Is Evolution A Lie?

[lismore]

Is evolution a lie? A question raised in another thread.

Hello there

A couple of years back I went along to a church in Perth and heard some speakers on the subject of creationism, Ken Ham and John MacKay.

I had already heard Richard Dawkins speak on Campus in favour of evolution and some other academics speak against it.

What you have to be aware of is that evolution is a contested viewpoint and that there is an array of alternative views under the banner of 'Creationism'. It's an interesting area to explore, various evolution style theories being quite ancient and going back to the ancient Greeks.

In the book of proverbs in the bible it says that the first to speak in court is thought correct until another stands up to challenge him. There are two sides to every debate.

I would advise you to listen to both sides before making a decision.

 

[Nabobalis]

What you have to be aware of is that evolution is a contested viewpoint and that there is an array of alternative views under the banner of 'Creationism'. It's an interesting area to explore, various evolution style theories being quite ancient and going back to the ancient Greeks.

In the book of proverbs in the bible it says that the first to speak in court is thought correct until another stands up to challenge him. There are two sides to every debate.

I would advise you to listen to both sides before making a decision.

I would say that the biology community are pretty much set on evolution, having so far survived 150 years of peer review.

The only people who contest evolution are creationists, no one else and sometimes there is never two sides to a debate.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Where scientists differ on evolution is not IF evolution occurs but rather things like the timelines involved, or what factors played into the evolutionary pathways of certain sorts of animals. Or where a transition fossil should be categorized. As is so often the case, Creationists lie and think it's ok.

 

[lismore]

I would say that the biology community are pretty much set on evolution, having so far survived 150 years of peer review.

150 years of peer review by other evolutionists? Why don't they all just vet their own work

When I recall listening to Dawkins giving a talk here he was asked questions about the genome and got quite flustered. He turns white- goes incandescant with rage when someone asks him a tough question.

The only people who contest evolution are creationists, no one else and sometimes there is never two sides to a debate.

As far as I know creationsist and intelligent design people contest evolution, plus academics who disagree for scientific reasons, even academics who belong to the muslim religion. I have heard talks on campus by academics who are agnostics but see problems with the theory.......

I'm sure if you look into it you will see that evolution is questioned on many levels....ever since Piltdown man.

 

[Celtic D]

Hello there

A couple of years back I went along to a church in Perth and heard some speakers on the subject of creationism, Ken Ham and John MacKay.

I had already heard Richard Dawkins speak on Campus in favour of evolution and some other academics speak against it.

What you have to be aware of is that evolution is a contested viewpoint and that there is an array of alternative views under the banner of 'Creationism'. It's an interesting area to explore, various evolution style theories being quite ancient and going back to the ancient Greeks.

In the book of proverbs in the bible it says that the first to speak in court is thought correct until another stands up to challenge him. There are two sides to every debate.

I would advise you to listen to both sides before making a decision.

I'm not looking to make a decision, I am a Christian, a scientist and a TE and have been all along

 

[lismore]

I'm not looking to make a decision, I am a Christian, a scientist and a TE and have been all along

I see

Out of curiosity, why start a thread asking if evolution is a lie if you have already decided it's the truth?

 

[Celtic D]

I see

Out of curiosity, why start a thread asking if evolution is a lie if you have already decided it's the truth?

The thread was started 6 months ago, and as the OP states, was the result of a discussion on another thread - I did not want to derail that thread.

Also, if you had taken the time to read down to just the 3rd post, you would have seen that I had quite clearly stated I am a TE as I also stated numerous times in the thread since that post

 

[knw1991]

i am a biology major, and i learn about genetics, biology, the human body etc, and there is no way that evolution lead to life, the human body and all of life is too complex and specific. there are universal constants that must be exact and time itself doesnt change anything. in order for humans, or even cells to form, molecules and atoms must have a mind of their own in order to assemble into things like protein and Dna. how can molecules possibly change over billions of years into molecules that can support life. if the molecules did indeed come together over time by rearranging atoms, how do they know when to stop when they have finally made a biological molecule like oxygen or water. how do amino acids know how to assemble to make a biological protein that can function in working in living things, nonliving matter does not have a mind of its own. therefore evolution is not true.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

i am a biology major, and i learn about genetics, biology, the human body etc, and there is no way that evolution lead to life, the human body and all of life is too complex and specific. there are universal constants that must be exact and time itself doesnt change anything. in order for humans, or even cells to form, molecules and atoms must have a mind of their own in order to assemble into things like protein and Dna. how can molecules possibly change over billions of years into molecules that can support life. if the molecules did indeed come together over time by rearranging atoms, how do they know when to stop when they have finally made a biological molecule like oxygen or water. how do amino acids know how to assemble to make a biological protein that can function in working in living things, nonliving matter does not have a mind of its own. therefore evolution is not true.

Pssstt...you're not knowing what abiogenesis or what evolution is, is showing.

 

[Celtic D]

i am a biology major, and i learn about genetics, biology, the human body etc, and there is no way that evolution lead to life, the human body and all of life is too complex and specific. there are universal constants that must be exact and time itself doesnt change anything. in order for humans, or even cells to form, molecules and atoms must have a mind of their own in order to assemble into things like protein and Dna. how can molecules possibly change over billions of years into molecules that can support life. if the molecules did indeed come together over time by rearranging atoms, how do they know when to stop when they have finally made a biological molecule like oxygen or water. how do amino acids know how to assemble to make a biological protein that can function in working in living things, nonliving matter does not have a mind of its own. therefore evolution is not true.

