people say evolution is scientifically impossible yet believe things were like poof and everything happened

“people say evolution is scientifically impossible yet believe things were like poof and everything happened”

Well yes. Evolution and creation are both scientifically impossible. So the only way there could be a beginning is with something (or someone) outside of science.

how is evolution impossible?

Life can’t come from non life

yes it can; how do you think the first life on earth was created

By God.

That's B.S.. There's no evidence behind God creating life on earth, besides something written in an old book. Meanwhile there's an actual explanation for how life on earth was created with "non-life".

What’s the explanation?

At First, Earth didn't look like much, just a rock in space. After a series of chemical reactions underwater , microscopic bacteria that survived from the sun and carbon Dioxide in the water was developed, and it released oxygen as a waste product. As the amount of oxygen on earth increased, the ozone later developed and life out of the water became suitable.

A God that is outside of scientific laws and time makes far more sense than any of that.

but it would be false. Saying computers work because there's magic little fairies that shine lights inside of them that are outside of scientific laws makes more sense than how computers actually work, shouldn't we believe that instead? It's just willfully ignorant to believe God is responsible for everything.

Computers have a creator, and they work on their own because they’re created to. If God created humans, He created them to work on their own, just like the computer creator. It’s not like a little fairy shining lights inside of them. Creationists don’t believe everything is predetermined, though God could control anything He wanted to.

All of the situations we’ve come up with break scientific laws. And I’m saying that no matter how we came to be, it was supernatural. So here’s the question. Did a supernatural being do it, or did a scientific pattern that we’ve never seen do it? At least with the supernatural being, we’re admitting it’s unnatural. Evolutionists try to explain this and say it’s natural.

computers have a creator, but that doesn't mean they have to have a creator. It would be extremely slim by chance, but they could be made without a programmer.

How can a computer be made without a programer?

Umm how?

New bots can have code program make re code.

Well, we also can’t fathom our own origin. So by that, the way we came to be makes no sense. And we are in time, and we know there are other rules for time in other places. It’s not out of the ordinary to think someone might not be judged by time, especially if they created it.

Alleles uninherited from parents being added to an organism is just as unlikely as DNA being accidentally created, and the odds of that happening is 1 out of 10 raised to the 152. DNA is too detailed and too specific to be an accident. Evolutionists say that we are all created by a lucky accident, but if this is the case, we’ve had a whole lot of “lucky accidents” which makes no sense.

Also, we don’t have many cases of intermediate links, and most of those are just assumptions. People have come up with punctuated equilibrium to solve this, but this solution relies on mutations, thus ignoring the fact that mutations only destroy information and don’t add to it. It also doesn’t explain why structural homology is echoed in the genetic code and doesn’t explain why the vast majority of molecular biology indicates no macroevolutionary trends; it only fixes the problem with the fossil record. And it provides a new problem for them; if evolutionary change happens as quickly as punctuated equilibrium exists, it’s difficult to understand how it could happen in populations that sexually reproduce, because mutations among a population would not be the same, so the evolution would not be consistent. The problem with this is that in order for this to happen, it would have to occur slowly enough to allow the mutant organism to sexually reproduce with others of it’s species (so the mutation could be passed on to the next generation) but quickly enough so the mutants wouldn’t appear in the fossil record. The only other solution would be that there are several mutants in one generation; all having the same mutations so they could still sexually reproduce with one another. None of these make any sense.
This is the problem with pretty much all revised macroevolutionary theories; they solve one or two problems and ignore many others, or even bring up more problems.

Because any other instance is impossible to demonstrate, and all of them break scientific laws.

But how was the first organism formed?

yeah how do you think your little god came to be?

Having a small unicellular organism created in chemical reactions (yes I know that's not what they said that's my theory) sounds a whole lot more realistic than some magical space dude creating everything with a poof.

If He’s outside of time, He never began. We can’t fathom this, but it makes far more sense than some random organism showing up at some random time and some random chemical reaction made it into a life, which kept adding alleles (a scientific impossibility) and evolving until it got to where we are today.

"yeah how do you think your little god came to be?"

The God of the Bible is the being that exists outside of space, time, and matter. He is the all-powerful that is capable of causing space, time, and matter to come into existence because He exists outside of all those things. That's what it means to be God.

