Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I think evolution and God are facts.

I think the "missing links" in he chain of evolution are caused by God making separate interactions with the universe... Thus there should be a gap for each time he said be and when he made man or any time he changed something.

But on to the topic:

It's not just science. It's all of state affairs - when they force separation of church and state. You don't hear history teachers teaching about religious pilgrimages, that washington saw an angel/fallen angel, that joseph smith spoke with an angel and uncovered some gold tablet thingy, that the worlds most advanced mathematics was given to some indian guy who spoke with gods, etc.

But I agree with your premise - in that they force separation as to turn people away from God.

Okay, so evolution by natural selection is a falsehood.

How do you explain the vast diversity of life?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Damn, I have lot to say but I If I do speak up I'd be attacked on both sides and Probably admin would throw me out of this Earth

Originally posted by The GUT

Ad Hominen? Nope. I'll define that for you if need be. Doesn't apply in this sense.

It doesn't in the sense of a personal attack. You seem a nice intelligent person and I'm not implying that. It does in the sense of an argumentative fallacy though. It's an irrelevance introduced to support the op's position (that evolution is wrong and that the Christian interpretation is right), which really should stand on it's own merits. Regardless of who thinks they've seen bigfoot.

Some strawman in it as well, though I won't quibble. although I do take your point and agree that spirituality is a worthwhile topic. I can even see that if there is a cause of our existence, it could be possible to have a personal relationship with it. Though i guess I'm not a fan of organised religion and if I realise I don't really know, I see no point in overlooking what can already be understood because of that.

In the overall scheme though, Socrates put it best. He claimed he was wise not from knowledge, but because he realised when he didn't know.

All good.

Really???



and

www.nbcnews.com...


Evolutionary divergence for you.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

The natural outcome of that theory is to create disbelief in young children.

I'm an atheist. I was raised to believe in creation and was, until my late teens, what would be considered an Old Earth creationist. Learning about evolution in school had nothing to do with my eventual disbelief. In fact the biggest reason I lost my faith was that I read the Bible and looked more deeply into its history with the intention of finding the truth, whatever it might turn out to be.

I can even recall being a young creationist of fourteen sitting in biology and raising my hand to object to the lesson about evolution. I disrupted the entire class to share my faith that evolution was a lie and that God had created life. I argued that both views should be taught in science classes to which my teacher replied “God is not testable, we can only teach what's testable.”

Looking back on that answer I think its absolutely right.

to undermine Christianity via fantastic tales and hoaxes

I've actually seen evidence of evolution with my own eyes, in fact we all have in our day to day lives. Pet your dog, eat some corn, or remark at how a child has her “Mother's eyes” but her “Father's chin” and you've just witnessed evidence of evolution. Genetic science is not a fable or a fantastic tale.

Laughably you espouse Christianity while demeaning science for containing fables. The Bible is replete with fables and allegory, metaphor and myth. We're talking about a book where a man born of a virgin is raised from the dead and all the languages of the Earth are handed down because God is afraid of a tower to Heaven succeeding at reaching him.

It just could not happen by chance alone.

But it could happen by magic? And if not magic than please propose God's mechanism for creating life by anything OTHER than supernatural means. The idea here is that life is chemistry and its wholly natural. All organisms that have ever lived have been offspring of other organisms, if you trace the chemistry back billions of years to its simplest beginnings the line between what counts as ALIVE and what counts as just molecular chemistry would become fuzzy.

Abiogenesis proposes that life arose naturally. Life is natural. To jump to a supernatural conclusion isn't logical.

How many people had their faith destroyed because of this hoax?

Where is the virtue in faith? And why is the punishment for losing it so steep? Would you prefer that people were so blind in their belief that nothing at all could ever turn them away? Do you not see the danger in promoting and admiring those who are so closed-minded they cannot entertain the alternative? Think about it for a moment. What injury is done to your God when people lose their faith in him? What a petty God to be angered because someone has changed their minds, especially those who are merely misled or honestly mistaken. And yet even as their faith crumbles he remains hidden, when confirmation of his existence would require little effort on his part. He is angered enough my disbelief to damn a soul but not kind enough to show is faith when someone doubts.

Thus, it is now believed that Neanderthal man was just some guy who lived in the distant past with rickets and a vitamin D deficiency.

“Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?“ Matthew 6:26

I guess God didn't care much about this guy. He feeds sparrows BUT if future generations are going to use your bones to perpetrate a hoax you may as well die infirmed and with a poor diet.

