The Lie of Evolution from a Credible Scientist

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

 

[www.discovery.org...]LINK[/url]

Read the whole link. Cut out all the strawmen, and personal attacks. It simply attacks that Dawkins was talking about room for data, and total data size, and instead was claiming that even though it can be accounted for how the size of a genome can rise, useful information being put into that random s pace isn't possible.

Which is, at least effectively, claiming that there's no such thing as a good mutation, or a mutation that adds any beneficial information at all.

That's the rebuttal, put briefly for anyone to see. If there's any overwhelming scientific information showing that positive mutations, ones adding in new useful data, can ever happen, I'm sure most of us know that already. If there isn't, then we don't.

~
P.S. William Lane Craig, and even specifically the "Drcraigvideos" account. If I was one for text speak, I'd be "LOLing."

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

 

[www.discovery.org...]LINK[/url]

Read the whole link. Cut out all the strawmen, and personal attacks. It simply attacks that Dawkins was talking about room for data, and total data size, and instead was claiming that even though it can be accounted for how the size of a genome can rise, useful information being put into that random s pace isn't possible.

Which is, at least effectively, claiming that there's no such thing as a good mutation, or a mutation that adds any beneficial information at all.

That's the rebuttal, put briefly for anyone to see. If there's any overwhelming scientific information showing that positive mutations, ones adding in new useful data, can ever happen, I'm sure most of us know that already. If there isn't, then we don't.

~
P.S. William Lane Craig, and even specifically the "Drcraigvideos" account. If I was one for text speak, I'd be "LOLing."

What of Susskind on light being information? This takes the Dawkins answer and throws it out the window since it negates the need to answer his dilemma. All of it is information. Susskind suggests that we live in a projected hologram of information in 2D. The reason we see in 3D is because the observer collapses the wave of information into form. What of this? Dawkins provides the answer that is valid with Susskind being right as well. Isn't this the definition of resolving paradox? When two opposing ideas are mirrored, the answer is the excluded middle. Creation by design is the excluded middle. When we realize that evolution is not a cause, but a result, we then see the correct direction to proceed. What does this suggest?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

We do, however, have an ancient document that tells us where it originated.

The same book claiming people can survive in whales...which you oh so conveniently keep on ignoring

There's a TON demonstrably wrong with the bible, so using it as objective evidence (or even worse, main proof) is crazy.

You're being incredibly disingenious in this thread, especially with crazy statements like the one below:

light is not simply particle and wave, but also consciousness.

No proof, no evidence, nothing to really back up that statement...yet you simply pretend it's a fact and the truth. That's the very definition of god of the gaps. You fill a gap in knowledge with god

edit on 21-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

Perhaps no-one responded to your "living in whales" question because it was entirely off-topic to the Evolution/Creation debate and the OP.

Isn't the idea that "first there was nothing, then it exploded, then random chance created incredible order; in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics and just about all we know of physical processes" more ludicrous than the proposition that God did it?

The edifice of logic and science that you purport to espouse is built upon nothing (literally).

reply to post by EnochWasRight


I have tried and tried to explain this to members here. Their insults and ridicule of something that makes more sense than their biased opinions is willing to let them admit. Only goes unchecked for this very small moment
in time. They simply ignore how time passes faster and faster as they age. What does that do to time in Gods case ? They risk everything for the moment of coolness. When it really is twice as cool to believe in a Heavenly Father. I pity the fools.

SnF OP for a bomb ass thread.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
I am only concerned in this thread with the lie of saying evolution is a cause. For sure, evolution takes place. The difference I am responding to here is this: Evolution is a result, not a cause.

Interesting. If that's the case, and you do agree that evolution takes place, then your thread title is very misleading. What is evolution the result of? Are you saying there is something else that causes the genetic mutations other than the ones we know of?

We have little to do with the mechanism of the universe. We only do tow things. One is dependent on the other. We think and we move. That's it. Humans can only claim these two as our own. EVERYTHING else is provided.

