Is Evolution another Deceit?

reply to post by Johnmike



Do you mean Charles Darwin, or Erasmus Darwin, his grandfather who was a Greek Naturalist?
www.globalfreemasonry.com...


www.globalfreemasonry.com...

[edit on 18-2-2008 by Kadanak]

I've seen it all to much, (mostly religious) people "rejecting" the scientific theory of evolution to suit their (usually outrageous ) beliefs.

Most people who believe in evolution don't really want to debate, they have formed their conclusion before the discussion takes place.

An argument I've heard a lot is that "it's just a theory" and you have to "believe in it" so evolution is a religion... which is clearly not the case.

I was talking about this with a friend of mine and he came up with a very good analogy which i want to share(and discus) with fellow ATSers.

Creationism is not science because in science it is the evidence and observations that determine the conclusion.
Creationism is backwards. It has pre-determined the conclusion: God did it, absolutely, period.
Any evidence that contradicts the Genesis account is discarded or ignored if not interpreted to fit the conclusion.


I liken the debate to a jigsaw puzzle that does not have its picture on the box.
Science is trying to put it together, while religious dogma is looking over his shoulder.
Dogma feels strongly that the resulting picture will be a unicorn, while Science has speculated a hypothesis based on viewing the individual pieces that the picture is one of a bear.
The more Science puts it together, the more the puzzle begins to look like a bear.
Dogma begins to get more and more upset. "I don't know why you're bothering, it's obviously a unicorn!" he chortles.
Science shrugs, and continues assembling the pieces. The picture begins to look even more like a bear, until it's almost unmistakable.
Every once in a while, Science will have to correct an error and move a piece.
Religion shrieks with glee at this. "See?! You put that piece in the wrong place!
Your wishful thinking that it's a bear made you make a mistake!
Since you're wrong, I am therefore right, and the picture is of a unicorn!"

"But what about all the other pieces I did get right? Can't you see by the rest of them it's obviously a bear?" replies Science.
"You just don't want to admit it's a unicorn! Your arrogance is getting in the way!" screams Dogma lividly.
Science just shrugs, and continues with the puzzle.

I for one am glad i live in a country where "creationists" are seen as some form of religious nutcases. Teaching creationism in a classroom is like teaching nuclear physics in a church or mosque..It's idiotic and dangerous.

Just so you know: even Gravity is a theory, Scientists have yet to witness or prove the existence of graviton-particles (the particles in an atom that give it it's gravity) , but they now they are there, they must be or gravity would not exists. this is a Theory, just as the theory of evolution is one.
Yet all you religious people see the word "Theory" and go insane with arguments like : it's just theory, it's not proven, it's a load of bs"
There is a fundamental issue with how religious people define the word "Theory" it seems...

Next step: I foresee these same religious zealots rejecting the Theory of gravity and float up to heaven...

Indeed thermodynamics refers to HEAT [hence the word thermal] and has nothing to do with evolution.

oh see my friend that is where you are wrong. matter and energy (which is what organisms are made of) follow the these two laws (laws of thermo dynamics) and have everything to do with the organisms evolving from soup. it goes against the law of nature. plain and simple. thats like generating random computer code characters, piecing them together and expecting to get a program as complicated as MSnotepad over millions of years. its not going to happen because of the second law of thermodynamics.
the laws of thermodynamics apply to systems that contain matter and energy. last time i checked an organism is a system. think logically here.

Very perdictable I must say.. are you going to start talking about irredusable complexity next? What about the water canopy that alloud for noah's flood? Maybe the little people in indonesia just had some weired birth defect that made them all really tiny? You say you are not a creationist advocate yet everything you say sounds as though you are only here to use this forum as a creationist soapbox. All your arguments are outlined on anti-evolution sites.. and every point you make can be pasted into google and will go directly to those creationist sites.

i could if you want. lol those are just theories and they do have soli0d scientific support using scientific laws. but again they are just theories to explain what the bible says. and it wasnt the canopy that made the flood possible, it was the water under the crust of the earth, which by the way there is probably water still under the earths crust.
who said I wasnt a creationist advocate? well I may not claim that as my religion, but I do believe in creation. I believe in the bible which teaches creation. whatever you want to call me is fine with me. i really dont mind. i dont reject the the so-called evidences that support the evolution theory because they do not make logical sense.

