Evolution

classicalhero said:

He saw how designed the DNA structure was, that to keep up and pretend that it isn't designed, he turned to Direct Panspermia as a "possible" solution, meaning that he had no scientific answer as to why life on earth began and he tried to wave his hands and push it to were it can't be observed. What a scientist he is for thinking that way. He uses so much language of possibility, not of certainty, which is what a real scientist would be doing.

Click to expand...

cubanito said:

There is no known mechanism by which a gas in space would condense, heat up, spin and form a star. That observation, condensed into the equation PV=nRT has veen around since the 1700's. How much longer must one ignore basic high school chemistry and physics and hope that "science" will find an answer?

There is no known mechanism to form chirally pure molecules starting from achiral components. Louis Pasteur, who for a time stood alone against the overwhelming authorities of his day in declaring that life can not come from non-life, received his chemistry doctorate by proving the chirality of tartaric acid and the impossibility of deriving a pure isomer without the direct intervention of an intelligence. That testable observation has stood unchallenged since the 1800s. then again, forget every testable fact and let's hope there's an answer out there in some comet. Or maybe crystals or aliens, like the panspermic aliens that Crick supports to get around the fact it is IMPOSSIBLE to build life from non-life here. Yeah, aliens who built a time machine, went back and created themselves. That certainly is logically sound. As logically sound as tooth fairies, but hey, try proving there are no tooth fairies.

While scientists now focus on the similarity of genes across species (and, by the way, FRAUDULENTLY overstimate it in a manner that would take too long for me to explain); they ignore the ARRANGEMENT of those genes on the chromosomes. The absurdity of believing that two animals pf opposite gender within mating distance of each other would suddenly produce viable complementary gametes that could in fact form a fertile new species makes tooth fairies very plausible. Oh but wait, there is hope those white lab coat guys who actually would understand what I just wrote will somehow fix that statistical anomally.

Already the "vestigial DNA" that led scientists like Collins to surmize evolution has been found useful. The DNA code it turns out is far more complicated than the initial genome project suggested, there is in fact, codes inside of codes. But why should he care? By compromising his faith he now has a nice cushy position and all the money and adulation of the world. Oh, but of course, his motives are absolutely pure. Must be the first man since Jesus to have pure motives.

OK, more arrogance alert: I could not care less how many "authorities" line up to call me an idiot. Everybody is wrong and I am correct, and it really is astounding to me how simple it is to think this through. But whatever, no one will go to hell for believing in macroevolution. It is NOT a central dogma of the Faith.

Just amazes me how many people can see clothes on an emperor...

JR

Click to expand...

classicalhero said:

I am wondering how life could "evolve" in the first place if it didn't arise somehow? What you said is basically dodging the question because our understanding of life and chemicals shows it to be impossible for life to come from non life. So rather answer our questions on how life first started they are dodged.

Click to expand...

classicalhero said:

I am wondering how life could "evolve" in the first place if it didn't arise somehow? What you said is basically dodging the question because our understanding of life and chemicals shows it to be impossible for life to come from non life. So rather answer our questions on how life first started they are dodged.

Click to expand...

cubanito said:

The above post signals the end of any worthwhile debate as a troll has arrived. It irritates me to have intelligent dialogue blown up by those whom I happen to agree with on a particular point.

JR

Click to expand...

bhsmte said:

Please explain how specifically Collins has compromised his personal faith.

Could it be because his personal faith disagrees with yours?

Click to expand...

William II said:

I consider myself a fundamentalist and I also believe in evolution as a legitimate theory. I have no reason to believe that God wouldn't work through a process...as the Bible has shown he's rather fond of.

Click to expand...

bhsmte said:

I already did, but you must have ignored.

The theory of evolution (with it's strong evidence to support it) cover how life evolved, not how life started on earth. People often try to combine the two, but that would be incorrect.

As I already stated, we don't know how life started on earth and there is nothing wrong with admitting we don't know something. 100 years ago, science hadn't yet discovered a lot of what we know today and the future will likely be more of the same.

Life may have started from a form of abiogenesis, it may have been a God, or maybe another reason.