"Having a small unicellular organism created in chemical reactions (yes I know that's not what they said that's my theory)"

So if its a theory that means there's evidence for it. Because without evidence, its just a guess.

"sounds a whole lot more realistic than some magical space dude creating everything with a poof."

And that sounds more realistic than the idea that nothing produced everything in a big poof.

“So how do you demonstrate that that god exists?”

There’s indirect evidence that the universe was created by God.

First is the complexity of the universe. All of life, from complex humans down to the simple cell, are too sophisticated to have evolved randomly. Every life form’s cells (or cell) have functions they need to perform simultaneously I order to live. They need to exist all at the same time. If it can’t perform one function, it will die.
Second is information theory. Information Theory states that information needs to have come from a mind, it can’t be from random chance (this isn’t particularly a creationist theory). DNA contains information, which must have come from a mind.
Third is the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states matter and energy can’t be created or destroyed. This means the universe couldn’t have come from nothing. The origin of the universe wasn’t natural, it was supernatural.

And to close off, let me ask you this: if there was ever truly nothing, could there ever be anything?

“Which no scientist says happened”

What about the Big Bang?

Anyway, the fact is either people were stupid and just inventing something to comfort them, or they invented it for control and the idiots who believed it passed it down.

Sorry I thought you were responding to the yellow comment. Anyhow, the evidence I presented people weren't stupid and made up God but He actually exists.

Shows people*

Do you know that every time in history, when spontaneous generation was disproven, scientists pushed it in a field they couldn’t verify? When it was proven maggots couldn’t do it, and Anton van Leeuwonhoek discovered microorganisms, they claimed microorganisms could do it even though it was disproven with seeable organisms. Then in 1859 Louis Pasteur proved even microorganisms could not come from nothing. Guess what book was published that very year? The Origin of Species. It pushed spontaneous generation back into the beginning of time, something we’ll never be able to verify.

Louis Pasture proved life couldn’t come from chemicals.

The Big Bang breaks scientific laws we know today, like creation always creates and accidents always destroy, and life begets life.

One way you can tell macroevolution is not really possible is that they’re always making variants of it to accommodate one problem, but none of them solve the entire problem. The intermediate links and the DNA problem. DNA can’t physically add information. And mutations destroy information, so that doesn’t explain anything either. If we were evolving though mutation, we’d become dumber creatures, not smarter. Also the form DNA has to have to create a life is ridiculously specific, and would not come by one small accident and keep reproducing.
There’s a lot of information about it.

Scientists have never seen those things disproven. When they thought so, their ideas were disproven.

I’m saying that when they make revisions on macroevolution, they make all the problems worse. And I don’t think we’ll have a solution that makes sense. Just last year someone debunked Darwin’s ideas on how we were created and they had no interest in any creator. That is not science; it’s bias.

I answered it above in another reply.

DNA is literally a set of instructions; it’s like its own language. It controls how tall you’ll be, what you look like, etc.
And mutations have not been seen to create information.

I’m saying we wouldn’t be evolving into more advanced creatures, but going into simpler ones (there are no simple life forms, to be honest). Unless less information makes a more complex creature.

It is spontaneous generation pushed back into a time so long ago that no one can argue with it.

True lol

Well it’s the fundamental part mainly: the Big Bang. How did it happen? I’ve seen videos of scientists theorizing that there was a particle somewhere in the vast darkness. They said that a trillion of those particles could fit on a pinhead. But that particle was so dense that it composed of everything in the universe. All you see in the universe could fit on a pinhead a trillion times according to them. But they do admit that they do not know where that particle came from.

Now that video is not my main problem with evolution. There are probably several other theories about evolution and how the big bang came to be. Where did it come from?

Here's an example of evolution,
Why do you think people have different skin colors?
Because over time people in different areas of the world grew to have more melanin in their skin.

Now think about something like that but over the course of billions of years.

The question of "how does anything exist" is a really big question, I don't think we will ever know.
And if you believe that God created everything, then how did God exist?

It's very complicated.

Changing melanin in skin is a different form of evolution called microevolution. Creationists definitely believe in microevolution. There’s so much evidence for that. I won’t question microevolution.

