why I hate evolution..

reply to post by MrXYZ


ok thats awesome,,,, thanks for all those sources and info......... the similarities and trends are astounding,,,,, the idea of sharing duties,, and cooperation,,, community of life...... we are amplified, complexified versions of the originals,.,..,.,. its one big real time experiment,,,, experiment with forms and functions,, shapes,,, for betters and for worse,,,, for techniques,,,,,


more clearly what i mean by this,,,,,, is those cells used each other to do duties for the greater good of them all...

like humans work together to form cities for the greater good of them all,,,,, they do less work each,,, a concentration of work with common plans and goals,,,, and everyone benefits.

Evolution is the differential reproduction of organisms, and in no way has anything to do with the big bang lol

Unless of course the climax of a sexual episode is so intense it bends space on different universes and creates an infinite compression of matter into an infinitely small point until it "explodes" into a sort of "big bang." Such prodigious feats could only be accomplished by the marathon coitus sessions of a mouse, I would assume.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

"randomly arrange themselves into the correct structure"

Ha.....ha

one time I randomly arranged screws and gears and built a rolex

See, that's exactly the type of logic I was just talking about. Just because something seems highly unlikely to ever happen you immediately assume it would never happen even given billions of years. News flash, no matter how small the possibility is, it is still a possibility.

edit on 18/6/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

no i would just assume it is not random,,,, but intelligent,,,,,,, it is organizing it self in a way to achieve a purpose,,,, intent..


prove to me humans are so called "intelligent" and not just random self organizing chaotic math problems


whatever reason you give for why humans are "intelligent"

my response will be,,,,,, no it is just random,,,,,, given enough time anything can happen......

given enough time on a planet somewhere a man can be born with the name Shakespeare and write a bunch of plays.

reply to post by luciddream


do the cells that make you up,,,, which are the product of seperate celled organisms coming together to more efficiently do work,,, belong to you,,, or are they separate organisms,, helping you out for both of your benefits,,,,, or are those cells you,




also all this talk makes me think that the will to lead and sort and order is the idea of intelligence,,,,,, that how humans domesticate animals to do work,,, and grow plant on farms for food,,,,,, is how these organisms used other organisms for higher purposess,,,, as tools for work,,,, or machines,,,,

reply to post by MrXYZ


I have not figured out what’s the best way to do each quote quickly and I’m replying to allot, so I will just reply to all your post without qutoes....got allot replies Im doing so bare with me..

Ok, the big-bang, rather it is officially part of the theory is required; it provides the environment for which evolution is to take place. So though they consider separate it can’t really be excluded from one another.

Evolution states… "Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor " Unless your willing to admit that ancestor is some type of God then you are saying that ancestor is self-created life. If there is some other option what is it?

The scientific method was an outline and sums it pretty well, I’m sure you can find a few variations on how it’s worded, but you basically learn these steps in the 3rd grade.

You wrote:
1) The fossil record fully backs it up.
2) DNA analysis fully backs it up.
3) Migratory trends fully back it up.
4) We have witnessed speciation both in the lab and in nature.
5) We are ACTIVELY applying the theory in modern medicine...if it were wrong, we wouldn't have many of the meds we have today.

1, this depends on what fossil record you look at, creationist have been using the same fossil records to prove their points. You can always make evidence fit your theory’s needs. As evolution you can find a fossil and say see this a transitional state, I creationist look and pull up a fossil of a fish that looks the same then as today and say I don’t see any transitions, where the evolution?

2. A creationist has no problem with DNA being similar between different animals, you say common ancestor, and we say common creator. We make up words every other day in English, we don’t rewrite the whole alphabet for every new word, why would God. In fact we could say he might have used the same materials in animals as us so that we have a working food chain. We can’t really process not biologic stuff too well and get all the things out of we need to stay living.

