Problems with the theory of evolution

[LorentzHA]

So what, ur saying that chemistry has a mind of it's own and created life?

Ever had a basic Chemistry class? Ever watched a reaction take place? Especially one producing a color change or yielding a precipitate? How in the world does it do that without a "mind of its own"?

 

[Charles Darwin]

Thus, evolution screwed up. I would rather be a "Dumb" animal than a "Smart" human.

Youre almost there, just turn into an animal and presto!

God used tools of the created "Earth" to create the things that were to inhabit it. You wouldn't use tree bark to fix a machine. Likewise, you wouldn't use it to make one.

Ever watched Natural Science on PBS? Basically take 5 people, each a specialist in a certain field adn give them certain things to make (last episode was a phonograph) using only stuff on the island.

It is coincidental that apes and humans have similar bone structures and not safe to assume that humans are an expression of apes. This theory of evolution has always amused me.

Please show me why there is no way that they could be similar. Afterwards I will find a couple links to transitional fossils and if thats not enough, Jet Black and luscaspa have a library worth of sources that i'm sure they would be happy to show you. Thanks , the ease of responding to your post amused me

 

[LorentzHA]

They refuse to believe anything they can't explain or understand fully. In reality, their faith is in their own intellect.

Good description of creationists.

And so they explain the existence of life on this solitary planet, amidst the millions of lifeless stars and planets in outer space, as simply the result of chance: "It just happened," they say Now THAT takes faith!

Now, tell me, how is it that you know no life exists anywhere else? Our nine planets and star are not the Universe.

Have you ever seen where our solar system sits in our own Galaxy. We are a speck on one of the outer edges of one of the pinwheel arms of the MilkyWay Galaxy and there are Billions of other galaxies! In our own galaxy alone we have recently discovered over 170 planets orbiting other stars, similar to our own Sun...and we have only discovered 170 because they are like a grain of sand next to their star. Are you speaking from: knowledge, fear, wishful thinking or ignorance?

See the Wilde Quote in my sig line.

 

[ForeRunner]

Don't insult high school biology, I learned about evolution in grade school biology. Of course I would devour dinosaur books before I was even in kindegarten.

 

[LorentzHA]

Don't insult high school biology, I learned about evolution in grade school biology. Of course I would devour dinosaur books before I was even in kindegarten.

No not an insult at all. Wondering how they conclude evolution is "false" without any higher education in the subject?

 

[AV1611VET]

According to the Bible atheistic evolutionists are fools. Psalm 14 says, "The fool has said it in his heart, 'There is no God.'" These people accept evolution as a fact even though there are many, many questions it cannot answer. These questions shatter the theory of atheistic evolution. Consider some of the questions which atheistic evolution must answer to prove itself true-

1) If man's '1st ancestor' the cell, began by chance, why is it that all life since then has order and purpose? All physical life depends on fixed laws to keep it going. Take away laws and life would not last. This order and purpose in living things today proves that it did not begin by chance millions of years ago.

2) If a complex computer must have a maker, how is it that man, who is far more complex that a mere computer, needs no maker?

3) Why is it that so many scientists who believe in evolution disagree in the way it came about? There is no disagreement among scientists about real facts of science. They do not argue about the fact that fire needs oxygen or that the earth travels around the sun.

4) The theory of evolution is based partly on the way animals are grouped or classified. But not all scientists group animals in identical classes, nor do they all agree as to how they should be grouped. If evolution is to be proven by the orderly grouping of animals, and scientists cannot agree upon the groupings, how then can it be accepted as a fact?

5) The earth's fossils show some change within certain species. But other species have not changed at all in millions of years. How is this to be explained?

6) If life began by chance, why is evolution based upon an orderly selective process?

7) What really logical and satisfactory argument can be given for all the missing links between the fossils?

There are many more questions which the atheistic evolutionist could be asked which could not be answered with satisfaction. There questuions are enough, however, to show that evolution is only a theory and not a fact.

Good post -- and although they don't know how life started, they still call it "science"; and want us to believe it too!

In my opinion, they don't need to be calling what they believe 'science', and what we believe 'religion'.

 

[AV1611VET]

No not an insult at all. Wondering how they conclude evolution is "false" without any higher education in the subject?

We don't need a higher education.

We've got 5-year-olds that can look an evolutionist right in the eyes and tell him evolution is wrong.

