Why I do not accept evolution part two.

[Guy Threepwood]

theory of evolution meets all of the criteria of a valid scientific theory.

which are?

 

[MIDutch]

The problem with disbelieving evolution is the lack of opportunity for people to hear the alternative.

Oh, please. People have been hearing the alternative for over 2000 years. From their parents, in their churches, in their societies, etc.. Heck, it was AGAINST THE LAW to present anything different to this "alternative" in some parts of the US until, what, 1968 (Epperson v. Arkansas). This alternative has never once produce anything of scientific or technological value for the human species.

 

[MIDutch]

which are?

1) evidence
2) evidence
3) evidence
.
.
.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The moment you've all been waiting for.............

Introductory comments.

The pro-evolutionist community bears the hallmarks of a dictatorship. This is because the purse strings are controlled by pro-evolutionists. Researchers often dare not contradict the evolutionary bully boys because they won’t get tenure or grants. Professor James Tour advises his students to keep their anti-evolution beliefs to themselves.

When students with anti evolution ideas can support those ideas with good evidence then they will be welcome.

If a scientist could find sufficient evidence to invalidate all the evidence for evolution that we have, they would be the most famous scientist to date, getting awards and accolades galore.

I am fine with the idea and likelihood that speciation is a result of genetic variations. I’ve yet to be convinced that mutations cause the variations. It seems more likely to me that the genetic information was there and the variants were better able to survive. A case in point is the Pepper Moth, long touted as evidence of evolution in action. Now it is obviously two variants of the same species. If the environment changes, so does the survival rate of one or other. If that is “evolution”, then you can claim just about anything as “proof”.

Mutations are just changes in DNA sequence as a result of copy errors or environmental factors. That has tons of evidence and is not questioned by anyone even most anti evolutionists.

I believe that there is enough evidence to cast serious doubt on evolution as a valid explanation for the origin and development of life on earth. No one can conclusively prove events in history long past. All we can do is examine the evidence and draw possible conclusions from what we observe. I have an additional point of view that the Bible is correct and that it means what it says.

Have you looked at the evidence for evolution? Do you know the evidence from varied scientific fields that all converge to support the theory of evolution?

· Huge numbers of fossils appeared at much the same time. The “Cambrian Explosion” is now thought to be over a period of 10 million years, not 70 million. That goes against evolutionary theories.

No it it not a problem for evolution. 10-20 million year sis a long time, enough for evolution to happen.

· Complexity. I used to work in industry, selling to automation companies. Pharmaceutical, oil and gas, paper and most manufacturing is automated. Processes are controlled by industrial computers using sophisticated software. If the software is bugged, the systems crash. When you have many processes that need control, monitoring and safety systems, the system implementation is as important as building the plant. Random changes do not produce good results.

Evolution says nothing about good or bad results. Evolution has no goal, it just happens. If we state that the continuation of a species is a good thing then we can say that some mutations are advantages or good and some are bad.

An example. The blood transport system within a mammal. It needs a pump. The whole system starts off extremely small and has to grow with the organism. How does it know when to stop growing? The tubing has to be flexible to permit movement. It needs a temperature regulation system to prevent death by overheating.

If the tubing is punctured, there is a self-healing process that technology cannot begin to match. The system has to recognise a leak, determine the position of the damage and commence repair. If the leak is not repaired, the organism dies. If it takes too long, death occurs. Blood clots in order to patch the defect. If it clots in the wrong place, (within the tube) the organism dies. Veins are different from arteries. They have to have non-return valves or blood does not get back to the heart.

I know how hard it is to get these systems right. Any error in the control system stops the process. How did blood evolve? Did the veins, arteries and heart evolve first? If so, how did the blood get in? If the blood evolved first, how did it get into the system? Blood itself is amazingly complex.

It all evolved together over time. Each part of our bodies didn't evolve one at a time.

· The fossil record. There is zero evidence to suggest that evolution has taken place. There should be far more failures than successes. The vast majority of fossils suggest viable creatures, not failures that imply random processes.

99% of all organisms that ever lived are extinct. The fossil record is a record of disadvantageous mutations.

· Widespread scepticism. In the US, 44% of people do not believe in evolution. This is in spite of a blanket ban on Creation being taught as an alternative in most schools. Some of the finest minds reject evolution. Not all are Christians by any means.

