Science Disproves Evolution

[Delta9 UK]

Yay! Thanks for chiming in everyone - this thread needed some sense banging into it.

I've said from the beginning this thread was spam - lookup Pahu78 in Google and you will see he posts the same lies across multiple websites. He is pretty much copy-pasting everything from creationscience.com.

That's why he can't argue - he has no idea what he's posting about in the first place.

[senorx12562]

Once again we see that arguing with someone on the interweb is like being in the special olympics; win or lose you're still a retard.

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Living Technology 2
[/align]

The Arctic Tern, a bird of average size, navigates across oceans with the skill normally associated with navigational equipment in modern intercontinental aircraft. A round trip for the Tern might be 22,000 miles. The Ternâ??s â??electronicsâ?� are highly miniaturized, extremely reliable, maintenance free, and easily reproduced. Furthermore, this remarkable bird needs no training. If the equipment in modern intercontinental aircraft could not have evolved, how could the Ternâ??s more amazing â??equipmentâ?� have evolved?

Equally amazing is the monarch butterfly that flies thousands of miles from breeding grounds as far north as Canada to wintering grounds as far south as Mexico. Processing information in a brain the size of a pin head, it navigates using a magnetic compass and, to a lesser extent, the Sun.

Many bacteria, such as Salmonella, Escherichia coli, and some Streptococci, propel themselves with miniature motors at up to 15 body-lengths per second (f), equivalent to a car traveling 150 miles per hourâ??in a liquid. These extremely efficient, reversible motors rotate at up to 100,000 revolutions per minute (g). Each shaft rotates a bundle of whiplike flagella that acts as a propeller. The motors, having rotors and stators, are similar in many respects to electrical motors (h). However, their electrical charges come from a flow of protons, not electrons. The bacteria can stop, start, and change speed, direction, and even the â??propellerâ??sâ?� shape (i). They also have intricate sensors, switches, control mechanisms, and a short-term memory. All this is highly miniaturized. Eight million of these bacterial motors would fit inside the circular cross section of a human hair (j).

Evolutionary theory teaches that bacteria were one of the first forms of life to evolve, and, therefore, they are simple. While bacteria are small, they are not simple. They can even communicate among themselves using chemicals (k).

Some plants have motors that are one-fifth the size of bacterial motors (l). Increasing worldwide interest in nanotechnology is showing that living things are remarkably designedâ??beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.

f. David H. Freedman, â??Exploiting the Nanotechnology of Life,â?� Science, Vol. 254, 29 November 1991, pp. 1308â??1310.

Tom Koppel, â??Learning How Bacteria Swim Could Set New Gears in Motion,â?� Scientific American, Vol. 265, September 1991, pp. 168â??169.

Howard C. Berg, â??How Bacteria Swim,â?� Scientific American, Vol. 233, August 1975, pp. 36â??44.

g. Y. Magariyama et al., â??Very Fast Flagellar Rotation,â?� Nature, Vol. 371, 27 October 1994, p. 752.

h. Could a conventional electrical motor be scaled down to propel a bacterium through a liquid? No. Friction would overcome almost all movement. This is because the ratio of inertial-to-viscous forces is proportional to scale. In effect, the liquid becomes stickier the smaller you get. Therefore, the efficiency of the bacterial motor itself, which approaches 100% at slow speeds, is remarkable and currently unexplainable.

i. C. Wu, â??Protein Switch Curls Bacterial Propellers,â?� Science News, Vol. 153, 7 February 1998, p. 86.

j. Yes, you read this correctly. The molecular motors are 25 nanometers in diameter while an average human hair is about 75 microns in diameter.

k. â??Bacteria can organize into groups, they can communicate. ... How could this have evolved?â?� E. Peter Greenberg, â??Tiny Teamwork,â?� Nature, Vol. 424, 10 July 2003, p. 134.

Bonnie L. Bassler, â??How Bacteria Talk to Each Other: Regulation of Gene Expression by Quorum Sensing,â?� Current Opinion in Microbiology, Vol. 2, No. 6, 1 December 1999, pp. 582â??587.

l. â??...the smallest rotary motors in biology. The flow of protons propels the rotation...â?� Holger Seelert et al., â??Proton-Powered Turbine of a Plant Motor,â?� Nature, Vol. 405, 25 May 2000, pp. 418â??419.

