Why does evolution not make sense to you?

[Girder of Loins]

If something can be proven wrong, then it is not a fact. All Facts are truths, but not all truths are facts(In the sense that opinion can be considered truth, as in "the truth is that vest is ugly" that would be the truth to me, but not everyone else, so it is not a fact but saying "the vest is made from cotton" is fact and the truth at the same time.. Science is most definitely in the business to establish truth through observations, experiments et cetera.

The problem with that thinking is that all of your evidence ultimately amounts to relativity on a macro scale. We see one thing happen to another thing, and we make an observation relative to our perspective of seeing it. That is the shortcoming of science. All our classification systems, all our math, all our "knowledge" is in the end, relative to what we perceive. If we perceive gravity, cool. How do we know that miniature black holes aren't distorting the very images we see? Obviously a very "far-out" statement, but the concept remains true. We cannot know everything about the universe, and even if we do, it is relative to what we perceive. Like in that "Universe form Nothing" video, where Lawrence shows the expansion of the universe. From a top-down approach, we see it objectively. But from our limited perspective, everything is approaching the speed of light. We can only know things from our perspective, which makes that "truth" form science, subjective.

 

[Amiable16]

Your last paragraph is so ridiculously wrong its kind of sad. I literally have never heard any of these claims before. I have to ask, did you recently escape from a mental hospital. And who is the old earth creationist here?

The scientific community has concluded that enough time has passed that evolution is not only possible but that Darwins theory is an absolute fact. This is the result of false scientific proof based on the time it takes light to reach us, and the time it would take to get where we are as a result of the Big Bang. These false conclusions disregard the obvious violations of Einsteins Relativity and the Speed of Light and the obvious observation that it would be impossible to pack all the enormous amount of matter in the universe in a pinhead.

Sorry as this was a Christian forum I presumed you had a belief in God.

 

[Shane Plew]

Sorry as this was a Christian forum I presumed you had a belief in God.

And where does it say that this is a Christians only site? There is a clear option when choosing your religion for atheism and agnosticism.

 

[Girder of Loins]

And where does it say that this is a Christians only site? There is a clear option when choosing your religion for atheism and agnosticism.

The guy joined yesterday! I thought this was a Christians-only forum when I first joined!

 

[Chris Blanks]

The scientific community has concluded that enough time has passed that evolution is not only possible but that Darwins theory is an absolute fact. This is the result of false scientific proof based on the time it takes light to reach us, and the time it would take to get where we are as a result of the Big Bang. These false conclusions disregard the obvious violations of Einsteins Relativity and the Speed of Light and the obvious observation that it would be impossible to pack all the enormous amount of matter in the universe in a pinhead.

Sorry as this was a Christian forum I presumed you had a belief in God.

I would like to see sources for all of your outrageous claims. And I do not think that you have a firm grasp on how the big bang supposedly works. I also hope that you know that the big bang complies with just about every scientific principle out there. I would suggest that you do some research.

 

[Chris Blanks]

The problem with that thinking is that all of your evidence ultimately amounts to relativity on a macro scale. We see one thing happen to another thing, and we make an observation relative to our perspective of seeing it. That is the shortcoming of science. All our classification systems, all our math, all our "knowledge" is in the end, relative to what we perceive. If we perceive gravity, cool. How do we know that miniature black holes aren't distorting the very images we see? Obviously a very "far-out" statement, but the concept remains true. We cannot know everything about the universe, and even if we do, it is relative to what we perceive. Like in that "Universe form Nothing" video, where Lawrence shows the expansion of the universe. From a top-down approach, we see it objectively. But from our limited perspective, everything is approaching the speed of light. We can only know things from our perspective, which makes that "truth" form science, subjective.

I think this post is the downfall of religious people's view of science. They like to say that we cannot truly interpret what we see happening in the universe, because it is only in the scope of the human mind. I could see this argument working if science was unable to recreate what we perceive. But we can. We can create sonic black holes(traps sound instead of light), that can help us detect hawking radiation, which in turn would tell us that miniature black holes aren't distorting the images we see. Also a miniature black holes would have absolutely no effect on our images because a black holes gravitational field is still tied to its mass. We can create elements. But what I am getting at is what we perceive is what is actually going on.

