The Lie of Evolution

Do any of you realize how absurd the theory of evolution is? Did you know that there is NO transitional life forms alive today and there is NO transitional life forms in the fossil records?

I posted this here because EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION and a conspiracy. Evolution is the BELIEF in eternal energy and matter. You either believe in an all-powerful God (intelligent designer) who is para-physical and is therefore not bound by the laws of the physical universe (such as fluctuation, decline, finite existence) or you believe in eternal matter and energy (which by the way goes against one of the most basic facts of science: matter and energy and all things physical are in a constant state of decline and nothing physical is eternal).

I find it hypocritical when atheistic evolutionists who call for the separation of Church and state complain and whine about the ten commandments and other barely visible religious references WHEN THEY ARE FLAT-OUT TEACHING THEIR RELIGION TO OUR KIDS AS REQUIRED LEARNING IN SCHOOL.

Evolution isn't based on anything factual nor anything observable and is a faith-based belief system just as all religions are.

It is some kind of twisted conspiracy when evolution (a religion) is taught as fact or is required learning when other religions are considered theory and NOT FACTUAL.

EDIT: ALL CAPS TITLE


[edit on 1-6-2005 by RANT]

Evolution is based on more than facts. It is based on common sense. If you have not, reall take a look at the intricacies or the intangibles of biology? Or Physiology? Or Botany? All life can be observed and noted to have direction. Over time certain species of bird's beaks grow longer because the bark on the trees is becoming more solidified over time. Nature adapts to their surroundings, the very simpliest thing to claim is that there is a natural struggle for survival, on every level. This is what evoluton is defining. Not that we are from apes and there is no God. It just tries to take what has always been a fact and try to get answers from it. People's perception of Evolution is the only thing wrong with evolution.

bravo! good point that is generally overlooked. why are we indoctrined to darwinism as fact? darwin peiced an amazing puzzle, but sadly we've discovered all the peices dont quite fit. i assume every society needs an explanation for the cosmos, regardless however abstract. it really does require just as much faith as any religion. we should learn from history and never call anybodies thesis 'FACT' -maybe we can smoothen the transition from a prefered ideology to a newly discovered one. learning the earth to be round, may have been a difficult task for some.

Actually I don't remember evolution being taught as a fact, as I remember from school the chapter was titled " The THEORY of Evolution".
But If you look at humans even today you can see signs of evolution, for instance wisdom teeth, if you go back about a hundred years pretty much everyone would have had them, nowadays many people never develop them at all. Remember that evolution dosnt say that we woke up one day and we're suddenly transformed into more intelligent beings and walked more upright, this transformation happened over millions of years, also it dosnt say that we came from apes, just that we were once ape-like. I think that evolution is a very good theory, with many points of evidence to support it. Religion on the other hand has no viable evidence, nothing to support it other than a book.

[edit on 6-6-2005 by kastinyque]

Originally posted by kastinyque
Actually I don't remember evolution being taught as a fact, as I remember from school the chapter was titled " The THEORY of Evolution".

I don't want to detract from the rest of your post, which covered a lot of ideas not generally discussed in these arguments, but a scientific theory is generally a collection of facts that are correlated together. There are a lot of theories out there that perfectly describe natural events. Relativity is a great one--we have proven that time "dilates" as one travels compared to when one is at rest. If I'm not mistaken, we have proven with subatomic particles that an object with mass cannot travel faster than the speed of light, in accordance with the theory. However, it's still the theory of relativity. I forget the literal differences, but generally speaking when one hears the word "theory" they think of a definition which is closer to "hypothesis," something that isn't proven. Hopefully that made some kind of sense...

It's my understanding that evolution has absolutely nothing to do with religion, either for or against. It does not say "there is no God." It doesn't say God did not create us. It doesn't say God has nothing to do with how a species evolves. Hell, for all evolution is concerned, God could be the one sitting back in a cosmic Lazy Boy, sipping Ambrosia and flipping all the switches that cause the mutations. EVOLUTION DOES NOT PRECLUDE GOD.

Sorry to "yell" there, but it seems like there's a lot of people who want to think they cannot believe in both. That's like saying I'm a vegetarian, therefore I cannot drive a car. Worst case scenario, evolution pushes the timeframe back on the creation. Even then, one member put it very exceptionally on another thread by stating that maybe God's frame for a day is much different than ours--maybe a day to God is 10K years to us. That still shortens the time frame from billions of years to just 60K years, but the idea makes sense to me. We talk about a God we claim is beyond human understanding, and then we try and put human terms to wrap around Him/Her/It. But I digress...

