The Lie of Evolution from a Credible Scientist

I also don't see where Darwin ever set out to disprove the existence of a higher power by posing his theory of evolution.

So everyone arguing over the religious implications of evolution is getting their panties in a bundle over nothing.

I mean seriously people, if you're gonna argue about Darwin and his theories, which both sides seem to know nothing about, go read his 'On the Origin of Species' and you will find this quote included on page 2 of Darwin's book:

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both." Sir Francis Bacon

So seriously. Go read the book and you will see that Darwin did not set out to 'disprove' god. He simply meant to admire his works and try to explain their long history since creation.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

Genesis 1:1

In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

Then move on to verse 27 where God describes how he moved information to an image.

1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Genesis 42:5

And Lo, God looked upon the face of the world that he created and said, "Let there be MAGNETISM", and magnetism was formed.



I would thumbs down this thread if I could.

reply to post by Figzer


What an ignorant statment...I'm surprised at your harsh and very ill informed reply.

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel


You constantly make no sense whatsoever, in a convoluted form of logic you think you are applying....

Fun read lol. EnochWasHigh is for sure feeling his proposal. Cant watch the video, and cant really follow your point with all the Bible quoting, and dramatically overcompensating poetic intent, but the passion and slandering made for a fun few minutes.

S&F

lol

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Wow, what a misleading thread title and video title

No where in the video did they argue against evolution. It's a video showing how MRI scans can detail how a sperm fertilizes an egg before developing into a human.

How on earth is that "debunking evolution" or "proving a creator"??? And why are you claiming a scientist argues in favor of a creator he never said anything about that?

If you care to know what a TRUE scientist thinks about creationism:

reply to post by EnochWasRight


in a way you are correct , purpose and design does seem inherant in our universe... some aspects of science agree it looks like a put up job...tweak one setting of the universe here..another thier.. and no life could ever exist......

However if it was not as it is , we would not be here to ask such profound questions .. it can be no other way for us.. just because we are here and the requirments for life in the universe are strict ( to our understanding) does not mean these equirements where manipulated by some omnipotent being... it is the only way it can be for us to ask such questions..

Again replies from you that go round and round... i know what you meant by 'Word' , i did not think in a linguistic capacity only, i am open to the multitude of metaphors you are spouting...

You are a very articulate person and i truly feel pity that your talents are wasted in this area you are currently commited too.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

Genesis 1:1

In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

Then move on to verse 27 where God describes how he moved information to an image.

1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Genesis 42:5

And Lo, God looked upon the face of the world that he created and said, "Let there be MAGNETISM", and magnetism was formed.

I would thumbs down this thread if I could.

If you are looking for magnetic power, you need these verses.

Isaiah 40
25 “To whom will you compare me?
Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.
26 Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one
and calls forth each of them by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
not one of them is missing.

Psalm 147:5
5 Great is our Lord and mighty in power;
his understanding has no limit.

My personal favorite is Psalm 19. I'll translate in places to help you see clearly.

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.

The speech is the Word / Wave of creation that governs by the mechanism of the solar cycle, gravity and YES magnetism. It's all part of the electo-dynamic universe we occupy.

3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.

Right on. The Wave of magnetism is silent to our ears, yet the universe produces order from chaos by governing laws that manage energy from information.

4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.

Solar Cycle. Weak and strong nuclear force.

In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun (Magnetosphere).

5 It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.

We now know that the earth and sun do not revolve around each other. They twist in constant motion like a toroidal vortex. They each run a course around the galaxy.

6 It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is deprived of its warmth.

Why use the Sun as a symbol of Word and the voice of creation?

How about the heavens being rolled up like a scroll in Isaiah?

Isaiah 34

All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from the fig tree.

The universe is flat.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


What Evolutionists assume is that we are talking about something that happened in the distant past. Therefore, every time they see some form of real-time change, they shout "See, I told you, Evolution is proved".

The truth is that God IS creative. He's doing it right now, not just in the past.

In any case where Evolutionists point out what they call proof of Evolution, ask yourself how fast should that change have occurred? We know mutation rates. We know the percentage of mutations that fail/are fatal to the organism. Then look at the timeline of the change. It's always been too fast in my experience.

So perhaps, just perhaps, the mechanism that Evolution is supposed to happen through, is not actually able to account for the change. Hence, the forces of Natural Selection, Mutation and Genetic Drift as the mechanism of Evolution is inadequate to explain the changes. This then invalidates, and does not prove the theory of Evolution!

Think about it.

The force/s that evolve organisms to 'higher' forms over time seem to be both intelligent and directed.

Where are the proofs of devolution that nature should throw up more than 50% of the time? Have the Evolutionists forgotten the other side of the coin of randomness?

