Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

[JacksBratt]

How so?

Because it requires an outside force, a designer, a creator.

 

[lasthero]

I'm going to pull a card of our famous "loudmouth" here and ask for some evidence of these higher paid jobs for doing far less...... hot air as far as I'm concerned.

1. The president of AIG, Ken Ham, earned an annual salary of approximately $150,000 and a total package of around $200,000, which I think is not out of line for the president of a company with approximately $20 million of revenue (Schedule J, Part II). Four of Ham’s children, his son-in-law, his brother, and his sister-in-law are listed as staff members, with annual salaries between approximately $1300 and nearly $80,000 (Schedule L, Part IV).


https://skepticalteacher.wordpress....-financial-news-for-ken-hams-creation-museum/

It's also worth noting that Ken Ham has a 'museum' and various other little projects going on. This is not a man who lives in the poor house.

The Raytractors - Ray Comfort's Detractors: The Piety of Ray - A Little Web Sleuthing

This is from a blog, but the information it cites is all online.

Ray's compensation from living waters has increased as the org's monies have increased. In 2004, when the org had only $300 on the books, Ray took no money. This inclines me to believe that Ray also has other methods of income that are not affiliated with Living Waters. Book sales and speaking engagements perhaps? Can't say for sure, but I can speculate.
In 2005, when LW took in 2.4 million, Ray's compensation jumped up to $50,000.
In 2006 Ray was compensated with $119,784. 120k!! I am working my ass off in college to become a chemical engineer. The average salary for a 20 yr veteran chem. eng. is only 100k. I can't believe that some mustached schmuck, hocking bible tracts marked up 137%, is earning more than I prospectively ever will.

The people that want evolution promoted? Really? How about the ACLU, the Smithsonian, the people who pay all the grants and bursaries to fund all the "research", the boards of the universities that fire or drastically demote the professors if the stand up against this myth.

But you're not answering the question. You're pointing at 'who'. I'm asking 'why'? If they know its a myth, what do they gain from supporting it.

And the ACLU? What?

Not long after a student from Loomis Basin Charter School (LBCS) invited her two friends to a Creation seminar held off campus, school officials became livid, summonsing her to the principal's office four times in the same day in order to force her into writing a "confession" of what she had done.


TWO headteachers at a Scottish primary school who allowed members of a US creationist Christian religious sect into classrooms have been removed from their posts, it emerged last night.

Where are you citing these from?

In most cases, the reason they hate anything anti-evolution is because it is pro creation and anything pro creation is pro bible and if it is pro bible it is deemed religious and therefore unacceptable.

Okay...but you're stating they know evolution is a myth. They're aware of this. In which case they're really creationists...who are fighting to stop...creationism...

Heaven forbid the truth get out and it may mean that the Bible was right. That would mean there may be a God......Oh no!!!

But there are plenty of people who believe in God AND accept evolution. So, what?They don't count?

Stomp out the truth at all cost. It may mean I am accountable to a superior being.

But if you believe the superior being exists anyway, stomping out the truth doesn't change that, so...

And the Smithsonian Institute is funding millions of scientists and has such a grip on their paychecks that they can influence every single one of them? And again, even if that were true, what's the consequence of admitting evolution is lie and going to work for the creationists? They do make money. Organizations like the Discovery Institute are given very generous donations.

Discovery Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bhsmte]

Because it requires an outside force, a designer, a creator.

Demonstrate to us why.

 

[whois]

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech

thanks for the link.
you will notice that this is per gram, not the actual size of human DNA.
still a great link though.

 

[AV1611VET]

We are already in the tribulation period.

No

 

[JacksBratt]

Why?

You tell me. Why would they want to hide the truth, distort the facts, file the teeth in a skull to make it look like something its not?

I don't get it either. Scientists are supposed to be unbiased and present the truth that they find as they find it. A professional is supposed to observe and report. Not go "holy crap, what if this gets out, wheres my hammer and eraser"?

I could guess that if evolution is not true, has huge flaws, then the only thing they have left is creation....

I bet, soon as some other genius comes up with an even mildly speculatory better idea than evolution, that is not based on Biblical scripture.... it will spread and be promoted and evolution will be that mistake of the 1900's.