If you want to insert God, feel free, but we have no evidence to support any theory as to how life started, including God.

Click to expand...

classicalhero said:

If you are going by naturalistic theories, then we don't know how life started, but by going by God's revelation of what he did at the time, we know that life was started by God in Six days.

Click to expand...

KWCrazy said:

However, He is not very fond of lying, and in Exodus 20:11 the Lord Himself carves into a stone tablet that He created the world in six days. Either evolution is true or God is.

Click to expand...

Jack Koons said:

Since my name was brought into this thread (by Cubanito), I thought I would say a few words. Like Cubanito, I stand more or less alone in my position in most cases. Unlike Cubanito, my problem isn't arrogance, I am simply very analytical. What I see in this thread are people saying, "All the smart people believe this"! The problem of course is that doesn't excuse the problem at hand: why didn't someone simply refute Cubanito's three simple points?

That is how I win debates. When someone like Cubanito makes a statement, if you have the evidence to refute his three points; just refute them. At that point he must concede, or have egg on his face! Is this really that hard to figure out?

By the way, no one cares who believes this or that; we only care about what evidence proves.

Jack

Click to expand...

bhsmte said:

Great points Jack and I don't disagree. I have an advanced degree in a health science field, but I am no appointed expert on all the pieces of evolution. What I will do, is research Cubanito's points when I have the chance and respond to them.

You are correct, I have relied heavily on scientists who are most familiar (biologists, etc.) in regards to interpreting the evidence etc. With that being said, since you are in the same position of Cubanito and disagree with the theory of evolution, I am always curious as to why and would ask the same questions to you, since this theory has been around for over 100 years and no one yet has been able to present evidence to refute it, but according to the the vast majority of the biologists (I am sure you saw the quote from Francis Collins, the christian is was head of the human genome project) are saying the evidence keeps getting stronger.

With this being the case:

-Do you feel there is some world wide scientific conspiracy to support the theory of evolution? If so, what is the motivation to do so?
-Do you feel the scientific community is simply missing the evidence, that people like yourself and Cubanito see differently and just haven't yet put the pieces together as you have?
-Would you agree, that if evolution is not true, then it is possible to produce evidence to show the theory was indeed false? And if so, do you agree the scientist (or scientists) that produce the evidence to refute evolution would be world renowned for their discovery?
-Of the thousands of scientists world wide (many of whom are wildly independent and do not like to be told what to believe), why hasn't anyone been able to refute the theory with evidence, decade after decade after decade?

I appreciate your honest reposes, because I am truly interested in your answers.

Click to expand...

Jack Koons said:

“Great points Jack and I don't disagree. I have an advanced degree in a health science field, but I am no appointed expert on all the pieces of evolution. What I will do, is research Cubanito's points when I have the chance and respond to them.

You are correct, I have relied heavily on scientists who are most familiar (biologists, etc.) in regards to interpreting the evidence etc. With that being said, since you are in the same position of Cubanito and disagree with the theory of evolution, I am always curious as to why and would ask the same questions to you, since this theory has been around for over 100 years and no one yet has been able to present evidence to refute it, but according to the the vast majority of the biologists (I am sure you saw the quote from Francis Collins, the christian is was head of the human genome project) are saying the evidence keeps getting stronger.

With this being the case:

-Do you feel there is some world wide scientific conspiracy to support the theory of evolution? If so, what is the motivation to do so?
-Do you feel the scientific community is simply missing the evidence, that people like yourself and Cubanito see differently and just haven't yet put the pieces together as you have?
-Would you agree, that if evolution is not true, then it is possible to produce evidence to show the theory was indeed false? And if so, do you agree the scientist (or scientists) that produce the evidence to refute evolution would be world renowned for their discovery?
-Of the thousands of scientists world wide (many of whom are wildly independent and do not like to be told what to believe), why hasn't anyone been able to refute the theory with evidence, decade after decade after decade?

I appreciate your honest reposes, because I am truly interested in your answers.”


bhsmte,

I must be quite frank; I am by no means a scientist, I am a researcher. But I only research things that are of interest to me. I am a Christian. I accept God's word as truth. God's word is quite clear, God created the entire universe in six literal days. Following the genealogies listed in the Bible, we can come to an approximate age of 6,000 years for Planet Earth. Hence, evolution cannot be true.

