Evolutionary Science is a fairytale

[Kinnith]

Sorry, I fixed the link. Didn't realize it was case sensitive.

w ww.call2christ.org/OnEvolution.html

remove the space between the first two w's.

 

[Blayz]

Sorry, I fixed the link. Didn't realize it was case sensitive.

w ww.call2christ.org/OnEvolution.html

remove the space between the first two w's.

Thanks for the laugh, though honestly I only got half way before yellow on red started to induce a migraine.

Might I suggest you retitle the essay to "The ultimate pratt conflation"

Or, you could make it like a treasure hunt...anyone that finds any comments concerning evolution or atheists that is not an outright lie wins a banana.

 

[TheOutsider]

·Plant and animal life as far as earth’s atmosphere is involved is symbiotic. So which one held it’s breath for millions of years until one evolved enough to support the other?

Wow, that is so wrong. How can someone who knows anything about science and the history of life actually ask something that wrong-headed?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Sorry, I fixed the link. Didn't realize it was case sensitive.

w ww.call2christ.org/OnEvolution.html

remove the space between the first two w's.

There's a lot wrong in that page.
first is that proof is for math and alcohol, science deals only with the best available evidence.

Why are there 2 sexes?

Sexual reproduction is a very effective way of promoting genetic diversity within a population. If you look at a population if bacteria, they are all nearly identical so a disease could wipe them all out. in a sexual population, there would be enough of a distribution of genes that it is m ore likely that there would enough survivors to sustain the population. asking how sexes evolved is a legitimite question, it is not fatal to evolution though. Since almost all animals are sexual, the differentiation goes way way back.

Birth defects take place at a much faster rate than anything that can be attributed to evolution. It is obviously observable that life is breaking down, not evolving.

As long as enough of the population lacks birth defects, the population will not be adversely affected by it. that observation is obviously absurd.

The sun shrinks by 5 miles every year which means as early as 20 million years ago its diameter would have encompassed the earth. The theory to negate this is that the internal explosions in the sun push its diameter outward while the gravity of the sun pulls its diameter inward creating a stable diameter.

If you think we are wrong about how the sun works there are two towns in Japan you ought to visit.

Plant and animal life as far as earth’s atmosphere is involved is symbiotic. So which one held it’s breath for millions of years until one evolved enough to support the other?

It's called coevolution. what happens is that when species are symbiotic and one of them speciates the other species also speciates. You can, and this has been done, make up cladograms for two groups of symbiotic taxa and lay them on top of one another and they match.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

· Birth defects take place at a much faster rate than anything that can be attributed to evolution. It is obviously observable that life is breaking down, not evolving.

The fossil record shows exactly the opposite. Life today is magnitudes more complex than in the Mesoproterozoic (1.2 billion years ago) for example, where the biggest and most advanced organisms were simple cell colonies.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Nothing is more humorous than when an evolutionist pokes fun at creationists or IDists for not putting forth a scientific theory to explain life.

First of all, life is not scientific -- life is spirtual. Contrary to what evolutionists say, what makes us human is not the shape of our jaw bone or the size of our heads. Life is something that controls and manipulates the matter it occupies. Thus, those who claim to be able to describe life scientifically are kidding themselves because life is more than material -- it's metaphysical, which by defintion is in conflict with science. Science is the study of the material world.

So when evolutionists scoff at Creationists for not putting forth a scientific theory for life, I believe they are asking us to play a game, which includes defining life according to a flawed premise.

But what's truly laughable about all this is that the "science" evolutionists put forth is not science at all. Like I said, "science" is (or should be) the study of the material world. But what the world's evolutionists have forced down our kids' throats is not science. Instead it's long list of "what ifs," "probablys," "maybes," and "more-than-likelys." What they're attempting to sell the unsuspecting public is not to be found in nature -- it's found in their books.

