Evolution and the Big-Bang's flaws

[maxmcguire]

Hey guys. I am new here and am really just trying to get feedback on my latest work. To prove evolution and the big-bang's flaws through logic rather than the bible. Any feedback or criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thanks and God bless.





Prove evolution is true before you pass it off as fact!

Before I begin, I would like to say that I am not a scientist. I do not hold a degree in any scientific field and I probably never will. I am just a regular guy, troubled by evolution's assumed truth. I thank you in advance for hearing what I have to say and I hope I have been clear in getting my frustrations across. Enjoy.​

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To start this off, evolution is a THEORY. A THEORY, as defined by the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, is "an assumption based on limited information or knowledge"[1]. In know way can evolution be proven to be true. Despite being an "assumption", why is it that most scientists proclaim it to be fact? For as smart as they claim to be, it is amazing that they defy their own definition. One writer for About.com named Austin Cline comments on this topic, saying "scientists care very much about teaching evolution for the same reason they care very much about teaching geology and astronomy: because it’s true and science classes would be worthless if they didn’t teach the truth"[2]. Science is as much truth as it is speculation. The fact that this is a common argument by Evolutionists to combat Creationists goes against the entire "anti-Bible" argument. Evolutionists and even Agnostics/Athiests dismiss Biblical scripture saying that christians simply believe what is told to them regardless of how true it may be. Isn't that the same problem with our childrens' science textbooks? Aren't children tested and forced to accept evolution as a fact despite it being a theory, an assumption?​

Before someone picks this apart and says "But that is not the scientific definition of a THEORY!", I figure I should confront this defintion as well. I imagine that the The American Heritage® Science Dictionary is a reliable enough source. If I happen to be wrong, please feel free to correct me. Of course everyone has their own wordings of this definition, but let's roll with this one. A theory is "an explanation based on observation and reasoning. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena"[3]. Like the big bang theory, the theory of evolution is a guess as to how the life began and then developed. The problem with these theories, especially the theory of evolution is that in order to be a theory and not a hypothesis, it must be repeatedly tested. Here is the problem: How do you recreate evolution in a lab when it is theorized to have happened over millions of years? Less than 300 years after the idea of evolution was proposed, it has already been accepted as fact. It is impossible to produce a million year experiment in less than 300 years. Just like the Big-Bang theory, how can anyone accept that as fact? There is no proof. The only evidence is the world and universe we live in. However it is impossible to predict the origins of EVERYTHING based simply on the fact that EVERYTHING exists. The problem with science (concerning the big bang) is that it tries so hard to explain how God made everything. No matter what the theory-of-the-day is concerning the origin of all matter, light, and time , there will never be a way to prove that God wasn't behind these random theories of Science. Here's an example. It should be simple to see how both creationist and scientific origin stories can be combined. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter in all directions. God's power is limitless. While the origin of EVERYTHING will never be scientifically proven, one truth remains. We live on a planet that contains 100% of the life and water in our solar system. We live on a planet that was intelligently designed.​

I am sorry for straying to the Big-Bang theory and I will now return to the speculation of evolution. This infectious proposal began with Charles Darwin's voyage onboard the HMS Beagle. During his voyage he developed the theory of natural selection. This theory (in a very watered down version) said that over time, favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms while unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. This is common sense. An easy example is in the Giraffe. An unfavorable trait among Giraffes, such as having a shorter neck, would stop the species from being able to reach treetops to eat leaves and consequently survive. Because it is shark week on the Discovery Channel and I happen to be watching it around the clock (haha), the show just mentioned that Bull Sharks have evolved over the years to be able to survive in fresh water and salt water. This is cool and understandable but is there any evidence that proves that this trait has not ALWAYS belonged to the Bull Sharks? God created all life on earth and it is completely possible that God created one specie of shark that could survive in fresh water and salt water. The problem with Natural Selection being a backbone for evolution is the whole "Humans evolved from Apes" hypothesis. Natural selection is said by many to be the main component of evolution because life supposedly evolves out of necessity. This survival of the fittest belief does not hold up in the macroevolution arena. Ok say you are a monkey. What extreme conditions would cause a monkey to evolve into a human being. What extreme conditions would cause such a dramatic change? What extreme condition would force monkeys to lose a majority of their body hair, walk upright, etc? All understandable instances of natural selection are small adaptions to allow the species to survive in the extreme conditions. Suppose this theory is true, suppose humans did evolve from apes or monkeys. That would mean that monkeys once faced a situation where evolution was necessary for their survival. If over millions and millions of years monkeys started evolving toward humans, that would mean that those monkey unable to adapt would die out because of their inability to survive the extremes. This is Survival of the Fittest. Survival of the Fittest also implies the death of the unfit. Well the, for the lack of a better word, unfit would be the monkeys. So why are there still monkeys on earth? Why was it so essential for monkeys to evolve into humans even though the apes/monkeys have survived and continued to survive? That is the flaw.​

