Is it a hoax?

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I doubt if you could find any that were shown to be lies. Wrong is not a problem for science. You see when science is "wrong" it replaces an idea with another that is closer to being correct. The changes in science keep getting smaller and smaller. Meanwhile the Bible has been shown to be wrong before even Darwin's time, at least when it comes to the book of Genesis.

It is interesting to know that Darwin, in later life, regretted writing his book and said that his theory was "the unborn idea of a young man." If that is what the founder of Evolution said, then that must put a bit of dent in it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even a miracle fails to explain what is observed.

A miracle is an event, not an explanation.[/QUOTE]

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is interesting to know that Darwin, in later life, regretted writing his book and said that his theory was "the unborn idea of a young man." If that is what the founder of Evolution said, then that must put a bit of dent in it.

Where and when did he supposedly say this? Unlinked quotes are worthless in a debate. You do know that his supposed "deathbed confession" was a fraud, didn't you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

A miracle is an event, not an explanation.

[/QUOTE]
Handwaving is a way of losing an argument.

 

[pitabread]

It is interesting to know that Darwin, in later life, regretted writing his book and said that his theory was "the unborn idea of a young man."

Source?

If that is what the founder of Evolution said, then that must put a bit of dent in it.

Not really. The validity of an idea is not dependent on one's personal opinion of it.

If biological evolution wasn't a valid theory, it would have died off over a hundred years ago. The fact that it didn't, and indeed has been greatly expanded on and now forms part of the foundation of the biological sciences is a testament to its importance.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Actually you are wrong. There are mountains of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. So much so that it is now regarded as a fact. There is no scientific evidence for creationism. Perhaps you should expand your education a bit and learn what "evidence" is.



There is no "Creation theory". A scientific theory by definition needs to be falsifiable. That means that one must have reasonable tests for it. What reasonable test would show creationism to be wrong if it was wrong? If you can't answer this question you have just admitted that you do not know of any "Creation theory".



No, only creationists have faith. Faith is not needed for evolution. And the theory of evolution is the only current explanation of how life came to its present state.



You do realize that even most Christians do not share your beliefs. Many believe that God was able to start the universe and that man evolved as a result. There is no need to believe the six day creation myth to be a Christian.



Now please, you are merely projecting your flaws upon others. No one "wants" to believe anything if he is rational. One accepts the theory of evolution because it is the rational thing to do. Not because one wants to believe one way or another.



Again, only you are relying on faith. The theory of evolution can and has been tested countless times. You do not test your belief in God, that is why it is mere faith.



That is because your argument is a huge strawman. You simply do not know what others think and project your own flaws upon others.

In actual fact that although there are many scientific indications supporting Evolution there are crucial areas where science has no answer and in fact, science is silent. One example is that there are no "inbetween" species between plants and animals,animals and humans, and different evolutionary stages of human development. All science can come up with is a couple of bone fragments on which they have built a whole species of human. It was discovered later that the bone came from a pig and not a human at all.

 

[Tanj]

It's not a matter of having weak or strong faith.

But you said it takes more faith to believe in evolution. Now you are pretty much saying the opposite.

And FWIW, I actually thought this last post of yours was pretty good. I might have even liked it were it not for the contradiction.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Personal incredulity will get you nowhere...



The sum total of the evidence points to singular-cellular life being the first life on Earth and then evolving and diversifying into the life we have today (over the 4+ billion years it's been on Earth). Unfortunately there is no evidence of numerous individual, independent organisms being created.

How do you tell the difference between common descent and common design? Wouldn't they look the same?

 

[pitabread]

In actual fact that although there are many scientific indications supporting Evolution there are crucial areas where science has no answer and in fact, science is silent. One example is that there are no "inbetween" species between plants and animals,animals and humans, and different evolutionary stages of human development. All science can come up with is a couple of bone fragments on which they have built a whole species of human. It was discovered later that the bone came from a pig and not a human at all.

Hahaha, oh boy. This is about get fun.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

But you said it takes more faith to believe in evolution. Now you are pretty much saying the opposite.