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

in a way you are correct , purpose and design does seem inherant in our universe... some aspects of science agree it looks like a put up job...tweak one setting of the universe here..another thier.. and no life could ever exist......

However if it was not as it is , we would not be here to ask such profound questions .. it can be no other way for us.. just because we are here and the requirments for life in the universe are strict ( to our understanding) does not mean these equirements where manipulated by some omnipotent being... it is the only way it can be for us to ask such questions..

Again replies from you that go round and round... i know what you meant by 'Word' , i did not think in a linguistic capacity only, i am open to the multitude of metaphors you are spouting...

You are a very articulate person and i truly feel pity that your talents are wasted in this area you are currently commited too.

The starting point is having no idea at all. The ending point is having a good idea from the data that we can observe. From this, we need to postulate an implication from finding artifacts in the data that are out of place. For instance, Carbon represents our technology and is the mark of mankind. 2000 years ago, John prophesied that we would be moved to a system of world government by tyranny and that Carbon (6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons) would be at the heart of the system. Although this sounds like a weak reason to debunk evolution, I would show you otherwise.

The heart of the issue is a book that is at least 2000 years old. If we go to Genesis, we read that man was given a choice to seek knowledge form a being called the Lord, or seek knowledge by his own efforts by reaching out to the tree of knowledge. This same Lord claimed to create the entire universe. Between John on an island prison and today, do we see a connection with Carbon being the main element that is the mark of mankind and the element that is destroying the nitrogen and oxygen cycle on earth?

Now connect this to the WORD of God and how we use breath to live and speak. We are to overcome with the word of God. Nitrogen is 7 protons, 7 electrons and 7 neutrons. Oxygen is 888. In Hebrew Gematria, YHVH is 777 and Jesus is 888 in Greek. Verify this by simple Google searches. We now have three elements of life that are verified as being at the heart of creation.

I challenge you to articulate a similar proof for evolution and make sure it totally denies this proof I provide from two sources. I provide it from science and from an old book that predates our understanding of what it claims.

Further, we cannot deny that science continues to demonstrate the digital information that makes the image of a flat universe. God said it in Genesis 1:27. We are INSIDE the image.

1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Do we have a metaphor to understand that this is the most likely conclusion. YES. You are viewing it.

1 Colossians 1:

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.



You may be able to suggest that I am simply making all this up. The truth is not so easy to deny. Consider another aspect of reality that Science continues to suggest.



You might be able to deny this guy or me, but you can't deny Susskind. Entropy is energy loss from information. He is not lying in this video. Science sees the conclusion right in plain sight.



Still, I will point out that no science has been presented to refute the fact that evolution apart from the influence of a Creator is a lie. If you want to discuss evolution with a Creator, then you are on the money. We are raising to the source for sure.

I say, "Deny Ignorance!" the lie of evolution is easy to spot from the evidence that it is not the truth. A higher truth emerges as seen from the unseen. Micro and macro reflect each other as a trinity of light: Particle, Wave and Consciousness. Science misses the third part of Holy Spirit. That's Blasphemy and unbelief.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Then again, the bible also claims people can survive inside whales

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

What Evolutionists assume is that we are talking about something that happened in the distant past. Therefore, every time they see some form of real-time change, they shout "See, I told you, Evolution is proved".

The truth is that God IS creative. He's doing it right now, not just in the past.

In any case where Evolutionists point out what they call proof of Evolution, ask yourself how fast should that change have occurred? We know mutation rates. We know the percentage of mutations that fail/are fatal to the organism. Then look at the timeline of the change. It's always been too fast in my experience.

So perhaps, just perhaps, the mechanism that Evolution is supposed to happen through, is not actually able to account for the change. Hence, the forces of Natural Selection, Mutation and Genetic Drift as the mechanism of Evolution is inadequate to explain the changes. This then invalidates, and does not prove the theory of Evolution!

Think about it.

The force/s that evolve organisms to 'higher' forms over time seem to be both intelligent and directed.

Where are the proofs of devolution that nature should throw up more than 50% of the time? Have the Evolutionists forgotten the other side of the coin of randomness?

Finally. Someone with an eye to see. There is nothing incorrect about the notion that change happens, but flow from a source is the way of nature. All matter flows away from a source. Only life flows in a contrary motion toward the source. Evolution is a design feature based on love. This sounds a bit odd to say love, but giving is what nature demonstrates. The design is there as a system that supports the whole. When Genesis 3 spoke of taking from the fruit of knowledge, it was speaking of technology. Carbon was then revealed 2000 years ago as the beast to overcome. Not only do we overcome our own beast of carbon as animals with spirit, we also must overcome our use of knowledge. Education is part of love. Evidence for a Creator is demonstrated by love. The primary law that governs all things is love.