 

[timatter]

"We don't need a higher education."
Do you realize you just posted on a forum that has been inactive for almost 8 years?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I knew it, the second I saw this thread title all the way from the physical&life sciences board I knew it was an AV necro.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you realize you just posted on a forum that has been inactive for almost 8 years?

-- Who, me?

You mean like I did here:

The fowled bat, possibly a Pterodactyl, is an animal that has scientists scratching themselves to death trying to figure out.

It was placed off-limits to culinary activity in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

 

[Split Rock]

Good post -- and although they don't know how life started, they still call it "science"; and want us to believe it too!

What is "it?"

In my opinion, they don't need to be calling what they believe 'science', and what we believe 'religion'.

Here's the simple answer for you: What scientists do for a living is science. What you get out of an old holy book is religion. Done. Wasn't that easy?

We don't need a higher education.

No comment.

We've got 5-year-olds that can look an evolutionist right in the eyes and tell him evolution is wrong.

And we also have 5-year-olds who can look a creationist right in the eyes and tell him there is an Easter Bunny. Really, why do you continue to use this as some kind of an argument?? I guess according to you, we should have scientists get their theories from 5 year olds.....

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess according to you, we should have scientists get their theories from 5 year olds.....

I won't even dignify this with a response.

 

[British Bulldog]

I won't even dignify this with a response.

This is one of your stock phrases when you have no answer.

 

[Skaloop]

We don't need a higher education.

We've got 5-year-olds that can look an evolutionist right in the eyes and tell him evolution is wrong.

Yeah, but not why. And by 'why', I mean they don't know why it's wrong, why they are telling him it's wrong, or why they were told to tell him it's wrong. They're just saying it.

 

[Skaloop]

In my opinion, they don't need to be calling what they believe 'science', and what we believe 'religion'.

I've recognized this soundbite snippet as a new AV catchphrase from the beginning, and I've now seen it enough to confirm that. But unlike something like his previous "Science can take a hike" this one actually has the effect of equating something he abhors, science, with something he loves, religion. He's souring his own beliefs in an attempt to deride that which opposes them.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've recognized this soundbite snippet as a new AV catchphrase from the beginning, and I've now seen it enough to confirm that. But unlike something like his previous "Science can take a hike" this one actually has the effect of equating something he abhors, science, with something he loves, religion. He's souring his own beliefs in an attempt to deride that which opposes them.

Wrong.

 

[Skaloop]

Wrong.

Not based on your attitude towards it. Yes, I know you say you "hold it to a higher standard" and think "scientists are a gift from god" but you then limit that to the bits you like, such as the computer, while denying all the science you don't like.

So yeah, maybe not abhor, I'll grant you that. But it's still not a term of endearment telling something to take a hike.

 

[Phred]

Good post -- and although they don't know how life started, they still call it "science"; and want us to believe it too!

In my opinion, they don't need to be calling what they believe 'science', and what we believe 'religion'.

Oh AV... you just want the rules changed. You want us to agree that science is the same as religion so you can sit back and be satisfied that what you believe is as valid as what we know. That's all this is. It's trying to equate faith and knowledge as the same thing.

Only you'll never let that happen. You'll never publish your ideas and let them be reviewed by others whose goal is to find them false. Because your ideas can be found false. There's nothing to prove them true. Unlike scientific hypothesis which must have data behind them. No wonder you want to make science take a hike. The standard of proof just makes you look foolish.

But then you turn around and use scientific facts to try and establish the Bible as true. If science is so invalid why do you use it every chance you get?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not based on your attitude towards it. Yes, I know you say you "hold it to a higher standard" and think "scientists are a gift from god" but you then limit that to the bits you like, such as the computer, while denying all the science you don't like.

So yeah, maybe not abhor, I'll grant you that. But it's still not a term of endearment telling something to take a hike.

Just either admit you're wrong or you're right, eh?

I don't need a roadmap.

 

[AV1611VET]

But then you turn around and use scientific facts to try and establish the Bible as true.

You're lucky I can't find it, but [I think] Jazer asked that if science could corroborate the Bible, would I be for science, and I said NO.

Here's something I found along that line:

I don't agree.

If they found Noah's Ark, it would just make matters worse, as scientists would just get in there and either deny it was the Ark, or "discover" something that would contradict the Bible in some way (like it being made of maple wood, or some such nonsense).

And I have no doubt that they would date it to BC 50,000 or longer.

This is why I think God, in His wisdom, didn't leave evidence lying around all over the place.

To make a long story short -- you're wrong about me -- (as usual).