that have ever existed on earth no longer exist. However not all of them went extinct. There are those that changed enough over time to get labelled as a new species.

    “The overwhelming evidence in biology and physics supports extinction as opposed to evolution. ”

    Eh… no. Not really. Not the way you’re trying to present it. Life changes over time. Some species go extinct, some species accumulate enough changes that they eventually get recognized as a new species descended from the earlier one. That all. This is exactly what natural selection is about, life changing over time.

    “Fossil evidence is often used as the strongest evidence that evolution is true, but a closer look shows that it’s just junk and not real evidence of anything.”

    Actually DNA evidence is the strongest, it also happens to completely verify changes observed in the fossil record. However the fossil record is extremely good evidence as well. The fossil record demonstrates a progression of traits handed down over time as species change. Yes, it does show many species going extinct. It also shows many species changing over time right up to the modern era. It demonstrates for example the transition of therapsid dinosaurs to modern birds. It demonstrates how an early hoofed mammal can return to the sea eventually becoming modern cetaceans. It lends itself to predictability. For example, it allows scientists to be able to notice that there was a gap between fish and the first tetrapods. Being that lobe finned fish show up 390 – 380 million years ago and the first tetrapods show up around 363 million years ago it allowed the prediction that the transitional between fish and tetrapods should be found in that time gap, somewhere between 380 and 363 million years ago. After finding rock on the surface that had been dated to the right time period by using geological maps, they went looking. The result? Meet Tiktaalik roseae. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/index.html

    “You probably don’t because the media has suppressed this embarrassing find for evolutionists.”

    Another lie. Not only has this been published… it’s been explained.

    http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

    “Conclusion: Based on the overwhelming evidence we have, evolution as we know it is so extraordinarily unlikely to have occurred we can be 100% certain that it never happened.”

    Your conclusion is completely false. You have no evidence supporting this assertion whereas every speck and iota of evidence validates further evolutionary theory. In over 150 years of study not once has evidence come out implying anything other than the fact that life has and continues to change over time.

    • itsnobody / Mar 30 2015 9:54 pm

      What an unbelievably foolish (believably atheistic) response.

      “Failure to list any demonstrable examples of this means this is simply baseless assertion. Show examples of the claims you make that can be verified.”

      – Armitage, fired for finding soft tissue in triceratops (should be impossible according to clown evolutionists)
      – Sternberg, life ruined for publishing an Intelligent Design article in a peer-reviewed journal
      – Caroline Crocker, fired for mentioning Intelligent Design (not teaching it)
      – Michael Egnor, neurosurgeon heavily attacked and expelled for merely saying that studying evolution is useless (obviously true since it has very few real-word applications)
      – Robert J. Marks, research shutdown for allegedly being connected to “Intelligent Design”
      – Guillermo Gonzalez, stellar astronomer, researcher in trouble for suggesting that the universe was “Intelligently Designed”
      – List goes on and on

      These same people would never have an issue with anyone questioning or criticizing or finding something contradicting General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, experiments telling us there’s no free-will, or other theories and hypotheses would they?

      This proves how the media and society is trying to protect evolution like a religious idea rather than treating it the same as just another scientific theory.

      A typical anti-science/atheist view.

      I’ve read lots of unscientific junk in peer-reviewed journals…apparently you’re allowed to be unscientific if you aren’t criticizing evolution, lol.

      “This is a lie. I care. It’s the evidence and the science behind it that demonstrates the fact that evolution has and continues to occur by the way.”

      LOL…a theory based on so many assumptions that directly contradicts physics and is impossible to experimentally verify as accurate is a “fact”?

      What a joke.

      “The fact is that no one tries to dissuade criticism and scrutiny… as a matter of fact it’s required in science. What is dissuaded is bad science passing muster. If some crackpot is going to claim something ridiculous, like for example claiming the earth is only 6000 years or so old, they’d damn well better have some solid science behind them considering every piece of known evidence, without fault, shows an earth of approximately 4.6 billion or so years old.”

      This is just false…criticism and scrutiny is strongly discouraged because evolutionists know that they can easily be proven wrong.

      If they know that their theory is true why are they so afraid of criticism? They are weak, useless.

      I don’t believe that the Earth is either 6,000 years old or 4.6 billion years old, the truth is probably in between, I think the Earth may be as young as 50 million years old (which would obviously falsify evolution).

      “Well… no. Evolution has actual evidence supporting it. For example, there was indeed a time where giant insects dominated the earth. (No, not humanoid.) We actually have the fossils from that time period demonstrating this. Arthropleura comes to mind.”