Macroevolution is something completely different: a change of kind. It’s far more than just your skin changing. It’s your exoskeleton becoming an endoskeleton or your gills becoming lungs.

And to answer your question about God, everything in science had to have a beginning. God, being outside of science, has no beginning and no end.

Wouldn't microevolution be the little steps of macroevolution?

But yes, correct nobody should question it.

Well no. Skin changing color isn’t a small step of anything really.

“nobody should question it.”
What do you mean by that?

*laughs in nonsense*

No. Seeing microevolution and extrapolating it into macroevolution (what Darwin did) is like seeing someone jump a distance of 5 feet in the air, and assuming they can jump 100 feet in the air because of it. We must not assume a scientific pattern we have never seen. Whenever scientists find “proof” of macroevolution it’s usually microevolution. We have seen microevolution, but not macroevolution. Matter of fact, that’s why Darwin got popular. His findings destroyed the “scientific law” called The Immutability of Species. Microevolution does this on it’s own. But he just went too far and people rode with it.
To be honest, Darwin wasn’t as sure of his findings as many scientists are today. He was far more humble and even put in his book problems with his theories. Scientists today simply do not do that and throw anything else out the window. That is not how science works, and I think Darwin knew that. Actually I’m quite curious about whether he would have come to the same conclusion had he known about what we now know about alleles.

No, it isn’t. To be honest, it’s more like seeing someone can jump around, and extrapolating that they could jump from Earth to Mars and keep walking.

We’ve seen macroevolution happen in real time? I’m interested in this proof.

Yeah, they’re both called evolution, but they’re both different things entirely.

Macroevolution wasn’t even an observation or a discovery. Matter of fact, Darwin was far more humble than scientists are today. He brought up things that could possibly be a logical problem with his theory in the Origin of Species. He wasn’t definitely sure of his theory, but now we treat it as an undisputed scientific law, despite having to change it up a million times because none of our conclusions make any sense.

It’s more scientific than something coming out of nothing. To be honest, what I always say to people is this: No matter the way you look at our origin, it was supernatural. Do you believe someone supernaturally made us, or do you think the laws of nature broke themselves to make us?

They didn’t know about alleles or anything like that back then. Yes, alleles control that, but we know alleles can be varied slightly. A creationist’s problem is that for macroevolution to happen, whole new alleles have to show up in creatures, and as far as we know, that just doesn’t happen. So why we jump to this conclusion is confusing. But what would explain this is if some evil being didn’t want us believing in God.

If a person with black skin marries a person with white skin, then usually their children are brownish. It doesn’t mean that the children are turning into another species, because we are all humans. It’s not like they are turning into monkeys or some sort of superhuman! That is what some would call micro evolution. I don’t think this is actually micro evolution because it’s not based on surroundings but on who the parents looked like.

Yeah that's literally the point, if everyone had the same skin color, and when they gave birth it was still the same skin color, how did it grow to be different all around the world?

MIRCOEVOLUTION

I will keep this going if you want me too.
I was saying that micro evolution isn’t macro evolution in incremental form because we all are still human. No matter what skin color. Darwin was actually one of the biggest racists ever because he believed that black people were closer related to monkeys than white people. I don’t believe that. All people, no matter what skin, are human. White people are not closer to the superhuman and Black people are not closer to the ape with all others falling in between. That is one of the biggest lies ever told.

Darwinists believe that skin color changing was a form of micro evolution. But that actually is based on the genes of the parents. At the tower Babel, if you want me to go there, the languages were confused, so the people of the world, who had been United, were separated and that’s when different skin colors, eye shapes, etc. occurred.

That's not what I'm saying, you were being... less than smart... and said "I don't think this is actually microevolution" for reasons that are incorrect, so I said no actually like this.

That's all I did I'm not putting this to any larger theory... yet lol

How is it micro evolution? Teach me.
I always thought that evolution was like changing to better fit your surroundings like camouflage or for adjusting to different foods, etc. What you described is just breeding/genetics. Like how you can breed German Shepard’s to have red coats or white.