Evolution is taught as "fact" in our schools when religion isn't because religion is something our society has decided is better left out of the classroom. Evolution has never been considered religion in any way, shape or form, and if you want to look at it as such, why not classify every other subject taught as religion? Math, Writing, Literature, History, all of it is teaching some sort of belief frame.

And just out of curiousity, where did the idea of evolution dealing with eternal matter and energy come from? I've never learned anything like that in a science class, other than perhaps the law of conservation of matter and energy (Newton's 2nd? I can't remember...)

I dont think evolution is a religion. It may be true, it may not. I dont believe the theory as it is now is completely right. In the future they might find something better to go with it. Thats why its a theory. Theories arent perfect. I got no problem with it being tought as long as its just as a theory.

that is exactly what I meant by pointing out that it was the theory of evolution, evolution has not as a fact been actually proven beyond a doubt. I also did not mean that evolution ruled out the possibility of a higher power, I was merely trying to say that there was more evidence of evolution than there was of god, I do actually beleive that there is a higher power, as I also beleive in the theory of evolution, but forced into a decision to choose between the two, based upon evidence, evolution would be my choice and the choice of anyone who is able to identify physical evidence.

I agree with Nappy about this. When I was in High School, we were taught the "theory", but of course being stupid teens, we really didn't take it all that seriously. That was kind of dangerous in developing a belief system, because later in life, you usually don't think about creation/evolution much and you immediately fall back on the only thing you were taught.

For me, I had the opportunity of reading the Bible and opening my mind to the concept of creation. Although my opinion of the Bible is it being entirely up to interpretation, I revere it as an inspired work by a higher being through men.

I think creation and evolution can co-exist (with creation first), but as Nappy says, there is no such evidence of transitional life forms at the present. From what I have seen of this, Nappy is right. If evolution takes eons to produce, then why do we not have clear transitions between species??

Why do we not have fossils going from tigers and lions down to the domestic house cat? I have 3 cats and I am sure that they wanna know 'whose their daddy'.

So you think the bible can explain it better? why don't you people stop brainwashing others, leave them alone, let them choose their own path.

Originally posted by kastinyque
that is exactly what I meant by pointing out that it was the theory of evolution, evolution has not as a fact been actually proven beyond a doubt. I also did not mean that evolution ruled out the possibility of a higher power, I was merely trying to say that there was more evidence of evolution than there was of god, I do actually beleive that there is a higher power, as I also beleive in the theory of evolution, but forced into a decision to choose between the two, based upon evidence, evolution would be my choice and the choice of anyone who is able to identify physical evidence.

I'm sorry about that; I was directing my references to religion in my post at the original poster, not you. I should've been a little more clear about that

According to Answers.com:

Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives.

Evolution has survived over the years. It has withstood about a century and a half worth of people trying to debunk it, and seriously trying to do so from both a religious perspective and a scientific perspective. That'd be a great way for any biologist to make a name for themselves.

Originally posted by ben91069
as Nappy says, there is no such evidence of transitional life forms at the present. From what I have seen of this, Nappy is right. If evolution takes eons to produce, then why do we not have clear transitions between species??

We have discovered transitional species. Archeopteryx is a prime example, being technically a dinosaur but with feathers like a bird. As far as I know, it's the only dinosaur (or reptile for that matter) with such a feature. There's numerous examples of fish with half legs. Even modern whales and snakes have remnants of limbs that were most likely once used for walking.

If you want a closer example of a "transitional" species, look in the mirror or at the guy/girl sitting next to you in class or at work. How many body parts do we have that we don't need? How often do you use your tail bone for anything? We have very little body hair compared to other primates, but when we get scared try and raise what we have for the same reasons they do and in the same way. Wisdom teeth are useless, and there's even a little fold of skin under the eyelid that's a remnant of a "third eyelid" like some animals have (a "nictating membrane" that's used for protection and to moisturize the eye.)

There's the appendix, which is entirely useless other than sending us to the hospital when it gets in a bad mood. An organ that does absolutely nothing but might kill us at the same time--from my perspective that's not a very intelligent design.

