Science vs. Evolution

[Hespera]

Considering the massive amounts of Disinformation being spread by people like ben stein and kent hovind, the fact even uninformed agnostics and atheists start to have doubts proves nothing but the effectiveness of propaganda. (And, to be quite fair, it shows the lack of proper education on the subject which is not their fault but schools)

It is ofcourse quite good to question everything, it is encouraged and should be. the problem is the missinformation taking advantage of peoples willingness to question and missconcieved ideas of fairness like "teach both"

even uninformed agnostics and atheists

yes, and uninformed religious, like Cass here, who no doubt is sincere and well meaning, but has listened to the wrong voices.

Cass nor anyone else can find any actual flaw in the ToE.

 

[Split Rock]

I have a brother (non-Christian, nor apart of any religion) who doesn't believe in evolution. In fact i know many, also Michael Denton famous author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis is an Agnostic.

Evolution is being questioned by many non-religious, not only fundamental Christians who believe in creation.

Denton has reversed his position on biological evolution and abiogenesis, with his more recent book: "Nature's Destiny. How the Laws of Biology reveal Purpose in the Universe." Interestingly, he cites new evidence for changing his mind about evolution.
Nature's Destiny. (Michael Denton). (1)

I do wonder how much your brother knows about evolution and the evidence supporting the theory..

 

[AV1611VET]

Considering the massive amounts of Disinformation being spread by people like ben stein and kent hovind, the fact even uninformed agnostics and atheists start to have doubts proves nothing but the effectiveness of propaganda. (And, to be quite fair, it shows the lack of proper education on the subject which is not their fault but schools)

It is ofcourse quite good to question everything, it is encouraged and should be. the problem is the missinformation taking advantage of peoples willingness to question and missconcieved ideas of fairness like "teach both"

You mean like Pluto being called a planet 76 years too soon?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

You mean like Pluto being called a planet 76 years too soon?

I never did understand how anybody could have mistaken pluto for a planet that long

 

[AV1611VET]

I never did understand how anybody could have mistaken pluto for a planet that long

The thing is though -- ↑ this guy -- is still Pluto.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

The thing is though -- ↑ this guy -- is still Pluto.

psssssst... Pluto is still Pluto

 

[AV1611VET]

psssssst... Pluto is still Pluto

It seems to have lost a number though (9).

 

[Cassiterides]

Cass nor anyone else can find any actual flaw in the ToE.

There are obviously many flaws with it, probably the most well known one - how life started. Darwin in his Origin of Species, never actually answered where life started or came from, or how it did. Evolutionists can never answer those questions. Mostly evolutionists will say their theory doesn't adress the question of origins, but clearly this is false. They teach Humans came from apes, fish or whatever but can only reduce us to a tiny cell. Where did this cell come from? They never can answer.

Also evolutionists can't explain the existence of the conscience which is not matter.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are obviously many flaws with it, probably the most well known one - how life started. Darwin in his Origin of Species, never actually answered where life started or came from, or how it did. Evolutionists can never answer those questions. Mostly evolutionists will say their theory doesn't adress the question of origins, but clearly this is false. They teach Humans came from apes, fish or whatever but can only reduce us to a tiny cell. Where did this cell come from? They never can answer.

Also evolutionists can't explain the existence of the conscience which is not matter.

Do you really want evolutionists explaining this stuff?

 

[Cassiterides]

Do you really want evolutionists explaining this stuff?

Yes, since they are so ignorant they think they have all the answers but when asked how life started they say they don't have a clue, this even includes militant atheistical-evolutionists like Richard Dawkins who has admitted repeatedly ''he doesn't know''.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Yes, since they are so ignorant they think they have all the answers but when asked how life started they say they don't have a clue, this even includes militant atheistical-evolutionists like Richard Dawkins who has admitted repeatedly ''he doesn't know''.

So, how did life start?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, since they are so ignorant they think they have all the answers but when asked how life started they say they don't have a clue, this even includes militant atheistical-evolutionists like Richard Dawkins who has admitted repeatedly ''he doesn't know''.

Well, I don't think you're going to get too many here that will admit they "don't know"; instead, you're pushing for a lecture from them on how far abiogenesis is detached from evolution.

I love asking them how the angels somehow were able to bypass this abiogenesis/evolution doctrine.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, how did life start?

By divine fiat -- from The Life, Himself.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Well, I don't think you're going to get too many here that will admit they "don't know"; instead, you're pushing for a lecture from them on how far abiogenesis is detached from evolution.

I love asking them how the angels somehow were able to bypass this abiogenesis/evolution doctrine.

We don't know how life started AV. Still one of the great mysteries. Give us a break though, look how much we have learned over the last 150 years.

I've never seen an angel AV, have you? I have never seen evidence for an angel, have you?

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't know how life started AV.

I do.

Still one of the great mysteries.

No, it's not -- a child can explain it.

Give us a break though, look how much we have learned over the last 150 years.

You get credit for doing your job, yes; and for that, I'm thankful.

I've never seen an angel AV, have you?

Not that I know of -- but in the next dispensation I will.

I have never seen evidence for an angel, have you?

Me personally, no.

I've never been to Israel, but if they have found Jesus' [empty] tomb, and the stone rolled away, then I have to say others have see evidence.

You know why, don't you?

