Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times

Topic started on 27-5-2009 @ 06:45 PM by stuff1

After reviewing the science behind evolution I have come to the following conclusion: Evolution is a conspiracy created by those who have philosophical objections to the God of the Bible. The science behind evolution is a such a farce that this is the only possible logical scenario. Consider the following theories presented from evolution:

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter from Big Bang concluded that there was NOTHING then there was SOMETHING. Once the steady state model of an infinite universe was debunked the only logical conclusion is that something / someone outside of space time created the universe. To believe that a singularity was created out of nothing means you believe in miracles, just like creationist do.

creation.com...

Stellar and Planetary Evolution - Evolution of the stars is also based on faith. Stars supposedly condensed out of vast clouds of gas, and it has long been recognized that the clouds don’t spontaneously collapse and form stars, they need to be pushed somehow to be started. There have been a number of suggestions to get the process started, and almost all of them require having stars to start with [e.g. a shock wave from an exploding star causing compression of a nearby gas cloud]. This is the old chicken and egg problem; it can’t account for the origin of stars in the first place.

creation.com...

Organic Evolution - The odds of life forming from the warm primordial soup are beyond 10 to the power of 50. Meaning they would never happen randomly (like dropping red, white and blue from an airplane would never paint an American Flag on a field) no matter how much time is given. Oh did I mention that according to cosmological evolution the earth would have been negative 28 degrees on average during the time the primordial ooze supposedly existed?

www.iscid.org...

Macro Evolution - The changing of one kind to another. According to evolution you are from a rock which eroded into the primordial ooze, became a "simple" cell, a simple amphibian, fish, bird, monkey etc blah, blah to you. If Macro Evolution where true you need to show that new information was created in the DNA. Yet there is not one example of clear, empirically supported examples of information-gaining, beneficial mutations. Mutations that are expressed virtually always result in loss of information or corruption of the gene. People can mutate to be immune to malaria but that is because they have sickle cell anemia. Bacteria can mutate to be resistant to antibiotics but that is because the pouch that holds the antibiotic is gone, kind of like saying a human is immune to handcuffs because his hands are gone. While it may be beneficial "in that environment" the organism is actually weaker. This is evidence of de-evolution.

www.trueorigin.org...

Micro Evolution - Everybody can easily observe changes within a kind. Great, this does not prove Macro Evolution

Based on the overall body of evidence creationist and evolutionist bring to the table it is obvious that evolution does not stand a chance when held up to un-biased scrutiny. The only conclusion is that people have philosophical objections to the God of the Bible and therefore will refuse to believe creation no matter what.

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 07:11 PM by ReelView

Very true -- the statistics alone show how illogical evolution is. Species degenerate they don't evolve upwards, the devolve downwards. It is the spirit that compels any change in matter and the spirit tends to be degraded by it's dissipation in matter (body and mind). The compulsions of karma are too great a burden for life forms to progress upwards to higher forms. The sun is not hot, it is not a ball of hot gas as was once thought or some kind of nuclear reactor. Common sense generally does not interest academics. Their expertise is largely in memorizing sufficient information to gain credentials and thinking and common sense are not a part of that process, though they will believe they are "scientific" by parroting what they have been conditioned to believe is approved knowledge.

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 07:19 PM by FSBlueApocalypse

Originally posted by stuff1
After reviewing the science behind evolution I have come to the following conclusion: Evolution is a conspiracy created by those who have philosophical objections to the God of the Bible. The science behind evolution is a such a farce that this is the only possible logical scenario. Consider the following theories presented from evolution:

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter from Big Bang concluded that there was NOTHING then there was SOMETHING. Once the steady state model of an infinite universe was debunked the only logical conclusion is that something / someone outside of space time created the universe. To believe that a singularity was created out of nothing means you believe in miracles, just like creationist do.

The big bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Evolution is perfectly happy if the big bang did not occur and instead, the universe was created by a divine being. The "nothing" was a singularity.

I would suggest giving this a quick read, though if you have followed all of evidence as you say you have, I'm sure you're already familiar with it
en.wikipedia.org...

Stellar and Planetary Evolution - Evolution of the stars is also based on faith. Stars supposedly condensed out of vast clouds of gas, and it has long been recognized that the clouds don’t spontaneously collapse and form stars, they need to be pushed somehow to be started. There have been a number of suggestions to get the process started, and almost all of them require having stars to start with [e.g. a shock wave from an exploding star causing compression of a nearby gas cloud]. This is the old chicken and egg problem; it can’t account for the origin of stars in the first place.

Once again, this has NOTHING to do with BIOLOGICAL evolution. Evolution is perfectly happy if the christian God did this as well. Again, I believe you should read the link provided. The first section deals with how stars form out of nebulea gas.
en.wikipedia.org...

Organic Evolution - The odds of life forming from the warm primordial soup are beyond 10 to the power of 50. Meaning they would never happen randomly (like dropping red, white and blue from an airplane would never paint an American Flag on a field) no matter how much time is given. Oh did I mention that according to cosmological evolution the earth would have been negative 28 degrees on average during the time the primordial ooze supposedly existed?

Ok, we're in kinda the same ballpark now that you're dealing with biology. However, this is abiogenesis. This is a completely different field than evolution. And just because it has a really big number behind it, doesn't mean it isn't possible.

Macro Evolution - The changing of one kind to another. According to evolution you are from a rock which eroded into the primordial ooze, became a "simple" cell, a simple amphibian, fish, bird, monkey etc blah, blah to you. If Macro Evolution where true you need to show that new information was created in the DNA. Yet there is not one example of clear, empirically supported examples of information-gaining, beneficial mutations. Mutations that are expressed virtually always result in loss of information or corruption of the gene. People can mutate to be immune to malaria but that is because they have sickle cell anemia. Bacteria can mutate to be resistant to antibiotics but that is because the pouch that holds the antibiotic is gone, kind of like saying a human is immune to handcuffs because his hands are gone. While it may be beneficial "in that environment" the organism is actually weaker. This is evidence of de-evolution.
Micro Evolution - Everybody can easily observe changes within a kind. Great, this does not prove Macro Evolution

Where does Microevolution end and macro begin? You're going to say I can take a wolf and breed it into things from a great dane to a chihuahua and that it isn't possible from man to have come from apes? Is there the "Monkey" kind and the "Ape" kind? Or is it just the "Primate" kind?

www.talkorigins.org...

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 07:24 PM by Wally Hope

You have to be kidding right?

Evolution is illogical, but creationism is not?

Your logic comes from a book written 2000 years ago that's open to interpenetration. You all assert your view as fact with nothing to support it.

I could easily see the creation story as a simplified explanation of evolution.
Why do christians insist that the two versions are incompatible?

Your view is a danger to christianity with it's absurd faith based claims. Narrow minded self righteousness.

And we didn't come from apes, we share a common ancestor.

You are illogical.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by Wally Hope]

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 07:27 PM by warrenb

I'd agree with you but as soon as you bring up the bible and that f* BS forget it.

Funny that it's the only solution you can find.

What's so far fetched about alien's seeding life on the planet or perhaps we emigrated here from some other place. Why do you have to have this closed minded approach to explaining our appearance on this planet.

That alone is way more believable than 99.9% of the bible.

Science and theology do not mix

need I bring up the flat earth belief, witch burning, the crusades or the inquisition?

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 07:31 PM by Trolloks

Ok, start of the "evfolution/de-evolution" theory. The word "evolution" is used too oftern, but what your explaining is addaptation to the surrounding habbitats, so it may appear to be loosing information, but it is only loosing information that is no longer needed there for is no longer needed to be included in our DNA, yes we loose something and people call it "de-evolution", but we are loosing useless information, purley because it is now useless.

The bing bang, it did not start from nothing, it started from matter and anti-matter coliding with each other, causing a huge explotion of matter, which created the gas's, which created the stars, galaxies ect, which in turn created the gravitational pull needed to create galaxies and planets etc.

The soup, as you said, there is a very slim chance that this could happen, however there is still a chance, and it is only logical considering the number of plannets out there that it must of happen at least once.

And the whole begining of evolution. It starts very very slowly, a small bacteria for example. Bactiera is known to occure in the most extream habbitats, all that is needed is some form of atmosphear to protect it from radiation (however latley it has been found that on mars there are bacteria that can withstand up to 1000 times as much radiation as humans) and an atmosphear is not a rare thing to be created, all that is needed is a little bit of water vapour, the hard part is keeping it, which earth managed.

Natrual selection, yea sure that part has alot of holes in it, but its only one part of evolution, the theory behind evolution was there before darwin.

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 07:33 PM by JipStix

I am a religious man, and believe in Jesus Christ. I also believe Jesus Christ to be one of the same as Horus, Krishna, etc... I just try to live my life as a giving, happy, and loving person.

That being said, I see no problem with evolution as a religious person. My view is that a supreme creator created the initial singularity, and from there what we call nature did the rest, IE, evolution over time.

I don't see why some people immediately discount evolution and say it can't coexist with the religious belief of creation. Why can't it be that God created the universe, and evolution is just a mechanism used to advance life.

I mean, why do people feel the need to dismiss it all as hogwash?

It seems rather close-minded and somewhat of a cop-out.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by JipStix]

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 07:38 PM by Wally Hope

Another quick point concerning the soup and the chance of life.

If there is only the very slightest chance of something happening given enough time it WILL happen.

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 07:46 PM by stuff1

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse

Where are you reading that evolutionist ignore cosmological events and just focus on the earth?

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 07:47 PM by stuff1

reply to post by ReelView

Not sure if you are being sarcastic about the sun not being hot or not

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 07:50 PM by stuff1

reply to post by warrenb

It seems like your objections are based on your distrust of the Bible. You quote zeitgeist as fact when serious scholars (including atheist) have debunked that movie long ago. It has out and out lies in it.

zeitgeistchallenge.com...

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 07:51 PM by Solomons

"Micro Evolution - Everybody can easily observe changes within a kind. Great, this does not prove Macro Evolution"

Actually it does

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 07:51 PM by stuff1

reply to post by warrenb

I object to aliens because Aliens are not outside time/space. Since time was created during the big bang (time is the fourth dimension) an infinite (outside time) creator must have created it.

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 07:55 PM by stuff1

reply to post by Trolloks

The soup could have never happened no matter how much time. This is shown in this link

www.iscid.org...

I will summarize some of the finding here

In order to form a Hemoglobin you need 20 Amino Acids to form life. You will need to double this number because of chirality which means you need a "left" and a "right" Amino Acid for each 20. So basically you will need 40 Amino Acids

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

The analogy I will use to explain this will be "The Hand of Random Chance" dipping it into the "Primordial Ooze" and and started picking out the correct Hemoglobin. So the "Hand" reaches into the Primordial Ooze and picks out an Amino Acid. What are the odds that it would pick the proper amino Acid?

1 out of 40

Now you need to pick the second Amino Acid. What are the odds that you would pick the proper amino acid? If you said 1 in 40 you are wrong. It is:

1 out of 80

The Amino Acids need to be in the proper order to form a Hemoglobin. The third Amino Acid would be 1 out of 160. The fourth would be 1 out of 320 and so on and so forth. By the time you reach 1 out of 40 the number is so big that you cannot do it on a calculator!!!! You need to create a "logarithm" to even be able to work with the numbers (I do not claim to know how to do this, I was however shown by a Ph.d in BioChemestry). So what is the number that you finally come up with"

10 to the power of 1025

How can we put that number in context? Well if you accept that the universe is Billions of years old than there are only 10 to the power of 17 seconds in the History of time!!!! Even if the "God of time" where to randomly pick Amino Acids every second of the universe there would not even be close to the proper amount of time 10 to 17 vs 10 to 1025. Not even close!!

However the number does not have to even be that big as 1025 because anything over 10 to the power of 50 is considered mathematically impossible to happen randomly. For example you will never drop red, white and blue paint out of an airplane and get an American Flag so that is something that has a random chance of happening that is over 10 to the power of 50. Other numbers to put the 10 to the power of 1025 in perspective

10 power of 66 amount of atoms in the universe
10 power of 84 amount of matter (i.e. quarks plus atoms)

So we created the Hemoglobin even with all those assumptions given to evolutionist. But its not over yet!!!!
1. You have not created life
2. Oxygen would immediately oxidize the hemoglobin (are cells are protected by a cell wall which does not exist yet)
3. If you subscribe to the theory of "Reducing Atmosphere" meaning that there is no oxygen (and therefore no ozone) during the primordial ooze days than you would have to explain how Ultra Violet Rays would not destroy your the Hemoglobin!!

For more information on this you can get the book. "A Skeptics Search for God" By Ralph Muncaster

www.evidenceofgod.com...

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 07:59 PM by stuff1

reply to post by Solomons

How so. Have you ever seen one animal become another kind? They have been desperately trying to mutate fruit fies (which live for only 24hrs) in a lab since the fifties. They can't do it. They even shove those things in the microwave to mutate them. Still a fly every time. What a shocker.

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 08:03 PM by warrenb

reply to post by stuff1

nowhere in my post did I quote Zeitgeist

I don't know what your smoking but whatever it is, it ain't healthy

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 08:07 PM by warrenb

reply to post by stuff1

you are assuming that there was a "big bang", which is just a "theory".

It is often used by the bible thumpers as a crutch to shove their ideology down other people's throats. However it proves nothing as it is nothing but a theory.

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 08:07 PM by IntastellaBurst

I was a Christian for many years, 3 times a week, and twice on sunday. However, I must say. Your faith is illogical, therefore you are insane. Sure, maybe Jesus was trying to spread the truth, ...... but only a truth that people could understand 2000 years ago. it is the beginning to a way, ... not the end. To put faith and robotic devotion to a dead faith is ..... almost infantile to me. ..... haha, you guys are a testament to de-evolution yourselves, .... and when you can come back and give me an asnwer besides ..... " well the bible says" .... then the true journey begins.

reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 08:09 PM by stuff1

Originally posted by JipStix
I am a religious man, and believe in Jesus Christ. I also believe Jesus Christ to be one of the same as Horus, Krishna, etc... I just try to live my life as a giving, happy, and loving person.

That being said, I see no problem with evolution as a religious person. My view is that a supreme creator created the initial singularity, and from there what we call nature did the rest, IE, evolution over time.

I don't see why some people immediately discount evolution and say it can't coexist with the religious belief of creation. Why can't it be that God created the universe, and evolution is just a mechanism used to advance life.

I mean, why do people feel the need to dismiss it all as hogwash?

It seems rather close-minded and somewhat of a cop-out.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by JipStix]