And their so-called evidence is NEVER visible. Never. For example, every creature on earth is said to have evolved from a common ancestor. Thus there must, be thousands and thousands of common ancestors that link each creature to the next. For example, lions and tigers must have a common ancestor....man and ape must have a common ancestor...squirrels and skunks must have a common ancestor...bats and whales must have a common ancestor. Of course none of these common ancestors have been found -- or will ever be found -- but we're just supposed to take their word for it because they know more than us. But the reality is, this is not science -- this is nothing but brain-rotting blind faith in an intellectually bankrupt theory.

But the fairytale doesn't stop there. Evolutionists have made a living the past 75 years on the Big Joke that is the unseen beneficial random mutation. I honestly believe this is the most ridiculous aspect of the whole theory. The notion that a once-in-a-multi-million chance mutation can be beneficial and spread throughout a population via sexual reproduction is truly outrageous -- especially when you consider that populations are often separated by hundreds or thousands of miles and mutations are 99% destructive and/or deadly. Not only that, but a grand total of only 4,000 hominid bones have been dug up...(this includes humans, australopithecus, Neanderthals, Homo erectus, etc) Thus, there simply is not enough of a population for the likely occurrence of beneficial random mutations. Of course cumulative selection of thousands of such mutations has never -- and will never -- be witnessed.

And the fairytale continues. THE most crucial aspect to the whole evolutionary farce is natural selection. This, as well, has never been documented, studied or witnessed. As far as I know there have never been controlled experiments on animals in an attempt to prove this concept. Once again, we are supposed to fall in love with the theory -- not any actual evidence.

So there's the backbone to evolutionary theory -- and there is no real science to it -- it's all nothing but a wild fairytale....a fairytale dreamed up by a select few who have no intention of actually studying the material world -- as real science requires. Instead, their only intention is to give atheists around the world a vessel to latch on to so they can justify their own existence without having to acknowledge the truth of the Almighty Creator.
__________________
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." Professor Louis Bounoure, National Center of Scientific Research.

Seeing as you are quoting Prof Louis Bounoure, you should give the whole quote in it's original context, and the year 1959, we have come a long way since then.

You are doing what all YEC and ID do, that is quote out of context, and because of that i will not read your intro to this thread.

GET IT RIGHT IN FUTURE.

Quote


The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French biologist (he was a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy). The precise quotation is as follows: "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults." (Age Nouveau, [a French periodical] February 1959, p. 12). But Rostand has also written that "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190). Jean Rostand was ... an atheist. The [end] of the quotation of Professor Bounoure to which you allude is taken from his book, Determinism and Finality, edited by Flammarion, 1957, p. 79. The precise quotation is the following: "That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which [i.e., of how evolution occurs -- ED.] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements."


[Obviously, Bounoure was expressing his distaste at those in his day who argued over the "principles" of evolution, "how" it took place, whether via Lamarckian or Darwinian "evolutionism." Bounoure probably thought that such "principles" were not worth all the "discussions and disagreements" since they were not well understood, were yet to be discovered, and perhaps might not be discovered, i.e., if supernatural intervention into the evolutionary process was accepted. Bounoure was a theist. He also probably thought that more practical scientific investigations needed to be pursued and less "discussions and disagreements." - ED.]

As far as we know, Louis Bounoure never served as ["Director" nor was even] a member of the CNRS. He was a professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg. Bounoure was a Christian but did not affirm that Genesis was to be taken to the letter. He expressed his ideas in his work. He is clearly "finalist" and against all contingent visions of evolution. ["Finalism" is a philosophical term related to a belief in ultimate purpose or design behind everything, including, in this case, the evolution of the cosmos and of life. - ED.] He bases his views, among other things, on the existence of elements that are pre-adapted for their future functions.​

 

[FishFace]

If you think we are wrong about how the sun works there are two towns in Japan you ought to visit.

It also assumes a constant rate of shrinkage which is stupid.

It's called coevolution. what happens is that when species are symbiotic and one of them speciates the other species also speciates. You can, and this has been done, make up cladograms for two groups of symbiotic taxa and lay them on top of one another and they match.

In the beginning, life did not use oxygen - there was none of it. Then life started releasing it as waste, and other organisms evolved to utilize the new resource.