It will not have escaped your attention that you are comparing a book written by men with emprical observations by other men. Please do not quote scripture, it doesn't prove anything except that a point of view was once written down.

uh didnt quote anything, I gave it to you in a nutshell.

It is dangerous because it deters further questioning and provokes ignorance. Complicated organisms took billions of years because that is how old the universe is and we can trace fossil records. We can also work it out by observing the development of single celled organisms in the laboratory, in particular their ability to develop resistance to certain chemcals. Natural selection has been observed and demonstrated, peppered moths in the UK during the industrial revolution being a classic example of genetic mutation suiting particular environments.

ok and this proves that moths did what? it didnt change them into anything else other than a moth, and it didnt cause anything else such as a fly to turn into a moth. all this did was give one color of moth a higher rate of survivability. thats all it did. and it wasnt even a mutation. all it did was change the selection process from one color to another simply because the environments color changed. both colors already existed. just one had a harder time surviving. because it couldnt blend in. yes I agree this is natural selection, however this process will not and does not change the moth into anything else other than a moth no matter how much time you give it. If this is what you mean by natural selection, then yes this is very scientific and is very observable, demonstrable etc.

oh ok so it took billions of years because thats how old the universe is... hmm... interesting. how do we know that the entire universe is billions of years old? is this an assumption? or did we go out and use radiometric dating on the other planets, galaxies, comets etc?
yeah, major assumption. it took billions of years because only a large amount of time can cover up for the lack of logic and evidence.

All evolution needs is time and pressure. Bear in mind that this is not a conscious process, evolution does not have a desired end state and forcing pandas to spend most of their time in water may result in extinction by drowning!

sounds like wishful thinking to me.
thats like saying that if humans spend enough time in the water, they might develope fishlike features or aquatic features.
this is all fantasy dude. and there is no evidence to support this has ever taken place.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but genetic mutation is a major driver in evolution

show me examples of beneficial mutations.. you said before that mutations and changes are not conscious changes. so tell me how this process of beneficial mutations take over? beneficial mutations can allow for ease in living, it doesnt have to make all others die out like you imply.
please elaborate.

Evolution occurs, yes...but Darwin's theory is a bunch of crock. Most Scientists today are Darwinists. Hell, it has only been 50 years ago that they discovered the Universe was "finite". In my opinion, if we are still here by 2050, Darwin's theory will be to Science what the flat Earth theory is to Science now.

AMEN! however I think that evolution has done more than influence the field of science, I believe it has greatly impacted the world in other ways (bad ways) it has become a phylosophy (if you would), a religion to some. but that is a totally different topic of discussion.

uh didnt quote anything, I gave it to you in a nutshell.

Semantics. You paraphrased.

In no particular order:

The Origin of Species is approaching its 150th anniversary, not bad going for something which is just a theory! Darwin didn't get it absolutely correct first time around and the theory has been developed over time; scientists do not treat theories with the reverence you attach to The Bible. The basic principle, however, is still unblemished and far more simple than creationism will ever be.

The peppered moths are a short period example of the benefits of genetic variation and changes in majority genotype to suit circumstances, were the circumstances in question permanent then a new species would, in time, develop. The difference in colour is a mutation, insofar as it is a variation from the "norm". Bacteria life cyces are sufficently short as to note the development of a new species in laboratory conditions.