Provided? That's strange, last I checked, I was the one going out to work and earning money to survive in this monetary environment. I haven't been provided with anything. I've had to earn it. Before money, our ancestors lived off the land and had to hunt and gather to PROVIDE food for themselves and their families. There is no 3rd party provider involved.

Further, we have never observed matter twice. We have never been in the same space twice. The earth moves and the galaxy moves. We have never been anywhere more than once. Science claims repeated observation. This is simply not possible.

Matter moves through space, it doesn't significantly change. Just because it's not in the same region of space, does not mean anything has changed. If this were the case, then there would be tons of science experiments that have different or varying results at different times. But with evolution and most scientific theories the data does not change, so your argument has nothing to do with the validity of the scientific method. If you can observe something multiple times and the results do not change, you can pretty much guarantee its a constant.

When a man in a cave says that 666 would represent the beast that is killing our world and that this beast is a mark of mankind, I notice an element that is out of place. Carbon has 6 electrons, 6 protons and 6 neutrons. Carbon is the mark of life. Carbon is in the center of the garden (earth) as stated in Genesis. It is the mechanism that marks our commerce and technology and the reason we are losing our atmosphere. When the carbon chokes out the nitrogen (777) and oxygen (888), the plant will release the methane. When this happens, earth will become hell and fire. Did God say this in so many words? Did he say that overcoming the beast was the answer? YES.

That's actually pretty interesting. It makes you wonder if the ancient stories were referring to scientific measurements, and mistranslated. I'm not opposed at all the idea that advanced ancient cultures existed.

I can verify what he said by history. John in the cave could not. How do we explain? The Bible knows the future before we do. This is all the evidence I really need to see God for being true to his WORD. Jesus is part of this image God produces so that we can be translated from the image to the spirit (pure consciousness).

The bible might have a few interesting passages, but overall there's a large portion of it that's been rewritten and translated many times over. It's accuracy is highly suspect. It's all interesting stuff you speak of, but really it's not about evolution.

reply to post by Barcs


I'm convinced that the more intelligent you are the more you can't deny the complexity of life points to the magic that was set in motion by God. Say what you want about the Bible. It's the only thing I've ever seen that qualifies to be Gods word.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

What of Susskind on light being information? This takes the Dawkins answer and throws it out the window since it negates the need to answer his dilemma.

So you're saying, you misrepresented a character, and said he had no answer for a question. When instead you knew he did answer but you disagreed with his answer, which just wasn't worth mentioning, and you instead opted to leave that part out and use the falsehood that he didn't have an answer to make your point?

And now you're saying, after the flaws with the rebuttal to his answer are pointed out, that there's no reason to care either way because he doesn't need an answer because of your alternative beliefs?

Are you making this up as you go along? Or are you really willing to go along with those dishonest tactics to bring your point along?

~
Dawkins answer is not thrown out of the window either way. You're trying to promote your position by arguing that increases in information can't happen, and can't be explained by current evolutionary theory. What needs to get thrown out the window is that specific argument. Don't use false arguments to try to promote what you believe to be true.

~
I was not, and will not, arguing over your Leonard Susskind-based pseudoscientific garble. In fact, I haven't even stated it to be false(Well, besides calling it "pseudoscientific garble" just now ) All I said, is that one of your specific arguments was false. And as far as relevant to reply to me, it's not for you to argue over the other relevant details.

I'd tackle the whole topic if I had time. I simply don't, I rarely make posts on these topics on ATS anymore, compared to what I used to. Instead, I'm tackling a specific claim that no one else seemed to address, solely so that the information is out there for those reading this topic. Other posters can deal you're overall claims as a whole. I personally have not challenged them.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Maybe you are not paying attention. Susskind backs me that entropy is information that is in movement. Energy is not what we know by the surface of what we see. The entire universe is information, just as a hologram projection would require. Susskind only backs me on the notion that matter is not dead or lifeless. Rather, it is consciousness producing matter. Susskind is good here in this video. He does not draw the conclusion of evolution. I merely say the obvious. Evolution is the result, not the cause. Science lies to us with evolution on THIS ONE point. Evolution says matter originates consciousness. There was a day and age when this seemed plausible. No longer. We now know that one is not possible apart from the other.

