Why evolutionary theory is doomed to failure

[Chi_Cygni]

Personally I think evolution was doomed to begin with cause it's not true and a really stupid idea. There is no scientific evidence for evolution. Evolution is not science it is a religion. Like creationist say in the begining there was God the evultionist say in the beginning there was a speck of dirt. Evolutionist say that a speck of matter came out of no where and started spinning and spinning untill it exploded and made all of the planets. Well there is a big problem with that first of all they are saying that nothing exploded and made everything (is that logical) and that there is a law of nature that goes against this speck of dirt spinning and then exploding. If you get a 5th graders on a mary go round and get the whole foot ball team to come out and spin the kids clock wise the kids will start going faster and faster and faster untill the fall off and go flying untill the hit a tree but when they go flying the will be spinning clock wise. If you look at the planets there are planets spinning different ways where as if they had exploded from that speck they should be spinning all the same way but they aren't. There are many many many many more scientific reasoning that disproves evolution. Evolutions have no proof for anything and should not be called science.

To say you do not know what you are talking about is an insult to people who don't know what they are talking about.

Please do us a favour and before you finish high school (if you can) learn something.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I think Lucky's post demonstrates another problem: the failure of the education system to properly educate people on concepts like evolution.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Personally I think evolution was doomed to begin with cause it's not true and a really stupid idea. There is no scientific evidence for evolution. Evolution is not science it is a religion. Like creationist say in the begining there was God the evultionist say in the beginning there was a speck of dirt. Evolutionist say that a speck of matter came out of no where and started spinning and spinning untill it exploded and made all of the planets. Well there is a big problem with that first of all they are saying that nothing exploded and made everything (is that logical) and that there is a law of nature that goes against this speck of dirt spinning and then exploding. If you get a 5th graders on a mary go round and get the whole foot ball team to come out and spin the kids clock wise the kids will start going faster and faster and faster untill the fall off and go flying untill the hit a tree but when they go flying the will be spinning clock wise. If you look at the planets there are planets spinning different ways where as if they had exploded from that speck they should be spinning all the same way but they aren't. There are many many many many more scientific reasoning that disproves evolution. Evolutions have no proof for anything and should not be called science.

Did God give you omniscience? If not, you may want to reconsider the way you present your uninformed opinions.

I'm guessing you're a post-and-run kind of poster. Prove me wrong and substantiate some of your claims.

 

[Physics_guy]

Personally I think evolution was doomed to begin with cause it's not true and a really stupid idea. There is no scientific evidence for evolution. Evolution is not science it is a religion. Like creationist say in the begining there was God the evultionist say in the beginning there was a speck of dirt. Evolutionist say that a speck of matter came out of no where and started spinning and spinning untill it exploded and made all of the planets. Well there is a big problem with that first of all they are saying that nothing exploded and made everything (is that logical) and that there is a law of nature that goes against this speck of dirt spinning and then exploding. If you get a 5th graders on a mary go round and get the whole foot ball team to come out and spin the kids clock wise the kids will start going faster and faster and faster untill the fall off and go flying untill the hit a tree but when they go flying the will be spinning clock wise. If you look at the planets there are planets spinning different ways where as if they had exploded from that speck they should be spinning all the same way but they aren't. There are many many many many more scientific reasoning that disproves evolution. Evolutions have no proof for anything and should not be called science.

You are making the physicists cry little girl. When I see arguments as stupid as the conservation of angular momentum *******izations as Lucky has posted above, I really begin to wonder if we actually provide any science education whatsoever in this country.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

You are making the physicists cry little girl. When I see arguments as stupid as the conservation of angular momentum *******izations as Lucky has posted above, I really begin to wonder if we actually provide any science education whatsoever in this country.

I am sorry to say I have been wondering that for a couple of years now, and contemplating it much more deeply of late. The reasons? well a couple of years ago I started using the net more extensively and that's when most of my contact with Americans began, A few months ago I came here and that's when most of my contact with creationists began.

In the UK you just don’t encounter many creationists. They are generally rather rare and the ones we do have are usually avoided by people who see them as loonies. They are considered on a par with the tinfoil hat brigade. (Fairly or unfairly).