3. Migratory trends….not to sure what your talking about, but population trends are in favor of creation.

4. Spices….a word made to muddy the waters to provide something in favor of evolution that will contradict the word “kind” which the bible uses. Use to be science used the family interchangeable with work kind and things were categorized in manner for long time. Like all dogs were k9, cats were felines, birds were…birds, and flies were flys or insects. We always categorized things into kinds, unless we are talking about evolution. In lab a fly can be mated with a different type of fly and produce a fly as baby yet using the word spices it can be completely something other than a fly. Two fly mate and had a fly, see the evolution? Where the horn growing out its head, or something new that wasn't there before.

5. We could have all the same knowledge, that is like saying I have to believe in big-bang to learn physics to be an electrical engineer.

You wrote:
Actually, it's a theory...because it's backed up by objective evidence that hasn't been debunked in over 150 years

It will never be debunked because any evidence provided outside the theory is not accepted. Only evidence that supports the theory is accepted as evidence at all.

Originally posted by luciddream

Originally posted by Tbrooks76

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Tbrooks76

 

you cant imagine an amazingly advanced and powerful being god,,, setting the universe into motion, with the intent of creating diverse life forms on trillions of planets,,, and have these energy capturing and utilizing mechanisms sort themselves out,,, decide their own fate and path,,,, organize themselves,,,,,, like computer programs that can "evolve" and fix themselves....... self replicating...... physical representations of math equations creating new formulas, working off of the original templates,,,,,

edit on 18-6-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

But it you take the eye as example and compare to last 50 years of data, you can see the it is doing the opposite of that, every year the number of people wearing glasses is increasing in percentages. The eye is improving it’s getting worse with every generation.

Television and other bright objects like LIGHTS EVERYWHERE AT NIGHT does that to human eyes. 50 yrs ago, there was no computer, no big TVs, no light-based toys, and certainly, cities weren't blazed with lights.

So our eye sight declining has nothing to do with evolution, it has something to do with abusing our eyes. For our eyes its 24/7 day time, naturally(but varies depending on your location), it should be able 14 hours of day and 10 hrs of night.

Now if we live like this, in this light immersed world, for millions of years, our eyes may take a path to produce a darker lid, kind a like what a crocodile has but darker so we can filter out light, or another path would be, our eyes would go deep inside our head to block lights, another path would we would start getting darker skin underneath our eyes to absorb light(like during camping or something, people put dark coal or colour underneath eyes to absorb the burning campfire from burning you retina.)

edit on 6/18/2012 by luciddream because: (no reason given)

And yet the eye is not evolving to its environment, but devolving.

reply to post by Tbrooks76

1st the cause for the big-bang, it can’t be explained

Are you a poe? I'm really not sure, but I'm fairly convinced that no human being with access to the internet could be this mal-informed. The Big Bang has a whopping NOTHING-WHATSOEVER to do with biological evolution. Also, merely because something "can't be explained" doesn't mean it's okay to assume or invoke the supernatural. There was a time when almost EVERYTHING was unexplained to our species and, surprise surprise, there was a time when almost EVERYTHING was assumed to have a supernatural origin or connection. Volcanoes, diseases, disasters, reproduction, the rising of the sun, the stars. Guess how many times the supernatural explanations have been valid -

we just say the other universe is called heaven and God hangs out there.

Right. So your idea adds an EXTRA supernatural All Powerful being which you just admitted is superfluous.

So basically the law of conservation of mass is violated

Creationists should never attempt to invoke the laws of physics, it just goes badly. We're talking about the nano-second after the Big Bang right? What makes you think the laws of physics in the present, 14 billion years after the Big Bang, are identical to those right after it? This misconception you have likely comes from the idea that the laws of physics are actual laws written down in the code of the Universe by some cosmic wizard, as opposed to them simply being descriptions of how things are observed to work.

3rd supernatural event, life created itself.

If there's anything I hate it's the idea that life is somehow so much better and more complex and fantastic then non-living matter. Have you ever looked at photos from the Hubble telescope and seen the absolute beauty of the Universe? Yet somehow you think that self-replicating organic chemistry just has to have a supernatural origin.