Why haven't we found more examples in nature? Well, think about it. This is a very big chunk of rock that we're on. Paleontology has only been around doing serious work for about a century or so. There's no way we've dug up the entire earth and given ourselves a chance to find everything. There may be species still buried somewhere that could entirely prove evolution wrong somehow. There may be the ancestors to every species that currently walks the earth, just waiting to be dug up with every step along the evolutionary trail perfectly shown.

Also, there are two quotes I want to put in this post from Answers in Genesis, a creationist website. These are from their page "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.".

'There are no transitional forms.' Since there are candidates, even though they are highly dubious, it’s better to avoid possible comebacks by saying instead: 'While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.'

This is true, but I don't recall Darwin putting a time limit. Where in his treatise does he say "The fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils in the next 10 years"? As I said above, we haven't searched everywhere; they may be there, they may not.

'Evolution is just a theory.' What people usually mean when they say this is 'Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.' Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word 'theory' in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin–Landau/Verwey–Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

The problem here though is that evolution has more of a substantial basis than creationism or intelligent design. There's absolutely NO proof that a higher being created the universe, whereas even minimal proof for evolution can be found in what few fossil records of transitional species exist. Even the vestigal organs that we humans have can be looked at as harder evidence for evolution than anything I've seen mentioned as "scientific" evidence for creation.

It seems the primary evidence for creation is a book. Well, as far as that goes, I can go down to the library and find books on evolution. I can find books that talk about travelling through time, books about elves and goblins and witchcraft and magic. Hell, if I wanted to spend the time, I could write a book that has an elven creator travelling back through time using magic to keep goblins from evolving. Would you take that as fact over something that is studied by some of the smartest people in the world?

Originally posted by ben91069
I agree with Nappy about this. When I was in High School, we were taught the "theory", but of course being stupid teens, we really didn't take it all that seriously. That was kind of dangerous in developing a belief system, because later in life, you usually don't think about creation/evolution much and you immediately fall back on the only thing you were taught.

What else were you taught in high school though? Weren't you also taught about World Wars and polynomials and how to write an essay? Why not single those out as well? Those are also, in a way, belief systems. Take WWII. Aren't we taught that Hitler was evil and the Allies were trying to save the world from tyranny? That's also a belief system. Why don't people try and knock that one out of the water? Why don't people try and say that there's no proof that 2 + 2 = 4? Is it because there isn't a book that tells you otherwise? If that's the case, let me know; I'll write it. I'll fill it with miracles and parables and rules, if you'd like. But just remember that if I do, you must not look into those, and you must not interpret the 2+2=5 as anything other than the exact truth, no matter what may be between the lines.

My only beef with the evolutionaries is that in defending their "science" against creationalist, they leave no room for any other possibilities other than their theory. Granted, evolution is the only theory we have been able to develop well scientifically but to sweep the infered variables and "not quite but close enough" stuff under the rug is not the right approach either.

There is no where closed to enough evidence to state without a shadow of a doubt that we know every damn thing there is to know about how things came to be the way they came to be. Much of the field work as well as some of the lab work is very subjective..and I understand thats just how it is to make progress because I've been there and done that..but you always leave the door open for possibilities no one has considered yet.

I think both sides of this debate have to leave some room for the other..and really, when it all boils down to it, its the past so you aren't going to change it.

I certainly do understand the curiosity and the need to know, the wonder of that one discovery that will answer all the questions, tie up the lose ends and close the loop holes. Many people have lived and died seeking it and likely many more will as well. In truth, I think theres more to it than we know. Why? because there always has been. Every generation in every era no matter how ignorant they ultimatly were, thought they had all the answers. Evry one of them thought they had the ultimate knowledge unlike those before them and yet, as time goes on, so does our ignorant genius.

Originally posted by nappyhead
Do any of you realize how absurd the theory of evolution is? Did you know that there is NO transitional life forms alive today and there is NO transitional life forms in the fossil records?

What exactly are you calling a transitional life form ? Transitional to what ?

In evolution species that develope characteristics that give them an advantage drive similar species which consume the same food and live in the same enviroment into extinction. There are plenty of fossilised examples including horses and birds.