I Googled “science” and this appeared:

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun
1.
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"
synonyms:
branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information, area of study,discipline, field More

Notice the words, “through observation and experiment”. Evolution is full of theories that have never been confirmed through either observation, or experimentation. No scientist can say that any “evolution” has actually taken place that either he, or another scientist has not observed. Putting out a “theory” is just that, a theory. Nothing more, nothing less. 5000 men can get together and say, “We believe this is what happened 100,000,000 or (fill in the number) years ago”, but that is nothing more than a theory, and without observing that “theory” for whatever time period is suggested, there is no science involved, only theory!

Let me now address your questions briefly:

-Do you feel there is some world wide scientific conspiracy to support the theory of evolution? If so, what is the motivation to do so?

I believe there is an effort by those who hate God to admit that He created all things.

Romans 1
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.



-Do you feel the scientific community is simply missing the evidence, that people like yourself and Cubanito see differently and just haven't yet put the pieces together as you have?

See the above Bible text.

-Would you agree, that if evolution is not true, then it is possible to produce evidence to show the theory was indeed false? And if so, do you agree the scientist (or scientists) that produce the evidence to refute evolution would be world renowned for their discovery?

I believe we are going about this all wrong; it is you who must prove Creationism is wrong. Men have believed in creationism for hundreds, yea even thousands of years. Can you prove with evidence, not a theory, that God did not Create Heaven and Earth as the Bible teaches. Evolutionist like to put the burden of proof on Creationists, because they know they have no evidence to support their theories.

-Of the thousands of scientists world wide (many of whom are wildly independent and do not like to be told what to believe), why hasn't anyone been able to refute the theory with evidence, decade after decade after decade?

I'm certainly glad that even you in your own question to me, truthfully stated that what scientist have is a “theory”, and nothing more.


Jack

Click to expand...

cubanito said:

As I wrote before, my knowledge of the fossil record and geology is spotty. There is a limit to how much I can cram into my head, and those subjects never interested me while young. As to the DNA evidence, please note my acknowledgement above that there is some evidence which fit into a macroevolutionary framework better than a creationist one. Frankly, I find the DNA evidence neutral, and my reasoning is based on history. Comparative genetics and complete genomic mappings are relatively new data. The main point macroevolutionists draw from it is that certain SUPPOSEDLY non-functioning sections of DNA are very similar to functioning genes in other species. This is essentially a new version of the argument from the older "vestigial organs" that were so popularized during the 1800s. Problem is, those lists of "vestigial organs" in humans sharnk very rapidly as surgeons began to take out "vestigial organs" and people became ill or died as a result. Right now the list of "vestigial organs" is quite small and debatable as even some of those claimed vestigial have some function. In animals for example, I saw a documentary of a giraffe autopsy where the scientists were making a case for evolution based on the length of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. They failed to realize, in their RELIGIOUS ZEAL to uphold macroevolution, that there is a simple reason for this: phonation. If a giraffe is going to make sounds, it must time it's breathing to it's larynx/mouth and that distance changes dramatically over the lifespan of the giraffe. A simple solution is to lengthen the recurrent laryngeal nerve. That idea occured to within seconds as they were going on about how there was no other possible explanation. How can very intelligent people so miss the obvious? They shut their eyes and/or God hands them over to what they seek: a darkened mind. They see the same data and believe what they want to believe before even thinking of an alternative to macroevolution. They only have a hammer, so every problem MUST be shaped as a nail. I, on the other hand, am free to accept or reject macroevolution as it does not impact my foundational belief. Thus while I am biased (everyone is) I believe I am LESS biased.

As to the overwhelming support, much of that is enforced. Go watch the movie "Expelled." I can tell you many scientists keep their mouths shut for FEAR of the Religious Orthodoxy of Secularism which is TOTALLY in control academically. I keep trying to tell you human nature does not change, do you think the Inquisition is only possible among theists? No, the human impulse to force one's beliefs on others, the mob, the herd mentality is alive and well in colleges. Just TRY to voice an objection to macroevolution in a secular college class, go ahead, try.