My money is on the whole UFO alien thing. You know, we were planted or seeded here by aliens and they are going to come back and finish the whole deal and move us on to the wonders of their technology.

After all, that would explain all the unexplainable things that exist on this earth that we can't even do today due to technology we haven't got yet. Or have just acquired the technology for recently.

 

[justlookinla]

I have heard this before, However, has there been a 7 year peace deal been signed with God's people?

Has the "one who restrains" been removed?

I think that the tribulation that is a spoke of with scripture like "time times and half a time" is speaking of is still yet to begin.

Off topic, but the bible doesn't mention a 7 year peace deal.

 

[Split Rock]

You know, I have heard this argument about what "science" does and doesn't do so often here. The definition of "science" and what it proves or the fact that it "proves" nothing, is presented here over and over.

Who really knows what the definition of "science" is and what does it matter?

The fact is...... fossils are a static piece of data that show what a particular creature had for bones. It is anyone's guess as to what that creature had for parents and all you know for sure is that it had some.
You cannot say what it's great great great grandfather was or it's great great great grand kid was. You cannot even tell if it had kids, brothers or sisters.

The information from a fossil is limited, in fact, greatly limited.

It is not just a fossil, it is where the fossil is found. Paleontologists use a principle called Stratigraphy. Look it up.

So, what definition of "science" that you want to present has no bearing on the amount of information that you can learn from a bone, pile of bones or what ever. Taking it beyond the absolute facts is extrapolation, speculation, interpretation, assumptions and in most cases a pipe dream at best. You have taken it out of the realm of any form of science and put it into guessing.

Extrapolation, yes... even some speculation and interpretation. It is called inference. Many inferences turn out to be wrong. Evolution is just not one of those.

The fact that some dude has a bunch of letters after his name does not mean that in some miraculous way, he can see into the past to see what this creature had for ancestors. Nor can he extrapolate what happened to the creatures offspring. It's a guess, period.

No what it means is he/she has studied what you guys are sitting at your computer speculating about based on nothing but your own biases and religious dogma.. not to mention fear. Juvie said it best, when he claimed that if evolution were true, he would loss his faith in God. That is what you are afraid of.

If you gather 1,000,000 million of these dudes together and they agree, it still doesn't magically create a fact out of a guess. Truth is not proven by a democracy.

No, science is not a democracy. In science if you make a conclusion, you had better be prepared to defend it with facts. Not all opinions or ideas are treated equally. If you can't back it up, you will get trashed.

As far as someone presenting a criticism of these guesses, it happens from time to time. The critic is promptly discredited for being a creationist and therefore, biased. Meanwhile, everyone of the egg heads promoting the assumption are also biased.

In science we use criticism and peer review to counter biases. we tear into each other with a rigor that would make most creationists here cry. In creationism, all ideas are treated the same, because there is no way to differentiate the reality of any of them. Creationists also tend to a "big tent" approach where you all fight "the good fight" for Jesus against evil man-made science.

There is an unspoken, unmerited, unprofessional, unscientific, and unmentionable opression on those who speak out against the theory of evolution.

Bull. Like I said, in science we deal with criticism all the time. You guys can't stand the slightest amount without crying, "I'm being oppressed!!" "I'm being persecuted!" "Ad Hominem attack!!"

Truth is being squashed in order to keep the theory of evolution on life support.

Bull once again. Your narrow-minded interpretation of scripture is not "Truth."

 

[justlookinla]

Demonstrate to us why.

Complexity + functionality + information = design.

 

[lasthero]

You tell me. Why would they want to hide the truth, distort the facts, file the teeth in a skull to make it look like something its not?

I know, right?Your conspiracy theory makes no sense. That's not a good point for you.

I could guess that if evolution is not true, has huge flaws, then the only thing they have left is creation....

But they already HAVE creation. You're basically saying that they're creationists who are trying to promote evolution, because...reasons.

I bet, soon as some other genius comes up with an even mildly speculatory better idea than evolution, that is not based on Biblical scripture.... it will spread and be promoted and evolution will be that mistake of the 1900's.

Darwin's finding go back to the 1800s. Funnily enough, there were guys that talked like you even back then.

My money is on the whole UFO alien thing. You know, we were planted or seeded here by aliens and they are going to come back and finish the whole deal and move us on to the wonders of their technology.