I posted this here because EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION and a conspiracy. Evolution is the BELIEF in eternal energy and matter. You either believe in an all-powerful God (intelligent designer) who is para-physical and is therefore not bound by the laws of the physical universe (such as fluctuation, decline, finite existence) or you believe in eternal matter and energy (which by the way goes against one of the most basic facts of science: matter and energy and all things physical are in a constant state of decline and nothing physical is eternal).

Evolution is science. It is not the "belief in eternal energy and matter". It is the science of life's ability to adapt.

Evolution isn't based on anything factual nor anything observable and is a faith-based belief system just as all religions are.

Evolution is science and like all science it is based on observation. How do you think new breeds of dog were developed or new flowers. The first observations were done with sweet peas.

I have no problem in believing in evolution and God. But you are a bigotted ludite reluctant to embrace science and determined that your children should have the same close minded opinions. Fine, teach your children that Methusala lived to be 300 and the Universe and everything in it was created in 6 days. If you want to be backward that's your call. Shouldn't your children be given a 21st century education and not preached at by a Puritan ?

I apologise for my bluntness but this sort of thing is ignorant and it annoys me.



[edit on 7-6-2005 by John bull 1]

Originally posted by astrocreep
My only beef with the evolutionaries is that in defending their "science" against creationalist, they leave no room for any other possibilities other than their theory. Granted, evolution is the only theory we have been able to develop well scientifically but to sweep the infered variables and "not quite but close enough" stuff under the rug is not the right approach either.

I don't remember ever hearing that evolution says there was no creation though. The main point of the theory is that, over time, a species will mutate to survive in changing conditions. That's it. Where does that alienate creationism? And evolution isn't the only theory that doesn't "leave room;" just about every scientific theory lays out a rule that must be followed. A quick example: according to Einstein, there is no room for a theory that says we can go faster than the speed of light.

I don't remember anyone ever sweeping anything under the rug if it doesn't fit evolution. If that's the case, let me know. For that matter, hold a press conference; you'll get a scandal ousted, which the public loves, and maybe even get some sort of academic recognition. As long as its something you can prove and can give evidence for. Everything that isn't "considered" in mainstream science generally falls under the category of unproven, and generally is so because of lack of physical evidence.

Here's a scenario to try out. God created the universe, the heavens, man, beast, plants, whatever. Throw whatever timeframe you want on it. God did it in whatever time God wanted to and I personally don't think it's right to limit a higher power to our own perceptions, but whatever floats your boat. Being the intelligent designer he is, and wanting to test all of his creations to the best of their abilities, he added "change" to the equation. He--and I use "He" because it's what I'm used to, not out of any sexist bias-- gave plants, animals, whatever, the ability to adapt to a volatile environment, one that is not stable. He made it instable because it wouldn't be much of a test if it were easy, would it? He wanted to be able to tweak things as he saw fit. If he got tired of seeing it nice and sunny all the time, bam! an ice age. But we wouldn't last very long if He kept changing the rules on us all the time would we? So He instilled in everything the ability to adapt. There, evolution and creation, all in one nice, quasi-politically correct package. Why does God change the rules? Who knows? Maybe He gets bored watching the same old stuff on the cosmic satellite dish He watches us from. Maybe he's secretly sadistic and like to watch us suffer. Maybe he's just weeding us out to get down to the 144K that some denominations claim are selected to get into Heaven. Maybe there is no reason. He's above us, in more ways than one, and whether he's Jesus Christ's dad, Allah, Shiva, Buddha, Kurt Cobain, Bill Gates, whatever, he's beyond our ability to comprehend.

I don't remember ever hearing that evolution says there was no creation though.

Maybe you should try a search on the many threads on this and many other boards concerning evolution.

And maybe you should have read my entire post. I'm not saying evolution isn't a viable theory only that we need to understand there are just as many variables against it as for it such as conflicting with other scientific theories. I'm no biologist so this is not my forte' and I will not pretend to be an expert here but its been my experience, as I mentioned, that theories we tend to hang our hats on today are often found to be unsubstanciated after further research.

I'm all for continued research into the area and as its about all we have scientifically, its what we have to go on from here. But in a couple hundred years, it would not suprise me to find out technology has allowed several of the variables used the equation to be better defined and shed more light on the subject..and thats true with any theory you want to throw out there. People don't like to face it because it takes away their control but just think, the idea that the earth was flat and every other planet rotated around it was once as concrete as this theory. Those people would have defended that as fervently as anyone today would defend evolution as the end all be all of scientific knowledge.

