Now Is the Time to Be Aware

Everyone on this sub-forum needs to be aware of certain things, such as the 75 theses of a website which does not refer to any God, Jesus, or the Bible:

Our Theses

1. Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
2. There is life on Earth now.
3. At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
4. Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
5. Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
6. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
7. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
8. The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
9. If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
10. If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
11. For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
12. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
13. Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
14. Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
15. “Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
18. The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.
19. There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.
20. The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
21. There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.
22. The first living cell would have to grow and reproduce for life to continue past the first cell’s death.
23. Growth and reproduction require cell division.
24. Cell division is a complex process.
25. There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.
26. According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.
27. Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.
28. There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
29. Single-celled organisms have a membrane which allows the cell to exchange some substances (“nutrients” and “waste”, for lack of better terms) with the environment.
30. Not all cells in larger multi-cellular organisms are in contact with the external environment.
31. Larger multi-cellular organisms need some method for the interior cells to exchange nutrients and waste with the external environment.
32. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including teeth, saliva, throat, stomach, and intestines) for absorbing nutrients from the environment.
33. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, intestines, heart, arteries, and veins) for distributing nutrients and oxygen to interior cells.
34. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, heart, arteries, veins, kidneys, and bladder) for removing waste from interior cells.
35. There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.
36. According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
37. Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
38. The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
39. There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
40. According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous system.
41. There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.
42. There is no satisfactory explanation how image processing algorithms could have originated in a fish brain by any natural process.
43. If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.
44. Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.
45. Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
46. Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.).
47. No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
48. Cross-breeding and genetic engineering can transfer existing functionality from one living organism to another.
49. Cross-breeding cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the first place.
50. Artificial selection enhances desired characteristics by removing genetic traits that inhibit the desired characteristics.
51. Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
52. There are limits to the amount of change that can be produced by artificial selection.
53. Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.
54. Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
55. Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
56. The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
57. Many different human evolutionary trees have been proposed.
58. There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.
59. Darwin was correct when he said, “Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.” 2
60. Acquired characteristics are not inherited because they do not cause any change in the DNA.
61. Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
62. There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
63. There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.
64. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
65. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
66. Sedimentary layers are formed in modern times by such things as floods, mudslides, and sandstorms.

67. The fossils in sedimentary layers formed in modern times contain the kinds of things living in that location.
68. The concept of geologic ages is based upon the evolutionary assumption that the kinds of fossils buried in sedimentary layers are determined by time rather than location.
69. All sedimentary layers formed in modern times are of the same geologic age, despite the fact that they contain different kinds of fossils.
70. Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
71. Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
72. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.
73. When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.
74. “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.
75. Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.

The site is: scienceagainstevolution.org

Yeah, but God, Jesus or the Bible give explanations for all these things... the answer's already there for us. Why make things more complicated?

Very interesting approach. I hope it stays up and encourages discussion.

I ran across a poster who said "If you can't prove God, then God doesn't exist." While I disagree with that position, it would be interesting to see if he applies his own test and comes to the conclusion that "Evolution can't be proven, then Evolution doesn't exist."

I hope he doesn't continue to extend that thinking to "Love can't be proven, therefore Love doesn't exist."

reply to post by Lazarus Short


I want to pick out those last two. They caught my eye. Irony tends to do that to me.

74. “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation

Well, that's interesting. Isn't that the definition of Christianity? Yet we have no problem teaching Creationism.

75. Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.

So we can't teach Christianity, and we can't teach evolution. So what the hell are we supposed to tell teachers to do when kids ask where the human race came from?

An additional points to consider: no one walks into a church and tells the preacher, "You can't teach that." It's a religious facility, don't be surprised when religion is taught. So when it comes to schools, don't be surprised when they teach the best theory they have available. Hopefully, by the time the truth comes out, those kids will be grown enough to actually understand why their teachers were wrong.

In the mean time, let teachers do their jobs because the churches aren't much better and THEY aren't getting stopped, are they?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Actually, the IRS tells these 501(c)3 churches what they can not teach and preach all the time - IF they want to keep their precious tax-exemptions.

Point #74 just says what I have said myself several times on this sub-fourm about unrepeatable events, and the need for a time machine to verify them. No time machine - no proof, except what we can prove from the bones and stones.

I see that you still steady your opinions on their pedestals in the face of 75 irrefutable propositions. Your mind is a stronghold...

reply to post by Lazarus Short

I see that you still steady your opinions on their pedestals in the face of 75 irrefutable propositions. Your mind is a stronghold...

Look who's talking.

I made two very good points. You just didn't like them.

Why does the bible need to come up every single time someone wants to point out inconsistencies with evolution?The OP didnt even mention anything about religion and responses are already shoving this thread in the direction of that sort of debate. Id rather see this thread discuss ways of reproducing the characteristics of evolution...like the mutations and adaptations, or even find what has been tested and the results of that. But alas it's not my thread, but I feel like I can see where this thread is going already...and can we stop that? Plz.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Dear AfterInfinity,

Good to see you again, and good catch. I feel like playing a nit-pick or semantics game, though.

74. “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation

I think the important point is that it is not a satisfactory scientific solution for the problem of creation.

Yet we have no problem teaching Creationism.

I thought it was tough to teach creationism in public schools. But you have two theories going, Evollution which isn't supported by science, apparently, and Creationism, which never claimed to be supported by science. Creationism answers the questions that science can't. Not bad for a theory.

Well, that's interesting. Isn't that the definition of Christianity?

I don't think it is. We have witnesses to Christ and his activities, actual observations. Evolution doesn't have that, at least as a source for the start of life.

75. Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.

We're not allowed to teach Christianity. I suppose Evolution instructors could say "We're going to describe the theory of evolution, it has no scientific explanation for life, it's just one more guess along with Creationism."