To follow an increasingly frivolous point: Humans forced to live in water would probably die (as would pandas!), but it should be obvious that some Humans are better swimmers than others and were we forced to live in a more hydro-centric fashion then the better swimmers would outsurvive the poorer swimmers thus favouring the swimming chracteristics themselves and concentrating them in their offspring. Over millions of years we may see the development of aquatic "humans" with webbed feet, large lung capacity, eyes adapted to seeing underwater and so on, but only over the millions of generations required to focus such developments. There is nothing to suggest that they would become fish like (we aren't in the fish class for a start), but aquatic features will develop, albeit in a time scale so long as to prevent human observation. Note that severe changes such as this in an environment often leads to extinction.

This is all fantasy dude. and there is no evidence to support this has ever taken place.

The evidence is all around you! Why do snakes have hips? Why do we share such similar physiology to great apes? How have eyes developed in more than 40 different ways in different species? Why would a panda choose to live in the manner it does? Why would god create a wasp which imprisons a caterpillar and lets its young eat the caterpillar alive?

show me examples of beneficial mutations.

Are you honestly suggesting that all mutations are bad? The ludicrousness of that statement should be obvious to you. How about the genetic predisposition of certain African Humans toward being good distance runners, others being naturally good sprinters, dark-coloured peppered moths, the development of resistance in bacteria e.g. MRSA (good for the bacteria, not for us!), why are we taller now than 300 years ago? Why are we more intelligent now than 10,000 years ago? I needn't go on. If we can see further, it is because we are standing on the soldiers of giants.

The comments about the age of the Universe further compound your misunderstanding, please research the matter yourself I am not a cosmologist. Needless to say that the manner in which the Universe behaves gives us no choice but to accept that it is billions of years old.

so you mean to tell me that the evolutionists never find not one thing that can support creation? not even one thing?

they never go, "hey wait this might be used as evidence for creation or even both"?

if they do, where are those findings? and if they dont, then why not? science is not to search on behalf of one side. science speaks for itself and the conclusions drawn from the facts and evidences make the theories.

no one answered my question from before.

and I think the evoluton you are all meaning to refer to is MICRO evolution, change in species over time... this is scientific, its very evident. but again this process does not change a moth to bird over millions of years. thats a belief not even a theory, yes a variety of moths will arise but nothing else.

[edit on 18-2-2008 by Methuselah]

The evidence is all around you! Why do snakes have hips? Why do we share such similar physiology to great apes? How have eyes developed in more than 40 different ways in different species? Why would a panda choose to live in the manner it does? Why would god create a wasp which imprisons a caterpillar and lets its young eat the caterpillar alive?

are these all your questions? i can actually answer a few.

Are you honestly suggesting that all mutations are bad? The ludicrousness of that statement should be obvious to you. How about the genetic predisposition of certain African Humans toward being good distance runners, others being naturally good sprinters, dark-coloured peppered moths, the development of resistance in bacteria e.g. MRSA (good for the bacteria, not for us!), why are we taller now than 300 years ago? Why are we more intelligent now than 10,000 years ago? I needn't go on. If we can see further, it is because we are standing on the soldiers of giants.

wow you think modern man is smarter now, you have not been watching the history channel lately. artifacts found show that ancient man was not dumb at all. and in near Mt. Arrarat, they found a human skeleton that was 12 foot tall, turksih gov. claims it to be the grave of noah.
its funny how only the christians bring up these findings. all are fraud eh? yeah right, hard to believe.


[edit on 18-2-2008 by Methuselah]

Originally posted by Methuselah

so you mean to tell me that the evolutionists never find not one thing that can support creation? not even one thing?

they never go, "hey wait this might be used as evidence for creation or even both"?

if they do, where are those findings? and if they dont, then why not? science is not to search on behalf of one side. science speaks for itself and the conclusions drawn from the facts and evidences make the theories.

no one answered my question from before.

and I think the evoluton you are all meaning to refer to is MICRO evolution, change in species over time... this is scientific, its very evident. but again this process does not change a moth to bird over millions of years. thats a belief not even a theory, yes a variety of moths will arise but nothing else.

[edit on 18-2-2008 by Methuselah]

I'm not sure I ought to dane that post with a response, but hey I'm a sucker for a challenge.