      LOL…so what’s the hard evidence? Transitional fossils without DNA that are interpreted differently by paleontologists?

      “The earth is an open system and as such in no way violates 2LoT due to the amount of energy we get from the sun. Look, the sun is producing constantly around 3.8 x 10^26 Joules per second (or Watts) of energy radiating out in all directions into space. Of that, the earth is receiving 1.8 x 10^17 Joules/s of energy. Much of this energy is captured by plants and converted into a form that is consumed by animals and passed along through the food chain. This results in a constant decrease in energy in systems around the earth, yet even you should be able to agree that the solar system as a whole is increasing in entropy as most of the suns energy radiates off into space, lost forever from being able to do work. This is a simple fact. Any physics department will verify this as such. Your assertion is false that 2LoT is somehow a problem regarding life changing over time.”

      LOL!

      This science fiction idea created by evolutionists is just NONSENSE.

      Using those same type of theoretical calculations we would conclude that the Sun provides 63 MW of power per square meter to us so a 25% efficient solar panel should produce more than 15 MW of power!

      LOL…so what’s wrong with this?

      – The intensity of the Sun’s power decreases as it hits Earth…so theoretically we only get like 1366 W per square meter from the Sun!

      With elementary theoretical calculations like the ones clown evolutionists use we can say that almost anything is possible:
      – Sun provides us around 63 MW of power per square meter
      – A 99.9% efficient engine or solar panel could theoretically not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics
      – There’s enough energy from the Sun so that evolution could occur on Venus, Mars, and other planets

      Theoretical calculations not applied to reality are just fantasy!

      When we factor in reality, using realistic calculations we see that:
      – The amount of energy that organisms can use from the Sun is much less than the theoretical number (same with solar panels)
      – Organisms need specific mechanisms to use the Sun’s energy to decrease entropy
      – Organisms realistically would never use ALL of the Sun’s energy
      – The Sun’s energy would increase entropy unless there was a mechanism that made it decrease entropy

      So realistically the Sun’s energy would never be enough to cause the entropy decrease required for evolution!

      This means evolution either violates or almost violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, if we go by realistic calculations instead of fantasy theoretical calculations.

      Physicists are suppressing their doubts about evolution because evolution is protected like a religious idea and not treated as another scientific theory.

      I would love for any physicist or engineer to come up with REALISTIC calculations that engineers would use as to how evolution doesn’t violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

      The stuff I’ve read from the physicists biased towards evolution is just junk unrealistic theoretical calculations that would never apply in reality.

      “I’m having a difficult time absorbing the absolute stupidity of this statement. Physics predicts nothing about evolutionary theory or speciation events.”

      LOL…I guess this means you don’t understand science…physics applies to everything including evolution.

      What would physics predict for other things over time? The answer is that they decay, deteriorate, breakdown, etc…

      So for organisms or species this means it predicts that they decay, deteriorate, breakdown, eg…become extinct.

      “Eh… no. Not really. Not the way you’re trying to present it. Life changes over time. Some species go extinct, some species accumulate enough changes that they eventually get recognized as a new species descended from the earlier one.”

      Sorry that you’re in denial…even evolutionist biologists agree that extinction is more likely than evolution.

      “Actually DNA evidence is the strongest, it also happens to completely verify changes observed in the fossil record.”

      LOL…like where? I’ve personally looked at the DNA evidence it goes against evolution since species have DNA and genome structures that prevent changes and evolution.

      With genetic engineering we see that species resist evolution and change, tumors form, cells turn cancerous, and other bad things happen when tiny changes are made. This runs against what evolution would predict, which is species welcoming gene changes.

      It matches into what physics predicts, extinction, not evolution.

      “However the fossil record is extremely good evidence as well.”

      Only someone really gullible would believe fossil evidence without DNA…I pointed out the example of misdentification with the Denisovan fossil that was mistakenly labeled as homo heidelbergensis.

      Since different paleontologists interpret the same fossils differently this means it’s not something objective.

      “Another lie. Not only has this been published… it’s been explained.

      http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

      This just shows you how evolution is unfalsifiable.

      The explanation they’ve come with is pseudo-scientific and nonsensical that “somehow by some unknown means iron can preserve soft tissue for 68 million years”…LOL

      Not only does this directly contradict microbiology it’s just like a joke clown fantasy idea.

      Did you know that through direct observation we absolutely KNOW that soft tissue in humans completely disappears in just 100 years or less!