I strongly agree that skin color has no bearing on our common humanity (and always remember that whiteness is the mutant version, produced in response to the environmental pressure of rickets), but you can see where microevolution leads to macroevolution in the evolution of the modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens subspecies from the earlier Homo Erectus, et alia. Those fossil remains are so clearly humans, like us, but also clearly different enough that we might be different species (ie, unable to interbreed).

Yeah I’ve mentioned that before lol

That’s not how genetics work

For each gene there is either dominant, recessive, or co-dominant.
When you graft two pea plants together for example, a tall and a short, then you always end up with a tall pea plant. But that second generation pea plant has a 75% chance of tall offspring and 25% chance of short.

Another example is albinism. Most people are not albino, so that gene is recessive. But people can be a carrier of the albino gene without being so. There is a chance that their son or daughter could be albino even though the parents aren’t. That’s how some parents that both have brown eyes for example can have a blue eyed child.

LOL true

Yeah that's literally the point, if everyone had the same skin color, and when they gave birth it was still the same skin color, how did it grow to be different all around the world?

MIRCOEVOLUTION

(sorry for putting it twice but what I'm saying right now should be obvious.

First off, creationists don’t argue against microevolution. But I’m not sure humans have a form of it. It’s likely different skin colors came around after the Tower of Babel, but that could still be a form of microevolution. The problem is that no matter how much humans change, they’re still human.
So they can never be another species, which would be macroevolution.

This wasn't aimed at the whole evolution is BS and not BS at the same time thing, it was aimed at you saying "lol true" to something stupid.

Also, "can never be another species"

Hold up lemme just-

Wolf-like thingy
Dogs - hundred of different breeds complete distinct. (and plenty of just mixing breeds)
Wolves

The only problem is the aquatic to terrestrial thing, that is very weird, I can't explain it, but I can say that it was not a magic space dude making everything.

The Tower of Babel . . . in Babylon? Humans in different colors were dispersed around the globe thousands of years before the rise of the Fertile Crescent civilizations. If your belief in creationism is keeping you from grasping the fact that the Americas were populated from 14,000-10,000 years ago, Australia between 40,000-60,000 years ago. Faced with the grandeur of our species' actual development, don't retreat into a myth about one civilization on the banks of a river 8,000-4,000 years ago.

Changing skin tones isn’t even microevolution. It’s just Mendelian genetics.

Macroevolution is scientifically impossible because in order to get it you have to have alleles add information (in order for the creatures to keep improving). That is not possible. So some Darwinists say mutations could explain this, but mutations only destroy information (which would downgrade the species), so this isn’t a great explanation either. If this were true, we’d all be de-evolving instead of evolving.

You are aware that that is a fallacy, right? Our point is that science is not supposed to make wild assumptions. We admit microevolution because we see real evidence for it. We discredit macroevolution (and by the way not all of us do) because we don’t see much evidence supporting it, and Darwin assumed it was true based on finding microevolution solely. So what we’re saying is that we believe in what Darwin found, not what he guessed.
The way you worded it is like it’s a conspiracy theory. But it’s based on actual thought.

No, because alleles and genetics make it difficult to believe creatures come from other creatures. We have to assume many things we have never seen happened.

I tried to explain this to a couple of lefts who started attacking me on my old account because of a Christian meme I had made.

Unfortunately, their minds couldn't comprehend it.

Yes

Microevolution.

God is outside of time and creation. Really the only way we can logically and naturally explain the origin of the universe is the existence of a supernatural being that does not live in the rules we live under.

Ok so like what is it and how did it come to be?

is this a rhetorical question or like wdym

I mean... what made the Big Bang possible?

what didn't?

As far as I have been told by other evolutionists, nothing produced everything.

if you're talking about how life was first made, then it wasn't nothing. there was a bunch of chemical reactions that made that created a suitable environment for life, and then there were more chemical reactions that were the first life on earth.

I’m talking about the Big Bang.

Then where did everything come from?

And why do your views on the Big Bang differ from the evolutionists I’ve heard from?

There's tons of evidence and actual proof for evolution. I'm totally narly with you saying "I don't believe in evolution", but I'm not so snazzy with you saying "Evolution is impossible". Do you really think they'd teach it from middle school all the way through college if they knew it was "scientifically impossible"?