So what the hell are we supposed to tell teachers to do when kids ask where the human race came from?

Pretty much what we tell them when they ask when the world is going to be detroyed, "We don't know, but we've got some guesses."

So when it comes to schools, don't be surprised when they teach the best theory they have available.

I suppose some would ask "And just why is evolution the best theory available?

Thanks for being so thought provoking.

With respect,
Charles1952

Well at least one thing is right, everything eats and poops no matter what the form! All the way down to the smallest cell #1. And that 1 small cell could kill every living thing on Earth for that matter!
Only it needs food, and the only thing it cares about is to live. There are no other factors to concidere! So it started here or came from space hitching a ride on a rock sleeping, waiting for a chance to live. Now it has found water, air more things to keep it alive so it changes itself to adept to grow and again live.
OH BOY! SEX! Lets make more, so it grows expands and changes again and again and so forth!!!! There is no why or who or thought concerning the matter, just to live! So someday maybe another rock falls from the sky or beings show up the fact is only to live!

Excellent points OP. S & F and

What kind of mask did you wear this time around?

About time they took Religion semi-out of 'the' Thesis. I say "semi-out" mainly because the fifth part of their theses mentioned somthing 'supernatural' may have been involved.

Finally A thesis I can agree with.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

So we can't teach Christianity, and we can't teach evolution. So what the hell are we supposed to tell teachers to do when kids ask where the human race came from?

You tell your children the truth; nobody knows for sure.

second line

reply to post by charles1952

I think the important point is that it is not a satisfactory scientific solution for the problem of creation.

Duly noted. However, I was making the point that the ranking alternative uses a similar system. So what's the suggested replacement?

I thought it was tough to teach creationism in public schools. But you have two theories going, Evollution which isn't supported by science, apparently, and Creationism, which never claimed to be supported by science. Creationism answers the questions that science can't. Not bad for a theory.

There's a difference between answering a question and making the question look unanswerable. Answering a question means everyone is satisfied. Making the question look impossible means everyone gives up.

I don't think it is. We have witnesses to Christ and his activities, actual observations. Evolution doesn't have that, at least as a source for the start of life.

Yes. You have the third hand accounts of dead eyewitnesses to miracles that have never again been seen or tested.

We're not allowed to teach Christianity. I suppose Evolution instructors could say "We're going to describe the theory of evolution, it has no scientific explanation for life, it's just one more guess along with Creationism."

No, it's just one more desperate attempt to make ourselves feel like we're making progress in understanding the world. Makes you wonder, really. Why are we so desperate to pretend we have the answers? Don't we have a billion years in which to find them? Kinda makes you wonder what the rush is...

I suppose some would ask "And just why is evolution the best theory available?

Thanks for being so thought provoking.

Well, since we're on the chase for semantics, let's pick out the key word there: the best theory available.

Any time.

reply to post by LightWarrior11

Have you read any of the OP's post history? Maybe that will answer your question.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

I see that you still steady your opinions on their pedestals in the face of 75 irrefutable propositions. Your mind is a stronghold...

Look who's talking.

I made two very good points. You just didn't like them.

Perhaps so, but my source made seventy-five good points. You didn't like those, either. We will just have to agree to disagree.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Dear AfterInfinity,

Thanks a bunch, you've shown me where I went wrong, and re-asked an important question.

I should never have gone down the path to a Christianity discussion. It doesn't really clarify anything, and can be seen as being off-topic. Thanks again.

However, I was making the point that the ranking alternative uses a similar system. So what's the suggested replacement?

And that's the important question. I don't really think that replacing it is the way to go. I don't think either one should be taught by itself. There are objections to both theories.

Science ends up with "Well if you want to go back that far, we don't know and probably never will know. We can give you some observations we've made once we've got some life to work with, but that's about it."

Religion ends up with "We've got some answers for what science can't answer, but they're outside what science can study or prove, so we can't use science to prove any of our theory, either."

All either side can do is throw out objections, claims, possibilities, and try to figure out what looks closest to truth. Teaching only one or the other gives an incomplete picture.

There's a difference between answering a question and making the question look unanswerable. Answering a question means everyone is satisfied. Making the question look impossible means everyone gives up.

The unfortunate part is, that to science, the question is unanswerable. And the creation answer leaves a lot of people unsatisfied.

Who knows what will happen in elebentyzillion years. Right now we have to get along as well as we can. I think, and many disagree, that teaching both sides of the puzzle makes sense.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.

There was some nonsense propaganda already before these, but since these are just completely wrong I decided to stop reading entirely. Not worth my time.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.

There was some nonsense propaganda already before these, but since these are just completely wrong I decided to stop reading entirely. Not worth my time.

Me too I just stopped in that line. The person who wrote the list doesn't understand what evolution is

And after 16 its just a downhill in the logic department.

And come on

Perhaps so, but my source made seventy-five good points

Why don't just add the
76. The sky is blue
77. The rain was water
78. etc

to make sound it has more "good points". To many fallacy arguments in the list.

reply to post by Lazarus Short

irrefutable

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

11. For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
12. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.

Would you have claimed in 1904 that powered flight would never achieve the speed of sound since the Wright brothers didn't achieve it immediately upon their first flight?

16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.

No. Evolution is a theory of biodiversity, not of the origin of life.

19. There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.
20. The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
21. There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.

"[N]o known" isn't the same thing as "will never be known".

I could keep going, but then we'd be getting into how irreducible complexity is a farce and how most of the end of the list has nothing to do with evolution. And I have a two year old to go back to playing with and showing the world to so he can make his own decisions later in life instead of blindly following dogma.