Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Evolution

[AV1611VET]

The Bible never says "how" or by what process God performs the steady changes from the appearance of the Universe in the beginning to the present day circumstances we observe.

So why do you fight with scientists who merely add their own insights concerning the use of The Natural Laws to do this?

Those scientists wouldn't think twice about telling me I'm wrong, would they?

Can't I do the same?

 

[razeontherock]

Creationism is the belief that the universe was created -- period.

Anything after that would be a subdoctrine.

Jews are creationists, Muslims are creationists -- (insofar as they are not atheists, that is).

Yup. You'd think the folk around here would be able to grasp this?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yup. You'd think the folk around here would be able to grasp this?

Are you kidding? --

 

[Doveaman]

Creationism is the belief that the universe was created -- period.

For some reason they are trying to divide us.

There are only two alternatives: creationism and atheism -- period.

 

[Phred]

The instability of evolution, constant changed thinking, recants and falsifications of other researchers works may demonstrate the hypocritical lengths some people are prepared to go to make an invalid point.100 years of changed thinking and falsifications is not evidence..champ!

And yet you guys can't show us these supposed instances of "constant changed thinking". Reason is you'd be showing us what fools you are for pointing this out. Are we stupid for changing our minds that demons cause disease? Or for saying Pluto isn't a planet? None of this changes any of the FACTS. The facts are that there's an object orbiting the sun at a specific distance and speed. We just decided it didn't qualify as a "planet". So? I still say this is better than apologizing for obvious mistakes in a 4,000 year old text and pretending it's perfect when it is not.

The bible contains so many scientific accuracies that it would be stupid to suggest any were erraneous.

Pi is not 3. The Bible says it is. Rabbits don't chew cud. The Bible says they do. There are no four legged insects. The Bible says there are. Bats are mammals, not birds. The Bible says they are birds. The Bible says the sun stood still. It did not. In five seconds off the top of my head there are so many scientific inaccuracies you're a fool if you claim it's perfect as it is NOT.

This is NOT the case with your researchers that have much irrefuteable evidence residing int he garbage bin of delusions past..

Yes, and we've admitted it and moved on. You haven't. You're wrong, you've been wrong and you still contend that you're right. We get closer everytime we find a mistake. You stay just as far from the truth as you've always been.

It most certainly is supported by the evidence. Evolutionists have never observed macroevolution and the excuse is ...time.

You want a dog to change into a cat. If that happened evolution would be proven false. What you ask for would prove evolution false. No parents ever had a child they didn't recognize. The fact that you can't understand evolution doesn't make it false.

It is assumed that small adaptive changes will turn a mouse deer into a whale, or a chimp into a human...oh wait that's right it was something like a chimp..Oh wait, another change indeed now it was nothing like a chimp at all. Great science!

No, a mouse will always be a mouse. But a few million generations down the line given the right pressures and mutations a mouse may become not a mouse. A chimp will never become a human. Again, simply because you can't understand it doesn't make it false.

Too bad parents don't recognize that their little bunlde of joy is really 8% viral remnants...how cute, although ridiculous!

Is this really all you have? You can't understand it so you ridicule it?

I think this is nonsense. Neanderthal and other homo sapiens should be the same species if they can successfully interbreed. Your species definition is a sham.

Frankly, who cares what you think? You have no valid reasoning, no rationale, no thought... just dissent and ridicule.

Nothing is obvious in the fossil record other than misleading, misrepresentations and ridiculous scenarios made up to maintain the status quo. Punctuated evolution was based on the fossil gaps where a new form suddenly appears that evos bend over backwards trying to show connections for. BTW, Creationists have no problem with extinction of some species.

Today you have no problem with the extinction of species. Yesterday you creationist-types were having fits. God is perfect thus he would never create species that could go extinct. Who is changing thinking now? When faced with facts you can't refute you just change what you think and bound ahead. Ignoring that you were dead certain just a moment ago. Otherwise you're just a bunch of bullies screaming that you're right and you deserve special treatment because it's your religious belief!

No it is not a lie. New information cannot arise through Mendellian inheritance from parents, it can only be deleted or screwed up. Genes duplicate, fuse etc, genes are turned on and off but new information does not arise. However it does arise with HGT that has been shown to endogenize and epigenetic inheritance causing major somatic and reversible changes eg cecal valve in lizards.

