evolution: The greatest conspiracy

reply to post by John Matrix

Mankind doesn't like the idea that he is accountable to a divine creator. That's why faith in evolution is so popular, even after it is shown to be a fraudulent religious belief system.

QFT

The faith in evolution is equal to the faith in creation by the adherent of either belief structure. BUT... the evolutionist faith has greater risk IF there is a Creator there is a loss of future prospect for life, IF there isn't no loss at all.

It's a faith based system that is gambling your future eternal life, and that is pretty huge.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by Blue_Jay33]

I consider evolution to be an idea not sufficiently explored.
Of course, there are evidence out there that support the idea. But the fact of the matter is that there is just as much evidence as to why it wouldn't work.

I could cite my claims and go on and on about why others should consider my theory. But I'm not here to win an argument. Just like you all, I just want to share an opinion for the sake of doing so.

-------------
Evolution from my perspective is pleasurable. But not entirely correct.
Primarily the driving concept of evolution: the idea that one being 'transforms' into another after a period of time. I'll make a simple illustration as to why it wouldn't work.

If a fish ever needed to 'transform' into a reptile in order to survive a changing environment, it wouldn't.

Why? Because it's species won't live long enough to survive many thousands or even millions of years of incompatible environment.

The problem with the idea of evolution is that fact that it tries to draw lines when it's whole purpose is to remove them. For example: Humans evolved from Primates because we are similar, correct? If all life originated in some form of micro organism, then what is their connection to them?

In short, if evolution should work as it states it should... then there no reason why one species can't transform into another so long as the environment allows them to. Even if it means having to go through multiple phases to reach those means.

But the problem within that idea simply lies in the fact that a species must endure an environment that is most likely incompatible with their nature. Sure, small changes overtime might allow it's species to attain traits here and there. But the idea that a species morphed into a completely different one is far-fetched if this is the underlying idea that supports it.

If a species ever had a need to transform into another, it MUST mean that it's environment has DRASTICALLY changed from what it original was.

And changing into another species must mean it went through some form of mutation. But to have a species undergo Identical mass mutation among a large populous while maintaining their capability to reproduce with it's own 'kind' is very unlikely

And what about the probability of attaining features suited for survival that aren't originally from its' species? In order for a species to become something entirely different, it must have mutated traits that will render them incompatible with the species it evolved from.

The chances of that happening as well further decreases a species survival. And several thousand years of endurance is no excuses as to how one thing turned into another without becoming a victim of natural selection.

There's just far too many obstacles a species must overcome to achieve absolute evolution.

It's one thing when various changes occur within a species. But it's another to state that a species simply 'evolved' into an entirely different one.


[edit on 8-10-2009 by GambitVII]

[edit on 8-10-2009 by GambitVII]

[edit on 8-10-2009 by GambitVII]

[edit on 8-10-2009 by GambitVII]

Well, this just looks the traditional religion V science thing which religion can never win.

However, I would like to testify that there is a core of truth to the New Testament. And for those posters who say there is no evidence of God: actually there are a few "eyewitnesses" to this and I think Jesus is one of them....

Many years ago this ball of white light, which was very loving and drawing me near, popped into my consciousness. Not my body's eye – it was my mind's eye. It's unmistakeable what that light is cause it's like an ancient memory being reawakened. The light started coming closer and getting more powerfully loving but then when it got too much it went away. Many people have described this throughout history from Catholic nuns to atheists. Some have described it as the "light at the end of the tunnel". And to me that's what Jesus meant when he said that if the eye becomes single the body becomes full of light.

I think that the possibility of this experience – Divine Revelation – ties in with what I've heard from alleged alien interviews. They say that humans are a "vessel". To me that means a vessel for the soul. And when Jesus said that the world is a bridge, pass over it, it means that earth humans are designated carriers of souls to heaven. We are like the supercomputer in the Hitchhikers's Guide to the Galaxy to find the answer to life the universe and everything. Only, the answer is not 42, it's Divine Revelation, it's the transfiguration and Jesus was just the first human of many to lead us into the new age.

What religion is, is not an unbiased and discerning quest for the truth as it should be but a particular interpretation of religious scripture – a brand – that is held onto with blind faith and vicious fervour. To me Jesus was a spiritual man but not a supernatural or magic man, nor a God become flesh thingy. There was a core story of truth about Jesus and his disciples which got embellished and twisted and mistranslated until we arrive at the hodgepodge of mutually contradictory and downright illogical stories we have today with the King James bible.

