Yes. But it's a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

Well yes I just proved evolution is not real. It violates 2nd Law Thermo.
To go from low to high order one needs energy and communication.
Crack an raw egg. Has one every refromed itself? That is the flow > high to low. Evolution is the opposite.

As a matter of fact evolution is not science. Science is making statements gather from empircle data observations (erm that sound redundant). Since no human scientist has been alive for millions and million of years as evolutionists(?) claim. Thus there is no observations and therefore there is no science. A theory yes but no science.

(3-2-1.... carbon 14 claim...)

Again with carbon 14 dating noone existed to start a scientific observation to test whether carbon 14 was accurate against the actual passage of time.

Good post about why is there anything!

Natural Selection within a particular species is often confused with Evolutionary leaps from one species to another.

Also if you look at Evolution and the Big Bang Theory as the Explanation to how the Universe got started, then you still have some explaining to do.

I found this website had some unique views on the Subject.
I particuliarly thought this was interesting

The universe is a fractal equation
http://www.yhwh.com/Ahyh/ahyh.htm

"How is it possible that anything exists at all?"
http://www.yhwh.com/Science/science1.htm

(excerpt)
The one really big question is, "How is it possible that anything exists at all?" This is the ultimate question, and all other questions are derivative from it. All other questions are very small subsets of this very, very big question.

And that very big question is expressed in different ways. "Why wasn't the universe forever just a big black nothingness?" "Where did God come from?" "If there is no God then how did the universe get here?" "If we come up with a scientific theory that says that it all came from a 'big bang', then where did all the stuff come from to be able to 'bang'?"

The fact that anything exists at all anywhere in any way, shape or form is the ultimate cosmological, ontological mystery. It is the great unknown. It is the fundamental rubric of all human thought.

And in the attempt to answer that one really big question we have six smaller questions:

Who?

What?

When?

Where?

How? and

Why?

It's almost like we have a murder mystery. We've arrived upon the crime scene and, lo and behold, there is a dead body. In our investigation there are only six questions we have to answer. Who did it? Exactly what did they do, and, what did they use to do it? When did they do that? Where did it take place? How was it done? And, why?

Opportunity and motive. When we come to the really big question, the really big question is like our dead body in the murder mystery. And in order to be able to approach the really big question we have to answer these 6 questions.

The 6 Domains of Human Thought
These 6 questions have become all different branches of human knowledge.

When we ask who, we are asking the question of theology. Tell me about this God, what are His attributes? Does He think? Does He feel? Does He get personally involved with us? Perhaps there is no "He", only an impersonal, mindless force.

When we ask what, this is the field of science. What is in this universe? What's it made out of? Tell me about the atoms and electrons and photons. What is gravity, after all?

When we ask when, we are contemplating in part cosmology, in part astronomy and a part paleontology. How old it the Earth? How old is our sun? How old is the universe? How old am I? Am I just a body? Or, has perhaps my soul, whatever that might be, been here a lot longer and got somehow stuck inside of my body?

When we ask where, we are asking the questions of astronomy and metaphysics. Is the Earth the center of the universe? Where is our sun in relation to the other suns? And if you add up all of the suns and all of the galaxies, where are they? Does the universe go on and on and on forever? Does it stop? If it stops, what's on the other side of it? Where is the whole thing located? And, where is it in relationship to God? Is it apart from God? Is it inside of God? If it's inside of God, then how does it relate to God?

Fifth, we ask how? How was the universe born? Was there a Big Bang? Did God create? How did this all come about? This is an issue of metaphysics and theology and part mysticism. The science of the Kabbalah for example, attempts to explain step by step exactly how God made the world. And exactly how God is related to the world.

Sixth, we come to the most interesting question of all. If we adopt a theistic view, meaning that there is a God and he/she is a person, why would He do this? Why did God make this world? Why does God allow there to be suffering? Why does God permit human beings to do the horrible things that they do? Why does God bless some and curse others? This is a question of the highest philosophy. This is a question of religion. It comes down to the very core of the purpose of life: why am I alive? What is the highest I can attain?

My stance: Evolution is the Aryan Truth. Darwin was an Aryan scientist, not a jew.

Thanks I had a reference that Darwin was misquoted but can't find it.

Here is what I was thinking when I called it a Jew scam:

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-organizations-aclu-churchandstate-graphicwarning.html

For more than 75 years, the ACLU has defended religious freedom and challenged attempts by sectarians to impose their religious beliefs and practices on others through government sponsorship.