Creationism and evolution are mutually incompatible (sound familiar), we have yet to find anything in biology that is irreducibly complex. That is to say it could not have developed from soemthing else and so must have been created. Does that answer your question?

Moths may not become birds, but they might become another species entirely which we haven't seen yet. Indeed for moths to become birds would require them to regress to the point where they split from an ancestor organism which they share with birds and then develop along the same evolutionary path as birds - highly unlikely non? There is not a finite stock of species for organisms to switch between at will, invariably evolution creates an entirely new species the like of which we have not yet seen. A species of moth may not become a bird, but it may stop flying and become a ground dwelling moth in response to increased predation by bats.

I'm not sure I ought to dane that post with a response, but hey I'm a sucker for a challenge.

Creationism and evolution are mutually incompatible (sound familiar), we have yet to find anything in biology that is irreducibly complex. That is to say it could not have developed from soemthing else and so must have been created. Does that answer your question?

Moths may not become birds, but they might become another species entirely which we haven't seen yet. Indeed for moths to become birds would require them to regress to the point where they split from an ancestor organism which they share with birds and then develop along the same evolutionary path as birds - highly unlikely non? There is not a finite stock of species for organisms to switch between at will, invariably evolution creates an entirely new species the like of which we have not yet seen. A species of moth may not become a bird, but it may stop flying and become a ground dwelling moth in response to increased predation by bats.

so if I understand this correctly, we havent seen this occur in any species yet? in other words we havent observed this, correct? in other words this is pure speculation and is indeed not supported by anything other than the idea of it occuring.

and no, that doesnt answer my question. if you didnt notice, I quoted my own question(s) so you wouldnt have to go lookin for it.

Every single debate or dicussion with creationists is useless.

THE PROBLEM WITH DEBATING CREATIONISTS: You CANNOT reason a person OUT of position that they did not REASON themselves into.

Creationists are pushing religious dogma masquerading as junk science, and they have NO interest whatsoever in scientific debate. All they care about is re-affirming their religious beliefs of disturbing stories of hell and damnation and devils and eternal suffering and ramming them down the throats of unsuspecting children.

See, The bible isn't a salad bar, so you can't pick and chose what parts you want to believe in, while telling everyone to ignore other parts. It's all or nothing.

Funny how Christians only interpret the Bible anyway they seem fit. Funny how they interpret it to justify their intolerance, their own politics, their hypocrisy and the self-righteous crap they impose on others huh?

For me the fundamental difference will always be
Science offers answers to those who seek to understand: If I wanted to know how cellular functions operated I could study the research and resolve most of my questions with self evident facts.

Religion offers answers to those who seek answers: If I want to know how cellular functions operated I could read a few passages from the bible and say, "God did it."

That your sole recourse when confronted with a reasonable argument against your preconditions is further semantic equivocation should be telling of the weakness of your stance.

I don't think anyone here would claim that these extreme positions are representative of the average Christian - but then that's irrelevant to the point.

The reality is that the loudest, angriest voices are the easiest to hear, and usually get the most done. That's the threat. In the 21st century the fact that school boards in various parts of the country are seriously entertaining the idea of teaching baseless conjecture as an equally plausible explanation of the development of our species alongside the only scientific theory we have ever had on that question is simply unacceptable. Christians are free to believe whatever they want, up to the point that those beliefs demand intrusion upon my science.

reply to post by XyZeR


Why to convince a creationist to believe in evolution? Why to convince evolutionist to believe in creationism? Because they both (evolutionists and creationists) alike believe that they are right and others are wrong. It doesn't even matter, because both are wrong and doesn't have a slightest clue, that's why they try to convince each other to support their beliefs. To back up their own uncertainty. Or to pronounce their own certainty!

But wait! Maybe they're not trying to convince each others at all, but those who linger between, refusing to believe in neither. Oh noes! Run away!