Scientists continue to explain life and the origin of life in ways that contradict the bible and creationist views. Despite a complete lack of fact or evidence, these fairy-tales are taught to our society's children as being true because science is true. Why is it that in 2004 a Georgia school was sued after it put disclaimers in its textbooks saying that evolution is a theory and does not represent fact. The critics said "the stickers imply the endorsement of religion in public schools"[4]. No, this school does not endorse a religion; it is openly defending it children from a gift wrapped lie. It is protecting its students from being exposed to speculation diguised as fact and law. I tip my hat to those brave administrators and only hope that more people will wake up to reality and realize that simply being "Science" does not verify truth.​

Thank you for your time and God bless.​

Max McGuire​

[1]The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[2]atheism.about. com /b/a/256249. htm
[3]The American Heritage® Science Dictionary

 

[random_guy]

Hey guys. I am new here and am really just trying to get feedback on my latest work. To prove evolution and the big-bang's flaws through logic rather than the bible. Any feedback or criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thanks and God bless.

Prove evolution is true before you pass it off as fact!

Before I begin, I would like to say that I am not a scientist. I do not hold a degree in any scientific field and I probably never will. I am just a regular guy, troubled by evolution's assumed truth. I thank you in advance for hearing what I have to say and I hope I have been clear in getting my frustrations across. Enjoy.​

​

Here's the problem. You make a lot of errors in your post, and it's due to the lack of scientific training. First, you can't prove stuff in science. We had the Newton's Laws of Gravity, which people assume is proven true because it's a Law, but that's incorrect. Laws are just mathematical observations, and they aren't always 100% correct. Albert Einstein's General Relativity helped correct the flaws in Newton's Laws. If you use, "just a theory" attack, then do you also not accept Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, etc...? Theory is the highest level in science. That's just the first of many problems.

You throw out a lot of stuff about how evolution has no evidence to back it up, except there are millions of articles on evolution published in scientific journals, and thousands of more articles are published every year. You also don't seem to understand what repeatability and observability means in a scientific setting. We can't recreate many parts of astronomy theories, does that mean astronomy isn't scientific? We can't repeat murder scenes, and no one was around to see many murders, does that make forensic science not scientific?

Basically, we have 99.99% of biologists, the people that actually study evolution accept it, nearly every single university and every single government scientific organization accept it, and nearly everyone that's actually trained in science accepts it. It's hard to accept your post as correct seeing how you admitted you don't even have scientific training.

 

[metherion]

1. Evolution can and has been recreated in labs. Speciation included. Just not on large animals. Things like bacteria have generation much faster.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

2. For apes. You assume there isn't a reason why they would evolve into humans, rather than try to find things like the reasons, the pathways, etc. That is a major flaw. Just because something seems unlikely or distasteful DOES NOT MEAN it didn't happen.

3.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC150.html

4.

Scientists continue to explain life and the origin of life in ways that contradict the bible and creationist views. Despite a complete lack of fact or evidence

This is a popular lie. One of the most popular out there. And also one of the most false. There is plenty of research and evidence out there. Just look for it. And not at creationist sites, as many of htem perpetuate the lie. Go to somewhere like talkorigins.org. Heck, even go to wikipedia and follow the sources. While wiki articles might not be trustworthy, it's easy to tell if the sources are or not.
5.

We live on a planet that contains 100% of the life and water in our solar system.

100% life? Maybe. Some of the gas giants' moons may. We haven't been to all of them in enough detail to rule them out. 100% water? No way. The moons of some of the gas giants have water. Comets have water. Our planet doesn't have it all.
6. There is no micro- and macro- evolution. There is no boundary between the two. There is no reason for it to be impossible. There is no boundary. Stop treating evolution as a field split in twain.