In the early 1990s, the ACLU joined with religious and civil liberties organizations to fight for Congressional passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which strengthens protection for the rights of religious minorities.

As I posted elsewhere no disrespect but it seems you athiests fight with the joo against Christians, the mortal enemy of the joo. I can certainly see God selecting White Nationalist Aryans as his True Prophets.
After all He picked a Christian Killing Joo named Saul to become St. Paul.

Yes. But it's a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

And the theory goes something like this: Things are in a constant state of evolution and have been evolving for "billions and billions of years". Therefore, we should see new life forms crawling out of the ocean everyday, but we don't.

Darwin is a crock, no better than the creationists.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Let alone things tend from high order to low order.

Non Sequitur.

This is only applicable to things without self-awareness.

.

Well yes I just proved evolution is not real. It violates 2nd Law Thermo.
To go from low to high order one needs energy and communication.
Crack an raw egg. Has one every refromed itself? That is the flow > high to low. Evolution is the opposite.

What is evolution? It is genetic change in a species over time. Low to high, simple to complex, is not an essential part of the process. It is whichever change in genetics better adapts the species to current conditions, thus enabling survival in a competitive world.

1. I just explained that the flow of evolution is not necessarily from low to high. Humans have been headed lower for some time -- perhaps since the days of ancient Greece, perhaps since the days of Cro-magnon man 30,000 years ago (who was modern European man but had a larger brain case than today's European man).

But there has been a general trend from simpler life to more complex life over time. However, it doesn't have to be that way -- and, after a nuclear war started by the jews, the 3.5 billion year trend would certainly reverse, as it has doubtless done from time to time in the past -- because, from an evolutionary standpoint, simpler organisms might well be better adapted to survive under such conditions.

So your premise is incorrect. Evolution does not necessarily progress from low to high, simple to complex. Often the opposite happens.

2. What is the second law of thermodynamics? The direction of change must be from concentrated energy to more diffuse energy states]As a matter of fact evolution is not science. Science is making statements gather from empircle data observations (erm that sound redundant). Since no human scientist has been alive for millions and million of years as evolutionists(?) claim. Thus there is no observations and therefore there is no science. A theory yes but no science.

Observations of evolution are made all the time. True, no scientist was alive 3 billion years ago to watch slime evolve into viruses, etc. Evolution is adaptation of an organism to environmental change over time. The time can be short enough that a scientist can observe such changes. For example, tree bark in a woods being blighted by a fungus and changing color from dark to light has been observed to make dark winged moths vulnerable to being eaten by birds because of the loss of camoflage. However, because there is genetic variation within the species, the light winged moths of the same species tend to survive those periods. This IS OBSERVED EVOLUTION. The species changes from a dark winged moth to a light winged moth to better adapt to a changed environment and increase the likelihood of its survival.

Evolution over longer periods, including millions of years, is a simple extention by logic of this same on-going principle. Evolution happens constantly and has been observed countless times by scientists. Moreover, evolution proceeds in small steps and so we do not witness a wolf-like land animal transform itself over hundreds of thousands or millions of years into a dolphin -- though this is certainly what happened, because we have the fossils to show it. Humans don't live long enough to observe such large transformations. We are limited by our lifespans. But this doesn't mean, just because we don't see it happen, that it doesn't happen. And then for you to say this isn't science because we can't personally observe it shows an lack of understanding of the meaning of science. Is astronomy not science? Did we see the formation of the Milky Way Galaxy? Does that mean it didn't happen and astronomy isn't science because scientists didn't witness its happening? What an absurd argument.

(3-2-1.... carbon 14 claim...)

Again with carbon 14 dating noone existed to start a scientific observation to test whether carbon 14 was accurate against the actual passage of time.

Science can never rely on indirect evidence as tests of its theories? Again, absurd.

You have exposed in yourself both a lack of understanding of evolution and of the second law of thermodynamics thus far, Donger.

Thanks I had a reference that Darwin was misquoted but can't find it.

Here is what I was thinking when I called it a Jew scam:

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-organizations-aclu-churchandstate-graphicwarning.html

For more than 75 years, the ACLU has defended religious freedom and challenged attempts by sectarians to impose their religious beliefs and practices on others through government sponsorship.