Popularity of an idea says nothing about it truth.

· Human qualities are at odds with natural selection. Love your neighbour? You are kidding, right? There is not a lot of that in the animal kingdom. Why condemn racism, genocide, inequality, or any other struggle for domination? That’s how evolution works, surely? Surely genocidal regimes are doing the world a favour? There are way too many people anyway.

No, these qualities help us all survive, work together and let us live longer.

· Life itself. Nothing “just happens”. How can a collection of chemicals suddenly come alive? What is the mechanism? What is life anyway?

Evolution says nothing about how life started. Just because we don't know how life started does not make your idea suddenly true.

Evolution to me is like giving a blind and deaf man a pile of sand, some water and stone, copper and iron ores. Then you tell him to construct a building. He has no way of knowing even that he is supposed to be building, let alone turning such base materials into usable products.

Evolution has no goal.

Can you explain the basic evidences for evolution?

 

[Yttrium]

which are?

For Example:

It has to fit the known evidence. You start with evidence and come up with a theory to explain it. No fair starting with a conclusion before looking at the evidence. The theory must accommodate any new evidence, with adjustments if necessary. If the theory can't be adjusted to fit the new evidence, then the theory must be replaced by something better.

It has to have testable aspects. Things like mutation and selection can be observed and tested in great variations under laboratory conditions.

It has to make falsifiable predictions. Like that idea that the fossils we find have to fit into an evolutionary pattern. If something shows up that is wildly out of place, like a human riding a stegosaur, then we have problems.

It has to survive relentless peer review from scientists around the world. Tests and observations will be repeated over and over until the scientific community is satisfied that everything's kosher (for now...).

 

[Aussie Pete]

Fact: the theory of evolution meets all of the criteria of a valid scientific theory.
Fact: there is nothing in the theory that says that G-d does not exist.
Fact: scientist try to disprove (invalidate) theories using valid scientific methods. Thus far, all of the evidence supports evolution and it has not yet been invalidated.

Either you believe in G-d or you do not. Either way, evolution is a valid theory and does not interfere with my belief in G-d.

The devil believes in God. God says that He created all things. I take his word for it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, the damned if you do and damned if you don't argument. Noah's ark may have been seen in the early 1900's. There is a credible eyewitness account. It's impossible to verify. Another possibility is that Noah saw the ark as a handy source of wood and dismantled it. I lean towards that argument. It's likely that its not been found because it's no longer there. Do I know? No. Do I care? No. If Noah's Ark drifted into New York harbour, complete with animals, atheists and agnostics would find a way to disbelieve.

I do not believe evolution because it defies logic. It's that simple. I believe Creation because it makes sense. When I see a pile of car parts magically assemble into a working vehicle, I may rethink. And evolution is vastly more complex, so complex that a lot of people see it as impossible. That includes me.

No, there are no credible witnesses to finding Noah's Ark. Seriously, believing in that story is making the mistake of calling God a liar. There is so much evidence against the Arknstory that one is claiming God planted endless evidence that tells us it never happened.

And you are quite mistaken when you say that evolution defies logic. This is why I try to get creationists to understand the basics of science. If you understood the basics you could see your errors.

What does not make sense are your strawman versions of evolution. I could grossly misrepresent what Christians believe. If I showed that a gross.misrepresentation of your beliefs were wrong did I then "disprove Christianity" ? I hope you said no. Your gross misrepresentation of evolution does not refute it either.

And you have some serious projection going on. When it comes to not believing regardless of the evidence, that is your sin. Not the sin of people that reason rationally. The reason rational thinkers do not accept the Genesis accounts is because all of the evidence say that they did not happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The devil believes in God. God says that He created all things. I take his word for it.

No, God says no such thing. Now you are guilty of breaking the Second Commandment. You are making the Bible into a god.

 

[Strathos]

Noah's Ark most likely did exist, as I subscribe the local flood theory. However it likely wasn't as big as described in Genesis (blame that on a translation error or exaggeration or something). But it has probably completely decayed by now.

 

[Speedwell]

I do not believe evolution because it defies logic. It's that simple. I believe Creation because it makes sense. When I see a pile of car parts magically assemble into a working vehicle, I may rethink. And evolution is vastly more complex, so complex that a lot of people see it as impossible. That includes me.