Hey I say, to exists, one doesn't have to know if there is or if there isn't evolution or intelligent design. How about attending to this moment, going out and enjoying the beautiness of universe, without pondering how it came to be?

Peace

[edit on 19-2-2008 by v01i0]

reply to post by XyZeR


Greetings.....I have been long seeking some meaningfull scientific debate on this issue. At this time my mind is completely opened although I must confess that a Catholic school education imparted some predjudicial notions in favor of creation...."Thank God Iam Past that."
So far science has not been able to prove mathamatically its theory (eg.The aquatic beginning up to and including the Ape )
In addition science has been unable to produce a transitional speci.
Lets take a look at the big bang theory....
If we can agree that there is order in the universe (eg.night to day year in and year out ) My question to science would be...How could so much order come from an explosion.....The definition of explosion in its self is the antithesis of order.....
What do you think ???

reply to post by theodorej


Theodore, were we to have access to the entire fossil record no-one would be more overjoyed than I, but the absence of species from the fossil record does not disprove evolution, it merely proves that here is more to be discovered. It is extremely unlikely that we will ever discover a fossil for every animal that ever lived.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by a mathematical proof of the theory, the maths does a very good job of supporting an extremely simple theory and what we see on the Earth today confirms what we know about evolution.

As for the Big Bang, explosions are not chaos, they are merely chaotic. If they were chaos then fireworks displays would be rather more exciting to watch! Do not mistake entropy at a molecular level with the actions of matter at a far larger scale.

Remember evolutionary theory does not disprove the existence of a god or godsw, it is just one of many empirical observations which can be made that severely reduce the likelihood of a god or gods.

Theodore, were we to have access to the entire fossil record no-one would be more overjoyed than I, but the absence of species from the fossil record does not disprove evolution, it merely proves that here is more to be discovered. It is extremely unlikely that we will ever discover a fossil for every animal that ever lived.

now see that makes no sense. if it took millions of years, you should be able to find the "missing links" or the "transistion fossils". the evolutionists would be able to present the evidence, they would be able to present the every transition. they should be able to tell us how life started in the first place and they still cannot.
1 billion is a pretty big number espcially when it when you are counting years.
and im sorry the fossil record doesnt exist, if it did it would be everywhere you look, not just in certain places, it exists in 'Principals of Geology" along with other text books but no where on earth... .you just happen to find places where the fossils are burried in the order you would like them to be found. there is no 'fossil record', there is no record of any sort, all you know is that it died. just because you find one fossil burried above the other doesnt mean that the one below slowly evolved into the one above. that is the most retarded conclusion anyone would ever come to.

and yeah there is a lot more to be discovered.... the entire theory needs real evidence! not made up numbers and dates and definately not something that is based off a theory (with no backbone when it was thought of) that was written before our era of so-called radiometric dating.

but just for the fun of it, please provide a list of the places where the geologic collumn exists... (your so called fossil record)

reply to post by Methuselah


I think you need to conduct a bit more reading into geology Meth! The conditions for an organism to become fossilised are very specific and fossils tend to be found only in specific areas. I would very much doubt if there is a fossil for every species that has ever lived, indeed I doubt there are fossils for the majority of species that have ever lived.

Just because a fossil appears in a stratum lower than that of another does not mean that it evolved into that organism, it merely means that it died (and thus lived) earlier than the other organism. It is possible that the two even co-existed, hence why it would a "retarded conclusion"! The entire theory is not lacking in "real" evidence, the evidence is everywhere on Earth that natural selection occurs and evolution results from it.

I have never heard the term "geological column" before, but if you refer to the fossil record then it should be obvious that there is no one location which holds every fossil ever found! A number of different academic institutes hold records of discovered fossils, often each specialises in a particular family. Analysis of fossils is promulgated through peer-reviewed work and research papers.

[edit on 21/2/08 by Naboo the Enigma]

I would very much doubt if there is a fossil for every species that has ever lived, indeed I doubt there are fossils for the majority of species that have ever lived.

millions of years would be able to give a more defined transition between species showing gradual change from one kind of animal to another.