In 1925, the ACLU defended biology teacher John Scopes, in the famous "monkey trial," against the charge that he had broken Tennessee's fundamentalist-inspired ban on the teaching of evolution.
In the 1930s, the ACLU supported the right of Jehovah's Witness schoolchildren not to salute the American flag, which would have violated their religious beliefs.

In 1947, the ACLU participated in the landmark case, Everson v. Board of Education, in which the United States Supreme Court proclaimed: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We would not approve the slightest breach."

In the 1950s and 1960s, responding to numerous complaints from the public, the ACLU challenged official prayer and bible reading in the nation's public schools -- and won. the Supreme Court ruled, in Engel v. Vitale and in School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, that school prayer and Bible reading are unconstitutional.

In the 1980s, the ACLU successfully fought bills introduced in 23 state legislatures mandating that the public schools teach "scientific creationism" -- the biblical version of the earth's creation.

In the early 1990s, the ACLU joined with religious and civil liberties organizations to fight for Congressional passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which strengthens protection for the rights of religious minorities.

As I posted elsewhere no disrespect but it seems you athiests fight with the joo against Christians, the mortal enemy of the joo. I can certainly see God selecting White Nationalist Aryans as his True Prophets.
After all He picked a Christian Killing Joo named Saul to become St. Paul.

I'm not an atheist, as I have rather carefully explained to you. I am not, though, a Christian -- or a Creationist. Still, I believe in God for a number of reasons, one of which I described to you. And we welcome Christians into the movement, although we do think Christians have been duped by the jews and Christianity rather badly over the centuries. And right now the Christian churches are supporting the jews and the genocide of the White race completely openly -- and with the support of their White sheeple.

The Christian Church has, in most cases, betrayed its White flock. The Christian Church has, in most cases, supported our mortal racial enemy, sided with our enemy, and thus made itself our enemy. Do you not agree?

And the theory goes something like this: Things are in a constant state of evolution and have been evolving for "billions and billions of years". Therefore, we should see new life forms crawling out of the ocean everyday, but we don't.

Darwin is a crock, no better than the creationists.

Evolution -- genetic change in organisms over time -- happens usually incrementally in tiny steps -- so tiny that we cannot oberve the large change -- which might take two million years to achieve (for example, the evolution of the dolphin I mentioned in another post).

Darwin was a classical Aryan scientist. Have you read Charles Darwin's On the Origen of Species? Do so. You'll change your tune. (A fascinating read too. Always best, when you can, to go to the original source books in an thought system, the books written by the founders of that system. These books are typically VERY readable, because they were really written to lay audiences, as the first book on the subject.)

Well yes I just proved evolution is not real.

Okay, I just took a slide of a billion e. coli and introduced methyl-bromide. The vast majority of e coli perished, but there remains a few, who now thrive again, repopulating the slide in a short time. These new e coli are far hardier to the methyl-bromide when reintroduced.

This is the same reason why the doctor tells you to "take the whole bottle" of anti-biotics: if you don't kill all of your "bug" now, those that survive the meds will grow back and be resilient to our anti-biotic treatments--and this is what you see now, mostly in some places in the third world where overuse of anti-biotics has gone on for a half a century. In India, particularly, penecillin simply doesn't work anymore.

This is evolution, and indeed, evolution isn't actually disputed by religious scholars who argue for intelligent design. What they dispute is the macro-evolution that says these e coli can begat a horse or a human in a few billion years.

"Theory" of evolution back in play!

Okay, I just took a slide of a billion e. coli and introduced methyl-bromide. The vast majority of e coli perished, but there remains a few, who now thrive again, repopulating the slide in a short time. These new e coli are far hardier to the methyl-bromide when reintroduced.

This is the same reason why the doctor tells you to "take the whole bottle" of anti-biotics: if you don't kill all of your "bug" now, those that survive the meds will grow back and be resilient to our anti-biotic treatments--and this is what you see now, mostly in some places in the third world where overuse of anti-biotics has gone on for a half a century. In India, particularly, penecillin simply doesn't work anymore.

This is evolution, and indeed, evolution isn't actually disputed by religious scholars who argue for intelligent design. What they dispute is the macro-evolution that says these e coli can begat a horse or a human in a few billion years.

"Theory" of evolution back in play!

Good example. The theory of evolution was never out of play -- including not on this thread.