Yes, it is a lie and you and your ilk have been shown repeated how it is a lie but you refuse to admit it. Again, who cares what you think? You're just wrong.

AV is not rambling at all. In fact survival of the fittest is a useless term. It is really the survival of the luckiest when it comes to catastrophe. What is a 'fittness' trait for survival in one landscape disaster can be the killer in another.

Oh really? I'm amazed that you're too wrapped up in your belief to see that you're making my points for me. Creature A lives in Environment A. Creature B lives in Environment B. Environment A changes to be more like Environment B. What happens? Why, most of the population of Creature A die off. But a few have a mutation that allows them to survive. They breed and the population grows again. Only now they are more like Creature B. Now Creatures A and B come in contact with each other and they are similar so they are competing for the same resources. What happens? Why didn't it happen before? Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.

So that's why Gould invented punctuated equilibrium! Is it? The fossil record comprises of examples such as Turkana Boy found over 4 years that has a femour totally unlike that of a human, chimp or gorilla and an ape head and is still upheld as a human ancestor. You call a variety of mouse deer, Indohyus, an early whale. What you have is a host of misrepresentations to sprook to as evidence.

Kitzmiller v. Dover. It stands on its own. Demolished creationism and Intelligent Design. Regardless of what you do and do not understand. Punctuated Equilibrium doesn't equate to "goddidit".

You also will believe what you want to believe despite evidence to the contrary.

Earth is at the centre of the universe..suck it up!
Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route

This is easier to understand and confirm than the convolutions of big bang theory that falls apart at the singularity and used dark matter that you know absolutly nothing about.

It is also easier to understand that something that looks just like a mouse deer is more likely to be a variety of mouse deer than a whale...Go figure!

The community also need to know things like modern bird footprints, 212myo, predate the so called ancestors and the ridiculous scenarios put forward as usual to save the day like they belong to dinosaurs with bird like feet. Very funny, but misrepresentative of the fossil evidence.
No... you're not.The community needs to be made aware of the fraudulent misrepresentations used to support evolution so they can make an informed choice rather than a bullied into mind set based on misrepresentations, biased assumptive algorithms, and non plausible scenarios.

You're wrong. You have no evidence to support your position other than wishful thinking and the Bible which isn't supported by anything other than the Bible. If you wish to present your so-called fraud by science you're welcome to do so but you'll find that the fraud was exposed by other scientists. Unlike religionists that perpetrate fraud long after it's been exposed. You parrot what you hear from other creationists and Dr. Dino. Yet you don't have the slightest idea what it all means other than you think you're right because you believe in the Bible. Only what you believe in is YOUR interpretation of the Bible, not anything else.

The community also need to be made aware that all data can be interpreted in support of creationist paradigms, including ID & YEC etc just as well, if not better, than evolution. They also need to be made aware of the contradictions and debate, rather than the gloss that ignores same.

What the community do not need are bullies telling them what they should think, particularly with the mess evolution is in at the moment.[/QUOTE]

 

[Phred]

Creationism is the belief that the universe was created -- period.

Anything after that would be a subdoctrine.

Jews are creationists, Muslims are creationists -- (insofar as they are not atheists, that is).

Not exactly and you know it. Creationism is the literal belief that the Bible is correct in its form. God, 6 days and so on. Adam and Eve. Muslims are not creationists. Jews are not creationists. Belief that the universe was created does not make one a "stick your head in the sand" creationist.

No more than you are an atheist because you don't believe in all the gods but one.

 

[AV1611VET]

For some reason they are trying to divide us.

I have a feeling they're following orders.

Know anyone in the Bible who employs divide-and-conquer tactics?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not exactly and you know it.

Yes, exactly.

Creationist movements exist among peoples with various religious perspectives such as Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity and Islam.

SOURCE

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Not proven, demonstrated, or anything but speculated.

Just because you don't understand the evidence doesn't mean it's not there.

Bacterium are still bacterium, and finches are still finches.

What you have to realize is that the terms "bacterium" and "finch" are somewhat arbitrary terms we've assigned to a very fluid tree of life. It's like in mathematics when you try to describe a continuous variable in the terms of discrete variables. It gets clunky.

But yes, what we call a bacterium now will only ever give rise to bacteria in its offspring, but this does not alter the fact that they can evolve into new species (which would remain bacteria).