I have been itching to say this for weeks but didn’t want to offend anyone, but since you all seem to be of the same opinion I will voice it. From what I am seeing, the science education in the USA is of an appallingly low standard - at least in your high schools. I regularly see adults here constructing arguments riddled with flaws that would not allow a British student to pass their GCSEs (That is exams taken at 16 years of age here, and our current big controversy is that the GCSEs are of too low a standard and are in no way equal to the old O Level they are intended to replace). Our educational standard is very defiantly slipping, as demonstrated in recent experiments that showed modern 16 year olds unable to achieve grade 1 passes in what used to be the 11 + (taken, as the name suggests, by 11 year olds) back in the 1950s, and by a recent experiment in which 16 year olds struggled to pass what was the CSE in my day. Now the CSE was the exam you sat if you were a bit slow academically, its what you took if the school felt you could not handle the O level (Or Ordinary level to give it its full title). Despite this shocking drop in standards in British schools we still seem to offer a better grasp of basic (well its basic to us) science than American schools. That is a shocking indictment of the education system in the worlds last superpower.

Ghost

 

[w81minit]

If I had a nickel for everyone someone called evolutionists atheists, and a nickel for everytime someone called evolution "just a theory" I would be very rich.

1) Evolution is not atheism.
2) Germ theory is "Just a theory" I guess we should start questioning it as well.
3) Are you suggesting that forensic science is not valid and is "just a theory"?

I made an observation. Are you calling my observation into question? On what basis? I did not infer that evolution and atheism were identical nor mutually exclusive. (although I would argue that they are opposed to eachother) I simply made the observation that the purposeful relegation of a creator out of the equation by evolutionists seems to fuel the fire against creationists. Does it not?
On point two - are you suggesting that theory and fact are so close as to not be discriminant?
On point three - science is a study. I never implied that science is incapable of finding facts. Truth; however, is a matter of theology.

Don't snipe - come with real answers. If you don't have time to give a real answer, please gather your thoughts and put them down later. It serves no purpose to det into petty ***-for-tat- isms. I am here to learn.

 

[w81minit]

By this statement alone you demonstrate to us that you know nothing about evolution. Read up before replying.

Does Evolution (by Evolution I am invocating the concept of the theory and its proponents that perpetuate its existence) not seek to understand how things came into existance?
What does it do?
To what end?
What is the ultimate purpose behind the concept of evolution?
Is it not to see how things that are seen came into existence?

Don't throw grenades and run. Lets discuss.

 

[JohnR7]

I think, instead, JohnR7, that the "success" of creationists is because most professsional evolutionary biologists simply don't engage in debate. So the public hears only one side. When both sides are presented, creationism loses.

That is a pretty big WHEN, because only 9% of the american public believe in naturalistic evolution.

 

[notto]

Science is based on observation and the identification and description of what has been observed. There is also the component of experimental investigation to determine what if...
Finally, there is the theoretical explanation of phenomena. (Emphasis on the theory)

Man's inability to grasp how he got here and what his ultimate purpose is drives this quest to know. It is his pride that makes him calculate that it is possible for him to understand it. Since he can not personally observe the Earth's formation, nor can he observe the creation elements of something from nothing, he is left to grope in ignorance about the possibilities.
Therein lies the problem. Evolution seeks to understand how it was that everything came into existence. At some point that quest adopted the maxim 'so long as it doesn't include a preeminent, sovereign, divine authority'. Perhaps because if staunch evolutionists took a serious look at the potential of a Creator, then it would mean ultimately their understanding would have to yield to that of the Creator. If instead, they remove that possibility of a Creator then they might be the authority. Creationists understand that there is no viable alternative to a Creator. In that way they bypass the countless hours toiling to understand the unscrutable.
--Just a theory based on an observation

The fact that Darwin was a 'staunch evolutionist' and attributed creation to God would seem to discredit your observation.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

I'm guessing that you haven't read much of Darwin. Just a theory based on an observation.

 

[notto]

Does Evolution (by Evolution I am invocating the concept of the theory and its proponents that perpetuate its existence) not seek to understand how things came into existance?
What does it do?
To what end?
What is the ultimate purpose behind the concept of evolution?
Is it not to see how things that are seen came into existence?

Don't throw grenades and run. Lets discuss.

Evolution is the best theory for the biodiversity of the planet and explains our observations at both a genetic level and of the fossil record. Life in the past was much different than life alive today. Evolution explains this observation.

Whatever you are going on about, it is NOT evolution.

 

[w81minit]

Bzzzt! Wrong.

The reason *no* scientific theory (evolution included) includes the explanation of an all-powerful creator is that such an all-powerful creator (at least as defined by theists) can be used to support any idea. IOW, by invoking such a being you make the idea unfalsifiable and therefore, it becomes impossible to distinguish between differing ideas.