Member "nappyhead": Somehow I could not imagine a better User Name for the contribution of the topic entitled "The Lie Of Evolution". There is a ring of truth and connection about it.

Opinion: Every life form currently on the planet is transitional. But of the more complex life forms cockroaches are best adapted to be around for a long long while after homo sapiens "transits" to extinction or to better forms.



[edit on 9-6-2005 by MaskedAvatar]

I have to agree with the thought that the Evolutionary theory is a religion.
As AstroCreep stated:

My only beef with the evolutionaries is that in defending their "science" against creationalist, they leave no room for any other possibilities other than their theory. Granted, evolution is the only theory we have been able to develop well scientifically but to sweep the infered variables and "not quite but close enough" stuff under the rug is not the right approach either.

This aspect has been used by the scientific community for decades that religion or creationism can not leave room for other possibilities.
The scientists who flagrantly dismiss creationism or Intelligent Design (my preference) are not allowing other schools of thought other than their own to exist.

the·o·ry
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture

re·li·gion

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship

Certainly NOT a religion, however certainly IS a theory.

Now if you don’t like theories (they do tend to get messy), how about a law;

The First Law of Thermodynamics, sometimes known as the law of conservation of energy, states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another.

now in case you didn't know;

scientific law

a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law

If you were to investigate the make-up, the "building blocks" of matter, and for that matter, all existence, you would find at the core energy. We all know (I hope) that matter is made of molecules, and molecules are made of atoms, and atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. However it is not quite understood what these last bits are made of, but there is a theory, (gasp!! Those scientist and there pesky theories) It’s called the string theory . It tries to explain what these ‘elementary partials’ are.

A quick google search brings you here

Now from what I understand, the idea is that everything is made of tiny 'strings' that have different tensions and energy, that cause them to vibrate and different 'frequencies' which in turn gives them thier specific quality.

Weather or not this theory is true is beside the point. It, along with the scientific law above, helps me explain why I believe that matter is a condensed form of energy, a lower frequency. And everything that exists today, or it's energy at least, has always existed and will always exist. Therefore, (I’m sure you see where I am going) in my humble opinion, there is no creator God, at least not in the biblical sense. The idea that an entire universe was created solely for the human race is beyond egotistical.

I do however believe in a higher purpose, and an existence beyond this one. I believe that existenceis aware, or in other words the universe is a being, God, if you will, and it is self aware. You, I, that tree, that bird, this computer, are all "god", and we have a will. We created this world, crafted it’s intricate balance, so that it would sustain life (as I am sure we have done in many places around the universe), we have set in motion the evolution that would eventually bring us to this point. For what reason? I don’t know, a joke, an experiment, a learning tool?

I'll end on this... why is it that we assume because others are wrong that we are inherently right. The fact that evolution is not a ‘fact’ does not prove the bible is, and visa versa.

Quick question there. On the 1st law, Energy cannot be created nor destroyed to put it simply I am not a scientist nor a mathemetician.
Then by the 2nd law, the one covering entropy, eventually, this energy and matter as well will be dispersed to the point where, everything will eventually reach absolute zero thus ending the ability of electrons, photons etc to operate any longer. Thus in the end, the 2nd law of thermodynamics will eventually negate the first law.
I am simplifying this I know and I also need to add that the universe is a closed system as far as we have been able to determine.
So, you have two laws of thermodynamics which basically negate the validity of each other.
Correct?

Evolution is not more absurd than the believe of man and women made of clay at the image of a divine god that obviously must have both sexes and created the earth in seven days.

So as everything, in our pursue of finding the origins of men I kind of lean to the evolutions of the species.

After all humans "Are from the animal kingdom" not from the "divine kingdom" perhaps Darwin was a littler bit hasty to link humans to monkeys, but still we as everything in this earth are product of adaptation and survival.

Evolution is a scientific theory base on findings or fosils during the years that Darwin did his studies.


[edit on 22-6-2005 by marg6043]

Marg6043,
As you may have noticed that I have normally argued that evolutionary theory does not negate the belief of creationism (ID to be exact).
Nor does creationism (ID again) negate the theory of evolution.
My personal belief is that they actually can and do work well with each other, if you can take the radicals from both sides out of the picture, Where as the theory of evolution explores the how, creationism explores the why.
This is true with any scientific area and it's ability to interact with religion.