So in your mind a single-celled bacteria needs a supernatural explanation more desperately than this:



Yet you clearly accept some of the laws of physics, and they're responsible for both?

because humans and chips have 98% the same DNA I can conclude that chimps and humans have a common origin from a single cell organism.

You're putting the cart before the horse in a grotesquely stupid fashion. It's actually the other way around. Figuring out that human beings descend from apes isn't that hard, we look at the fossil record before humans and what do we find, earlier primates that look somewhat like us. We look at our own history and what do we see? People change over time, each generation of an organism is slightly different from the last. So as organisms reproduce small changes aggregate over time. If we delve back far enough into geologic time we eventually reach a point where only single-celled organisms exist. By the way your body is still FULL of single-cells.

Now Creationism offers NO explanation for ANY similarities in our genetics, unless God was really lazy. Or perhaps that story from Jewish mythology about Adam's first wife was really about Adam dating a chimpanzee, remember that verse from Genesis about how "no suitable helper" could be found for Adam amongst the animals

As a FORMER Old Earth Creationist, and someone who now accepts and understands the basics of evolution, I find your post to be embarrassing to both demographics of this thread.

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
Part 1 of 2
Evolution is just a bad idea.
It’s been passed off as fact, claims to be scientific, and is offer as natural explanation for creation without the need for a supernatural God.
However when you dig into it you find that Evolution and creation actually have more in common than most people think. Creation has a supernatural God, but Evolution has a few supernatural events that have to take place, plus it doesn’t follow the scientific method. If Evolution truly followed the scientific method it would be bad hypothesis and not a theory. The only reason it’s a theory is the alternative is undesirable to most people.
Below are some examples of supernatural events in evolution….

1st the cause for the big-bang, it can’t be explained, but the going theory is our universe was created by an unexplainable event outside our universe, maybe something like another universes colliding… This concept that a universe outside our own was the cause of our universe is the same idea that creationist has, we just say the other universe is called heaven and God hangs out there. The big bang is almost the same idea you all just removed God out and call whatever happened that cause the big bang some accident.

2nd supernatural event was atoms began to forum a few nanoseconds after the big-bang…. So basically the law of conservation of mass is violated, (matter and energy can’t be distorted or created) was violated. Here matter, energy, and space/time is all being created, so evolution can violate basic physics laws when help the theory out, I guess.

3rd supernatural event, life created itself.

So above is few supernatural event, yet evolution is all scientific. Evolution is not a theory, it’s a hypothesis pasted off as theory as solid as gravity, and yet doesn’t even follow the scientific method. The scientific method in a nut shell…

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment and/or making observations
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

So what happens when you apply Evolution to this method??????

QUESTION: did all life evolution as oppose to some type of intelligent design
Background Research : (could take days talking about this, but we’ll just say it seem possible evolution might have happen)

Construct a Hypothesis: all life evolved from a signal cell organism that created itself naturally 4.5 billion years ago.

Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment: Now things get interesting, the whole "theory" is based with life creating itself, it's the building block for Evolution and where we all came from. Yet every experiment under natural and unnatural conditions to create life has failed. The closest anybody has ever came I believe was to create a protein, and that a far cry from life. Now if the scientific method was really followed this so called “theory” did not pass the experimental stage and is truly a hypothesis, in fact with the numerous of failed attempts at creating life, it seem to be a bad hypothesis.

If the next step is to Analyzer your data and draws a conclusion, how is it concluded that the hypothesis is now theory with no experimental evidence that life can create itself.

So here is why and how evolution became a so called theory; it’s all opinionate and objective reasoning. That just simply means observations are made, and then they are made fit into the theory. This is the exact opposite what is supposed to be done when proving a hypothesis. The experimental stage is supposed to be fair and objective, but it’s not when comes to evolution. Chimps have 98% similar DNA is go example of this, what does this tell us.

