Question for Evolutionists

[Aman777]

You are so sure about your Theory of Evolution.

But is there anything about the Theory that makes you think twice or make you think, that doesn't make sense? What is it and why?

And what are the weakest parts of the Theory?

Dear Anya, The Evols here will never tell you, but I will.

Evols cannot explain HOW human intelligence got inside us, since the ONLY way to evolve is through the birth process, and NOT from long periods of time and billions of positive mutations, magically changing us from Ape to Human intelligence. They run like scalded dogs when you ask them to show you the FIRST Human from whom ALL other Humans evolved. That's the reason the ToE is wrong Scientifically. Being InComplete is an understatement since they have NO Adam, NO first Human, NO common ancestor, to evolve from.

Evols cannot explain WHY, in less than 1% of the time since prehistoric man diverged from Chimps, people have SUDDENLY gone from Caves to the Moon and back, safely. There is another reason Historically which refutes the False ToE, which is "willingly ignorant" of this Historic Fact. That's reason the ToE is False, Historically.

Evol's False Assumptions are also refuted Scripturally, since many of Evol's most precious Theories are based on Faith in Humanity's knowledge being ABOVE God's Holy Word. Much of the time their ideas are exactly opposite of God's Truth. A good example is the Scriptural Fact that Adam, the first Human, could NOT have evolved from ANY other living creature, since Adam was made Billions of years BEFORE any other living creature. Gen 2:4-7

1. The ToE is wrong Scientifically.
2. The ToE is wrong Historically.
3. The ToE is wrong Scripturally.

That's the way it is with a False Theory. It doesn't agree with any other discovered Truth. God's Truth gives us Humans a FREE CHOICE to believe the Falsehoods of the ToE or to put our Faith and Trust in God's Holy Word. Choose quickly because many of us won't be on this Earth...tomorrow. Today is the last Day in the Creation of the perfect Heaven. Today is the Day of Salvation. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[AECellini]

Aman,

what you have written is a textbook example of an argument from ignorance.

 

[Paulos23]

Nvm

 

[Golden Yak]

Aman,

what you have written is a textbook example of an argument from ignorance.

The first two points are also groaning under some misconceptions.

 

[mzungu]

Dear Anya, The Evols here will never tell you, but I will.

Evols cannot explain HOW human intelligence got inside us, since the ONLY way to evolve is through the birth process, and NOT from long periods of time and billions of positive mutations, magically changing us from Ape to Human intelligence. They run like scalded dogs when you ask them to show you the FIRST Human from whom ALL other Humans evolved. That's the reason the ToE is wrong Scientifically. Being InComplete is an understatement since they have NO Adam, NO first Human, NO common ancestor, to evolve from.

Evols cannot explain WHY, in less than 1% of the time since prehistoric man diverged from Chimps, people have SUDDENLY gone from Caves to the Moon and back, safely. There is another reason Historically which refutes the False ToE, which is "willingly ignorant" of this Historic Fact. That's reason the ToE is False, Historically.

Evol's False Assumptions are also refuted Scripturally, since many of Evol's most precious Theories are based on Faith in Humanity's knowledge being ABOVE God's Holy Word. Much of the time their ideas are exactly opposite of God's Truth. A good example is the Scriptural Fact that Adam, the first Human, could NOT have evolved from ANY other living creature, since Adam was made Billions of years BEFORE any other living creature. Gen 2:4-7

1. The ToE is wrong Scientifically.
2. The ToE is wrong Historically.
3. The ToE is wrong Scripturally.

That's the way it is with a False Theory. It doesn't agree with any other discovered Truth. God's Truth gives us Humans a FREE CHOICE to believe the Falsehoods of the ToE or to put our Faith and Trust in God's Holy Word. Choose quickly because many of us won't be on this Earth...tomorrow. Today is the last Day in the Creation of the perfect Heaven. Today is the Day of Salvation. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

So many falsehoods that I don't even know where to begin

May his almighty Noodliness forgive you for your falsehoods!

 

[Armoured]

Dear Anya, The Evols here will never tell you, but I will.

Evols cannot explain HOW human intelligence got inside us, since the ONLY way to evolve is through the birth process, and NOT from long periods of time and billions of positive mutations, magically changing us from Ape to Human intelligence. They run like scalded dogs when you ask them to show you the FIRST Human from whom ALL other Humans evolved. That's the reason the ToE is wrong Scientifically. Being InComplete is an understatement since they have NO Adam, NO first Human, NO common ancestor, to evolve from.