This has to be one of the most incoherent paragraphs I have ever read. Its the rambling of a school child attempting to sound like it knows what it's talking about. There is nothing to refute, nothing to reply to or anything even approaching an argument. It's embarrassing.

Imagine the above was part of a science paper in high school, what grade do you think it would receive?

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

You are seeing science slowly come around. It's possible you do not see it. I am merely trying to help you view it the way I do. If you have another view, simply share it and contradict my own view with some scinece. Tell me the way it is. Please. Do share.

I think to see anything the way you do I would have to smoke some pretty heavy narcotics. I do have another view though, its that you're one of the most delusional people people I have ever come across, and believe me thats saying something.

And I do not believe you know the meaning of the word 'Scinece'

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
EVOLUTION is no longer a theory it is a Fact.

Fact and theory. The theory of evolution explains the natural force of evolution. If we didn't know how it worked, it would be called the law of evolution instead of the theory of evolution (compare to e.g. Newton's law of gravity).

edit on 21-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

Their are no true Scientists Calling it the THEORY OF EVOLUTION ANYMORE. The Human Genome Mapping Project put that arguement to reat ONCE AND FOR ALL!

The only people still clinging to the word THEORY....are either Highly Religious to the point of taking all that is in the Bible as FACT....when in reality....the Bible should be considered a Learning Tool for Ethics....and People who just REFUSE to look at the actual DATA that can be found in MANY SPECIES WHO'S GENOME WE HAVE MAPPED...as all of them point all the way back to the orginal SINGLE CELLED ANIMAL from which all life EVOLVED!

There is no conflict between ones belief in a GOD and the FACT OF EVOLUTION. Even Creationists as is the case with the VATICAN...who...while Pope John Paul II was still alive...John Paul II made the Vatican Science Division get ahead of the curve and anyone can google this...had them and Himself put out a Joint Statement that New Scientific Proofs and Data had brought forth proof that Homosapiens EVOLVED from lower forms of life and that when Genisis was written....Man did not have the Technical or Scientific expertise to understand that the 6 Day world creation STORY as well as the Scientific and genetic IMPOSSIBILITY of just two Humans...a Man and a Woman having enough Genetic Diversity contained within each of their Genomes to be the Parents of eventual Billions in Numerical Population of Humans...since two people alone would mean their children would have to bread thus within a few generation....Birth Defects and Sterility would end the Race.

Now this is the POPE and His SCIENCE TEAM TALKING...never mind...Joe Six Pack and family who...especially in the Midwest...are victims of EVANGELICAL MONEY RAISING CAMPAIGNS where STUPIDITY such as the now OUTLAWED in all 50 States the Teaching of Intelligent Design as it is not even Faith but complete lies and warping of scientific and physical facts.

There is NO CONFLICT WITH A PERSONS BELIEF IN GOD AND THE FACT OF EVOLUTION. There is also no conflict of the concept of GODS CREATIONISM OF THE UNIVERSE OR MULTIVERSE through the process of EVOLUTION. But when you can spend 25 to 35 minutes actually WATCHING EVOLUTION OCCUR under a microscope....and you still refuse to aknowledge the Fact Of EVOLUTION. You are just making yourself look stupid and having no ability to accept a truth.

You might as well start telling yourself a STORK DROPPED YOU ON THE DOORSTEP and that is how you arrived on Planet Earth. This is ESPECIALLY A SIN AGAINST ANY GOD THAT MAY EXIST. If you believe in JESUS being the Son Of GOD...do you think He would want you to go so far to spread a LIE when it has no conflict with GOD or the TEACHINGS OF JESUS. Jesus once said...if you don't believe in me or who I claim to be...that is not important....it is only IMPORTANT TO BELIEVE IN MY ACTIONS AND WHAT I DO!