Is this an example of life creating itself, No!!, but what I can do is take this observation and apply to an evolution theory…..because humans and chips have 98% the same DNA I can conclude that chimps and humans have a common origin from a single cell organism.

Here what’s bad about that, with that type of reasoning it’s just as valid to apply a conclusion to another hypothesis. …. because humans and chips have 98% the same DNA I can conclude that chimps and humans have a common origin from a single creator.

All of evolution is based on this type of reasoning. Now, just because it may be logical to apply an observation to evolution does not make it correct to actually do so, nor does it negate the fact the first part of the hypothesis has failed in every experimental attempt, which is life can’t seem to create itself.

Just another religious bigot.
There are plenty on this site.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Tbrooks76

 

Yes, a common ancestor...you know...first life!! It doesn't make any statements regarding how that first life came to be

You only have two options, it created itself or it was created it. That it's what other option do you have

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
reply to post by phishyblankwaters

 

Why, for some, does it have to be black and white, god or evolution, I think they both mesh pretty darn well.

Because if they accept evolution, they have to discount their bible. If we can just get rid of the bible and other ridiculous fictional texts, religion would be a much easier thing to coexist with. I have no problem with believing in a deity of some sort, but it's the discounting of scientific evidence simply because the bible doesn't agree that irks me, and the ones who use that bible as evidence of itself--make me want to slam my head into a brick wall because I may as well do that then argue why that is so wrong.

There are way toooo many assumptions being presented here for consideration.

I accept Evolution and I embrace MY Bible. There is NO Contradiction there between the two. It is the clarification of what Evolution entails, that make's it, quite scriptural. A presumed record of the evolution of life, from a single cell lifeform upto the "Missing Link" (that remains missing for some GOD forsaken reason). Things taking place in the First Earth Age.

We live in the Second, biblically speaking, which is what the Bible is discussing. Events of This earth age.

There is one small verse that pertains to ALL OF TIME, Genesis 1:1 In the Beginning, GOD created the Heavens and the Earth.

That is it. The balance of the Genesis account deals specifically to this earth age. The one that is POST Missing Link, (which is still missing), or during the realm of Modern Man, so to speak..

There are course insights"Biblically" that speak to the First Earth Age such as Job

Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Does the following resemble this behemoth in any fashion?


When it comes to the balance of Genesis Chapter One, we are dicussing events that occur in this Earth Age.

Science has NO records of a time or period between what the Bible Refers to as First and Second Earth Age. Some speculations based on missing items, (ie The Missing Link, for an example), that have not yet been found.

There is no indicator, as to how a Saber Tooth Tiger, or any of the "Large Cat's" of long ago, became the small creatures they are today. Nothing showing the Bird, moving from the Dinosaur sided of the family tree to the Avian family. (Although, China is offering some of the steps that have been missing for that to take place, with the finds denoting clearly, Dinosaurs had Feathers)

Point here is there is a gap in the recorded record, with what we find today, and the current Fossil Record.

We have today, a completely unique period of distinct creatures, which share "common" aspects with previous versions, yet are more detailed and refined from those of the past.

This Earth, it's environment and the life discussed in Genesis 1:3 and on, are hand of GOD that re-created what was previously destroyed in Genesis 1:2 which is verified within many Biblical Text.

You see.....?

Now for some of the other assumptions presented,

- they have to discount their bible.

No we don't. We need to study our Bible.

- If we can just get rid of the bible and other ridiculous fictional texts, religion would be a much easier thing to coexist with.

No, The Bible has nothing to due with religion, as you express it.

The Bible is GOD's Letter to us.

Religion is something Manmade and therefore Man inspired, and as such, has it's own agenda, based on Man's Doctrines, Theologies and Dogmas.

I really think you should be stating how much easier it would be to coexist with the Bible if Religion was taken out of the equation.

- but it's the discounting of scientific evidence simply because the bible doesn't agree that irks me

Which means now, you need not be irked. Twist up a fatty for 4:20 and enjoy ;lol; . Those concerns are now washed away along with your headache due to the wall.