That's a beginning on the errors of this post.

Metherion

 

[maxmcguire]

Yea I am not a scientist.​

I am not denouncing all theories. Atomic theory basically says that matter is comprised of atoms. That has been proven to be true. Germ Theory says that microorganism are the cause of some illnesses. That led to antibiotics. Of course I am not denouncing that.​

The thing is, while millions of articles in scientific journals may convince you, it doesnt convince me.​

My scientific "training" is as you say lacking so explain to me. How am I supposed to believe that Everything in existance just exploded for unknown reasons, created order through chaos, and ended up with the universe we have today.​

My only concern is that while scientists may accept these two theories. These two specific theories. How is it that in the big bang specifically, it is simply a guess, is taught in schools as fact.​

If you believe we evolved from on single celled organism MILLIONS and MILLIONS of years ago, that's your choice. But I just cannot believe these two theories simply because all these scientists tell me it's true.​

 

[Hnefi]

To start this off, evolution is a THEORY. A THEORY, as defined by the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, is "an assumption based on limited information or knowledge"[1].

That's because you cherry-picked the definition that suits your purposes, which is not necessarily the correct one. Remember, natural languages are rife with polysemy, which means words have multiple meanings. The very dictionary you cited has no less than six definitions for theory. The first one is how it is used in science, and is as follows: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." In other words, a theory is a well-tested, well-evidenced and widely accepted explanation for something.

In know way can evolution be proven to be true.

That's only because nothing in science can ever be proven to be true. It is completely possible that your computer works for completely different reasons than our theories in physics say it does. It's just not very likely that it is so.

Despite being an "assumption", why is it that most scientists proclaim it to be fact?

Because it isn't an assumption. It is a fact, and a theory.

For as smart as they claim to be, it is amazing that they defy their own definition.

In my experience, the more people know about a subject, the more aware they become of their own ignorance. Scientists are usually humble in the face of the unknown, but many of them get tired of hearing people who know nothing yet think they know everything proclaim that science is wrong. We have people here on this board who cannot even do multiplication, yet claim that radiometric is wrong on mathematical grounds. Your complaints are of similar nature; you do not even understand what the word theory means, eventhough the appropriate definition is listed in the very book you used to look it up, and yet you complain about how others use the word?

Science is as much truth as it is speculation.

Of course. Everything starts out as a hypothesis, which is essentially a guess. Hypotheses are the starting points for all our scientific knowledge, which arises when we determine which hypotheses are true and which aren't.

The fact that this is a common argument by Evolutionists to combat Creationists goes against the entire "anti-Bible" argument. Evolutionists and even Agnostics/Athiests dismiss Biblical scripture saying that christians simply believe what is told to them regardless of how true it may be.

Ironically, it's not agnostics and atheists that say this. It's creationists themselves. We have several well-known creationists on this very board who have specifically said that regardless of the evidence, they'll believe the bible.

Isn't that the same problem with our childrens' science textbooks? Aren't children tested and forced to accept evolution as a fact[snip]

Only at first. You must understand that science is a very big and very hard area of study. Before a person can criticize science, they must know what it is. So it is necessary to start out by teaching the basics - which are also extremely well-established parts of science. It's usually not until a person grows up and has studied these things for many years that they start to identify the real problems in their field of study.

Before one can criticize evolution, one must understand it. To understand evolution, you need a solid understanding of biology and statistics. To understand those, you need some understand of physics, chemistry, number theory and probabilistics. Learning all of that takes many years. When you're done, you usually know enough to get a respectable degree.

Before someone picks this apart and says "But that is not the scientific definition of a THEORY!", I figure I should confront this defintion as well. I imagine that the The American Heritage® Science Dictionary is a reliable enough source. If I happen to be wrong, please feel free to correct me. Of course everyone has their own wordings of this definition, but let's roll with this one. A theory is "an explanation based on observation and reasoning. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena"[3].

Very good. That is obviously much closer to the scientific use of the word. Why didn't you use that from the beginning of your post instead of rambling about a definition that obviously isn't applicable?

Like the big bang theory, the theory of evolution is a guess as to how the life began and then developed.

I think you know that's not true. In the beginning, they were. But since then they've both been very well evidenced - to such a degree, that no serious opposition remains.

The problem with these theories, especially the theory of evolution is that in order to be a theory and not a hypothesis, it must be repeatedly tested. Here is the problem: How do you recreate evolution in a lab when it is theorized to have happened over millions of years?