â??The ATP synthase [motor] not only lays claim to being natureâ??s smallest rotary motor, but also has an extremely important role in providing most of the chemical energy that aerobic and photosynthetic organisms need to stay alive.â?� Cross, Richard L. â??Turning the ATP Motor,â?� Nature, Vol. 427, 29 January 2004, pp. 407â??408.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 41. Living Technology

[dejayou30]

Everyone just report this post and every subsequent post as spam and hopefully someone will get the picture.

[senorx12562]

Or, for a antidote to this guy's ravings, Read "God: the failed hypothesis: how science shows that God does not exist." by Victor Stenger. I have a place reserved in hell, don't I Pahu78? All my dead friends are waiting for me there.

[FakeBoobsRule]

Pahu, I agree with the other members, your posts are mostly copy and paste more than thoughtful posts. This is close to turbo posting which is against forum rules.

Please provide more interaction and less regurgitation.

[Pahu78]

Pahu, I agree with the other members, your posts are mostly copy and paste more than thoughtful posts. This is close to turbo posting which is against forum rules.

Please provide more interaction and less regurgitation.

You may have noticed the complaints concerning the facts I am sharing are from those who read them. Are they forced to read information that they find so distasteful because it disproves their preconceived worldview?

I consider the information I am sharing to be far more thoughtful than the replies demanding I engage in endless quibbling about what? Rarely do I see any real attempt to discuss the information I am sharing. Instead I get assertions that I am stupid, etc. and that the information is "bullshit", etc. Do they prefer I share my ignorant opinions rather than the facts of science? I think the answer is probably "yes" because ignorance is easier to refute than facts. We can quibble forever over our opinions.

I am not interested in entering into endless quibbling over the information I am sharing because I believe the information speaks for itself. If you disagree, thatâ??s fine. I believe the free exchange of facts is a healthy, profitable way to discover truth, but your disagreement is with the scientists being quoted, not me.

The mentality of unredeemed human nature has remained unchanged since Cain murdered Abel over a disagreement. History is full of examples of people silencing those with whom they disagree:

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown into the fiery furnace because they refused to worship the kingâ??s idol.

Daniel was thrown into the lionâ??s den for worshipping God, contrary to the kingâ??s decree.

Jesus was crucified because the religious authorities disagreed with Him.

His disciples were tortured and murdered because the authorities disagreed with them.

Thousands were murdered for disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church during the inquisition.

Hitler murdered six millions of Jews, Christians and others because he disagreed with them.

Over 100,000,000 people have been murdered under atheist communism for disagreeing with them.

Muslims murder everyone who disagrees with them.

So you are definitely in the majority when you want to silence me because you disagree with the facts I am sharing that challenge your worldview.

You are not interested in logic, reason, or even evidence for that matter. You don't want God to exist so you deny any evidence, or logical deduction that might support creation. You deny conventions of logic. You pretend skepticism of any evidence demonstrating creation, and adhere to any and all unscientific absurdities and impossibilities as long they support your erroneous worldview.

Apparently you don't really care. Epistemological truth is inconsequential to you. Apparently your purpose here has nothing to do with any serious discussion. You only feign interest in an attempt to entrap anyone foolish enough to think you are interested in serious discussion.

Usually, all I have found here is a nauseatingly endless series of conflicting absurdities and irrational arguments, which in your own cognitive dissonance you oddly believe to be logical, clever and reasonable.

If reason truly does champion truth, whatever school of reason that belongs to is completely absent in this forum.

The refusal to believe facts in this and other instances may run deeper than just simple fear, hatred or partisanship. Perhaps some people invest so much of themselves into a certain political, religious, philosophical or scientific viewpoint, that their identity and sense of self becomes bonded to it. The bond is so strong that any fact that disproves even a small part of their particular viewpoint is interpreted as a direct attack upon their own self-identity. This can lead to retaliation in the form of wild accusations or character attacks upon the people promoting such facts (i.e. stop the message by killing the messenger).