Just because a fossil appears in a stratum lower than that of another does not mean that it evolved into that organism, it merely means that it died (and thus lived) earlier than the other organism. It is possible that the two even co-existed, hence why it would a "retarded conclusion"!

oh really, so howcome human bones and dinosaur bones existing in the same layers are still dates as way younger? why arent they ever dated as the same?
so polystrate fossils mean what then?
According to Charles Lyell (the person who 'invented' the geologic collumn/time scale... found in most museums all over the US) each layer of strata is a different age. I am very suprised that you have never heard of this. The "fossil record" does not prove any transition of any kind of plants or animals from one kind of animal to another. it does not prove any kind of animal can change to a different kind of animal over millions of years. you just admitted to it. so why do you still think that fossils count as evidence for evolution?

reply to post by Methuselah


Fossilisation is sufficiently rare that even over millions of years we will not get a sample of every species and we will only find a small percentage of fossils that exist - there could be millions of fossils underneath London or the Atlantic Ocean, but we aren't going to get to them! In some cases transition has been very clearly defined by fossils and some fossils are very closely related to existing species (Neanderthal Man).

I agree that the fossil record alone does not prove the theory of evolution, but when it is combined with a number of other factors evolution becomes the obvious solution and the theory has allowed us to predict what we might find in the fossil record.

I haven't heard of artefacts from the same stratum being dated differently, if you have a source I would be interested in reading it.

Originally posted by Naboo the Enigma
reply to post by Methuselah

 

Fossilisation is sufficiently rare that even over millions of years we will not get a sample of every species and we will only find a small percentage of fossils that exist - there could be millions of fossils underneath London or the Atlantic Ocean, but we aren't going to get to them! In some cases transition has been very clearly defined by fossils and some fossils are very closely related to existing species (Neanderthal Man).

I agree that the fossil record alone does not prove the theory of evolution, but when it is combined with a number of other factors evolution becomes the obvious solution and the theory has allowed us to predict what we might find in the fossil record.

I haven't heard of artefacts from the same stratum being dated differently, if you have a source I would be interested in reading it.

ok first of all I would like to point out that any source I would provide would most likely be a creationist source, this is simply because anything found that does not support the evolution theory is thrown out.
but here is a link that shows that Neanderthal man as being a Hoax as well as others.
LINK
LINK2
LINK3
LINK4

and no dude, fossilization is not rare. fossils are found all over the world.
here is a link that explains a little bit about fossils. Fossils
and many things can petrify (which is a form of fossilization) in a short period of time. many examples all over the internet. so your theory of millions of years not being enough time to fossilize all transitions of fossils is not very well supported.
Another Interesting Link


[edit on 21-2-2008 by Methuselah]

[edit on 21-2-2008 by Methuselah]

I find it simply amazing that some people cannot bring themselves to believe that complex life can arise by chance when all the physical evidence points in that direction and yet they can believe in an all knowing, all powerful god who could create and animate all things even though there isn't a single shred of empirical evidence to support such beliefs. Simply amazing! It is as though their minds strip gears at the complexity of reality forcing them to opt for a more simple-minded explanation (e.g. "Tinkerbell did it").

I have never believed in evolution, first of all, if we started off as little tadpole thingys and morphed into and ape and into man, why are there still apes? Why would only some morhp into man and some stay apes? And why is there a missing link? Because not of it fits without a missing link theory. Take away the missing link and you have zilch.



But I do like banannas...........

[edit on 24-2-2008 by space cadet]

Originally posted by space cadet
I have never believed in evolution, first of all, if we started off as little tadpole thingys and morphed into and ape and into man, why are there still apes? Why would only some morhp into man and some stay apes?

[I really hope that was satire.]

This is not a classroom and that is not an argument.

Please find a site on evolution [not a creationists version] and educate yourself. You might also want to try reading the entire thread as I'm pretty sure this has already been answered.

[edit on 24-2-2008 by riley]