Evols cannot explain WHY, in less than 1% of the time since prehistoric man diverged from Chimps, people have SUDDENLY gone from Caves to the Moon and back, safely. There is another reason Historically which refutes the False ToE, which is "willingly ignorant" of this Historic Fact. That's reason the ToE is False, Historically.

Evol's False Assumptions are also refuted Scripturally, since many of Evol's most precious Theories are based on Faith in Humanity's knowledge being ABOVE God's Holy Word. Much of the time their ideas are exactly opposite of God's Truth. A good example is the Scriptural Fact that Adam, the first Human, could NOT have evolved from ANY other living creature, since Adam was made Billions of years BEFORE any other living creature. Gen 2:4-7

1. The ToE is wrong Scientifically.
2. The ToE is wrong Historically.
3. The ToE is wrong Scripturally.

That's the way it is with a False Theory. It doesn't agree with any other discovered Truth. God's Truth gives us Humans a FREE CHOICE to believe the Falsehoods of the ToE or to put our Faith and Trust in God's Holy Word. Choose quickly because many of us won't be on this Earth...tomorrow. Today is the last Day in the Creation of the perfect Heaven. Today is the Day of Salvation. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Read the OP again. You're off topic.

 

[Dizredux]

Everything is wrong scripturally is you're not using the scriptures you were given, even when you are it's still wrong.

The scriptures you use are totally dependent on where and by whom you were raised,

To a good extent this is true but I would take exception to the term "totally". The problem with an absolute statement is that it takes only one example to falsify it.

Dizredux

 

[Dizredux]

99.9% of the time is 'totally' enough for me.

I don't think this stat is correct. There are a good number of people who change religions, go to no faith and some come back to faith but not necessarily to their original one.

As a general rule however, this is more or less true people tend to subscribe to the faith they were raised in. Not necessarily by denomination but by broad classification such as Christian, Buddhist and so forth.

Dizredux

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't think this stat is correct. There are a good number of people who change religions, go to no faith and some come back to faith but not necessarily to their original one.

"A good number" could still be well within that 0.01%, though. Of the 7 billion people on the planet, 0.01% amounts to 70,000,000 apostates - that's more than the population of the UK, and could well be the actual number of apostates we see across the world. But this is pure conjecture - without hard data, I don't think we can safely say whether 99.9% is a fair figure or not.

As a general rule however, this is more or less true people tend to subscribe to the faith they were raised in. Not necessarily by denomination but by broad classification such as Christian, Buddhist and so forth.

There's probably more movement within a religion than between religions. But it'd still be interesting to see some comprehensive stats on the fluidity of religion. How likely is a Muslim in Saudi Arabia to change his religion? A Southern Baptist in deep Texas? An atheist in Britain? And, are there any trends in which religion (or lack thereof) they end up? In my experience, which is entirely subjective, most ex-Wiccans become Buddhists. Do most ex-Christians become Jews? Muslims? Atheists? Buddhists?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Dear Anya, The Evols here will never tell you, but I will.

Evols cannot explain HOW human intelligence got inside us, since the ONLY way to evolve is through the birth process, and NOT from long periods of time and billions of positive mutations, magically changing us from Ape to Human intelligence. They run like scalded dogs when you ask them to show you the FIRST Human from whom ALL other Humans evolved. That's the reason the ToE is wrong Scientifically. Being InComplete is an understatement since they have NO Adam, NO first Human, NO common ancestor, to evolve from.

Evols cannot explain WHY, in less than 1% of the time since prehistoric man diverged from Chimps, people have SUDDENLY gone from Caves to the Moon and back, safely. There is another reason Historically which refutes the False ToE, which is "willingly ignorant" of this Historic Fact. That's reason the ToE is False, Historically.