I'll conceded Ev theory has shown how what you posit here is plausible, it's an interesting thought experiment, and teaching it has benefits including learning organization.

If your side of the aisle would learn to be content with that which really shouldn't be so hard, we'd see this whole thing become the non-issue it should be.

So you say it's plausible, but that it didn't happen? And that it's a no-brainer that it didn't happen?

Why should I trust you, someone who probably knows very little about biology, instead of those who have spend decades studying it?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Creationism is the belief that the universe was created -- period.

Anything after that would be a subdoctrine.

Then what's your beef with macroevolution? Why do you view it as a tool of Satan, when it could just as easily be the method that God used to do the creating?

Seriously. It's not that hard. All the scientifically-literate Christians somehow manage to reconcile the two.

 

[razeontherock]

Pi is not 3. The Bible says it is.

No it doesn't

Rabbits don't chew cud. The Bible says they do.

You're going to impose English, with today's understanding, upon Hebrew oral traditions, and then expect me to think you're smart? (Besides rabbits DO do something similar; you probably don't even know what that is, nor have you considered how this might affect the wisdom of including them in your diet, which is the point of the text, not the biological specific you're harping on)

Bats are mammals, not birds. The Bible says they are birds.

Look genius, the word for bird (fowl in the KJV) also means "winged insect."

Ya got nuttin'.

 

[razeontherock]

I have a feeling they're following orders.

Know anyone in the Bible who employs divide-and-conquer tactics?

There is a hierarchy. Is Hawking ugly enough to be at the top?

 

[razeontherock]

Just because you don't understand the evidence doesn't mean it's not there.

But yes, what we call a bacterium now will only ever give rise to bacteria in its offspring, but this does not alter the fact that they can evolve into new species (which would remain bacteria).

Evidence that all Ev we actually know about, has never passed the bounds of micro and onto macro.

So you say it's plausible, but that it didn't happen? And that it's a no-brainer that it didn't happen?

Why should I trust you, someone who probably knows very little about biology, instead of those who have spend decades studying it?

And why should I trust you when you label me a creationist? Forrest Gump has a line for your mistake there. (Oh and I do understand the evidence btw, but that's entirely off-topic for this thread)

 

[razeontherock]

Then what's your beef with macroevolution? Why do you view it as a tool of Satan

Fess up; who here has expressed the view that "macro Ev is the tool of satan?"

 

[AV1611VET]

Then what's your beef with macroevolution?

I'm not a theistic evolutionist.

 

[Split Rock]

Creationism is the belief that the universe was created -- period.

Anything after that would be a subdoctrine.

Jews are creationists, Muslims are creationists -- (insofar as they are not atheists, that is).

Yup. You'd think the folk around here would be able to grasp this?

Are you kidding? --

Yeah, and by the same token everyone here is an evolutionist as well, since we all accept that gene frequencies change in populations over time.

Yay! We all agree on everything!

Time to shut down this part of the forum...

 

[Split Rock]

Fess up; who here has expressed the view that "macro Ev is the tool of satan?"

Well, AVET and others here have claimed that "evolutionists" do the work of Satan, whether they know it or not. Also, evolution was created by Satan. So.... yeah... that would make Macro-evolution the tool of Satan.

 

[Split Rock]

For some reason they are trying to divide us.

There are only two alternatives: creationism and atheism -- period.

Well, I'm an agnostic who accepts evolution. So much for your false dichotomy.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Evidence that all Ev we actually know about, has never passed the bounds of micro and onto macro.

And that's where you're wrong. Macroevolution is defined as evolution at or above the species level, so instances of speciation are by definition instances of macroevolution.

Enjoy
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Fess up; who here has expressed the view that "macro Ev is the tool of satan?"

AV, the person who I was replying to.

QV.

(Always wanted to do that)

 

[razeontherock]

And that's where you're wrong. Macroevolution is defined as evolution at or above the species level, so instances of speciation are by definition instances of macroevolution.

As the term is used amongst creationists, macro EV refers to quite a bit bigger leap than mere speciation, and I expect you realize this. (Didn't realize the term is also actually used by biologists as well; which used it first? Maybe Cr's need to come up with their own term?)

AV, the person who I was replying to.

QV.

(Always wanted to do that)

That was 29 months ago. AV, you still saying that?

Who else here has said Ev is the tool of satan?