Whenever I try to have adiscussion with an evolutionist about something I DO know something about, like biochemistry, which is completely, totally, IMPOSSIBLE to fit with macroevolution they change the subject. It's like a magic act of misdirection. If there is an "inconvenient truth", change the topic. That will not do with me. I am very, very persistent and focused by nature. If there is a condition oppossite to ADD I have it to pathological levels. Do not change to fossils or genetics, deal with the problems first, either by an adequate answer or by admission of ignorance. Not every objection must be immediately answered. But when the list of problems grows to a certain level, it is time to re-examine the theory, not add more epicycles.

As to me being hyper-critical, I have always been such, about everything. I still read the Bible looking for errors from time to time, and occasionally find them (see my discussions with Koonz on this site re the purity of Biblical texts which I flatly deny). I am a fundamentalist, look up "the Chicago Statement of bliblical inerrancy" The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy The reason I am a Christian funadmentalist is that I subjected the Bible to the same hyper-critical attitude I did Nietche, Camu, Sartre, the Koran, the Ramayana, the Bhaga Gita, parts of the Tripitaka, the Tao, a few Shinto stuff and quite a few other belief systems as well as macroevolution. They all failed miserably, redundant I know, but failed miserably in my opinion. I have a VERY critical spirit from early youth, and I use it with a serious attempt to find Truth. I still do. Did the Bible answer each and every question perfectly to my satisfaction? No, but it did the huge majority, and I found things stated there that were amazing. I still do, look up some of my posts here. I have been called satanic and had more than one post deleted because my views on Scripture are, well, unusual at some points. The more acid I pour on the Bible, the more I hit it with the sledgehammer of my mind, the more it's brilliance shines and the deeper the ring of Truth comes from this most magnificent, most read, most important book ever compiled. I am not afraid to question it. Can I answer every seeming contradiction? No, but the list was small and grows smaller the older I get.

Understand that one of the greats that founded Christian Fundamentalism, Machen, also believed in macroevolution. The two are NOT incompatible.

So why do so many highly intelligent, very dedicated, well informed scientific people believe the absurdity of macroevolution?

Let me tell you a science experiment that was recently repeated on my youngest daughter at her high school (without her consent, btw). The science teacher brought in a clear soda bottle into which she had placed several raisins. The raisins moved around as the bubbles formed here and there. She told all her students these were a kind of animal and to determine how many legs each had. My youngest daughter, who also rejects macroevolution, said they were just raisins and not animals at all. She got heavy argument and peer pressure from the other students that they were indeed 6 legged insects, but would not budge. She was the only one of about 80 kids who did NOT see little animals as they were assured. Perhaps because I have taught each of my 4 children to fearlessly question EVERYTHING, to walk away from Christianity if it makes no sense to them. To not believe their teachers or even me and their mother, if it makes no sense to them. They have ALL gone to schools where macroevolution is taught. Being a physician I have not spent as much time as I should have, and yet each one is a raging Bible thumping fundamentalist Christian. Perhaps it was the influence of their parents, or perhaps it was exposure to every form of thought out there, with a safe assurance that whatever else they ought be true to themselves. Still in my house you can find a Koran, Plato, Camu, even Nazi inspired trash sitting on the shelves side by side with the Bible. Yeah I am not afraid of the valley of darkness, for You, my precious Jesus, have walked many times besides me there, and have let me explore darkness so that Your Light is even brighter to my eyes.

I am not afraid of Truth, nor of being the lone person that sees floating raisins instead of the "animals" I am assured are there.

JR

Click to expand...

bhsmte said:

Science is not out to prove creation wrong, science follows the evidence, where ever it may lead. In other words, if scientific evidence supported the bible, then that is where the evidence would point, but it doesn't.

Click to expand...

classicalhero said:

That is not true. Watch this video with quotes from evolutionists stating how Evolution is a faith that is trying to replace Christianity and their their is no such thing as a "dispassionate scientist who follows the evidence wherever it goes". The video is long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ben5Hayomd0

Click to expand...