I know the Truth and it's not words on paper. To say that a book is the word of god is to hold a false idol before god. I urge so-called Christians to repent in the face of Jesus's real truth. Jesus was a man and therefore a true hero of fellow people, not some god become flesh device designed to scare middle ages people into accepting the rule of the church.

I recommend the book A Course In Miracles.

reply to post by John Matrix


Have you actually read and tried to understand anything people have posted? Or are you right, no matter what people post or argue?

reply to post by sisgood

A: evolution would take too much time. For just one beneficial mutation it can take thousands of generation for the rest of the population to adapt that mutation.
B: I do not believe that evolution can change the species of a creature nor the number of chromosomes an organism has. THAT is the problem I have with evolution.

A: Yes, it takes a lot of time (generations) for the changes to accumulate be apparent (thousands of years). Thats why we dont see big changes or speciation every day..

B: The mutations in the number and structure of chromosomes (not just individual genes) are fairly common too... en.wikipedia.org...

If the population is not divided, speciation ofcourse wont happen.
If there is an reproduction barrier, there is nothing to synchronise the changes in the two isolated populations of the same species, so its logical to assume they will gradually diverge. If the isolation time is sufficiently long, they may get so different that they are no longer able to interbreed - now we have two species instead of one. (thats the def. of a species - organisms which can interbreed and produce viable fertile offspring).
I dont see the problem.

reply to post by John Matrix

I never said the DNA code was the same for all.

Well you said that the variation within species is only due to adaptive responses like suntan, not DNA differenciation (mutations), so I logically assume that you mean DNA code is the same for all and only genes expression is different.
If you agree that individuals are actually different on the DNA level, then answer, how can these differencies arise? The only way in which DNA can change (and adapt itself to the environment) is through random mutations and nat. selection - evolution... Organisms cant purposely change their DNA..

How do you know that DNA is not responsible for adaptive responses such as a person's ability to suntan or inability to suntan?

Yes it is responsible. Where is the problem?

I want you to provide evidence that a whale that turned into a crocodile or Northern Pike that turned into an alligator..

You wont see changes like that in the little time since we began catalogizing species. But it doesnt mean macroevolution is wrong.
Again, its like saying that theory of gravitation is false because I dont see my pen on the desk being attracted to my pencase.. Its simply not what the theory says.. Noticeable changes require many generations (thousands of years..), just like noticeable force requires significant masses. Thats what the ToE says and observation agrees with it...

We can see speciation only in organisms which have large numbers of generations in human lifetime. Like here:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

Read more at SOURCE:
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

Evidence for macroevolution:
www.talkorigins.org...

Hominid fossils:
www.talkorigins.org...
Response to creationists "rebuttal":
www.talkorigins.org...

"So Jackson, and other creationists, should ponder this: if leading creationist authors such as Gish, Lubenow and Cuozzo, after decades of study, can't even agree on which fossils are apes and which are humans, what does that say about the level of creationist ignorance? "

Btw, they cant agree because the fosills show some human and some ape features - evidence of gradual differenciation.

Originally posted by John Matrix

Gee, could that be why the oldest coral reef is estimated to be 4400 years old? Could that be why the oldest living tree ever found tested out to be about 4400 yrs old?

Someone else mentioned the recent find of 8,000 year old trees, and before that living trees just under 5,000 years were found in Nevada. Just a little too old for your flood literalism view.

Furthermore, while there may be living coral beds no older than 4,000, fossilized beds are dated (by the same methods, leaving aside the radiological methods) to extend back FAR too old to be in your literal biblical creation (what, 6, 7 thousand years max?). Whatever problems you can actually present with the current model of evolution, it has much smaller holes than the literal interpretation of Genesis.

The thing is, there IS evidence for occasional brief and devastating floods, in isolated regions. But there is also evidence for certain geological and fossil formations which had to be created by very steady, long term actions and that could not have formed in a cataclysm, like the chalk cliffs of Dover. There is also evidence for a very steady population of humans slowly spreading and developing from the 6th millennium through the 4th BC, not an interruption and restart like the Flood would cause. And if people lived at the same time as all animals ever, where are the trilobyte bones mixed with humans?