Repeatability does not mean what you seem to think it means. We can never recreate a volcano in the lab, yet that isn't an argument against volcanology. We can never recreate weather in a lab, yet that is not an argument against meteorology or climatology.

What repeatability means is that observational results must be possible to recreate. If a theory makes predictions regarding common descent, for example, then those predictions must be possible to test somehow. And they can. The fossil record and our genetical makeup provide the evidence. Every time a new fossil is dug up or a new genome examined, there are certain things that must be true if evolution is true. And so far, those things have turned out to be true.

Less than 300 years after the idea of evolution was proposed, it has already been accepted as fact. It is impossible to produce a million year experiment in less than 300 years.

But why would we need to? Evolution leaves behind lots and lots of evidence. We only need to look at the evidence to determine that evolution is true. We can also directly observe evolution on a smaller scale - speciation (macroevolution) is an event that has been observed many times, and unless someone discovers a mechanism to prevent the relatively small scale changes we've observed to accumulate into large scale changes, it is as reasonable to conclude that the mechanism can produce very large changes as it is to conclude that taking many small steps will enable you to travel vast distances.

Just like the Big-Bang theory, how can anyone accept that as fact? There is no proof.

Beyond mathematics, there isn't proof for anything. You can't even be sure that I or anyone else exists, strictly speaking, because there is no absolute proof. That's also why science deals with evidence, not proof.

The only evidence is the world and universe we live in.

Yeah... that's a lot of evidence, actually.

However it is impossible to predict the origins of EVERYTHING based simply on the fact that EVERYTHING exists.

No, it isn't. It is, however, possible to determine the nature of the very early universe by looking at how it behaves today. The BB theory was first proposed because all cosmological objects are moving away from each other. That means that they were once closer together, which is what the big bang essentially says. If they were really close together - almost a singularity - we should see more evidence. And we do. Background radiation is one such very important piece of evidence of the BB.

The problem with science (concerning the big bang) is that it tries so hard to explain how God made everything.

Science doesn't bother with god. It makes no statements regarding the existence or nonexistence of such a being. Science is simply in the business of finding out how stuff works.

No matter what the theory-of-the-day is concerning the origin of all matter, light, and time , there will never be a way to prove that God wasn't behind these random theories of Science.

You are absolutely correct. No matter what the evidence, we can never, ever, devise a test that, given a specific outcome, would serve as evidence against god. This means that god is unfalsifiable and falsifiability is extremely important in science (indeed, in any rational framework). If something isn't falsifiable, it is impossible to determine if it's true or not, and therefore any unfalsifiable statements are irrelevant when it comes to determining truth.

Here's an example. It should be simple to see how both creationist and scientific origin stories can be combined. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter in all directions. God's power is limitless.

Replace god with the flying spaghetti monster in that sentence and see what happens.

While the origin of EVERYTHING will never be scientifically proven, one truth remains. We live on a planet that contains 100% of the life and water in our solar system. We live on a planet that was intelligently designed.

That's not true. There is plenty of water in other places than Earth in our solar system. There is also no evidence whatsoever that our planet was intelligently designed. In fact, if it was designed, the job was done rather poorly. A human engineer with enough time and knowledge would probably do a better job.


The above post turned out to be very long. I'll leave it to someone else to comment on the rest of what you said.

 

[Hnefi]

Yea I am not a scientist.

I am not denouncing all theories. Atomic theory basically says that matter is comprised of atoms. That has been proven to be true.

No, it hasn't. Atomic theory is no more proven than evolution.

Germ Theory says that microorganism are the cause of some illnesses. That led to antibiotics. Of course I am not denouncing that.

Then why are you "denouncing" evolution which explains why germs become immune to antibiotics, and also tells us how to prevent this from happening?

The thing is, while millions of articles in scientific journals may convince you, it doesnt convince me.

So what would convince you, then? If the mountains of evidence detailed in scientific journals aren't enough, is there anything that would satisfy you? If not, why even bother to argue - and why do you not hold your other beliefs to the same standard?

My scientific "training" is as you say lacking so explain to me. How am I supposed to believe that Everything in existance just exploded for unknown reasons, created order through chaos, and ended up with the universe we have today.

Order through chaos is no biggie. That happens every day. Your own birth and growth are examples of that.