Evol's False Assumptions are also refuted Scripturally, since many of Evol's most precious Theories are based on Faith in Humanity's knowledge being ABOVE God's Holy Word. Much of the time their ideas are exactly opposite of God's Truth. A good example is the Scriptural Fact that Adam, the first Human, could NOT have evolved from ANY other living creature, since Adam was made Billions of years BEFORE any other living creature. Gen 2:4-7

1. The ToE is wrong Scientifically.
2. The ToE is wrong Historically.
3. The ToE is wrong Scripturally.

That's the way it is with a False Theory. It doesn't agree with any other discovered Truth. God's Truth gives us Humans a FREE CHOICE to believe the Falsehoods of the ToE or to put our Faith and Trust in God's Holy Word. Choose quickly because many of us won't be on this Earth...tomorrow. Today is the last Day in the Creation of the perfect Heaven. Today is the Day of Salvation. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

No, Aman, that is not correct, we can explain intelligence with evolutionary theory, and if you haven't noticed, people have been posting what they consider to be weaknesses in the theory, who agree with the theory, so stating that we will never say is blatantly false.

 

[Dizredux]

"A good number" could still be well within that 0.01%, though. Of the 7 billion people on the planet, 0.01% amounts to 70,000,000 apostates - that's more than the population of the UK, and could well be the actual number of apostates we see across the world. But this is pure conjecture - without hard data, I don't think we can safely say whether 99.9% is a fair figure or not.
There's probably more movement within a religion than between religions. But it'd still be interesting to see some comprehensive stats on the fluidity of religion. How likely is a Muslim in Saudi Arabia to change his religion? A Southern Baptist in deep Texas? An atheist in Britain? And, are there any trends in which religion (or lack thereof) they end up? In my experience, which is entirely subjective, most ex-Wiccans become Buddhists. Do most ex-Christians become Jews? Muslims? Atheists? Buddhists?

There may be more movement, at least in Christianity than you might think.

The Southern Baptists commissioned a survey and found out, to their surprise, that almost 90% of young people left the church and never came back.
Baptist Press -Family Life Council says it's time to bring family back to life - News with a Christian Perspective

The main point I am after is that it is not as simple as WayOut suggests. Simple answers to complex questions almost never work.

Dizredux

 

[PsychoSarah]

You're right, there is rarely simple answers to most questions, but when someone is prepared to believe in one god while at the same time dismissing all the other gods, questions must be asked about the sanity of the believers.

It has always been a puzzle to me why believers never ask themselves why they came to believe as they do, why should their belief be any more true than the countless other beliefs out there? why would they think that their god is real but all the others are false? has their reasoning skills been deliberately damaged in order for them to be able to believe the unbelievable?

I know, and that is why Pascal's Wager is utter trash; it assumes only one set of beliefs is possible.

 

[sfs]

"A good number" could still be well within that 0.01%, though. Of the 7 billion people on the planet, 0.01% amounts to 70,000,000 apostates - that's more than the population of the UK, and could well be the actual number of apostates we see across the world. But this is pure conjecture - without hard data, I don't think we can safely say whether 99.9% is a fair figure or not.


There's probably more movement within a religion than between religions. But it'd still be interesting to see some comprehensive stats on the fluidity of religion. How likely is a Muslim in Saudi Arabia to change his religion? A Southern Baptist in deep Texas? An atheist in Britain? And, are there any trends in which religion (or lack thereof) they end up? In my experience, which is entirely subjective, most ex-Wiccans become Buddhists. Do most ex-Christians become Jews? Muslims? Atheists? Buddhists?

Here are some (limited) statistics for the U.S.:
Faith in Flux | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

 

[Loudmouth]

Convergent evolution always leaves me flummoxed. It seems just too improbable that both Europe, America, and Australia would evolve things that look nearly identical to each other.

The marsupial/placental convergences are a bit spooky. I will agree with you there. We can simply state that this might evidence tighter constraints on fitness peaks than we previously thought, but that is really starting with the conclusion.

However, genetics does offer us a way of testing convergence, and IMHO it offers one of the best sources of evidence for evolution and one of the best refutations of the "common designer" argument.

Creationists will argue that a designer would reuse the same design, and would reuse the same gene sequences to produce those designs. Convergent evolution completely puts the smack down on that argument. Take the convergent evolution of the vertebrate and cephalopod eye. According to creationists, they should have a similar design since they look the same and operate in the same environment. Is this the case? Nope. There are major differences that separate the squid eye from the tuna eye even though they are adaptations for the same environment, and the same purpose.

Genetically, we can compare genes and find out if they match the predictions made by the same designer/same design hypothesis. For example, we can compare the cytochrome genes of placental wolves, marsupials wolves, and humans. Creationists would predict that the placental and marsupial wolves would have sequences that are closer to each other since they serve the same function. Evolution predicts that human and placental wolves will share more sequence, and be equidistant from the marsupial wolf. What do we observe? Exactly what the theory of evolution predicts, and the exact opposite of what the creationist argument predicts.