In conclusion we don't even need the fossils to prove evolution, genetics alone does that. Of the “hoaxes” you mentioned only a few were actual hoaxes and those that were were over turned by the scientific community working to weed out fraud. It wasn't creationists who ousted these hoaxes as such, but scientists. Religion stagnates and festers, splitting into endless factions and sects all claiming to posses the truth. While science gets better data, clearer facts, and actual results accepting conclusions tentatively and always looking to refine our understanding. It's why vaccines eradicated smallpox, while your imaginary God did nothing.

reply to post by Vandettas

Care to explain how it is an "out right lie"?

See OP.

Originally posted by Tetrarch42
Okay, so evolution by natural selection is a falsehood.

How do you explain the vast diversity of life.

How do you, Tetrarch, explain the vast diversity of life? More than that, how do you explain "consciousness?" I'll reiterate: Consciousness, that weightless, massless, faster-than-light phenomenon responsible for all of civilization as we know it? How can the material (evolution) explain the immaterial?

Math doesn't seem up to par. Nor our rudimentary so-called "science." There's certainly not a "model of the mind" as of yet. You can ask that of the finest neurophysiologists in the world and they will, if honest, shrug their shoulders. Or spout nonsensical BS. Nothing they can replicate in a lab or a double-blind experiment that's for SURE. Certainly "God" can't be either...but let's deal with consciousness first as it opposes the topic here: Evolution.

Like I proffered before: Science is an infant. Spirituality is a constant. Paradox is a clue. Get one. Do the math. )

Hi,

Even the quite advanced (usually I can't follow their very detailed microbiological examples) ID-supporters at www.evolutionnews.org... are on a withdrawal: Not evolution per se is faulty (old argument was: the eye can't work without all of its components being fully compiled at once - this argument is dropped in newer discussions as being refuted), but some very, very minor details about microbiological details are on discussion.

Or the "cambrian explosion", which seems, despite the fact that it was a very long time ago and therefore not every example of live existing then could have been found nowadays, to be a crucial argument against evolution. This could be a big thing, but I have my doubts.

But the discussion in more serious circles about evolution vs. ID has left the simple arguments far behind, as those were either wrong or misinterpreted.

Today, the discussion at its highest and by far most serious level has reached into sidepockets of biology - which seems to me like something which is a fight over minor points while the war was about some major things.. I think that ID-supporters are fighting a losing war.


The claim of ID-supporters is a really huge one (God created/modified everything), but today all they are talking about are details like "were necessary nutrient transporters in E.coli present from the beginning?". The arguments for a divine intervention should be huge, as the claim is huge!

These are signs to me that (a) the discussion has left the easy arguments (with a win for evolutionists, I guess) and (b) ID has only some small battle grounds over details in very special cases (which seems to me like fighting with the last arguments left, and those are running out, I guess).

reply to post by Grimpachi

Well I don't much care for the guy

That isn't going to matter to anyone but yourself.

reply to post by randyvs


That’s exactly what I try to tell everyone who claims I am going to hell.

reply to post by The GUT


How is consciousness faster than light? Prove? Or are we switching over to quantum physics? Then you should provide a link from quantum PHYSICS to "consciousness", and your definition of consciousness. No esoteric stuff, just plain nature, please.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


As this is not a religion thread, I won't go into those aspects of your post.

To state that a child having their mother's genes and their father's genes as represented in how they come out, that is still a human! I sat in those same science classes being told that birds wings evolved from the thumb digit growing over millions of years to extend and become the wing. Where pray tell are those incremental thumbs growing for us to see in the fossil record.

Next we will have someone show us a bird with a claw on the end of it's wing as if that proves anything other than it's a bird with a claw. Again, if there were millions of years of evolution to grow that digit out, where are the links? There are none.

Let's talk logic. How does a chemical soup create life? It's been tried many times, and they have not done it. They have gotten a few amino acids to form a part of a protein chain, but just a part and guess how they did that? Very intelligent men organized them to make that part! You cannot get the functions of cellular biology without proteins. It takes a specific sequence of amino acids to make a single protein and the mathematical probability of that happening by chance or chance plus attraction astronomically small!

Now, let's say you get this little cell to grow and function, how does it know it needs to reproduce? By the time it figures that out it's dead. As we go up to more complicated life, how does it realize it needs teeth, a reproductive organ and hey a female would be nice for the male.. by the time these things happen they are dead!

It's swimming in water, how does it decide that it would be nice to be on land? I want to get rid of my fins, think I will get some feet... were are the links? It might be good to see too, how does it get that before it gets gobbled up by something else and dies?

The point of my OP is that every instance they pushed to prove evolution of which I listed the famous ones were hoaxes. Lucy has no hands or feet. They gave her human ones. The other ones they found later were ape like, yet they don't redo their example at the museum. Why is that?

Darwin did not deal with how life began. He took a great observation of adaptation and tried to say all life came from a common ancestor and felt that surely the fossil record would bear that out. It has not. Scientists in Darwin's day felt that cells were just globs of jelly stuff, nothing complicated. Nothing could be further from the truth and our microbiologists, DNA experts know this for a fact now.