 

[Split Rock]

There are obviously many flaws with it, probably the most well known one - how life started. Darwin in his Origin of Species, never actually answered where life started or came from, or how it did. Evolutionists can never answer those questions. Mostly evolutionists will say their theory doesn't adress the question of origins, but clearly this is false. They teach Humans came from apes, fish or whatever but can only reduce us to a tiny cell. Where did this cell come from? They never can answer.

Also evolutionists can't explain the existence of the conscience which is not matter.

The theory of evolution explains the origin of species, or you can say it explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth. It does not explain the origin of life, nor does it attempt to. Why is that a problem? Let's say I accept that God created the first primitive life form on earth. Would you be OK with that life form evolving into every other organism on earth? How would that affect the theory of evolution?

As far as conscience is concerned, it is a product of the brain.

Yes, since they are so ignorant they think they have all the answers but when asked how life started they say they don't have a clue, this even includes militant atheistical-evolutionists like Richard Dawkins who has admitted repeatedly ''he doesn't know''.

I wouldn't say that we don't have a clue.. rather, there are a number of hypotheses that have been put foward that have promise, and are currently being tested and refined.

Now let me ask you a question, and lets see if you have "a clue." How can you tell if your interpretation of scripture concerning man's origins is correct?

 

[Hespera]

There are obviously many flaws with it, probably the most well known one - how life started. Darwin in his Origin of Species, never actually answered where life started or came from, or how it did. Evolutionists can never answer those questions. Mostly evolutionists will say their theory doesn't adress the question of origins, but clearly this is false. They teach Humans came from apes, fish or whatever but can only reduce us to a tiny cell. Where did this cell come from? They never can answer.

Also evolutionists can't explain the existence of the conscience which is not matter.

Oh my....the origin of life, dear friend, is not part of the ToE.
its about the fact that living things have adapted and changed over the years.

That is not a flaw! Its a misunderstanding on your part. Tho, id bet a dolalr you will keep on saying this same wrong thing.

How do you know that science can never answer certain questions? You jsut made that up.

it is true that the study of evolution will never give us all the answers to the history of life. no amount of study will give us the complete history of world war two either. So......? that means no study of it has any valididty, or what?

Life forms have changed dramatically over a span of many millions of years.
Talk all you like about conscience that fact will remain, and the fact that evolution has taken place will remain.

speaking of conscience, since you brought it up, does it ever bother yours to make up things that are not true, and then say them as if they were facts?

Start with you statement that there are "many flaws'. You did not identify any yet.

 

[Split Rock]

I love asking them how the angels somehow were able to bypass this abiogenesis/evolution doctrine.

That's because you love asking ridiculous questions.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

There are obviously many flaws with it, probably the most well known one - how life started. Darwin in his Origin of Species, never actually answered where life started or came from, or how it did. Evolutionists can never answer those questions. Mostly evolutionists will say their theory doesn't adress the question of origins, but clearly this is false. They teach Humans came from apes, fish or whatever but can only reduce us to a tiny cell. Where did this cell come from? They never can answer.

Also evolutionists can't explain the existence of the conscience which is not matter.

Alright, lets compare two phrases and play spot the difference.
1- The origin of species
2- The origin of life
These are seperate for a reason. The same explaination that works for one. does not work for the other as its not the same subject.

The origin of species deals with what toke place that we have so many different species. Namely evolution, which is well evidenced and we understand how this works.

The origin of life deals with how life came to be on earth. There is no shortage of hypothesis of how it might have happend some better then others. The trick is though we dont have enough evidence to settle this matter so we honestly say "we dont know yet", which doesnt mean we dont have any idea but only that we cannot say which idea is correct.

If you are interested in knowing some of these hypothesis thats possible.

Just for fun ill give you a random answer, life started on earth when a unknown entity seeded life here. There you go now you wont have to go around saying you never got one

In recap, its not that we dont have answers that are possible. Its that we care about giving the correct one.

I do have to give you points though for understanding that evolution only talks about life and not the solarsystem forming, which seems to be a common missunderstanding. You just have to realize that species and life are just as seperate in theory as take for example..

A murder case.
You have a dead victem and you find out what killed them and how long they been dead.
Now you have the cause of death.

You do not know who killed the victem. But that is seperate from knowing how the victem died. No dective is going to say "well I dont know who killed the victem so i cant possibly know if the knife in the chest was the cause"

Edit:
Note to self, type faster -.-

 

[Cassiterides]

The theory of evolution explains the origin of species, or you can say it explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth. It does not explain the origin of life, nor does it attempt to. Why is that a problem? Let's say I accept that God created the first primitive life form on earth. Would you be OK with that life form evolving into every other organism on earth? How would that affect the theory of evolution?

My point was that the theory of evolution stops at the cell. By cell i mean evolutionists ultimately believe we started as a cell or something as small, but they can't explain anything before that. This is clearly a flaw since evolution can not answer what created the cell.

Since evolutionists start at the cell, they must believe in a form of creationism? Since they accept the cell could not have evolved because there could be nothing smaller to have evolved from.

As far as conscience is concerned, it is a product of the brain.

It's not material though, so this is all out of the realm of science.

Now let me ask you a question, and lets see if you have "a clue." How can you tell if your interpretation of scripture concerning man's origins is correct?

Well there arn't really different intepretations on the scripture regarding the creation, there is just different interpretations on the time involved hence why you have Old, Gap, Progressive and Young Creationists but all accept the creation account. The dispute of time only happened in the 19th century when men like Hutton and Lyell put forward their ideas of old earth geology, this then converted many Young Earther's to believe in Old Earth Creationism.