 

[Dizredux]

You're right, there is rarely simple answers to most questions, but when someone is prepared to believe in one god while at the same time dismissing all the other gods, questions must be asked about the sanity of the believers.

If you look at the section just below the name of the poster you can usually see a symbol designating religion. If you might note, I am Christian

It has always been a puzzle to me why believers never ask themselves why they came to believe as they do, why should their belief be any more true than the countless other beliefs out there?

Many do, many don't. It is an individual issue.

why would they think that their god is real but all the others are false? has their reasoning skills been deliberately damaged in order for them to be able to believe the unbelievable?

You may be skirting the rules of the forum here. I might suggest that you look at http://www.christianforums.com/t7797816/

The mods appear to enforce these fairly strictly as they should.

It is not a good thing to suggest that theist's reasoning skills are damaged, it is something you might reconsider.

Another small point, do you think that these issues have not been gone over here or that the members of the forum are not aware of them?

Take care and welcome to the forum.

Dizredux

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Let's stay on topics guys.

You are so sure about your Theory of Evolution.

But is there anything about the Theory that makes you think twice or make you think, that doesn't make sense? What is it and why?

And what are the weakest parts of the Theory?

Hmm... I'm not really sure whether this really is a "weakness" in evolutionary theory or just my own ignorance. Probably the latter.

I would say speciation. Even today people cannot agree on what actually makes a "species" - we cannot even agree on the definition. The idea is that it is the point where two separate but related popeulations become sexually incompatible; that is, when they cannot have offspring. Yet hybrids, even fertile ones, still occur quite often.

Genetics has not helped solve the problem - if anything it's made in more complex. Two separate populations which diverged millions of years ago and share far fewer genes than we would expect can still produce fertile offspring. Similarly, speciation seems to occur differently between different kingdoms: it's easier for two different species of plants to reproduce than it is for two different species of mammal, for example.

I also suspect is why many creationists try to draw a line between micro- and macro-evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Let's stay on topics guys.

Hmm... I'm not really sure whether this really is a "weakness" in evolutionary theory or just my own ignorance. Probably the latter.

I would say speciation. Even today people cannot agree on what actually makes a "species" - we cannot even agree on the definition. The idea is that it is the point where two separate but related popeulations become sexually incompatible; that is, when they cannot have offspring. Yet hybrids, even fertile ones, still occur quite often.

Genetics has not helped solve the problem - if anything it's made in more complex. Two separate populations which diverged millions of years ago and share far fewer genes than we would expect can still produce fertile offspring. Similarly, speciation seems to occur differently between different kingdoms: it's easier for two different species of plants to reproduce than it is for two different species of mammal, for example.

I also suspect is why many creationists try to draw a line between micro- and macro-evolution.

The nonexistent line, because evolution is a roughly continuous process (the speed at which change accumulates can differ).

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The nonexistent line, because evolution is a roughly continuous process (the speed at which change accumulates can differ).

I'm not so sure, and I'm speaking as a lifelong theistic evolutionist. Like I said, speciation occurs when two related populations become sexually incompatible (though that's only a rough definition). You can have related populations which have been separated for millions of years and share a smaller percetage of genes, yet can still successfully reproduce.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you're aware of an plausible explanation that accounts for metamorphosis within evolutionary theory, be my guest...?

Absence of evidence is a very weak argument against a theory. Problematic evidence is known evidence that does not fit the predictions of the theory.

We could use forensic science as an analogy. If a forensic scientist does not know the exact color of the suspect's shoes at the time of the murder, is that a problem? Not really. Not knowing this information does not make other evidence go away. If a forensic scientist finds prints on the murder weapon that do not match the suspect of victim, is that a problem? Very much so.

Stuff we are ignorant of is way behind stuff we do know as far as it relates to supporting/falsifying a theory.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm not so sure, and I'm speaking as a lifelong theistic evolutionist. Like I said, speciation occurs when two related populations become sexually incompatible (though that's only a rough definition). You can have related populations which have been separated for millions of years and share a smaller percetage of genes, yet can still successfully reproduce.

But not fertile offspring, or not without human intervention. A horse and a donkey can have offspring, but mules are infertile. Lions and tigers can have offspring, but they never do so in the wild, only in captivity when kept in close proximity.