 

[Girder of Loins]

Yes, but what is the bottom line of scientific truth? What is the first "Key Principle"? This has to be based on its own merits, and cannot rely on any "interpretation" based on other experiences or lifestyles or preconceptions. Regardless of anything else, it stands true. What is that, and how did we find it?

 

[Amiable16]

I would like to see sources for all of your outrageous claims. And I do not think that you have a firm grasp on how the big bang supposedly works. I also hope that you know that the big bang complies with just about every scientific principle out there. I would suggest that you do some research.

Evolutionists are constantly manipulating research and relusts to back up their claims for example the peppered moth. At the time this was seen as H.B Kettlewell was quoted as saying "If Darwin had seen this He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life's work." This turned out to be a hoax by British scientist Cyril Clarke.

Other examples include A single tooth from a wild pig used to perpertrate the belief that Nebraska man was the entire missing link between monkeys and humans.
The Orce Man in which a skull fragment drawn to what a 17 year old would have looked like 900,000 to 1,600,000 years ago which was actually from a donkey.
The denial that almost all living things appeared at one during the Cambrian Period that is now scientifically proven when creation science discovered radio halo fission in rocks, residual helium and residual 14C proven to have occurred during an accelerated radioactive decay period 6000 years ago.
The claim that Archeopteryx had reptilian features.
The belief that similar organs in different species is proof for evolution.

When we look at the interior of the sun, all heavenly bodies orbit a central gravitational point such that the centrifugal force on each body is exactly equaled by centripetal As we discuss Sunspots and nuclear reactions on the sun when we look at the interior of the sun, all heavenly bodies orbit a central gravitational point such that the centrifugal force on each body is exactly equaled by centripetal gravitational force. Gravity pulls these particles from a straight path into a circular path and the net outward or inward force is zero. The same is true of every planet in the solar system. The same is true of every 'moon' or satellite revolving about every planet, and of every star in every galaxy. And we use this law of nature to keep our satellites in space either orbiting the earth, or remaining stationery at a point above a certain location on the earth as the earth rotates. There is no proof antimatter

 

[Kirisoul]

Evolution. The crowning achievement in human history. I would like to know why most people here do not believe in this amazing discovery even with all of the proof and evidence that makes this "theory"(In some people thinking) basically a fact. So please explain to me why you don't believe in evolution and why it does not make sense to you. If you could I would also like you to explain what you believe and why it makes more sense than evolution, if it makes sense at all.
Extreme detail would be nice.

Interesting question, just don't make the assertion that all Christians don't "believe" in evolution. Evolution and Christianity don't have to conflict. It all depends on one's interpretation of Genesis or personal faith in science. The reason that macro evolution seems unlikely to some despite its scientific evidence is that it is founded on beneficial mutation of which very few definitive examples have been observed on a massive scale (for example, sickle cell anemia as a heterozygous trait can be beneficial but typically it is harmful.) This makes macro evolution seem very unlikely (though I personally think it could happen.)

Anyway, the point is, evolution, creationism, and all the other terms associated with this topic don't really matter much to me. I don't know for sure what happened to get me here (Big Bag, evolution, creation), but whatever did was God's doing.

 

[ChristianT]

I don't know for sure what happened to get me here (Big Bag, evolution, creation), but whatever did was God's doing.

Haha that's my stance, worded better than I could.

 

[GrizzlyMonKeH]

I guess I'd call myself a theistic evolutionist, but I haven't done a substantial amount of research on the subject.

I do think many Christians are wasting way too much energy on anti-evolution agendas, and I also think too many Christians/Atheists/Agnostics have the misconception that if the theory of evolution is true, it 'debunks' Christianity.

 

[Chris Blanks]

Yes, but what is the bottom line of scientific truth? What is the first "Key Principle"? This has to be based on its own merits, and cannot rely on any "interpretation" based on other experiences or lifestyles or preconceptions. Regardless of anything else, it stands true. What is that, and how did we find it?

I would say the first key principle in any theory is can that realistically happen in our universe, I am sure that scientists have a very different one that I don not know.String Theory states that anything is possible, but it is just a theory, but is one of the candidates for the "theory of everything".

Evolutionists are constantly manipulating research and relusts to back up their claims for example the peppered moth. At the time this was seen as H.B Kettlewell was quoted as saying "If Darwin had seen this He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life's work." This turned out to be a hoax by British scientist Cyril Clarke.