And FWIW, I actually thought this last post of yours was pretty good. I might have even liked it were it not for the contradiction.

It's not really a contradiction. The Genesis account is merely a straighforward and direct account of how the world was created. It does not seek to provide scientific evidence for it. The Bible is not a scientific text. It just makes a statement and one can either believe it or not. Choosing to believe it doesn't take much faith, because the record is logical in that a Creator designed the world and constructed it according to his design. Pretty simple. It is not a weak faith to believe it. All it involves is a decision to believe it and move on. No believer has to justify that belief to anyone. Some want to try and explain the ins and outs of it to persuade unbelievers to become believers.

It don't think that Evolutionists are trying to convert others to Evolution. They just accept it as fact, and so they base their faith on it. I guess it takes the same type of faith to believe in Evolution as it does with Creation.

I'm not contradicting myself. I'm just developing my thoughts based on the on-going discussion.

I think that it takes more faith to believe a complicated theory of evolution than the simple and direct Genesis record. Those who sit on the fence don't have complete faith in either because they are not prepared to commit themselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In actual fact that although there are many scientific indications supporting Evolution there are crucial areas where science has no answer and in fact, science is silent. One example is that there are no "inbetween" species between plants and animals,animals and humans, and different evolutionary stages of human development. All science can come up with is a couple of bone fragments on which they have built a whole species of human. It was discovered later that the bone came from a pig and not a human at all.

What are you talking about? There are countless "in between" species. There is even a name for them. When such a fossil is found it is said to be transitional. And please, what has been found has been far more than "bone fragments". By the way, it appears that you are relying on lying creationist sites. If you were a scholar you would know what sites to avoid. I am starting to have doubts about your claims.

 

[Tanj]

I guess it takes the same type of faith to believe in Evolution as it does with Creation.

Alrighty. Respect to anyone willing to admit their position has changed.

 

[pitabread]

It don't think that Evolutionists are trying to convert others to Evolution. They just accept it as fact, and so they base their faith on it. I guess it takes the same type of faith to believe in Evolution as it does with Creation.

Why do you believe that a scientific theory like evolution is a "faith"? Why do you keep referring to it as such?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not really a contradiction. The Genesis account is merely a straighforward and direct account of how the world was created. It does not seek to provide scientific evidence for it. The Bible is not a scientific text. It just makes a statement and one can either believe it or not. Choosing to believe it doesn't take much faith, because the record is logical in that a Creator designed the world and constructed it according to his design. Pretty simple. It is not a weak faith to believe it. All it involves is a decision to believe it and move on. No believer has to justify that belief to anyone. Some want to try and explain the ins and outs of it to persuade unbelievers to become believers.

The problem is that if the stories were true we would expect to observe certain things. For example Cheetahs had a near extinction event about 10,000 years ago. Their effective population was down below ten. That is coming to within a whisker of extinction and backing away from it. To this day they suffer due to their extreme state of being inbred. They are so close that one could take an organ from almost any cheetah and transplant it into another. We do not see this with people. Our genome is much more diverse than theirs. So much so that it is thought that the lowest the population that people ever got down to was still in the thousands at least.

It don't think that Evolutionists are trying to convert others to Evolution. They just accept it as fact, and so they base their faith on it. I guess it takes the same type of faith to believe in Evolution as it does with Creation.

Once again, no faith needed. Faith is what one relies upon when one does not have evidence.

I'm not contradicting myself. I'm just developing my thoughts based on the on-going discussion.

Well you are demonstrating that you do not understand anything at all about evolution or even science in general.

I think that it takes more faith to believe a complicated theory of evolution than the simple and direct Genesis record. Those who sit on the fence don't have complete faith in either because they are not prepared to commit themselves.

Once again, that is only due to your lack of education. If you learned why scientists accept the theory of evolution there would be no need of faith.

You appear to be rather bright. Why don't you try to learn?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Why do you believe that a scientific theory like evolution is a "faith"? Why do you keep referring to it as such?

