Top Ten Scientific Facts Why: Evolution is False and Impossible!

[Droid101]

Who is the brain washed individual?
Who is the idiot? Who is the simpleton?
Who is the fool?
Who is the one deceived?

You are. The last two "facts" presented in the first post have literally nothing to do with evolution, whatsoever.

I'm convinced, you must be trolling. Nobody is this stupid.

[Velocirap31]

Isn't it amazing that people claim religious people are retarded and brain washed and yet when someone posts an examination of what they believe they throw it down without coming up with a legitimate response to it and then accuse the person of being brain washed and retarded?

Who is the brain washed individual here who believes in something he can't back up and has no clue whatsoever about, who hasn't examined what he believe whether or not its backed up with real evidence and whether or not the evidence are true.

Who is the brain washed individual?
Who is the idiot? Who is the simpleton?
Who is the fool?
Who is the one deceived?

Most of us here weren't force-fed a religion at all. We went to school and learned the facts we know and came to a decision ourselves. That's why we're not brainwashed. You can't brainwash yourself. You can say the school system brainwashed us, but they just teach it, they don't preach it.

[Bladers]

Here's a good critique, it's a start:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2332377/

Knucklehead -- evolutionary theory IS NOT an alternative idea to "God". There are millions of scientifically literate theists who accept scientific facts and hold onto their faith.

Why are you desperately searching for someone else repulta? Why don't you give your own?

You claim to believe in evotion and you have to so search for answers and for data to give a simple response.

Looks like you are clueless to what you actually believe in.

IF someone ask me a question about God or the Bible, I don't go around on google looking for someone else's response. I know what I believe in very well.
You on the other hand is totally out of touch like the other 99% of evolution believers.

[step_back]

Why are you desperately searching for someone else repulta? Why don't you give your own?

You claim to believe in evotion and you have to so search for answers and for data to give a simple response.

Looks like you are clueless to what you actually believe in.

IF someone ask me a question about God or the Bible, I don't go around on google looking for someone else's response. I know what I believe in very well.
You on the other hand is totally out of touch like the other 99% of evolution believers.

It's easy to answer his responses when you're talking out of your arse.

[Bladers]

Most of us here weren't force-fed a religion at all. We went to school and learned the facts we know and came to a decision ourselves. That's why we're not brainwashed. You can't brainwash yourself. You can say the school system brainwashed us, but they just teach it, they don't preach it.

THEN POST THE FACTS, RESPOND TO THE LIST IN THE OP!

But you can't because you are brain washed!
Like I said 99% of evolution believers are cheerleaders.

You only find once in a blue moon someone who actually knows about evolution, who actually researched it and tried to discover whats true and what's not. Who didn't take in whatever people said, but reasoned with his logic.

These days you have people as young as 13,14,15,16,17,18 who believe in evolution and if you asked them to give a lecture about it.

You will discover they are absolutely CLUELESS!

[Droid101]

But you can't be cause you are brain washed!
Like I said 99% of Christians are cheerleaders.

You only find one in a while someone who actually knows about Christianity, who actually researched it and tried to discover whats true and what's not. Who didn't take in whatever people said, but reasoned with his logic.

These days you have people as young as 13,14,15,16,17,18 who believe in God and if you asked them to give a lecture about it.

You will discover they are absolutely CLUELESS!

[Velocirap31]

THEN POST THE FACTS, RESPOND TO THE LIST IN THE OP!

But you can't because you are brain washed!
Like I said 99% of evolution believers are cheerleaders.

You only find one in a while someone who actually knows about evolution, who actually researched it and tried to discover whats true and what's not. Who didn't take in whatever people said, but reasoned with his logic.

These days you have people as young as 13,14,15,16,17,18 who believe in evolution and if you asked them to give a lecture about it.

You will discover they are absolutely CLUELESS!

That'll take a while, but I'll try to if you insist.

[Kungfro]

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong



Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment.

The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

So whoever wrote this thinks "evolutionists" believe some kind of rat creature grew nubs that turned into wings? Is it really that hard to do any kind of research?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

Cursorial ("from the ground up") theory

The cursorial theory of the origin of flight was first proposed by Samuel Wendell Williston, and elaborated upon by Baron Nopcsa. This hypothesis proposes that some fast-running animals with long tails used their arms to keep their balance while running. Modern versions of this theory differ in many details from the Williston-Nopcsa version, mainly as a result of discoveries since Nopcsa's time.
Nopcsa theorized that increasing the surface area of the outstretched arms could have helped small cursorial predators to keep their balance, and that the scales of the forearms became elongated, evolving into feathers. The feathers could also have been used as a trap to catch insects or other prey. Progressively, the animals would have leapt for longer distances, helped by their evolving wings. Nopcsa also proposed that there were three main stages in the evolution of flight. First, passive flight was realized, in which the developed wing structures served as a sort of parachute. Second, active flight was possible, in which the animal achieved flight by flapping its wings. He used Archaeopteryx as an example of this second stage. Finally, birds gained the ability to soar.

Arboreal ("from the trees down") theory

Most versions of the arboreal hypothesis state that the ancestors of birds were very small dinosaurs that lived in trees, springing from branch to branch. This small dinosaur already had feathers, which were co-opted by evolution to produce longer, stiffer forms that were useful in aerodynamics, eventually producing wings. Wings would have then evolved and become increasingly refined as devices to give the leaper more control, to parachute, to glide, and to fly in stepwise fashion. The arboreal hypothesis also notes that, for arboreal animals, aerodynamics are far more energy efficient, since such animals simply fall in order to achieve minimum gliding speeds.

[Droid101]

So whoever wrote this thinks "evolutionists" believe some kind of rat creature grew nubs that turned into wings? Is it really that hard to do any kind of research?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

I think you broke Bladers' brain.

[Kungfro]

Scientific Fact No. 9 - 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Exploration_Rover

During the next two decades, NASA will conduct several missions to address whether life ever existed on Mars. The search begins with determining whether the Martian environment was ever suitable for life. Life, as humans understand it, requires water, hence the history of water on Mars is critical to finding out if the Martian environment was ever conducive to life. Although the Mars Exploration Rovers do not have the ability to detect life directly, they offer important information on the habitability of the environment in the planet's history

[d.bball.guy]

[rezznor]

If I'm the creator of the universe, I will be able to impregnant you with what ever I want to.

That is totally logical.

In other words, you have no real explanation for immaculate conception so you resort to "the magical being in the sky who can do anything he wants" to back up your logic. How convenient.

[Nick Young]

There is insurmountable evidence that evolution is a concrete theory.

There was also "insurmountable evidence" for thousands of years that the Earth was the center of the universe and the sun and planets rotated around Earth, not the other way around.

There was "insurmountable evidence" that it didn't matter if you cleaned your surgery tools, you should carry on cutting someone open with a rusty blade anyways.

There was insurmountable evidence that the Earth was flat for hundreds of years.

Guess who turned out wrong, bozo

[Bladers]

In other words, you have no real explanation for immaculate conception so you resort to "the magical being in the sky who can do anything he wants" to back up your logic. How convenient.

My proof is that an intelligent being who supposedly created this vast and elegant universe and its inhabitants and the whole works, would be powerful enough to accomplish that little task.

Its quite logical if you accept the formal.

[Bladers]

I think you broke Bladers' brain.

Sorry, I went to take a shower. I'm back though.
I will be momentarily leaving to get some groceries. Expecting some good response when I return and will address them all.