 

[DrkSdBls]

From what I have read, you've not demonstrated this to be true. You'd also need to demonstrate that the universe was created, but my initial thoughts would be that it is far from consistent, since Deism says God created the universe but is no longer accessible, and Pantheism says the universe is God (which I say as mainly being a vessel for equivocation at a later point) so Pandeism would propose that God created himself.

And, where's the problem with that? If God's so powerful, he can do anything, right?

But, seriously. I see no problem with the idea that the Universe is God. In all rights, the Universe is the very defination of God, with the sole exception of existing before the Universe.

But, think of it this way. Do Microbes, Bacteria, and Viruses that are coursing through our Veins right now "Know" that they exist inside a living Being? Could we realize or even understand if we existed in such a situation?

The only thing required to believe that the Universe is God is to cast off this previous misconception that "God" must be as described as in the Bible. Why is it that, when anybody discusses God in these forums, that the only Archtype used is the Christian God; as though God must be understood in one way only or not at all.

 

[jttartar]

And this is where we leave the realm of science. Have fun in Never, Never Land.



Then creationists need to stop calling their pursuit "science". If you don't like the rules, then don't play the game. This is no different than a soccer player complaining that the goalie gets to use his hands. When you claim to be "scientific" you have to play by the rules.



All theories are models, and all are tentative. However, unlike creationism and theology, scientific theories are based on empirical data. If you don't like it, tough.



Do you have cousins? If yes, then you have just evidenced common ancestry. See how easy it is?



Nope, just one. Any two organisms on this planet share a single common ancestor.



Natural selection and random mutation can be easily demonstrated in bacteria using the Luria-Delbruck fluctation assay. I even started a thread on it here.

Loudmouth,
When God created all things, as stated in Genesis, He put within all living things the ability to: ONLY reproduce after their own KINDS. This is called Prestabilism. This law cannot be brokedn, or even sidestepped. Scientists have tried to mate animals from different Kinds, both INVIVO and INVITRO. It cannot be done!!!
If evolution were true, after a million years, there would be no distinct animal Kinds, there would only be a mixture of every Kind. There is a scientific term called Differencia, which means that any fossil, no matter how old can be determined exsactly for what it is. Never has any fossil been found where a scientist has said: I can't tell what this is because it has the characteristics of two Kinds.
For an animal to reproduce it must mate. How could there possibly be two animals, one male and one female continue to evolve in a parallel evolution until they could mate?? This concept is called Homoplasy, and is a joke.
There are many changes that can take place within a Kind, but they NEVER change from the original Kind. A lion and a tiger are feline, so there is a Liger, or tigon, tiglon. There are small dogs and large dogs. Different bears, different Horses, different dogs, etc. These changes within a kind are called Ontogenesis, and is not evolution. One of the greatest evidence against evolution is the experimentation of scientist on the Tsetse Fly. Because that poduce offspring in a few days they have been able to put a Tsetse fly through thousands of generations within a short period. They got longer winged Testse flies, different colored Tsetse flies, largerand smaller Tsetse flies, but they were all Tsetse flies, never a change from their KIND.
It is scientific fact: with every design there is a designer. Scientists can find a rock with a few markings on it. They can tell if it was designed or that nature, wind, water, caused it. There was a purpose in the design. Just a the Bible tells us: Every house is made by by someone, but all things are made by God, Heb 3:4.
Another thing that is totally unanswered by evolutionists is the question of the Cosmos. Science knows that explosions cause chaos, the larger the explosion the greater the chaos. Without a designer where does all the order we see in the heavens come from???
One concept of evolutions is the REASON for evolution. They say there was a need so things evolved. Why then does man have a brain that can learn and store information for thousands of lifetimes, maybe to to infinity, forever. Surely man does not need a brain of this capacity for just a few years.
Probably the most profound problem with evolution is the fact that the chasm between the most complex non-living thing, Crystles and snowflakes, and the simplest living thing is greater that the chasm between the simplest living thing and man. Therefore the chances are greater for life to JUST HAPPEN, than for a man to JUST HAPPEN in a petre dish, all at once and fully grown, from an amoeba.
Mathematicians have put the odds of even the simplest proteins to happen by accident at more that all the atoms in the known universe, to one.
If Einstein had left out of the Energy formula Mc2, would he have gotten the right answer?? If a scientist leaves the creator out of the natural world, would he ever be able to find truth???