I have got a biological science degree, and I disagree with you (in fact I would be finding myself another tutor if I were you because if they have taught you what you have stated above, it is very poor teaching indeed), but as a Christian I do believe the life processes are guided by God

 

[lismore]

Also, if you had taken the time to read down to just the 3rd post, you would have seen that I had quite clearly stated I am a TE as I also stated numerous times in the thread since that post

Yes I saw you were a TE. But that does not mean you cannot change your opinion.

 

[Celtic D]

Yes I saw you were a TE. But that does not mean you cannot change your opinion.

I wasn't out to change my opinion, that was not the purpose of the thread, I can't even remember what thread the discussion stemmed from now, it was 6 months ago

 

[Assyrian]

150 years of peer review by other evolutionists? Why don't they all just vet their own work

You do realise all science is peer reviewed by scientists?

 

[Nabobalis]

You do realise all science is peer reviewed by scientists?

I'm not sure people realise how cut throat peer review is.

 

[Nabobalis]

150 years of peer review by other evolutionists? Why don't they all just vet their own work

You don't understand how peer review works? You do know that just like any other profession, they peer review in their group. They are the only ones who are capable of doing it, just like doctors peer review other doctors, you don't want lawyers doing that.

As far as I know creationsist and intelligent design people contest evolution, plus academics who disagree for scientific reasons, even academics who belong to the muslim religion. I have heard talks on campus by academics who are agnostics but see problems with the theory.......

I'm sure if you look into it you will see that evolution is questioned on many levels....ever since Piltdown man.

Creationists/ Intelligent design regardless of religion don't disagree for scientific reasons only religious ones.

You do know that evolutionists do question evolution but only the detailed parts and not the over all concept? They don't know every little detail and so carry on research and other evolutionists disagree.

The Piltdown Man was a hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. These fragments consisted of parts of a skull and jawbone, said to have been collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, East Sussex, England. The Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man", after the collector Charles Dawson) was given to the specimen. The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan that had been deliberately combined with the skull of a fully developed modern human.
The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleontological hoax ever. It has been prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.

A hoax that evolutionists eventually found out.

 

[Assyrian]

I'm not sure people realise how cut throat peer review is.

E.A.C.

 

[knw1991]

Pssstt...you're not knowing what abiogenesis or what evolution is, is showing.

abiogenesis is spontaneous generation, things just dont pop up because all their components are in the same place, and i do know what evolution is. thats the problem with many ppl who believe in evolution, they want to make people sound dumb instead of looking into the stupidity of a theory created by a man who was angry with God because of his daughter's death (i sympathize with him) and decided to come up with a theory to disapprove God. Darwin said that if no transitional life forms are found then the theory can be disapproved. none have been found. and even if you believe in God as a TE, the bible says God spoke creation into existense and formed man with His hands from the dust. so if you believe in God you need to believe what he says.

 

[knw1991]

I have got a biological science degree, and I disagree with you (in fact I would be finding myself another tutor if I were you because if they have taught you what you have stated above, it is very poor teaching indeed), but as a Christian I do believe the life processes are guided by God

thanks for silently insulting my intelligence, and i dont have a tutor , i'm suceeding on my own and by the grace of God, and i know what im talking about and if evolution is true and God did not make anything what other means did humanity,plants, the planets etc come into existence, evolution is change over time and like i was saying they pretty much believe that apes adapted to different environments over time and became humans after transitioning from primitive humans(neanderthals etc) and therefore the body itself was responding to the environment and the body is composed of organ systems,organs, tissues, cells, and molecules, so changes had to happen at these levels, there is no other explanation if they support evolution, i find that people argue for evolution but when you start dissecting the theory and getting down to the implications of what they are really saying evolutionists become defensive because they realize how silly and impossible there theory really sounds. i believe im intelligent and smart and have three years in college with a 3.6 GPA to prove it, so im not concerned of any attacks on my intelligence

 

[Celtic D]

Evolution is not out to disprove God.

TEs believe God created the world - I would advise you to do some more research in both evolution and TE before throwing a childish temper tantrum about the issue. - Have you found yourself a new biology teacher yet, one who teaches the correct facts?

 

[Celtic D]

thanks for silently insulting my intelligence, and i dont have a tutor , i'm suceeding on my own and by the grace of God, and i know what im talking about and if evolution is true and God did not make anything what other means did humanity,plants, the planets etc come into existence, evolution is change over time and like i was saying they pretty much believe that apes adapted to different environments over time and became humans after transitioning from primitive humans(neanderthals etc) and therefore the body itself was responding to the environment and the body is composed of organ systems,organs, tissues, cells, and molecules, so changes had to happen at these levels, there is no other explanation if they support evolution, i find that people argue for evolution but when you start dissecting the theory and getting down to the implications of what they are really saying evolutionists become defensive because they realize how silly and impossible there theory really sounds. i believe im intelligent and smart and have three years in college with a 3.6 GPA to prove it, so im not concerned of any attacks on my intelligence

So you don't have a tutor, I see, so your claim that you are a biology major would be incorrect then.

I'm sorry but you really do not understand the concept either of evolution or TE, you have made that abundantly clear in your posts. Slinging mud is not the way to "win" a discussion - when you have some facts do come back and continue your discussion with us