Look at this machine inside a bacteria!



That is a complex design tool to work the flagellum. That is created by very complex instructions in the DNA.

Adaptation is not evolution. The theory of evolution is in serious trouble today, and some well respected scientists would rather postulate aliens did it which goes back to intelligent design than God. The fact is, they know their theory of life evolving from common ancestors is garbage.

There is another problem with evolution and that is this idea that some of us are more evolved than others. It opened the door to eugenics. If we are just animals and some of us are more evolved, then it's easy to logically state that some of us might need to go. Forced sterilizations are pushed because natural selection is no longer happening and the weak are polluting the gene pool and stopping us from achieving our highest potential and using up vital resources.

Next we have them preaching overpopulation and hey, if we got rid of a few billion we would be better off. Logically, those backward knuckle dragging evolution denying morons really need to go. Oh, we'll preach some new agey religion about reincarnation so we can tell the people they will be able to rejoin us when they have been properly re-educated by the ascended masters. Our world will be perfect!

Evolution opens the doors to all kinds of atrocities. Yet, they can offer no proof, but will offer lies.

Custodians of the Plan

reply to post by The GUT


Consciousness requires a physical brain, it is not immaterial in the sense you seem to mean. It is no more immaterial than the data on a CD or a USB flash drive.

As for responsible for "all civilization" I think that's a bit anthropocentric. Consciousness is not an inherently human quality, it is likely that quite a few other species on this planet are possessed of some level of consciousness. Which would make sense in light of evolution but not in light of a supernatural creation.

reply to post by Grimpachi

That’s exactly what I try to tell everyone who claims I am going to hell.

You will never read that from me Grim. I think it's to damn close to blaspheme.

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
How is consciousness faster than light? Prove?

For starters, have you ever seen a light blink on? Not just a headlight mind you, but, say, a laser? I have. Your cognition of that fact should tell you something.

Time for the Atheists to get in a fight about "you don't know the definition of such and such." If I were to copy/paste a scientific document about evolution written by Darwin himself, it would still be considered "not knowing what it means." We answer your questions and back up our claims, even if they are not founded in science. Yet you guys are not founded in science or logic either, and all you do is go on about how we don't understand what anything means.

Maybe evolutionists are the ones who don't really understand what it all means? Good thread!

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by Tetrarch42
Okay, so evolution by natural selection is a falsehood.

How do you explain the vast diversity of life.

How do you, Tetrarch, explain the vast diversity of life? More than that, how do you explain "consciousness?" I'll reiterate: Consciousness, that weightless, massless, faster-than-light phenomenon responsible for all of civilization as we know it? How can the material (evolution) explain the immaterial?

Math doesn't seem up to par. Nor our rudimentary so-called "science." There's certainly not a "model of the mind" as of yet. You can ask that of the finest neurophysiologists in the world and they will, if honest, shrug their shoulders. Or spout nonsensical BS. Nothing they can replicate in a lab or a double-blind experiment that's for SURE. Certainly "God" can't be either...but let's deal with consciousness first as it opposes the topic here: Evolution.

Like I proffered before: Science is an infant. Spirituality is a constant. Paradox is a clue. Get one. Do the math. )

Thank you for completely evading my question and responding with some of the most boring sophistry I've ever heard.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Consciousness requires a physical brain, it is not immaterial in the sense you seem to mean. It is no more immaterial than the data on a CD or a USB flash drive.

Is a CD or flash drive capable of designing/building the pyramids? Not even close to a coherent retort. Sorry. Do you realize that consciousness expressed as creativity is responsible for the CD and flash drive?

As for responsible for "all civilization" I think that's a bit anthropocentric. Consciousness is not an inherently human quality, it is likely that quite a few other species on this planet are possessed of some level of consciousness. Which would make sense in light of evolution but not in light of a supernatural creation.

Yes, consciousness, is, in it's highest form, most assuredly responsible for all of civilization. The animal kingdom is subject to variables it doesn't shape. Humans, however misguidedly, do shape societal conditions. What does "inherently human" have to do with the question? How does the material create the immaterial?

I look at this thread as purely scientific and will not add any form of religious arguments in this reply.

I do not believe that the theory of evolution holds any truth.
Nor do I believe that what happened to animals millions of years ago happened to be shaped by evolution

I believe that it is ADAPTATION TO ITS CURRENT SURROUNDINGS
What I do believe is that there is a balance between the ecosystem and the creatures that have been influenced by it. You see, in order for our ecosystem to be what it is today. The creatures around the given ecosystem shaped it. And in return the ecosystem shaped/ formed the creatures around it. Hence it is purely adaptation.

•Adaptation-
"any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment."