Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

reply to post by Zaphod58


It is a problem, the mixing of science and religion, in serious technical inquiry and reasoning. Creationism is a robust science. Evolution is a weak religion.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by lexafunk

 

Are you seriously equating science with religion? One is the pursuit of knowledge, through a methodology that is self-correcting. The other is the continuation of an old set of teachings that must never, ever be changed, regardless of new information. The two are completely opposite.

Yes, science is man-made, but then so is religion. Scientific theories are never proven, merely demonstrated to be true by endless experiments and findings. The core of science is to create an experiment that anyone can reproduce, which will always give the same results. That means anyone can try the experiment, and get the same outcome. That means it is very easy to demonstrate to people that it's not making things up. Compare that to religion, which merely states "This is true. You can not doubt this, for it is the work of ". There is a vast world of difference. If a religion was even slightly incorrect at the time of its creation, it will always be incorrect. Science is self-correcting - you can't fool science, and any mistakes are easily spotted and encouraged to be fixed.

The rest of your questions can be solved by reading some biology textbooks. Clearly your religious stance is bolstered by your lack of understanding of the natural world. The "God of the gaps".

Well, I would suggest that you read a Bible and maybe learn a bit about God and religion. My religion doesn't make me any less capable of making decisions about my view of the world because I haven't read a Bio textbook. My opinions are my opinions based on what I have researched and studied through religion. Science has to keep being corrected and changed, while the Truth of religion remains unchanged. Maybe there is a reason why it does not change.

reply to post by lexafunk


Oh wow That's incredible.

Science has to adapt because people learn new things. Such as how all of the Bible's creation myths are not true. That's called 'learning'. Just as how you had to be corrected through your childhood when you learned that cars come in different colours, that dogs can bite, etc. If you were born thinking cars were only blue and dogs can't hurt you, does that make those assertions correct simply because you thought of them first?

Why are you using a computer? Religion didn't discover the computer. Science did. Somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?

The number of times the bible has been demonstrates as being wrong is ridiculous. Just because a book that contains errors also claims to be written by God doesn't make it so. Surely you must be able to see how logically bankrupt that position is. By that logic anything or anyone that claims to be God is indeed God, as that's all the evidence you ever had for believing the Bible is the word of God.

But I'm sure you'll find a way to ignore this logic and bang on about Zombie Jesus some more.

Wow! I don't even know where to start with this one! First, please explain why we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees if not for evolution?

As for the other side of the coin, show me one piece of scientific evidence that supports the creation myth?

reply to post by lexafunk

 

Well, I would suggest that you read a Bible and maybe learn a bit about God and religion. My religion doesn't make me any less capable of making decisions about my view of the world because I haven't read a Bio textbook. My opinions are my opinions based on what I have researched and studied through religion. Science has to keep being corrected and changed, while the Truth of religion remains unchanged. Maybe there is a reason why it does not change.

I've read it cover to cover, as well as the Koran, the Torah and many other religious texts. All great pieces of literature written by ancient peoples who had no knowledge of science. I also don't believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy anymore either. The most disturbing thing you said was "My opinions are my opinions based on what I have researched and studied through religion." Try researching something outside of religion. If your opinions are true, they should stand up to the scrutiny! I know you're thinking I'm just another aetheist, but that is far from the truth. I let my spiritual beliefs evolve with the provable facts that I'm presented with. I was given a rational mind to question things, and I choose to use my freewill to use it!

[edit on 16-9-2008 by JaxonRoberts]

[edit on 16-9-2008 by JaxonRoberts]

[edit on 16-9-2008 by JaxonRoberts]

Religion is made up by PEOPLE
So is the Evolution - it is not true... ( i can't bother explaining and stuff, too lazy )

JAxon, I need to point out that man and chimps are 96% the same.

I read the OPs and I was stunned.
So many stupid statements in so little time. I just about slipped into a coma!


HOLY JESUS AND A BOWL OF SOUP!


So what's been going on in this thread? apart from the guy above talking about his religion-blinders and being proud of it.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

reply to post by lexafunk

 

I've read it cover to cover, as well as the Koran, the Torah and many other religious texts. All great pieces of literature written by ancient peoples who had no knowledge of science.

Have you read Hindu scriptures? They had the cosmology right Perhaps the ancients were more knowledgeable and scientific than we thought?

reply to post by FredT


If humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and those other primates are equal in the scale of evolution based on that "tree" then why haven't the apes climbed down from the trees and built up complex societies as humans have? Humans obviously are higher than the primates. And where exactly is the proof for this "common ancestor"?

..and your comment was approved? :shk:

I've no doubt this has already been answered many times just in this thread (and in every other one).

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by FredT

 

If humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and those other primates are equal in the scale of evolution based on that "tree" then why haven't the apes climbed down from the trees and built up complex societies as humans have?

They did not "climb down" from the trees as they had no need to. Human ancestors probably had no choice.

Humans obviously are higher than the primates.

Humans ARE primates.

And where exactly is the proof for this "common ancestor"?

The proof is in our DNA.

I could talk about our bone structures and other similarities but given you didn't even know humans are primates I doubt you'll accept it as proof. Perhaps you should learn something about basic biology before formulating arguments against it.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by riley]

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


About 3.7million years ago it came to be that Australopithecus afarensis could no long swing from tree to tree and remain safe. He had to venture down to the ground and run to another tree, but an ape who can't stand up to see over the grass is very likely to get killed by grass dwelling predators. They evolved and their skeletons became more bipedal, enabling them to run on 2 feet, see threats and hence stay out of danger.