For the other points, you have to realize that our (as in humanity's) scientific knowledge is so vast that no single person can ever hope to learn it all. Only those who dedicate a large portion of their lives to a particular field of science will have a really good grasp of it. Therefore, the reasonable, default position for a layman is to trust the scientists. If what they say seems suspicious, check what other scientists say. If they all say essentially the same thing, they are probably right. If you want to prove them wrong, get a degree in the relevant field (or at least the knowledge equivalent to a degree).

My only concern is that while scientists may accept these two theories. These two specific theories. How is it that in the big bang specifically, it is simply a guess, is taught in schools as fact.

Because it's not a guess. It is a very well established theory. A lot of details about the big bang are unclear, but those things aren't taught in school. We don't teach our children about inflation theory or brane theory. We only teach them the most trivial of basics about the big bang, and those parts are very well evidenced.

If you believe we evolved from on single celled organism MILLIONS and MILLIONS of years ago, that's your choice. But I just cannot believe these two theories simply because all these scientists tell me it's true.

Then do research. "I can't believe" isn't an argument against anything. If there is something wrong with the research, it would be possible to find it. So if you want to point out the errors, start reading through the journals and do your own research. If you find something that's wrong (and not just a misunderstanding), you may very well have a promising career in science.

 

[Deamiter]

I'll take the second half of the post.

I am sorry for straying to the Big-Bang theory and I will now return to the speculation of evolution. This infectious proposal began with Charles Darwin's voyage onboard the HMS Beagle. During his voyage he developed the theory of natural selection. This theory (in a very watered down version) said that over time, favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms while unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. This is common sense.

Indeed it is. I wonder why you call such common sense "infectious" as if it's a disease when the theory of evolution is simply based on such common sense, but it's refreshing to see that you seem to understand the basics of evolution. I especially liked your example about giraffes where those with longer necks have a better chance of surviving and thus passing on their genes.

Because it is shark week on the Discovery Channel and I happen to be watching it around the clock (haha), the show just mentioned that Bull Sharks have evolved over the years to be able to survive in fresh water and salt water. This is cool and understandable but is there any evidence that proves that this trait has not ALWAYS belonged to the Bull Sharks?

Note that in science (apart from math) the word "prove" is meaningless. There is evidence that SUGGESTS such a thing, but to prove is to rule out any other possibility (including creation by God last Tuesday) which would be quite impossible.

Is there evidence that the Bull-shark didn't always have this trait? I'm not sure. But there is certainly evidence that the Bull-shark didn't always exist. We'd be getting into the fossil record though and I'd suggest if you want to get into that in detail, you start a new thread on the subject.

God created all life on earth and it is completely possible that God created one specie of shark that could survive in fresh water and salt water.

Sure it's possible, but such a conclusion requires the assumption that the fossil record is deceptive. Common ancestry has been carefully documented in many different lines -- so many that common ancestry is extremely well evidenced. The mere fact that there is a "common sense" way for bull-sharks to evolve to develop the ability to survive in salt and fresh water is NEVER suggested as evidence for evolution. The evidence is in fossil lines and where the fossils are found.

The problem with Natural Selection being a backbone for evolution is the whole "Humans evolved from Apes" hypothesis. Natural selection is said by many to be the main component of evolution because life supposedly evolves out of necessity.

To be clear, natural selection along with variation caused by mutations are equally necessary. Further, you say "life supposedly evolves out of necessity" but that seems to contradict your earlier "common-sense" understanding of evolution. There's nothing forcing the direction of evolution (unless God performs miracles in evolution -- something that would be impossible to prove or disprove). Evolution happens whenever there is limited resources and some organisms in a population are more likely to reproduce than others. Yes, this always happens (there is never unlimited resources) but it's only "direction" is toward higher reproductive rates for the common-sense reasons you cited earlier.

This survival of the fittest belief does not hold up in the macroevolution arena. Ok say you are a monkey. What extreme conditions would cause a monkey to evolve into a human being. What extreme conditions would cause such a dramatic change? What extreme condition would force monkeys to lose a majority of their body hair, walk upright, etc? All understandable instances of natural selection are small adaptions to allow the species to survive in the extreme conditions.

So let's look at some possible environmental changes that would cause these small adaptations. First of all, humans have lost NONE of their body hair. All the follicles are still their, our hair just falls out faster over most of our body. But I get your point -- why aren't we covered in hair like apes? Well, there are a few reasons why less hair might have been selected in early humans. First of all, we moved from the jungle to the savanna where we began hunting actively. Many tribes today still hunt large game by simply running after it for hours. The hair-covered animals eventually become exhausted from the heat, but being hairless makes humans MUCH more efficient at dissipating heat. The animals actually get so exhausted that they just lie down and cannot move while their throats are cut by the tribesmen. Quite simply, the early humans with the least hair were better able to hunt for long periods of time on the plains. Also, if you've seen any monkeys with naked bottoms, there's a possibility of sexual selection that quite possibly explains our retaining head-hair. Selection doesn't just have to be for survival since it's those that pass on their genes, not those that live longest that dominate the population.

And walking upright? Well, quite simply it's again about 20% more efficient than running on all four legs (IIRC) and again it allows for more efficient functioning on the plains where we no longer need our feet to be used for climbing. Further, you might notice how shoes are designed with a particular arch -- it turns out that we are not very well "designed" to walk upright. No, we're not ideally jointed for walking on all-fours, but the alignment of our back and legs is still similar to other apes in ways that cause us a lot of back pain without the special arches (or daily exercise like tribal humans got). In the end, it's much more efficient than running on four legs, but it's not perfectly aligned for walking upright as you might expect in special creation of humans.

Suppose this theory is true, suppose humans did evolve from apes or monkeys. That would mean that monkeys once faced a situation where evolution was necessary for their survival.

Wait, no. Again, remember that evolution is "common sense" Evolution does not mean "big change" or anything silly like that. It means only "change in the frequency of traits over time." Every population evolves over time -- the small adaptations just add up and after long enough time apart, two populations that used to be the same will look very different with so many different tiny adaptations.

If over millions and millions of years monkeys started evolving toward humans, that would mean that those monkey unable to adapt would die out because of their inability to survive the extremes.

Are you suggesting that evolution somehow knew what it was evolving toward when it started? (I hope not). Every single mutation that is fixed in a population must be either beneficial or at least relatively neutral. Also, scientists claim that monkeys have evolved JUST AS MUCH as humans since the split -- we just evolved in different environments and with different mutations so of course we ended up differently after many generations.

This is Survival of the Fittest. Survival of the Fittest also implies the death of the unfit. Well the, for the lack of a better word, unfit would be the monkeys. So why are there still monkeys on earth?

A counter-question is "if protestants came from Catholics, why are there still Catholics?" Of course the analogy isn't exactly correct, but it's close. One population of apes split from a previous population of apes and they both evolved in different environments in sexual isolation (i.e. they didn't inter-breed any longer). This has actually been observed, though again, I won't get into such a huge topic so start a new thread if you're interested about "speciation." It's not that humans came from monkeys, but all humans and all apes came from the same common ancestor and simply split into different sexually-isolated groups.

Why was it so essential for monkeys to evolve into humans even though the apes/monkeys have survived and continued to survive? That is the flaw.

Apes are still extremely well adapted to the jungle environment. There was no necessity, just a population of apes that found abundant resources on the savanna and as they spent more and more time there, they became better and better adapted and now we call them humans.

Scientists continue to explain life and the origin of life in ways that contradict the bible and creationist views.

Well of course they contradict creationist views since creationism is a movement started in seventh-day adventism and popularized in the last 50 years or so to contradict science!

Despite a complete lack of fact or evidence, these fairy-tales are taught to our society's children as being true because science is true.

I suggest you pick up one of these biology books because they mention quite a bit of evidence. At least I hope they do (some text books are horrendous!) Anyway, if you want to know more about what evidence we do have, again start a new thread (there's way too much to throw in here!)

Why is it that in 2004 a Georgia school was sued after it put disclaimers in its textbooks saying that evolution is a theory and does not represent fact. The critics said "the stickers imply the endorsement of religion in public schools"[4]. No, this school does not endorse a religion; it is openly defending it children from a gift wrapped lie. It is protecting its students from being exposed to speculation diguised as fact and law. I tip my hat to those brave administrators and only hope that more people will wake up to reality and realize that simply being "Science" does not verify truth.

Again, this is really a topic for a whole separate thread, but I'll at least address the last sentence -- science is DESIGNED to describe the universe and to correct itself (albeit slowly sometimes) when it is wrong. Science does indeed verify truth through constant testing of current understanding (theories) and constant attempts to falsify current theories.

If the vast majority of biologists and universities that teach biology (in other words, just about everybody who studies evolution professionally) accepts that evolution is the best explanation, it just makes sense to teach this explanation in schools. If you have a religious reason to object to this explanation, you can teach your children at home or send them to religious schools. Personal conviction that there is no evidence, does not, however, remove the fact that those who study the subject do indeed find that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence.

Anyway, as a basic bit of advice, I suggest you pick one or two subjects in this letter (article?) and start new threads on them. The vast majority of us don't have time to respond to every question you have simultaneously (this post took me over an hour) and you'll start to get a lot of off-topic responses when people just aren't interested in going over all of evolutionary theory (and all evidence for it) in every post.

 

[Deamiter]

Oh and welcome to Origins Theology. You've come in with a very respectful tone and with a whole lot of great questions. I certainly don't expect you to agree with me or anything (as a Christian who accepts evolution) but I very much appreciate your candor and tone!

 

[notto]

The thing is, while millions of articles in scientific journals may convince you, it doesnt convince me.​

How may have you read? What ones? What did you disagree with?

What was the last good book on the subject written by a biologist that you have read?

Have you ever even read Darwin?

Why do you think you know enough about the theory to dismiss it?

Why do you think that scientists of all ages, religions, backgrounds, genders, nationalities, and political leanings accept evolution and see it as the likeliest explanation of the diversity of life on this planet?

What do you think they have missed that you haven't?

It is clear from what you have written here that you haven't read much on the subject. Why don't you learn a bit more about it before dismissing it all together?

You seem to be applying a standard to evolution that you wouldn't apply to other sciences or findings. Why is that?

 

[Hnefi]

Just to counter what might seem like an overly harsh tone here, I think the OP has displayed a better grasp of evolution than most creationists I've seen on this board. Also, his tone has been questioning instead of argumentative, so hopefully this can become a good discussion. I do hope he will feel welcome here, and take this opportunity to improve his understanding about the subject.

 

[metherion]

Yeah. Sorry, I forgot to see how new you were before I posted.

So.

Welcome to CF and to OT!

Metherion

 

[gluadys]

Hey guys. I am new here and am really just trying to get feedback on my latest work. To prove evolution and the big-bang's flaws through logic rather than the bible. Any feedback or criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thanks and God bless.

Welcome. You have already received a lot of good answers so I will try to be brief and add just a few additional thoughts.

Here is the problem: How do you recreate evolution in a lab when it is theorized to have happened over millions of years?

First pop over to the thread I just recently created on Common Misconceptions. In this post I deal with misconceptions of scope.

(And as an aside, I am glad to see that although you have problems with Big Bang theory you do not make the error of conflating it with evolutionary theory.)

But read especially the section on unduly restricting the scope of "evolution".

That is the source of your error here. You are assuming that "evolution" means "the history of speciation" and nothing more than that. Therefore you think that we need to reconstruct the whole history of speciation to provide evidence for evolution.

But that is not the case. What is it that is theorized to have happened over the last 3+billion years?

Not a particular history. In fact, the late paleontologist Stephen J. Gould is well-known for his assertion that the particular historical paths of evolution could never be repeated.

What is theorized is that a particular process happens and has been happening ever since life appeared on earth.

To provide evidence for evolution then, we only need two things. First, evidence that this process happens. This we have in abundance. We have seen changes in species in the lab and we have documented changes in species in nature. We have confirmed the action of the principal mechanisms of evolution (mutation and selection) and confirmed that they do produce evolutionary change. We have even generated new species in the lab, and we have also observed speciation in nature.

So we know the process happens both in controlled conditions and in natural conditions.

Second, we need evidence that the process was happening in the past. This is where the fossil record comes in, and now we have the capacity to study the genetic history of species as well, so we have two lines of evidence that the process also occurred in the past.

Note that the theory of evolution does not predict a particular history of speciation. It does not predict that a sub-population of dinosaurs will evolve into birds, nor that a sub-population of terrestrial ungulates will evolve into whales.

What the theory of evolution does predict (or "retrodict" if you prefer a technical term that refers to predicting what we will discover about the past) is that the process of evolution we see happening in the present has been occurring ever since life appeared and that we will find evidence of this process happening in some sort of historical form--not necessarily the particular historical form in which we actually find it.

Since evolution does not predict the particular historical pathways taken by evolution on this planet, we do not need to actually recreate the history. We only need to show that the history we do have conforms to the characteristics we would expect of any biological history marked by the process of evolution.

And that we can easily do and have done.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter in all directions.

Just a small point here. You need to study up a bit on BB theory. It did not "hurl matter in all directions". What it did was expand the space-time continuum. Since matter is embedded in space-time, it was carried along as part of the expansion.

Why is it that in 2004 a Georgia school was sued after it put disclaimers in its textbooks saying that evolution is a theory and does not represent fact.

One of the main reasons was that it used the same incorrect understanding of "theory" that you also began your article with. Another was that it stated evolution is not a fact, when it is.

 

[busterdog]

Yea I am not a scientist.​

I am not denouncing all theories. Atomic theory basically says that matter is comprised of atoms. That has been proven to be true. Germ Theory says that microorganism are the cause of some illnesses. That led to antibiotics. Of course I am not denouncing that.​

The thing is, while millions of articles in scientific journals may convince you, it doesnt convince me.​

My scientific "training" is as you say lacking so explain to me. How am I supposed to believe that Everything in existance just exploded for unknown reasons, created order through chaos, and ended up with the universe we have today.​

My only concern is that while scientists may accept these two theories. These two specific theories. How is it that in the big bang specifically, it is simply a guess, is taught in schools as fact.​

If you believe we evolved from on single celled organism MILLIONS and MILLIONS of years ago, that's your choice. But I just cannot believe these two theories simply because all these scientists tell me it's true.​

Red herring, meet Max, Max, red herring. Be careful not to get caught up in the claim that you are denouncing theories, which you aren't. As you can see, a theory is a just a theory, until it confronts something like the young earth creation proposition. Then YEC is stupid and insulting to the theory and the theory is the opposite of stupid, which usually means its a fact, not a theory anymore. Lots of confusion there.

Noodle around in here for a while. http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/astronomy_by_press_release

You might enjoy it. Its pretty well written for the laymen, like me.

Arp shows a number of big problems with the red shift interpretations on which the expanding universe cosmology is built. The relative speeds and age of various bodies predicted in the BB model, just don't match up. The creation of galaxies through the accretion of post BB dust doesn't even withstand ordinary scrutiny.

And there is lots of evidence of common ancestor/macro-evolution. Its just not very good evidence.

 

[KerrMetric]

The thing is, while millions of articles in scientific journals may convince you, it doesnt convince me.

Well golly - call me unimpressed.

 

[KerrMetric]

The problem with science (concerning the big bang) is that it tries so hard to explain how God made everything.

No it doesn't.

No offence - but where did you dig up this crap? Did you read it or somehow conclude this yourself?

 

[KerrMetric]

Lots of confusion there.

Spoken from someone who time and time again has shown a complete inability to follow even basic scientific argument.

Arp shows a number of big problems with the red shift interpretations on which the expanding universe cosmology is built. The relative speeds and age of various bodies predicted in the BB model, just don't match up. The creation of galaxies through the accretion of post BB dust doesn't even withstand ordinary scrutiny.

Two points -

1) No he doesn't.

2) How on earth would you be able to tell even if he did show some problems? You have many times made silly errors even of the stuff you have read - so tell me how would you spot a valid scientific criticism from complete BS?

 

[Dannager]

It's also worth noting for the OP that the Catholic Church acknowledges that evolution is a very good explanation and does not object to it as science in any way. In fact, Pope Benedict (somewhat surprisingly) made a statement to this effect just last week, I believe.

 

[notto]

And there is lots of evidence of common ancestor/macro-evolution. Its just not very good evidence.

So 3 completely independent lines of evidence that converge around a common conclusion that hasn't been falsified is not good evidence?

I'm guessing that you bet your life and health on evidence and conclusions that are not as solid every day.

 

[crawfish]

Before I begin, I would like to say that I am not a scientist. I do not hold a degree in any scientific field and I probably never will....

Alright...imagine this. An atheist walks into your church and starts talking to you about the implications of believing in the bible, quoting things he's heard from friends and various sites on the internet. It is painfully obvious to you that he has never read the bible and does not understand most of our theology. How serious would you take his message?

I say this because, you sound exactly like that guy.