Because although there are a lot of indications that evolution might be feasible, there are too many unproven gaps in it for it to be recognised as scientific fact. It still remains as a theory, so for those who are convinced that evolution is fact in spite of the serious gaps in scientific knowledge about it, have to exercise a certain type of faith that some time in the future, further scientific discoveries will prove them right.

For example: You know the picture of the development of man through the stages of the ape through to modern man. Now, if someone found mummified bodies of all these intermediate stages buried in the ice of Antarctica or Alaska, then that would be a major discovery. But it is interesting to note that 5000 year old Egyptian mummies show fully formed human beings exactly the same as those today, so the human race has not evolved very much in the last 5000 years. Also scientists have found fossilised insects and plants exactly the same as their modern varieties and yet these fossilised ones have been dated at nearly a million years old, and yet they have not evolved at all. There have never been anything like half plant half animal or half insect half animal every discovered. That means there is no evidence of one species of plant, insect or animal crossing over to another. Geneticists have discovered that all human beings have originated from one original pair of human beings. We don't now how long ago the Tower of Babel happened, but the traditional Chinese language which is a picture language depicts different Genesis events, that show the Chinese did not consider the Genesis record a myth but as a series of real events. The Chinese Mandarin language has never been influence by other languages because of their isolation over the thousands of years since their migration from the Middle East to China and therefore the Mandarin language has never changed. There is an interesting linguistic study of the Mandarin language that shows how the different characters depict Genesis events. If the Tower of Babel event occurred many thousands of years ago, then humans haven't basically evolved over that time, except for regional and racial characteristics that could easily be explained by the development of natural genetics to produce the different types of humans, whether caucasian, negroid, or asian. But all these retained the basic characteristics that makes them human. There have never been any discoveries of full mummified bodies of half human half ape beings, except the ones that have been revealed as frauds.

 

[pitabread]

Because although there are a lot of indications that evolution might be feasible, there are too many unproven gaps in it for it to be recognised as scientific fact. It still remains as a theory, so for those who are convinced that evolution is fact in spite of the serious gaps in scientific knowledge about it, have to exercise a certain type of faith that some time in the future, further scientific discoveries will prove them right.

I'll leave aside the rest of your post for now (I'm sure more than a couple folks here will pick it apart).

But how do reconcile your claim that evolution is so apparently tentative by your own words with the fact that it has real-world application in various fields of applied biology (agriculture, medical research/pharmacology, conservation biology, etc)?

I mean, if evolutionary theory is so completely flawed as you are suggesting, wouldn't scientists in these fields want something better? Especially considering there are real-world companies literally basing their work on evolutionary biology.

I know I've brought this up with you before and you haven't acknowledged it, so I'm wondering how you can reconcile these apparently contradictory notions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because although there are a lot of indications that evolution might be feasible, there are too many unproven gaps in it for it to be recognised as scientific fact. It still remains as a theory, so for those who are convinced that evolution is fact in spite of the serious gaps in scientific knowledge about it, have to exercise a certain type of faith that some time in the future, further scientific discoveries will prove them right.

In the world of science a theory is as good as it gets. In fact the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution just as the theory of gravity explains gravity.

What are these supposed "gaps". Creationists keep claiming that they exist but they have never been able to show that they exist.

For example: You know the picture of the development of man through the stages of the ape through to modern man. Now, if someone found mummified bodies of all these intermediate stages buried in the ice of Antarctica or Alaska, then that would be a major discovery. But it is interesting to note that 5000 year old Egyptian mummies show fully formed human beings exactly the same as those today, so the human race has not evolved very much in the last 5000 years. Also scientists have found fossilised insects and plants exactly the same as their modern varieties and yet these fossilised ones have been dated at nearly a million years old, and yet they have not evolved at all.

I have to break this up for you. Not much evolution at all is expected to happen in 5,000 years. The oldest Homo sapiens found to date is close to 300,000 years old, but there are noticeable differences.

And no, plants and insects are very similar to modern ones, but one cannot claim that they are exactly the same. And so what? If an organism is well adapted to its environment there is very little evolutionary pressure on it. Change is not expected in those cases. So far the only "gaps" that you have shown are in your understanding.

There have never been anything like half plant half animal or half insect half animal every discovered.

How would you know? You don't even know what the first "animal" species were. If you look at Ediacaran life you will see animals that look a lot like plants.

That means there is no evidence of one species of plant, insect or animal crossing over to another.

What? This is a strawman. And of course there is evidence. You do not understand what the eivdence is.

Geneticists have discovered that all human beings have originated from one original pair of human beings.

No, this is simply wrong. There never were only two human beings. And Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve never knew each other. Even at their times there were thousands of people. You simply misunderstood a concept.

We don't now how long ago the Tower of Babel happened, but the traditional Chinese language which is a picture language depicts different Genesis events, that show the Chinese did not consider the Genesis record a myth but as a series of real events. The Chinese Mandarin language has never been influence by other languages because of their isolation over the thousands of years since their migration from the Middle East to China and therefore the Mandarin language has never changed. There is an interesting linguistic study of the Mandarin language that shows how the different characters depict Genesis events. If the Tower of Babel event occurred many thousands of years ago, then humans haven't basically evolved over that time, except for regional and racial characteristics that could easily be explained by the development of natural genetics to produce the different types of humans, whether caucasian, negroid, or asian. But all these retained the basic characteristics that makes them human. There have never been any discoveries of full mummified bodies of half human half ape beings, except the ones that have been revealed as frauds.

Okay, let's clean up this last mess and move on. No, the claims about the Chinese language were made by a person that had a minimal understanding of the topic. All of his claims are wrong. And there was no "Tower of Babel". Language formation is very well understood.

Lastly you are an ape. So of course all human fossils are also ape fossils.

Now if you want details on any of your errors I will be happy to support all of my claims with valid sources.

I know that you can't support any of yours.

By the way. You did not find any "gaps". I am still waiting for those.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

In the world of science a theory is as good as it gets. In fact the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution just as the theory of gravity explains gravity.

What are these supposed "gaps". Creationists keep claiming that they exist but they have never been able to show that they exist.



I have to break this up for you. Not much evolution at all is expected to happen in 5,000 years. The oldest Homo sapiens found to date is close to 300,000 years old, but there are noticeable differences.

And no, plants and insects are very similar to modern ones, but one cannot claim that they are exactly the same. And so what? If an organism is well adapted to its environment there is very little evolutionary pressure on it. Change is not expected in those cases. So far the only "gaps" that you have shown are in your understanding.



How would you know? You don't even know what the first "animal" species were. If you look at Ediacaran life you will see animals that look a lot like plants.



What? This is a strawman. And of course there is evidence. You do not understand what the eivdence is.



No, this is simply wrong. There never were only two human beings. And Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve never knew each other. Even at their times there were thousands of people. You simply misunderstood a concept.



Okay, let's clean up this last mess and move on. No, the claims about the Chinese language were made by a person that had a minimal understanding of the topic. All of his claims are wrong. And there was no "Tower of Babel". Language formation is very well understood.

Lastly you are an ape. So of course all human fossils are also ape fossils.

Now if you want details on any of your errors I will be happy to support all of my claims with valid sources.

I know that you can't support any of yours.

By the way. You did not find any "gaps". I am still waiting for those.

Newton Murphy's theory of gravity consists in what falls on your head when seagulls are flying over.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Newton Murphy's theory of gravity consists in what falls on your head when seagulls are flying over.

Newton's laws were proven to be wrong. You need to get up to date.


You really need to quit making personal attacks. The observation of the fact that you are extremely uneducated in the sciences is not a personal attack, especially when it comes with an offer to help you.

You can learn. Why are you so afraid?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Newton's laws were proven to be wrong. You need to get up to date.


You really need to quit making personal attacks. The observation of the fact that you are extremely uneducated in the sciences is not a personal attack, especially when it comes with an offer to help you.

You can learn. Why are you so afraid?

I thought the "you" messages are coming from others. They are not coming from me. All I do is to state what I believe, and what I have said is fair debate. But there have been many "you" messages directed at me, so where do you think the personal comments are coming from then? (And I used "you" in the form of a question).