There were more benefits than just being safer, they had freed up their hands to do other things and eventually, about 2.5 million years ago, the first stone tools showed up. This tool use evoked grater brain functionality so by this time we were well on our way to becoming human.

Other apes, to avoid the same dangers simply migrated, but we learnt to cope. As a result, tool use is only been a recent development in the evolution of the other great apes, but as long as they remain on all fours chances are that they will remain small brained.

[edit on 9/25/2008 by Good Wolf]

OP's knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of biology and evolutionary theory is laughable.

-He uses the argument of irreducible complexity, which has been debunked.

-He claims that the way stars are created disproves evolution, when the two have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with one another.

-He claims the fact that we haven't yet encountered any extraterrestrial life proves that this means there is no life on ANY other planet. This is one of the funniest ones, considering the Universe is so massive our radio signals have thus far hardly even reached a fraction of a percent of the Universe.

The opening, though long, demonstrates a total lack of any knowledge or even basic research. It's obvious he didn't even so much as wiki "evolution."

[edit on 25-9-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]

Originally posted by SamuraiDrifter
OP's knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of biology and evolutionary theory is laughable.

-He uses the argument of irreducible complexity, which has been debunked.

-He claims that the way stars are created disproves evolution, when the two have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with one another.

-He claims the fact that we haven't yet encountered any extraterrestrial life proves that this means there is no life on ANY other planet. This is one of the funniest ones, considering the Universe is so massive our radio signals have thus far hardly even reached a fraction of a percent of the Universe.

The opening, though long, demonstrates a total lack of any knowledge or even basic research. It's obvious he didn't even so much as wiki "evolution."

[edit on 25-9-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]

I agree entirely!

Darwin 1 : Invisible Sky Fairy 0

The problem with evolution is it's many misconceptions and ideas. Not to mention the fact that those who believe in evolution tend to separate (for conscience sake) the origin of the universe and life itself, with evolution. They like to talk about evolution but when you ask them to explain their view on the universe and life itself, they get mad, call you names, and call you stupid, and throw a hissy fit.

Flaw # 1 ORIGIN: You cannot get something from nothing at all.

Flaw # 2 LIFE: If life just suddenly started by itself, how did it know to eat, reproduce, and desire to survive. How did it know the difference between improvement and decline?

*yawn*

They are seperate issues because abiogenisis and evolution are NOT the same subject. Evolutionists do not pretend they are as evolution does not try explain where life came from and it has nothing to do with cosmology. It just explains the diversity of life.

"Evolutionists" get annoyed that people expect them to explain how evolution created the universe because they are completely seperate sciences. Google "the big bang" ..it will not even mention ToE.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by riley]


[edit on 25-9-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by Fromabove
The problem with evolution is it's many misconceptions and ideas. Not to mention the fact that those who believe in evolution tend to separate (for conscience sake) the origin of the universe and life itself, with evolution. They like to talk about evolution but when you ask them to explain their view on the universe and life itself, they get mad, call you names, and call you stupid, and throw a hissy fit.

Flaw # 1 ORIGIN: You cannot get something from nothing at all.

Flaw # 2 LIFE: If life just suddenly started by itself, how did it know to eat, reproduce, and desire to survive. How did it know the difference between improvement and decline?

*sigh*

Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang, cosmology, or the rest of the universe, nor does it even attempt to explain abiogenesis.

Evolutionary theory merely explains how the biodiversity we observe on the Earth today descended from a common ancestor.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]

Therein lies one of the flaws with the religious mindset, that all the peices of the puzzle that we currently should must be mashed together like a square peg into a round hole into a nice little digestable ego glorifying story that explains everything.

Excuse the pun but God forbid the exploration of the unknown and doing any thinking or experiments of their own.

Science is not a religion and never has claimed to be alot of the religious can't deal with this or fight it's basically a downward spiral for them in a way.

They're measuring up what they have against what has been discovered to try and validate their belief and science has been shredding that up slowly over time and science is still discovering things all the time.

Nothing would impress everyone more than evolution being proved impossible and grounds for a new theory paved and our scientific understanding improved.

Now notice the possiblity in Science for things to be impossible and discarded and mistakes admitted and more and more new theories tried for the benefit of all.

Yet on the other hand you've got alot of religious people falsely taking the highground when time and time again a majority of what they believe has been debunked as nothing more than fairy tales but they refuse to admit the impossibility of things in their belief or book of choice and cling to same old theory and thus stalling progress for all to benefit.

I'm not generalising in anyway there are plenty of scientists and people out there who are religious and buck the trend and in a way the militant cannot be blamed more so pitied it is just fear and lack of understanding of some of the theories that does the talking alot of the time.

reply to post by Fromabove


Clearly you don't know how science works. Doesn't the fact that you are arguing about something you don't understand raise some questions in your head? Doesn't it strike you as rather odd that you would venture into an area of discussion you know next-to-nothing about and wax vitriolic?

At least try to understand science, and why scientific theories concern themselves with discrete aspects of the universe. Then try to understand evolution, even if you don't agree with it. Once you do that, you'll see why you are currently wrong.