 

[notto]

jttartar.

If you consider tigers and lions the same kind (feline), do you also consider gorillas and chimps the same kind (apes)?

Why or why not?

Can you define kind in a way that is meaningful and objective and that can be used to determine what is a kind and what is not?

What is a 'kind' and how do I determine it?

Are coyotes and wolves the same kind? Why or why not?

 

[TheBear]

Supersport? Is that you?

 

[TheBear]

Rather than did up an old supersport thread from the grave, why don't you simply start a new thread?

Agreed.

The OP author hasn't been around since last year.

 

[Catholicon]

If you want short, read my posts. I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie

I can sum it up in two words: You can't count.

 

[Genre]

First of all, life is not scientific -- life is spirtual.

Unless you can substantiate that postulation, don't expect to be taken seriously.

 

[christtoevo]

Istn it funny that even jesus says to find him spiritually and not to look in physical places.

I have both read the bible and considerd myself to be a christian, and it amazes me to this day i havent met one christian who does what jesus says.
We(they) seem to twist the bible to surond them and not the bible.
Its obvious here also.
Few of the christian are trying to convert people the way god asked them.. instead they are trying to argue the reallity of him... which i would think would be a "hammer hitting a hammer"

The one thing i wanted most when i was a christian, was to meet a real true to the heart christian...I have yet to meet one.

 

[Wykd]

Thats stupid, and im am amazed how someone could belive this trash

you think that evolution is a "fairy tale" yet an all powerfull man in space who has always existed, and created everything isnt?

The bible is a fairy tale. and the sooner you people open your eyes and stop looking to something to make you feel better, the sooner we can all just move on.

JESUS DIED FOR HIS OWN SINS. NOT MINE

 

[quatona]

I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie

Makes me wonder who is the third person in the trinity.
The father, the son, the holy ghost and...?

 

[peter22]

"First of all, life is not scientific -- life is spirtual."

I have absolutely no problem with your view and I don't disagree with you. However you can't then claim anything you say to be scientific, as it's mysticism & religion, not science.

I have no problem with creationism in church or religious studies classes or in comparative religion classes or philosophy or cultural anthropology or history classes.
Heck, I don't even mind if it's mentioned in science class, though it is somewhat out of context. As you said, it's not scientific.

 

[Deadbolt]

1+1 actually equals two.

"'How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.'
'Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.'"

 

[MarkT]

So there's the backbone to evolutionary theory -- and there is no real science to it -- it's all nothing but a wild fairytale....a fairytale dreamed up by a select few who have no intention of actually studying the material world -- as real science requires. Instead, their only intention is to give atheists around the world a vessel to latch on to so they can justify their own existence without having to acknowledge the truth of the Almighty Creator.

Yep. There's two kinds of science. One kind of science tells us what things 'are' and how they behave. The second kind of science tells us how things came into 'being'. What we get from the second kind is a 'creation story'.

There's science, and then there's 'historical science', where science and story telling intersect. That's where scientists get to create and defend their own stories; jealous of other scientists who get their stories published, who get a name for themselves. Truth doesn't matter because they can use the scientific method and claim they have the best story. In historical science, that's better than the truth.

If there was no evidence for something that actually happened, historical science would reject it. A rational person would prefer the truth, but to them, the truth is irrelevant. They call it 'absolute' truth, as if the truth can never be known; it's something that can only be approached, like they're zeroing in on the position of an electron. If the truth was known without evidence, what would they do? They would say it isn't true.

I figure the probability of historical science rejecting the truth is 100%. It is the same as the probability of accepting the hypothesis X the probability of finding the 'evidence' X the probability of 'interpreting' the 'evidence' X the probabilty of accepting the truth.