Evolution, like all of science, rests on the fundamental philosophical idea that the properties of the universe are as we observe them. Throw that out, and you've just removed the one thing that makes science what it is and what makes it work.

I understand that. But science shouldn't check their Creator at the door. I have heard it said that science will ultimately prove that God exists and that he is the Creator. we observe his workmanship each day. When we see a beautiful sunset that calls colors beautiful beyond imagination we can say that it is simply the product of the gases in the atmosphere and the properties of light refracting off vapors. That we can explain it to our own satisfaction doesn't in any way negate who designed it.
I don't believe attempts to prove evolution are evil. I believe they are misguided. To quote someone far more comical than I - It is like trying to solve an algebra problem by chewing bubblegum.

 

[Arikay]

Sniping is because these same basic points have been gone over many times, however, some real answers.

1) Evolution does not take a creator out of the equation, it just says that the diversity of the species is possible without God. But it doesn't say God didn't use evolution to create, nor does it say that God couldn't have guided evolution through untestable means.
Take germ theory for example, it says that many diseases are caused by germs (simplified version). Does this mean that God didn't give people plagues (in the OT)?

2) No, I am saying that a scientific theory is different from the common use of the word "theory." A theory can't because fact, but it can become close.
You seemed to be suggesting that we shouldn't trust evolution as much because its a "theory" but do you do that with other theories? When you go to the doctors office and they give you antibiotics for a cold, do you trust that its tiny organisms that are making you sick, or do you question it? Same with cell theory.

3) Yes science is a study, that can also study past events.

I made an observation. Are you calling my observation into question? On what basis? I did not infer that evolution and atheism were identical nor mutually exclusive. (although I would argue that they are opposed to eachother) I simply made the observation that the purposeful relegation of a creator out of the equation by evolutionists seems to fuel the fire against creationists. Does it not?
On point two - are you suggesting that theory and fact are so close as to not be discriminant?
On point three - science is a study. I never implied that science is incapable of finding facts. Truth; however, is a matter of theology.

Don't snipe - come with real answers. If you don't have time to give a real answer, please gather your thoughts and put them down later. It serves no purpose to det into petty ***-for-tat- isms. I am here to learn.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

That is a pretty big WHEN, because only 9% of the american public believe in naturalistic evolution.

But why is say Young Earth Creationism almost exclusively the province of the uneducated?

 

[JohnR7]

I think Lucky's post demonstrates another problem: the failure of the education system to properly educate people on concepts like evolution.

The education system fails to educate people on concepts period.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

That is a pretty big WHEN, because only 9% of the american public believe in naturalistic evolution.

Are you sure? How many Americans do you think would say that they believe in naturalistic evolution as a process designed and guided by God to bring about today's biodiversity?

 

[JohnR7]

But why is say Young Earth Creationism almost exclusively the province of the uneducated?

Because the uneducated knows how stupid educated people are.

 

[luckynugget]

I have studied alot on evolution actually. Just because I am 16 doesn't mean I am dumb. I have not heard any proof whatsoever from any of you that evulotion is true. I have disproved one of your theories about the speck of dirt spinning and then exploding and how the planets spin in different directions. The Law of Thermodynamics also disproves evolution. The Law of Thermodynamics states that everything gradually decays and gets worse. For example, a house that is left uninhabited will eventually fall apart. Now evolution states that everything is getting better, speices evolving into the higher speices, man getting smarter (which man is not if you look at the earliest civilizations they had a written language and in early Egypt in about 3000 B.C they had very complex sewage systems and even forced air heat to heat their homes) and so on. This goes against the Law of Thermodynamics. On the other hand this does not cause a conflict with creationist because creationist believe that everything was created perfect and is gradually wearing down. I am using science to disprove what you call "science".

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Because the uneducated knows how stupid educated people are.

But their grammar is (not are) terrible.

 

[JohnR7]

Are you sure? How many Americans do you think would say that they believe in naturalistic evolution as a process designed and guided by God to bring about today's biodiversity?

As soon as you say God did it, then it is no longer naturalistic, it is theistic evolution. The largest group of the people still believe in a young earth.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

As soon as you say God did it, then it is no longer naturalistic, it is theistic evolution. The largest group of the people still believe in a young earth.

They do not! C'mon John, show us the source for this silly claim.