Have a good Day

Ciao

Shane

reply to post by ImaFungi

prove to me humans are so called "intelligent" and not just random self organizing chaotic math problems

whatever reason you give for why humans are "intelligent"

my response will be,,,,,, no it is just random,,,,,, given enough time anything can happen......

Humans are "intelligent" because the design of our brain is very complex, and that design is a result of evolution. The brain activity which takes place inside our brains is a chaotic process, and it is governed by mathematics like everything else in this reality. The activity is just so complex it produces what we call "consciousnesses". But this is where we will get into the debate of whether it's real sentient consciousness or just the illusion of sentient consciousness produced by complex brain activity, which is to say, do we really have free will? And honestly I don't have a conclusive answer to that, it may just be complex activity producing the self-aware illusion.

However I like to explain this problem using chaos theory also. From order comes chaos and from chaos comes order. From simplicity comes complexity and from complexity comes simplicity. When a system becomes too complex it breaks into a state of chaos where the outcomes are unpredictable. The brain is a classic example of a complex system. I believe it's this inherit unpredictable chaos which is utilized by the brain to produce unpredictable frames of consciousness which allow us to act in unpredictable ways and essentially free us from a determined fate, giving us free will to act beyond the equations governing our brain activity, because those equations themselves produce unpredictable chaotic results.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrderYou and me both know it will be essentially impossible for us to witness self-assembling organisms capable of self-replication, because the process is so rare it took several billion years to happen the first time. The fact is, some very simple cell organisms with the right molecular arrangement are capable of self-replication, which would be the start point of evolution. It's not utterly impossible for those molecules to randomly arrange themselves into the correct structure given the right type of environment and enough time. Given enough time almost anything will happen. You just can't comprehend the occurrence of such unlikely events and you leap to the illogical conclusion that such events are not possible, when that's completely false by all mathematical standards.

So if I put some chemicals up in jar in billions of years it will arrange itself in life?????
There isn’t even a scientific principle for this to happen, it just a blanketed statement with nothing to back it.
Statement like that are no better then a creationist saying God did it all.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Tbrooks76

 

I know life is everywhere, but I dough it created itself and there is no evidence any where for that. If you believe it did you're taking it on faith. I admit there is alot you have to take it on Faith when it comes to creation too, but then I don't go around putting creation into science books and passing it off as a factual theory that become required learning in public schools.

That has the be the most hilarious post I've ever read. Honestly... first you accuse us of "taking it on faith". Don't make me laugh, there is countless piles of evidence to support evolution. In fact we can even witness evolution in real time amongst fast breeding organisms such as bacteria, in such cases as when they become immune to our vaccines. Physical changes have even been noted in larger animals such as rabbits. Of course these are what one might call "micro-evolutionary" changes... but guess what, given thousands and millions and even billions of years those changes build up into HUGE changes, which is how real full scale evolution takes place. And yes you religious people do go putting your theories into books, it's called the Bible... and you proclaim every word to be the gospel truth, and then you travel around the world forcing people to hear said truth because it's your mission to teach them about the word of God.

edit on 18/6/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

All evidence can be made to fit a theory
bacteria doesn’t become immune to vaccines, the immunity was already present the vaccine just kill off the ones that were not immune and allowed the ones that were immune to thrive. Look deeper into that one, there is some research out there that shows that the immunity actually happen why too fast for be an evolutionary process. There has been paper on it, I’m sure if you look for them you can find them.

reply to post by Tbrooks76

So if I put some chemicals up in jar in billions of years it will arrange itself in life?????
There isn’t even a scientific principle for this to happen, it just a blanketed statement with nothing to back it.