If this is true, then you can probably never prove any disagreeable facts to such people. Theyâ??ve traded introspection and reason for the security, comfort, and certainty that their viewpoints, and thus their identities, are always 100 percent correct.

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
The Validity of Thought 1
[/align]

If life is ultimately the result of natural processes or chance, then so is thought. Your thoughtsâ??including what you are thinking nowâ??would ultimately be a consequence of a long series of irrational causes. Therefore, your thoughts would have no validity, including the thought that life is a result of chance or natural processes (a).

a. â??But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems.â?� Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters, Vol. 1, p. 313.

â??For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.â?� J. B. S. Haldane, Possible Worlds (London: Chatto & Windus, 1927), p. 209.

â??If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidentsâ??the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone elseâ??s. But if their thoughtsâ??i. e. of Materialism and Astronomyâ??are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents.â?� C. S. Lewis, God In the Dock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), pp. 52â??53.

â??Each particular thought is valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Obviously, then, the whole process of human thought, what we call Reason, is equally valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Hence every theory of the universe which makes the human mind a result of irrational causes is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that there are no such things as proofs. Which is nonsense. But Naturalism [evolution], as commonly held, is precisely a theory of this sort.â?� C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1947), p. 21.

C. S. Lewis, â??The Funeral of a Great Myth,â?� Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968), p. 89.

â??If the universe is a universe of thought, then its creation must have been an act of thought.â?� James H. Jeans, The Mysterious Universe, new revised edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1932), p. 181.

â??A theory that is the product of a mind can never adequately explain the mind that produced the theory. The story of the great scientific mind that discovers absolute truth is satisfying only so long as we accept the mind itself as a given. Once we try to explain the mind as a product of its own discoveries, we are in a hall of mirrors with no exit.â?� Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995), p. 62.
â??One of the absurdities of materialism [the belief that nothing exists except the material] is that it assumes that the world can be rationally comprehensible only if it is entirely the product of irrational, unguided mechanisms.â?� Phillip E. Johnson, â??The Wedge in Evolutionary Ideology: Itâ??s History, Strategy, and Agenda,â?� Theology Matters, Vol. 5, No. 2, March/April 1999, p. 5.

Phillip E. Johnson has also made the point that intelligence might produce intelligence. However, for lifeless, inorganic matter to produce intelligence, as the theory of evolution claims, would be an astounding miracle.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 42. The Validity of Thought

[bombdiggity]

Admit it, you are hesitant to enter into a debate here not because you believe your information speaks for itself, more-so because you do not have the knowledge and understanding of your copy-and-pasted paragraphs to defend against rational arguments backed by facts.

You are embellishing your writing (if you actually wrote ANY of that) with complex verbiage - to a ridiculous point. This makes me think you are trying to LOOK smart OR you are just copy and pasting EVERYTHING including responses to this forum thread.

Lets see the REAL Pahu, you FaFOO!

hahaha :rastasmoke:

[Delta9 UK]

This makes me think you are trying to LOOK smart OR you are just copy and pasting EVERYTHING including responses to this forum thread.

100% correct his 'responses' can be found all over the intertubes - he even made the same response twice with a slightly altered intro on the previous page FFS!.

Here are some fun links where Pahu is running into the same trouble on other forums and is in fact pasting almost the exact same cookie-cutter responses:

Atheist Network • View topic - Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution - talk.religion.pantheism | Google Groups
Science Disproves Evolution | A Board Post on the Forum & Chat Room about I Am An Atheist | Message Board & Chat Rooms to Post & Talk in

Do I even need to go on?

Especially this part:

If this is true, then you can probably never prove any disagreeable facts to such people. Theyâ??ve traded introspection and reason for the security, comfort, and certainty that their viewpoints, and thus their identities, are always 100 percent correct.

Oh the irony! Keywords: Pot, Kettle, Black

The exact same response can also be found here:
Science Disproves Evolution - Monster Topics - Atheism chat - Wasteland Of Wonders Atheism - Message Board - Yuku

I don't know if he's spamming for his own amusement or actually doing it on the request of a higher power (I mean someone like AiG) but either way one thing is for sure - the only thing disproven in this thread is the OP.