      But here we have clown evolutionists claiming that “somehow soft tissue can survive for 68 MILLION years”…lol they can’t handle that their science fiction story is being shown false just like how a perpetual motion machine idea falls apart once people empirically test it.

      The only way you can reject the hypothesis that “the dating technique is inaccurate” is if you’re biased and going only by authority and incredulity not by evidence and empirical observations.

      The evidence shows us that:
      – The radiometric calculated date of 68 million years cannot be compared to other dating techniques or experimentally verified as accurate in anyway!
      – The physical evidence (soft tissue being found) directly contradicts the 68 million year date
      – Microbiologists observe that soft tissue decays and deteriorates meaning that all soft tissue would certainly be gone within 2 million years or less

      This basically proves that evolution is unfalsifiable…it doesn’t matter what evidence shows up the clowns will invent a BS pseudo-scientific nonsensical idea to protect evolution like a religious belief!

      “Your conclusion is completely false. You have no evidence supporting this assertion whereas every speck and iota of evidence validates further evolutionary theory. In over 150 years of study not once has evidence come out implying anything other than the fact that life has and continues to change over time.”

      Sorry that you’re delusional, the facts show:
      – There’s a strong bias against criticizing and scrutinizing evolution, like how you can criticize or scrutinize anything else in science (General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Neuroscientific experiments telling us there’s no free-will, etc…)
      – Evolution contradicts physics and is basically the same as a perpetual motion machine idea
      – Almost everything in evolution is impossible to experimentally verify as accurate
      – The supposed “strong” evidence for evolution (transitional fossils) isn’t objective since there’s no DNA for most fossils and since different paleontologists interpret the exact same fossils differently
      – All of the evidence coming up against evolution can be explained away with BS pseudo-scientific ideas, making evolution unfalsifiable

      Evolution will fall down just like another perpetual motion machine idea, all we have to do is encourage biologists to come up with reliable objective ways of empirically testing evolution.

      Evolution is just fantasy and imagination, that’s what you call a theory where almost everything is impossible to experimentally verify as accurate!

      All evolutionists can do is hide behind the fact that so many assumptions in evolution are impossible to experimentally verify, just the same as someone imagining in their mind a perpetual motion machine working.

      Physicists can’t hide the truth forever!

      • and / Jun 4 2015 8:47 pm

        Prove to me that your god exists…

        oh wait you can’t :p

      • itsnobody / Jul 29 2015 9:39 am

        But I can, if I a find a way to empirically test the hypothesis.

        The only reason why God is unproven is because it’s empirically untestable. Every single hypothesis and theory in science was unproven and lacked evidence during the time-period that it was empirically untestable.

        I think I’ve figured out a way, but I’ll need around 1 GW of power to prove it. With this power and some electrical equipment I can easily open up large-size portals.

        Based on my research I’ve concluded that there are miniature portals all around us that alter us into different timelines at each moment, but under normal conditions the effects of these portals is too small to be noticeable, and that “location” as we know it is an illusion, not really real.

        With this technology all types of things should be possible, like instantaneous travel to any location, time travel, etc…you just open a portal to the location or time you want and then you’re there.

        You can also use this technology to well-treat or completely cure any negative health condition, materialize things into existence, and eliminate negative thoughts and emotions.

        Someone or groups are probably suppressing this technology, but they can’t forever.

        I’ve concluded that “God”, the light of lights, the unborn, the boundlessness, the highest enjoyment, the truth in itself, within all things, is physically infinitesimal in size, and that using technology I can experimentally prove this.

        In order to experimentally prove any hypothesis in science you have to come up with a way to empirically test the hypothesis.

        Based on modern science I’ve concluded that I was chosen for a special purpose, and in the future I will transform into a pure vessel of light to change the world forever.

        Since I was chosen, unless the world ends, no human, higher or lower being, or force within this reality can stop me.

        So it should be relatively easy to experimentally prove things like God, an afterlife, spirits, multiple timelines, etc…in the present with modern technology, I’m guessing someone or group is suppressing it.

        I know that I’m right and atheists can’t hide away from science and the truth forever.

        Almost all of the “evidence” in evolution is imaginations and speculations (things not experimentally verified as even real or possible), yet the fools (atheists) have no issue accepting this as “evidence”, so much for evidence mattering to atheists.

  4. Anonymous / Mar 27 2015 12:09 am

    I’m just going to attack the most obvious flaw in your ill-devised rant: How would the first law of thermodynamics work in a non-closed system? It’s painfully obvious you don’t know the first thing about physics.