Other examples include A single tooth from a wild pig used to perpertrate the belief that Nebraska man was the entire missing link between monkeys and humans.
The Orce Man in which a skull fragment drawn to what a 17 year old would have looked like 900,000 to 1,600,000 years ago which was actually from a donkey.
The denial that almost all living things appeared at one during the Cambrian Period that is now scientifically proven when creation science discovered radio halo fission in rocks, residual helium and residual 14C proven to have occurred during an accelerated radioactive decay period 6000 years ago.
The claim that Archeopteryx had reptilian features.
The belief that similar organs in different species is proof for evolution.

When we look at the interior of the sun, all heavenly bodies orbit a central gravitational point such that the centrifugal force on each body is exactly equaled by centripetal As we discuss Sunspots and nuclear reactions on the sun when we look at the interior of the sun, all heavenly bodies orbit a central gravitational point such that the centrifugal force on each body is exactly equaled by centripetal gravitational force. Gravity pulls these particles from a straight path into a circular path and the net outward or inward force is zero. The same is true of every planet in the solar system. The same is true of every 'moon' or satellite revolving about every planet, and of every star in every galaxy. And we use this law of nature to keep our satellites in space either orbiting the earth, or remaining stationery at a point above a certain location on the earth as the earth rotates. There is no proof antimatter

I think that would you see as manipulations are actually just the rushing of scientists to help theories before proper testing can take place(which in everyone does, as in we all like to rush things) or someone trying to get famous. The vast majority of scientists are not like this, you would not know most scientists names until a major breakthrough is made.
As for the denial part. There is no possible way everything existed at once. Carbon dating, even with its minor flaws would disprove this. And if everything did exist at once, I would highly doubt that humans would have made it out of there alive.

Interesting question, just don't make the assertion that all Christians don't "believe" in evolution. Evolution and Christianity don't have to conflict. It all depends on one's interpretation of Genesis or personal faith in science. The reason that macro evolution seems unlikely to some despite its scientific evidence is that it is founded on beneficial mutation of which very few definitive examples have been observed on a massive scale (for example, sickle cell anemia as a heterozygous trait can be beneficial but typically it is harmful.) This makes macro evolution seem very unlikely (though I personally think it could happen.)

Anyway, the point is, evolution, creationism, and all the other terms associated with this topic don't really matter much to me. I don't know for sure what happened to get me here (Big Bag, evolution, creation), but whatever did was God's doing.

I wasn't making the assertion that all christians don't believe in evolution, but I think you would agree that a very large amount of them don't. I would say that God had very little to how you got here as in he most likely didn't as there is little chance that he exists.

 

[Chris Blanks]

I guess I'd call myself a theistic evolutionist, but I haven't done a substantial amount of research on the subject.

I do think many Christians are wasting way too much energy on anti-evolution agendas, and I also think too many Christians/Atheists/Agnostics have the misconception that if the theory of evolution is true, it 'debunks' Christianity.

Evolution doesn't debunk religion, but it makes it much less viable, if it was even viable before.

 

[Girder of Loins]

I would say the first key principle in any theory is can that realistically happen in our universe, I am sure that scientists have a very different one that I don not know.String Theory states that anything is possible, but it is just a theory, but is one of the candidates for the "theory of everything".

But where does that perception of "reality" come from? Science?

 

[Chris Blanks]

But where does that perception of "reality" come from? Science?

It comes from humans or rather the universe "doing" and humans observing. Where else would it come from?

 

[Girder of Loins]

It comes from humans or rather the universe "doing" and humans observing. Where else would it come from?

So your perception of reality comes from science?

 

[starlovesgod]

Because it's not how the Bible tells us the earth was created, and the Bible is God's word.

 

[Chris Blanks]

So your perception of reality comes from science?

Well that is a tricky question. It depends on how you define science. If you define science as "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws" then no as I would say my perception of reality comes from and is contain within my mind. But if you simply define it as " the knowledge gained by the study of the physical world" then yes as my thoughts come from the study of the physical world and is processed in my brain to create my perception of reality.

 

[Chris Blanks]

Because it's not how the Bible tells us the earth was created, and the Bible is God's word.

But god does not necessarily exist. The bible could simply be a book that someone wrote to persuade people to think a certain way. That is what stories were originally created for.

 

[starlovesgod]

But god does not necessarily exist. The bible could simply be a book that someone wrote to persuade people to think a certain way. That is what stories were originally created for.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.