That idea's been around for a while, and it's not taken much more seriously than creationism.

After all, that would explain all the unexplainable things that exist on this earth that we can't even do today due to technology we haven't got yet. Or have just acquired the technology for recently.

Such as...?

 

[Davian]

Complexity + functionality + information = design.

Absolutely useless from a scientific perspective, but let's play with that for a moment.

By those "parameters", what is not designed?

 

[Astrophile]

I would also like to say that if you line up a nice row of different skulls that seem to show that the first morphed into the last, that's fine. However, it is not a fact, it is an opinion. You cannot even say that the skull belonged to a being that had children or if it did, if they lived for a week a month or a year. You know nothing. Just that that particular being existed once

Nobody knows and nobody can prove that they know. It is all speculation.

I would say that if the early whatever or late whatever was a starfish that it's ancestor was...... a starfish.

You started by talking about 'a nice row of different skulls', perhaps referring to the well known sequence of skulls of Australopithecus and Homo, and now you are talking about starfish. I take it that you do not think that Australopithecus and Homo evolved from Ordovician or Precambrian starfish.

However, the point is that Australopithecus and Homo must have had Ordovician and Precambrian ancestors. Since we do not find fossils of Australopithecus and Homo in Ordovician or Precambrian rocks, those ancestors were not Australopithecus and Homo; they must have been something different. We do not need to know what these ancestors were; all we need to know is that they were not Australopithecus or Homo.

To give another example, I do not need to know what languages my ancestors of 500 BC spoke; all I need to know is that they did not speak English, because there was no English language at that time.

You cannot even say that the skull belonged to a being that had children or if it did, if they lived for a week a month or a year. You know nothing. Just that that particular being existed once

This is a minor point, but you should remember that very few members of a species (perhaps only one in a million) become fossils. Behind every fossil animal stand the shades of thousands or millions of members of the same species that were not fossilised. Although we cannot say that the individual owner of a fossil skull or other bone had any children, it is obviously unreasonable to infer that all of the unfossilised thousands or millions of other members of the same species died without leaving any offspring.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fact is...... fossils are a static piece of data that show what a particular creature had for bones.

The theory of evolution predicts what these bones should and shouldn't look like. Bones that fit the predictions made by the theory are evidence for that theory. The lack of bones that do not fit those predictions also helps confirm the theory.

What you are ignoring is that the theory of evolution predicts which mixtures of features you should and shouldn't see. ID doesn't do that. Creationism doesn't do that. Evolution does.

You cannot say what it's great great great grandfather was or it's great great great grand kid was.

We don't need to prove who the ancestors and descendants of a fossil are in order to evidence the theory of evolution. That is what you keep ignoring.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because it requires an outside force, a designer, a creator.

Why would life need a supernatural creator?

Before we understood how clouds form, did they need a supernatural creator?

 

[Loudmouth]

You tell me. Why would they want to hide the truth, distort the facts, file the teeth in a skull to make it look like something its not?

So says the person who has been caught doing that very thing time and again. Want to go over your Darwin quotes again?

I don't get it either. Scientists are supposed to be unbiased and present the truth that they find as they find it. A professional is supposed to observe and report. Not go "holy crap, what if this gets out, wheres my hammer and eraser"?

You are claiming that scientists are altering fossils? Really?

 

[Loudmouth]

In my opinion evolution does not touch on the origins of life because it would prove evolution seriously flawed.

If the very first life form were created by a deity, and all life evolved from that universal ancestor, what in the theory of evolution would need to change?

 

[justlookinla]

Absolutely useless from a scientific perspective, but let's play with that for a moment.

Absolutely necessary for designed machines.

By those "parameters", what is not designed?

You'd have to identify that.

 

[justlookinla]

If the very first life form were created by a deity, and all life evolved from that universal ancestor, what in the theory of evolution would need to change?

Start with the view that all life we observe today was created only by random/chance mutations.

 

[Loudmouth]

Start with the view that all life we observe today was created only by random/chance mutations.

Why can't life evolved through random mutations from a created first life form?

 

[justlookinla]

Why can't life evolved through random mutations from a created first life form?

Because God wouldn't have a goal in that scenario.