What were Jesus' main teachings? Love your fellow Human Being....Actions are stronger than words or written text as was his conflict with the FERACIES....and that the TRUTH WAS PARAMOUNT...and that it was wrong as well as a Sin to Lie to promote Christianity. He made this ultimate decision when he could have lied to save his life when questioned by Herod by just saying he was not the Son of God...no matter how some people view whether or not he ment that HE alone was the Son of GOD or that we could all be the Sons and Daughters of God by following His teachings as is the way the Gospels of Judas and Mary Magdalene and others. Split Infinity

reply to post by Barcs

Provided? That's strange, last I checked, I was the one going out to work and earning money to survive in this monetary environment. I haven't been provided with anything. I've had to earn it. Before money, our ancestors lived off the land and had to hunt and gather to PROVIDE food for themselves and their families. There is no 3rd party provider involved.

That requires movement and thought only. The results are derived from your movement and thought, collapsing the wave of indeterminate probability. If you remove thought and movement, you are not doing what happens around you. You are simply a change agent to the states around you. You didn't actually produce the things around you. You are born with a body. What happens from that point on is choice of yours or others. The choice is governed by law you do not operate. You merely operate within the set law.

reply to post by Prezbo369

This has to be one of the most incoherent paragraphs I have ever read.

Because you didn't bother watching the video or paying attention in the thread.

reply to post by Barcs

Matter moves through space, it doesn't significantly change. Just because it's not in the same region of space, does not mean anything has changed. If this were the case, then there would be tons of science experiments that have different or varying results at different times. But with evolution and most scientific theories the data does not change, so your argument has nothing to do with the validity of the scientific method. If you can observe something multiple times and the results do not change, you can pretty much guarantee its a constant.

The states of matter are never the same twice. Pick up a marker and the electromagnetic radiation from your hand enters the marker and changes its state. Nothing has EVER been in the same state twice. Matter is in constant transition. You need to study classical mechanics and laws of motion to know that no object in existence can be at rest. Constant transition is always the case. LINK

reply to post by SplitInfinity

TextTheir are no true Scientists Calling it the THEORY OF EVOLUTION ANYMORE. The Human Genome Mapping Project put that arguement to reat ONCE AND FOR ALL!

Well it is safe to say you did not watch the video because the scientist refutes what you just said , I will go one step further and call this statement an out and out lie to deceive anyone who has not looked into the issue . There are scientists on both sides of the fence and for you to say otherwise is one hi dred percent delusional .

reply to post by Barcs

The bible might have a few interesting passages, but overall there's a large portion of it that's been rewritten and translated many times over. It's accuracy is highly suspect. It's all interesting stuff you speak of, but really it's not about evolution.

Being hermetically sealed is a testimony to how the Bible is preserved. Consider the enigma of

1) The Heptadic structure.

2) The last 22 books are letters. There are 22 letters in the Hebrew language.

3) It predicts the future to the letter. Look at the Drudge Report and see that Russia just sent 25,000 troops to Syria. Damascus will be utterly destroyed. The Bible calls this. Consider that Damascus is the longest continuously occupied city in the world. It's never been utterly destroyed to never rise again. When you see this happen, know that all the other revelation is true as well. How about Obama and the NWO. Ring a bell from Revelation?

4) The Seven Rules of Hillel. This is how the Bible has been preserved. Apart from the seven rules of rightly dividing the words of Moses, the rest cannot be written. The scribes preserved this word to the letter. We only lose it in translation from the original. The Word is not locked in the linguistics. It's in the symbol. The symbol is coded information by the spirit that translates it back to us by imprint. It does not enter the mind by linguistics alone.

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

I was not, and will not, arguing over your Leonard Susskind-based pseudoscientific garble. In fact, I haven't even stated it to be false(Well, besides calling it "pseudoscientific garble" just now ) All I said, is that one of your specific arguments was false. And as far as relevant to reply to me, it's not for you to argue over the other relevant details.

I'd tackle the whole topic if I had time. I simply don't, I rarely make posts on these topics on ATS anymore, compared to what I used to. Instead, I'm tackling a specific claim that no one else seemed to address, solely so that the information is out there for those reading this topic. Other posters can deal you're overall claims as a whole. I personally have not challenged them.