Yes if you had all the right chemicals under the right conditions they would eventually arrange themselves into some type of self-replicating life... it's only a matter of time, it may take 100 times longer or 100 times quicker, it all depends on chance. Like I already explained to ImaFungi, no matter how small the possibility is, it's still a possibility. That's all you need, a possibility and enough time for that possibility to manifest. It's not a question of if but when. We already know the structure of some of the most simple self-replicating organisms, although the very first self-replicating organisms were probably even simpler. You need to provide a reason why it's not possible for such simple organisms to be formed in natural random occurrences, because I don't see a reason why it couldn't happen...

And saying "it's too complex" is not a reason, that is just another way of trying to say it's too rare to ever happen, which I just explained is flawed logic. But there are some theories which attempt to explain exactly how the process may have occurred from start to finish, but again there's probably several ways it could have happened and if it were to happen again it's unlikely to happen in the exact same way. Just because we haven't witnessed it and mapped exactly how it happened doesn't mean it can't happen. I could say we have never witnessed God and we don't know how God ever happened so that means God never happened... but that wouldn't really be completely solid logic would it? Unseen things are found to be real all the time.

Reply to post by Tbrooks76

"You only have two options, it created itself or it was created it. That it's what other option do you have"

I have one, what if life has always been? maybe it was never created maybe it all just exists, infinitely... Thats another option, amirite?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by strafgod


This is an interesting thought in that it gets me wondering, what exactly is life? I mean we are the only species smart enough to define what life is, hell we're the ones who define what a species is as well. The question of what is alive, where the line can be drawn, and what sets us apart from non-living organic matter, is a fascinating one. The fact that the Earth and every living thing on it is technically descended from stardust (whether you accept evolution or not) is amazing.

"The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together" - Carl Sagan

reply to post by Tbrooks76

bacteria doesn’t become immune to vaccines, the immunity was already present the vaccine just kill off the ones that were not immune and allowed the ones that were immune to thrive.

Yes that is true actually, but you failed to mention why that is the case. Let me elaborate for you. MUTATIONS. Every new off-spring will most likely have slight mutations and genetic differences compared to their brothers and sisters. When we apply a vaccine there are some bacteria which have a natural genetic biology which provides them with certain advantages and shields against the new threat. All the weak bacteria die off and the few remaining strong ones start reproducing. And no it doesn't happen too fast, because bacteria reproduce at exponential speeds and it doesn't take long for their population count to rise back to where it was before the threat was introduced.

reply to post by strafgod


OR maybe its all just a figment of our personal imaginations? Its proven that atoms vibrate allowing them to be in more places than one at once. Meaning every atom in our body is potential vibrating in a quantum state and is in more than 1 place at once.

Soooo mayyyybe in this world the evolutionist are right. But in the other 100000000000 million earths your body is potentially inhabiting THIS VERY moment, there might have been a totally different process.

Hopefully this illustrates slightly how asinine this argument is until we know WAY more about our universe.

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
After reading the debates between science and religion I must take the stand that creationists believe the Sun revolves around the Earth and all disease is caused by the devil. This is because creationist want to ignore any empirical evidence that does not agree with their views.

Since science cannot prove everything right here, right now, it must be defective. If it is defective can it be believed at all? Wasn't the Earth not being the center of the Universe a religious heresy at one time? What was it that changed our views on this? Oh, that's right, science.

So, what do you believe in science or God? Science = Earth around Sun. God = Sun around Earth. Or is it God, until I am forced to believe otherwise?

The bible say Earth is center of the known universe, and 1 day is 1000 years….Yeah sounds stupid when you think of it in non relativistic motions…but one theory has both these concepts. Consider when you get into physics, Einstein’s theory of relativity teaches, because all things in the universe are in motion we can never know where the center is, thus your prospective point can be considered the center of the universe, and where are you…Earth. Earth, more specifily you on earth, can be consider the center of your universe. Also relativity teaches that space/time are variables and not fixed.

ok, I'm getting ready for to cut out here for the day, be back soon.
You all have good night.

Sorry i didn't reply to one the post I was trying to hit as many up as i could, maybe I can do more tomorrow.