They taught that the earth was the center of the universe in schools and universities for hundreds of years. There were several scholars and professors who accepted it. It ended up being untrue and scientifically impossible. Thanks to Galileo.

You do have a point. But that isn't enough evidence to just say evolution is fake. Gather more research and evidence and maybe, just maybe, I'll believe you.

There is no "outside of science". Science is the study of everything. Literally everything.

Yeah it's kinda impossible for anything let alone a scientific fact such as evolution to be outside of science.

But it’s not fact! It’s theory! LOL it keeps changing. Creation is in the Bible. I believe God’s word over man’s theory. What is there to lose? If God is real and we believe in him then we go to live with him when we die. If God is fake then we return to dust and nothing happens. You are dead. If you refuse to believe the one true God, then either you go to hell or you turn to dust and nothing happens. Why do atheists feel so strongly about making Christians believe there is no god? Why would they care?

That is a good point. If there is no God, we have nothing to lose. Creationists and evolutionists would end up the same. But if there is a God, evolutionists are in trouble.

That's like me saying I'm a magic wizard that can shoot lazors from my eyes, and you must believe and worship me or when you die you will experience eternal damnation. If I'm false, everyone would end up the same regardless of whether they believed me or not. If I was actually correct, then the people that used common sense are in trouble. So why aren't you worshiping me right now?

Those who accept evolution deny the existence of God. You should know that there are Christians who try to mix the two (creation and evolution) but that is even more implausible than either one.
Listen please, the Bible is real and you will see that one day, but no matter what I do to show it to you, yall are not going to listen because you are against God. And all people are against God from birth because we are sinful (we all have done at least one thing wrong like cheating, stealing, lying, the list goes on). I realize that arguing is going to do no good. I’m sorry for y’all. There is nothing I can do right now except pray. I’m sorry for you. I suggest that you read the book “the case for Christ” which was written by a former atheist journalist who investigated Christianity, trying to disprove it. I’m sorry for you goodbye.

So, the bible is not a theory? It is fact? Does that mean the Koran is a fact? The Silmarillion? Winnie the pooh bear? Just because a story is stated as fact it is true?

The Bible (God’s word) doesn’t change. Even over the many years of translation.
The theory of evolution has evolved (hehe pun intended) over the years because of what men discover is false or was unknown. Since God knows all, his word supports the universe that he made.
There is not one natural wonder that doesn’t support and glorify God. And I stand by that.
The Bible does not contradict itself like the Koran does.
If there is anything you think is contradiction, I am more than willing to explain it to you to the best of my ability.

Science is the study of everything. That doesn’t make science everything.

Science is the study of all physical things. God isn't physical.

If god isn't physical how can he interact with the physical world? 🤷

God created the physical world, so why couldn't He interact with it?

But how can something not physical interact with something physical?

God is God.

And Donkey is Donkey. What's that got to do with the price of butter?

Perhaps you could think of God as the author of a book. The author generally isn't in the book, but he can still influence the book. That isn't a perfect example, but I hope it helps you to understand.

That's a good metaphor tbh. My problem with it is that the characters in a book can't communicate with the author, they don't have free will, they're not even really individuals. Everything they do is dictated by the author and I'm not really comfortable with that. I know that a lot of people find comfort in a deterministic world/universe but I just can't over the fact that I could just do nothing and wait for the story to happen and that would be exactly how it was always meant to happen. To me it's a lot more comforting that the universe simply doesn't care about anyone or anything, it just is - and we're all just trying to get by.

That’s where God comes in. Creationists believe a Divine Being created scientific laws and rules as they are. If that is true, then it’s understandable how we came about. Because there’s really no natural explanation for how we came about. And I have learned it is quite dangerous to look for natural explanations to clearly supernatural events.

It would also explain how Jesus so effortlessly broke scientific rules during His time on earth. If He created science and all the rules we know today, He could easily override it.
And the Bible had rules for the Jews that protected them from germs that science didn’t know existed until recently. Meaning the God mentioned in the Old Testament knew the rules of science and protected His people from consequences long before scientists understood these things.

I’ve followed a lot of new people today!😁

Thank you

I stand by the BigPig.