No need to argue over the Susskind video. He presents the unifying and excluded middle to the entire argument. We live in a universe based on information. That's it. I save you the trouble. If you want to verify why we should listen to him, research his background. If you want to know what he is saying, watch the video. It's worth watching. Once you do, you will see the world in a different light. My words here in this thread only reflect what light is actually telling us by the illumination of our minds. You can't win if you don't enter.

This is an aside, but I think an interesting one. It has just recently come to my attention that some Creationists *DO* believe in natural selection. In fact, they even use natural selection to bolster their arguments against Evolution. In other words, they claim that natural selection preserves the morphology of a given species and does not allow for change. Since for them the Earth is only a few thousand years old, this idea would make sense to them. Now, I am less interested in this as a scientific position than I am interested in the philosophical problem that emerges from this, a problem similar to that posed by theistic schools of Darwinism (or other teleological schools of Evolution).

The problem is the question of how to reconcile natural selection with teleology in a moral Universe. It would appear that those Creationists who do believe in natural selection are suggesting that natural selection is part of how God preserves the Universe. In essence, then, they are going further than Darwin in glorifying the weeding out of the unfit. In Darwin's case it was random, but in their case it is a purposeful weeding out that is not a punishment of sin per se, but simply a disposal. Their arguments could even be grounds for a kind of Christianization of eugenics. (Come to think of it, some "Progressive" and some conservative Christians did support eugenics)

Without passing judgement on the idea, I would be curious as to how Creationists and theistic Darwinists reconcile this question philosophically. How does one believe in the idea of a species being preserved by weeding the unfit with the idea of Providence? I am not an atheist, by the way, just to let you know.

One last thing. How do I get a Signature on this Forum?

Evolution is NOT a substitute for creation, evolution has NO answer for "first cause". Evolution is a theory regarding already existing matter, energy, and information.

Evolution is stretched beyond believability by fanatics who are deathly afraid of their creator.... They attempt to deny his mark on his creation, but they do so in futility. Evolution has no answers and does not need to be debunked because it has never been proven as a valid concept regarding first cause... Hence it is only a theory...and not a particularly intelligent one at that.

I can stump any evolutionist with their own rhetoric and prove that they rely on faith in occurances that are highly unlikely and far fetched. In short they have a faith based in ignorance.

Soul

Sweetie, I see what pure trying to do. And kudos for being true to your faith. But you aren't going to persuade anyone and nobody is going to be persuaded outside of their own ideas. To you, God is truth. To others, evolution is. For all we know, both sides are right and God created evolution. Either way, nobody is leaving here with a different view on life. Just a little annoyed, if anything.

Originally posted by SoulReaper
Evolution is NOT a substitute for creation, evolution has NO answer for "first cause". Evolution is a theory regarding already existing matter, energy, and information.

Evolution is stretched beyond believability by fanatics who are deathly afraid of their creator.... They attempt to deny his mark on his creation, but they do so in futility. Evolution has no answers and does not need to be debunked because it has never been proven as a valid concept regarding first cause... Hence it is only a theory...and not a particularly intelligent one at that.

"First cause" and "only a theory".

Gravity doesn't explain a "first cause" and it's "only a theory".
Germs causing sickness doesn't explain a "first cause" and it's "only a theory".
The Earth revolving around the sun doesn't explain a "first cause" and it's "only a theory"
The movement of tectonic plates doesn't explain a "first cause" and it's "only a theory"

I suppose none of these are intelligent then. Anyone who believes in these are doing so because they're trying to deny a creator.

Originally posted by SoulReaper
I can stump any evolutionist with their own rhetoric and prove that they rely on faith in occurances that are highly unlikely and far fetched. In short they have a faith based in ignorance.

Go ahead then, and do so. It's very unconvincing to claim to be able to do something on the internet. Especially when it follows a paragraph ripe with misunderstandings and clearly not knowing about what you're talking about.

You have any points to make, make them. Claiming you do means nothing.