And when you can prove to me that Jesus was an Olympic figure skater and that we are all going to heaven on ice skates, I may rethink my religious beliefs and join your church.

 

[pitabread]

Noah's ark may have been seen in the early 1900's. There is a credible eyewitness account. It's impossible to verify.

"credible eyewitness account" and "impossible to verify" are contradictions.

I do not believe evolution because it defies logic. It's that simple. I believe Creation because it makes sense. When I see a pile of car parts magically assemble into a working vehicle, I may rethink. And evolution is vastly more complex, so complex that a lot of people see it as impossible. That includes me.

Based on everything you've written, it sounds like you disbelieve evolution because a) you don't appear to understand it and have expressed no interest in trying to understand it, and b) it contradicts your overriding religious beliefs.

So personal incredulity and religion; same reasons every creationist uses to reject evolution.

 

[MIDutch]

Noah's Ark most likely did exist, as I subscribe the local flood theory. However it likely wasn't as big as described in Genesis (blame that on a translation error or exaggeration or something). But it has probably completely decayed by now.

Why would it be completely decayed by now? Science has found LOTS of bits of wooden artifacts that are far older than the Ark supposedly is. Just google "oldest wooden artifacts" for a few examples.

Further, according to the account in the Bible, it would have been one of the largest wooden structures ever built and eventually ended up in an environment that is perfectly suited to preserving organic materials: mountain, cold, arid. Example: Oetzi the Iceman, dated to about 1000 years before the Ark supposedly set sail. 5'3" human - well preserved. Largest wooden structure ever built - completely decayed by now?

 

[Strathos]

Why would it be completely decayed by now? Science has found LOTS of bits of wooden artifacts that are far older than the Ark supposedly is. Just google "oldest wooden artifacts" for a few examples.

How old do you think it is? I don't subscribe to the various OT chronologies. It could have happened as far back as 20,000 years ago.

Further, according to the account in the Bible, it would have been one of the largest wooden structures ever built and eventually ended up in an environment that is perfectly suited to preserving organic materials: mountain, cold, arid. Example: Oetzi the Iceman, dated to about 1000 years before the Ark supposedly set sail. 5'3" human - well preserved. Largest wooden structure ever built - completely decayed by now?

See what I said before about the size.

 

[HitchSlap]

I am fine with the idea and likelihood that speciation is a result of genetic variations.

This. That's all.

From this point, all I can do is recommend you seek to understand the theory. It's "elegant" and beautiful. Pray about it.

 

[MIDutch]

In all likelihood if there had been an Ark, it would have been taken apart. That much dressed timber would have been too valuable in a region where all the buildings had been destroyed by a rampaging flood to just leave lying around.

There were only 8 people alive. How much dressed timber would they need?

 

[St. Helens]

ADMIN HAT ON
Do not flame other views. Christianity cannot be called a myth, and science cannot be called a religion or made up. Threads started, or responses made, to simply disparage science will be considered off topic to the forum.
ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[Subduction Zone]

ADMIN HAT ON
Do not flame other views. Christianity cannot be called a myth, and science cannot be called a religion or made up. Threads started, or responses made, to simply disparage science will be considered off topic to the forum.
ADMIN HAT OFF

Quick question, I would not consider calling the Ark story a myth to be calling Christianity a myth. It can be shown how and why the Ark story did not happen. I do not think it is possible to do the same to Christianity. I still do not accept the stories, but the burden of proof to disprove it is not upon me since I am not trying to convince others that it is false. For me the evidence is lacking. The same does not apply to the story of Noah's Ark. If calling that story a "myth" is not allowed here in the rules I can understand and respect that.

 

[Speedwell]

ADMIN HAT ON
Do not flame other views. Christianity cannot be called a myth, and science cannot be called a religion or made up. Threads started, or responses made, to simply disparage science will be considered off topic to the forum.
ADMIN HAT OFF

What about referring to the "Garden" story in Genesis as a myth? That, I think, was the question.

 

[St. Helens]

The use of the term 'myth' is a flame. You may not believe an event happened or may not believe in a concept, but the term 'myth' isn't allowed.

Back to your regular posting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for the clarification.