What more evidence do we need than the final answer to truth? Do unto others and love your neighbor. Truth is revealed by nature. Choices based on the values of positive and negative are simply bits of information in binary. We are because I AM. God is the first I AM. Why would He have used this as a name? Consciousness is life and life is what comes first. Matter is the image produced by Infinity at rest, while we are collapsing the wave of infinity in motion. Collapsing wave function theory is seen best from the understanding that consciousness changes the states of matter. Matter has little to do with the hidden information at the essence of form. An acorn is not the tree and the tree is not the acorn. Information is what makes both in a cycle of conscious design.

What you are saying, and what was said in the video, doesn't "prove" anything in regards to evolution or creationism. I personally believe that anyone who separates the two is either close-minded, or worse. So many people are arguing against supported facts, using their SUBJECTIVE feelings as well. Just looking at the complexity of nature does not prove God.

I believe in God, and I also believe in evolution. I do not see the contradiction. Therefore, just seeing the implications of evolution does not disprove God. What I really get annoyed at is when people attempt to explain creationism and Genesis in the guise of science, with little to no understanding of the subject.

And honestly, at this point there are still many more questions that remain unanswered in regards to science and evolution. I personally believe we are arguing the wrong things in some aspects, such as wave-particle duality. I am a proponent of the idea that physics diverged from truth in the early part of the 20th century. There are at least two other theories that combine quantum mechanics and relativity in a truly elegant manner, and replace some of the current ideas, which sometimes seem bulky and clunky, with a more streamlined explanation.

reply to post by ArrowsNV

You forgot the other quote from the same page

But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this - we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws.

W. Whewell

I don't personally see the need for a divine power behind the curtains (IMO it makes the model ever so more complex), but if that's where your God is, I'm totally fine with it. It's not that irrational stance. Irrationality is, when creationists and ID/Ancien Alien advocates refuse to accept reality, which is, that life on this planet evolved more-or-less as modern synthesis puts it. To argue otherwise sans new ground breaking evidence is but a display of ignorance (and often symptom of years of brainwashing).

reply to post by EnochWasRight


I have to agree with other posters here... all he's doing is saying "wow look how complex these biological systems are, they must have been designed consciously". It's the same argument the Mormons try to give me when ever they visit. Clearly he lacks a true understanding of how evolution works, and why the solutions designed by evolution are so far beyond our comprehension. Anyone who thinks these things can't be a result of evolution doesn't understand evolution at all.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


You're making an argument from authority, the problem is that someone can come into this thread and put up 100 names, or more, that support Evolution, all of them credible scientists. It would make your ONE scientist seem pathetic by comparison.

Biological evolution is an undeniable fact, I fail to see how anyone with grade school level education, let alone a scientist, can reject the idea that allele frequency changes over time within a given population. That's all evolution is, genetic variation from one generation to the next. Even creationists admit that this form of evolution occurs, but they don't understand the only difference between the micro changes and macro changes is the number of generations that pass.

i don't think evolution can be denyed, but what can be denyed is it randomness and purpose

If you want to fight against science, you have to use science, and never ever, ever, not even half of once cite anything even resembling a hint of any sort of spiritual religio influence.

If you want to fight religion, you must do so similarly on their own ground, citing their own scriptures, and straying as far away from logic, and rational thought as possible.

That is my opinion. Thus, please, if you attack science, use science, and only science, with zero mention of anything counter to, or detracting from science.

Each orthodox is impregnable to the other by it's own standards. Thus, for an orthodox to be wounded, it must be shown how it wounds itself.

Not arguementively, but I've seen tangible evidence of evolution in many plants and animals...

I've never seen tangible evidence of creation, just belief in individuals.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

I have to agree with other posters here... all he's doing is saying "wow look how complex these biological systems are, they must have been designed consciously". It's the same argument the Mormons try to give me when ever they visit. Clearly he lacks a true understanding of how evolution works, and why the solutions designed by evolution are so far beyond our comprehension. Anyone who thinks these things can't be a result of evolution doesn't understand evolution at all.

edit on 20-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

Do explain how evolution works. Give me some science behind the theory.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

You're making an argument from authority, the problem is that someone can come into this thread and put up 100 names, or more, that support Evolution, all of them credible scientists. It would make your ONE scientist seem pathetic by comparison.

Biological evolution is an undeniable fact, I fail to see how anyone with grade school level education, let alone a scientist, can reject the idea that allele frequency changes over time within a given population. That's all evolution is, genetic variation from one generation to the next. Even creationists admit that this form of evolution occurs, but they don't understand the only difference between the micro changes and macro changes is the number of generations that pass.

edit on 20-3-2012 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

Again. Show the science. Don't just say it's so. Let's have the facts.