Evolution -- genetic change in organisms over time -- happens usually incrementally in tiny steps -- so tiny that we cannot oberve the large change -- which might take two million years to achieve (for example, the evolution of the dolphin I mentioned in another post).

If true, then why do we not see half-lizard, half-bird creature walking around? Shouldn't we still be witnessing the process of evolution, even if it is in "incrementally tiny steps". Wouldn't we be seeing fish with legs?

Also, can you explain the Cambrian explosion?

"The Cambrian Explosion generally refers to the geologically sudden appearance of a number of new complex organisms between 543 and 530 million years ago (mya). Prior to the discovery of the Burgess Shale, fossil finds showed life on Earth consisting only of single-celled organisms or simple diploblastic fauna (two-layers of cells, allowing every cell to be in contact with its watery mineral-rich environment). Abruptly, many kinds of fossils appearing in the Burgess Shale show skeletal body features, where none had yet been found in the earlier fossil record."

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

Maybe the "incrementally tiny steps" just went into warp speed, eh?:rolleyes:

Okay, I just took a slide of a billion e. coli and introduced methyl-bromide. The vast majority of e coli perished, but there remains a few, who now thrive again, repopulating the slide in a short time. These new e coli are far hardier to the methyl-bromide when reintroduced.

This is the same reason why the doctor tells you to "take the whole bottle" of anti-biotics: if you don't kill all of your "bug" now, those that survive the meds will grow back and be resilient to our anti-biotic treatments--and this is what you see now, mostly in some places in the third world where overuse of anti-biotics has gone on for a half a century. In India, particularly, penecillin simply doesn't work anymore.

This is evolution, and indeed, evolution isn't actually disputed by religious scholars who argue for intelligent design. What they dispute is the macro-evolution that says these e coli can begat a horse or a human in a few billion years.

"Theory" of evolution back in play!

False. No new life form has been created in the experiment. The resilient bacteria existed when the experiment started. This is the FACT of hygienic breeding - not the THEORY of evolution.

There are many thousands of similar evolution debates on the www. They all share a common thread: nobody is ever willing to consider the opponent's view. This thread is pointless. Nevertheless, I'll say this, just as intellectuals may come out of xianity, but never fall into it; superior minds are are rarely fooled into evolutionism, but occasionally come out of it.

Can someone explain to me how human emotion evolved out of nothing? How can a species go from being an intensely instinctual animal into a being which feels intense emotional connections to others and has the ability to kill itself out of sadness?

Since evolution can technically create anything given enough time, I guess the real question would be, how did these emotional characteristics survive in a being living amongst a group without them. They would not allow this individual any advantage as they would certainly be a weakness.

False. No new life form has been created in the experiment. The resilient bacteria existed when the experiment started. This is the FACT of hygienic breeding - not the THEORY of evolution.

But this shows a lack of understanding of what evolution is, Joseph. Evolution does not necessarily create a new species, although if the changes are sufficient over time, it can.

Here's how it works. There is genetic variation within the species ALREADY EXISTENT. An environmental change is imposed on the species. Most of the species do not have the characteristics that enable it to survive the change. However, SOME INDIVIDUALS within the species do have the necessary characteristic. Those individuals survive. In this way, the species as a whole changes in the required characteristic -- because most (BUT NOT ALL) of those without the required characteristic are killed. The species as a whole changes, but the individuals within the species DID NOT CHANGE.

Now, if the environment changes again favoring the original characteristic, those which still have retained the original characteristic will survive, changing the species as a whole back to the original form.

How can you deny that this happens?

It's obvious and simple.

Right now, the jew environment of the earth does not favor MOST of the individuals in the White race as a whole. However, probably SOME will survive (and hopefully by eliminating the jew threat). With the jew threat eliminated, those remaining -- having whatever characteristics which enabled them to survive the jew threat -- will begin multiplying and a changed White race (or species) will be the evolutionary result. And that changed White race will have the wherewithal to prevent a jew threat from ever succeeding against the White race again.

Get it?

Evolution does not necessarily create a new species, although if the changes are sufficient over time, it can.

In this case, I have no idea what the thread is about. I suspect you don't really understand what the THEORY of evolution proposes.

Evolution is a pseudo-science at best. After hundreds of years, either a) it cannot be proven, and is a pseudo-science, or b) it is wrong.

Jesus is real, but cannot be proven. /sarcasm