    • itsnobody / Mar 29 2015 11:25 pm

      The one who doesn’t understand anything about physics is you.

      The open vs. closed system stuff is just nonsense.

      In open systems entropy still increases and prevails overall, even if entropy decreases temporarily.

      Using the fools (atheists) reasoning since the Earth is not a closed system, this would also mean many things engineers work with are also not closed systems…so where’s the 100% efficient engine or perpetual motion machine on Earth in open systems?

      What atheists have come up with the deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics is just ridiculous and fantasy. Just plain stupid, literally equivalent to defending a perpetual motion machine idea.

      That’s the difference between physics and evolution, engineers have experimentally verified the accuracy of physics billions of times, whereas almost everything in evolution hasn’t been, it’s just fantasy and imagination.

      The 2nd law of thermodynamics isn’t wrong, evolution is wrong.

      Evolution will fall down once people find objective reliable ways of empirically testing evolution, it will fall down just like another perpetual motion machine idea.

      Atheists can’t keep protecting this science fiction idea from falling down forever.

      It’s just fantasy and imagination.

  5. Anonymous / Mar 26 2015 11:46 pm

    So would you like to name one of those empirical tests that conflicts with evolution or are you just going to keep ranting with vapid rhetoric?

    • itsnobody / Mar 29 2015 10:29 pm

      Well evolution as a whole is empirically untestable, whenever evidence is found contradicting it it’s just ignored or explained away, as evolution is protected like a religious belief and not treated as another scientific theory open to criticism and scrutiny.

      If it was physicists would’ve already falsified it.

      In order to falsify evolution, all we have to do is find reliable objective ways of empirically testing it, and it will fall down, just like another perpetual motion machine idea.

      I just hope that they gather DNA of many so-called “transitional fossils” so that the fossil data can be falsified.

      With actual DNA (something objective) they won’t be able to fit things into their invented made up science fiction “transitional fossil” models.

      They’ve already ignored soft tissue being found in fossils dated to 68 million – 150 million years with BS pseudo-scientific ideas, so I’m confident that evolutionists can ignore and deny anything, protecting evolution like a religious belief.

      An evolutionist told me something like “The 2nd law of thermodynamics must be wrong then, because we know that evolution is true”…lol what a complete idiot, it shows you the anti-scientific reasoning of the fools (atheists).

      The 2nd law of thermodynamics has been experimentally verified as accurate billions of times by engineers whereas almost everything in “evolution” has not been experimentally verified as accurate, yet the fools (atheists) trust evolution over billions of experiments?

      What a joke.

      If the 2nd law of thermodynamics was wrong engineers should be able to come up with 100% efficient engines or perpetual motion machines, but they can’t, they can’t even come up with 90% efficient engines, right now engineers are struggling to come up with just a 60% efficient solar panel, but the fools (atheists) deny the experimental verification of the 2nd law of thermodynamics to protect their religious belief – evolution.

      It shows you the truth, that not one evolutionist actually goes by evidence, but by authority, incredulity, and other things popular in anti-science/atheist circles.

  6. isaac / Mar 25 2015 10:16 am

    What an utter and complete load of crap–this post, I mean

    • itsnobody / Mar 26 2015 2:12 pm

      I would love for a fool (atheist) or any pro-evolutionist to refute a statement that I made instead of merely throwing personal attacks.

      Are they mad that their science fiction story will be falsified in the future?

      Evolutionists are always afraid of anything empirically testable or experimentally verifiable because they KNOW that they are wrong!

      Evolutionists can try to protect their science fiction story from being completely falsified with lots of science fiction ideas that are impossible to empirically test or experimentally verify as accurate, but it won’t last.

      In the future once more hypotheses connected to evolution become empirically testable evolution will be falsified.

      People will probably go towards God/Aliens/Some Intelligent Cause/or some other mechanisms, but most certainly whatever happened in the past could not have been modern evolution as we know it today, a clown crackpot idea.

      As usual evolutionists never respond with evidence, valid reasoning, or empirical observations, just stuff about authority, incredulity, personal attacks, and other anti-science/evolutionists tricks.

      Evolutionists always shy away from experimentation and empirical testing since they KNOW that they are wrong.

      From a strict empiricist view only conclusions drawn from repeatable experiments are to be trusted.

      Almost everything the “evolution theory” is not drawn from repeatable experiments, so it’s a science fiction story.

      The truth shall forever live off of criticism and scrutiny!

Post a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: