God

[L0neW0lfe]

It's called natural selection....Darwin anyone?

Natural selection is based on chance, do you realy believe that such a complex lung evolved to another type of complex lung by chance? To me that's just irrational.

[Deadloader]

what?! WHAT?! i hate the arguement that states how things are so complex how is it possible that things happened to be as they're now by chance?! fuckign easy!!! there might have been infinate amounts of chances and it is strange there was the right amount of power in the big bang or whatever and everything is fine and working.. but how do you know that what we're living right now isn't infact the retardation of a better reality? you don't fucking know?! so ho can you argue that by chance the lung works and is complex.. how do you not fucking know that if something billions of years ago were to be slightly different then the lung might be better.. for fuck sake.. use hindsight at least.. every chance there's a possibility of failure and in life you've known alot of failure, and alot of accomplishment but just because there's a chance of failure doesn't mean that it will fail and therefore ignore the possibility things happened and it didn't fail.. seriously.. don't fod off bullshit, over-used arguements which you havn't conjured up yourself, and no.. i'm not nulling the possibility of god either.. but i'm sick of people being so closed minded, come up with your own fucking ideas

[carrotderek]

Natural evolution isn't so much chance but adaptation.

The most profound example of this happening are bacteria and viruses. That is the reason that why we still get sick. The micro-organisms are becoming antibiotic resistant because we keep using them.

[Alan "The Wrench"]

Yes. They actually will be able to.

Well it aint hard.

We are here because the chemicals inside our bodies work in a way that allows us to live.

We came from nowhere.

Matter - can appear from literally. nowhere.

thats the dumbest thing i ever heard

[L0neW0lfe]

what?! WHAT?! i hate the arguement that states how things are so complex how is it possible that things happened to be as they're now by chance?! fuckign easy!!! there might have been infinate amounts of chances and it is strange there was the right amount of power in the big bang or whatever and everything is fine and working.. but how do you know that what we're living right now isn't infact the retardation of a better reality? you don't fucking know?! so ho can you argue that by chance the lung works and is complex.. how do you not fucking know that if something billions of years ago were to be slightly different then the lung might be better.. for fuck sake.. use hindsight at least.. every chance there's a possibility of failure and in life you've known alot of failure, and alot of accomplishment but just because there's a chance of failure doesn't mean that it will fail and therefore ignore the possibility things happened and it didn't fail.. seriously.. don't fod off bullshit, over-used arguements which you havn't conjured up yourself, and no.. i'm not nulling the possibility of god either.. but i'm sick of people being so closed minded, come up with your own fucking ideas

If you gonna swear all day please don't post here and waste all of our time.

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law was wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory instead of a law.

The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many regressive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. Diamond back rattle snakes cannot be selectively bred until you have one with wings that jumps in the air and flies away. Evolution is impossible.

The same process is done with flowers, fruit and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals.

If natural selection were true Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else. If natural selection were true humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes should have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except for the Eskimos. Many evolutionist argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical within each animal that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.

Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong.

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The human female like other mammals has XX sex chromosomes and the male has XY sex chromosomes. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a female or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a male. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent genetic changes. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

The male sperm are created very differently from the female egg. The sperm are created in the male on a daily basis. This short time between the creation of the sperm and conception within the female precludes any possibility that the male can be a part of the evolutionary theory. A harsh winter or some other environmental condition experienced by the male is quickly lost and cannot affect conception that may occur months later. Neither is there any scientific evidence that environmental experiences change the genetic code within the sperm. Males cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons. These scientific facts prove evolution of the human species is impossible.

Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong.

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

When your dog is going to have a litter, don't worry that she will have a litter of monkeys instead of a litter of puppies. That she will have puppies was determined when her chromosomes joined with her mate's chromosomes at conception. You see, a dog has only 22 chromosomes, whereas a monkey has 54. Half the total number of chromosomes are contained in the female reproductive cells and half are contained in the male. So the exact total number is brought together in the offspring.

Man has 46 chromosomes. This chromosome count is a steady factor. This determines what is called the "fixity of species" because the chromosome count doesn't vary. People always give birth to people. Dogs always give birth to dogs, etc. The genes produce variety within the species. Genes allow for people to be short, tall, fat, thin, blond, brunette, etc., but still all people. The chromosomes make crossing of the species an un-crossable barrier. This certainly would hinder any evolution. It would stop it dead in its tracks.

Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong.

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.

Well, Mars was once sterile, but it is not sterile any longer. The rovers and other probes sent to Mars have now contaminated the plant with bacteria, viruses and other possible organisms. This contamination has destroyed the possibility of proving that any of these organisms evolved on Mars.

The chance of finding evidence of past life forms on Mars seems very remote, but even if life was found it does not prove that life evolved any more than life on Earth proves evolution. It simply does not. Evolutionists have struck out again.

Before I actually believed in controlled evolution but now I don't believe in it at all because it obtains too many errors. Thanks for pushing me to do some research deadLoader.

[Deadloader]

bitch don't act all sarcastic to me, i'm glad you did research atleast you weren't bullshitting me with that shit you said, but still you've taken things out of context, you're showing us how evolution is flawed by stuff about mars? what about venus?! earth was just int he right place to concieve life, mars is just beyond that..
chromosome count?! okay, granted this may have some relevance.. was this experiment conducted of a million or few years to "100%" prove that there's no possibility to manipulate chromosomes within the body over a long period of time?! firstly, don't show me stuff which is as inconclusive as what you're supposing the evolutionary theory is, secondly suck my dick.
Environmental changes in cells?! yeah of course not.. but that's of cells which can't be changed or anything.. but through natural selection there will be changes.. over along period of time, for which the evoltionary theory is based on, there will be changes.. and eventually comparing now to then there will be big changes.. but that's trying to prove it wrong by saying it can't be changed and again not taking into consideration how long is takes to evolve.. but those millions of tiny changes erupt one, or many big changes ignoring how long it takes is stupid. that whole website is just some jesus freaks attempt at proving it wrong because he has some personal vendetta and believes darwin is the devil, or even a collective of arse holes, to the naive and easily influenced faggots with illusions of words which appear to be right but only to a degree of idiotic reasoning, supported by little real scientific evidence, just the words of a jumped up douchebag.. but again you've taken what i said out of context, listened to a faggot and produced nothing which would prove me wrong, again there's the possibility of a higher being.. shit .. i accept that.. but you're again ignoring what i said and shunning evolution without proving there is a god or coming up with your own ideas of how things were made..

[Dale]

It's the way the cells develop that changes. Not the cells themselves.

Over millions of years cells could change, it's obviously not going to happen in one experiment.

[L0neW0lfe]

bitch don't act all sarcastic to me, i'm glad you did research atleast you weren't bullshitting me with that shit you said, but still you've taken things out of context, you're showing us how evolution is flawed by stuff about mars? what about venus?! earth was just int he right place to concieve life, mars is just beyond that..
chromosome count?! okay, granted this may have some relevance.. was this experiment conducted of a million or few years to "100%" prove that there's no possibility to manipulate chromosomes within the body over a long period of time?! firstly, don't show me stuff which is as inconclusive as what you're supposing the evolutionary theory is, secondly suck my dick.
Environmental changes in cells?! yeah of course not.. but that's of cells which can't be changed or anything.. but through natural selection there will be changes.. over along period of time, for which the evoltionary theory is based on, there will be changes.. and eventually comparing now to then there will be big changes.. but that's trying to prove it wrong by saying it can't be changed and again not taking into consideration how long is takes to evolve.. but those millions of tiny changes erupt one, or many big changes ignoring how long it takes is stupid. that whole website is just some jesus freaks attempt at proving it wrong because he has some personal vendetta and believes darwin is the devil, or even a collective of arse holes, to the naive and easily influenced faggots with illusions of words which appear to be right but only to a degree of idiotic reasoning, supported by little real scientific evidence, just the words of a jumped up douchebag.. but again you've taken what i said out of context, listened to a faggot and produced nothing which would prove me wrong, again there's the possibility of a higher being.. shit .. i accept that.. but you're again ignoring what i said and shunning evolution without proving there is a god or coming up with your own ideas of how things were made..

You cursing like an ass again, you know it's not necessary.

This is what I studied at my science class last year "Science is based on observation". What you just said was that evolution cannot be observed so how can any one accept this as science?? You saying that all of these happened through millions of years and blabla what’s the point if we can't observe it?

Ohh yea could you give your opinions on

Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong.

[Deadloader]

I can swear if i like.. that's not a valid retort.. that's a waste of space in your reply.. fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck.. get over yourself.. and i didn't say it can't be observed.. i'm saying your evidence only shows observation over a short period of time.. whereas evolution should be observed over a long period of time for the experiment to be conclusive.. and i already gave you my two cents on that.. you fucking idiot.. this proves you didn't understand what i said.. so therefore anything else you say from now on should be regarded as bullshit and idiocy.. you always take stuff out of context.. and again showing how stupid you're by using quotes and giving the illusion of intellect by stupid word loopholes science is based on observation? for fuck sake again stealing other people's ideas and using one terminology for science to prove me wrong?! omg.. i can't believe i've come across you.. you're in fact the most retarded person i've known since my old science teacher would you believe.. (the fact that she's a science teacher has no relevance to this.. she was retarded in all aspects)

[Rai]

I've never seen god,
and therefor he doesn't exist =D
prove me wrong plix