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by sisgood

 

I'm no expert on Evolution but I'm aware there are some gaps in the evolutionary history, that does not, however, mean that some supernatural skybeing (God) or technologically advanced space men (aliens) had anything to do with life.

Evolution makes sense, look at Chimps, they look a lot like us, we are clearly more related to them then we are other animals. How do you explain the physical and genetic similarities then? If we are not apes than what are we? If not evolution, than what?

The fact is any theory to the contrary of evolution would have to be equally strange and hard to believe if not more so. Giant invisible deities, sounds pretty odd to me, alien intervention.

It also seems very obvious that animals do change, just look at humans, we used to be an average of 5 feet tall and now look at us. We are changing, as are many of our animal and plant species, those changes might not look like much now but I'm guessing somewhere down the line we will be so different that scientists will need a new species name for us.

maybe you have not seen or read any information on Giants. Or Men which was 7-12 ft tall average. Countless skeletons have been uncovered and collected by many different people, and some sent to historical associations. But when questioned about the skeletons, all knowledge of these bones are denied. REASON: This is a huge enemy to the evolutionist disinformation powerhouse that dominates most of government and major media controlled Education, history books, and Major Media. These giants are also referred in the bible. Another good reason for the antichristians to cover it up.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Well said Blue Jay.

I put it a bit differently...as follows:

If I am wrong, at the end of my life I will suffer the loss of a delusion....Big Harry Deal.

If I am right, the atheist/evolutionist suffers eternal death.

I'm not stupid enough to take that gamble and join the ranks of the

evolutionists.

I starred your post....I'm surprised it sat there without getting starred as

long as it did.

reply to post by TrevorALan


What people forget is the account of the flood involved water from above and water from below. The earth ruptured if you read the account correctly, which means massive underwater volcanic activity and violent movement of the plates and seabed than occurred over a very short period of time thrusting parts of the seabed into the mountains we have now and also forcing some of it down which is why you can find fossils inside some mine shafts. How did they get there?

I also remember an account of an old miners hat being found in an abandoned mine and it was carbon tested at being thousands of years old. Does nayone have this account somewhere?

Evolution is the funniest thing modern man has invented. I have seen skeletons of things that were early man supposedly; yet nothing else to show 'evolution' to connect it to us. Also some races structure is different than others. Nothing gels. I debunked it all when I was 6 years old at school and the teacher couldn't answer my questions because she was just repeating what she had been told to teach and had never really thought through how rediculously implausable evolution really is. Adaptation; now that's something else.

What's even funnier is that people can't handle the obvious so they just critisize those who believe in God to make them feel better and so show themsleves even more stupid in deciding to believe in what is an unbelievable theory (!) because they can't handle the result of being confronted with something that would cause them to change the way they live. Now THAT is stupidity in the extreme.

On the other hand not everyones 'chosen' so some have to be like this and if they don't believe in God then those people can't say it's unfair can they (but they still do which shows their stupidity even more..!!)

I love these posts from the evo's, they make me laugh. When I'm having a not so good day I come on here to ATS and cheer myself up.

It's great!

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

Well said Blue Jay.

I put it a bit differently...as follows:

If I am wrong, at the end of my life I will suffer the loss of a delusion....Big Harry Deal.

If I am right, the atheist/evolutionist suffers eternal death.

I'm not stupid enough to take that gamble and join the ranks of the

evolutionists.

I starred your post....I'm surprised it sat there without getting starred as

long as it did.

Pascal's wager

www.infidels.org...
"If I am right and you are wrong...." How many times have bibliolaters said this to skeptics after all rational efforts to defend the Bible have failed? What they are saying is that one should believe the Bible in order to be on the safe side, just in case it really is God's inspired word. This argument, if that is what they intend it to be, is merely a variation of Pascal's wager, a theistic argument made famous by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal. "If you gain, you gain all," Pascal argued. "If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."
Aside from the obvious fact that one cannot believe--sincerely believe--a thing just to be on the safe side, the absurdity of Pascal's wager is seen in the utter impossibility of practicing it. One should believe in God just in case God really does exist. Okay, what next? After one wagers on God's existence, what religion does he choose to practice his faith in God? Does he become a Christian or a Moslem? A Zoroastrian or a Hindu? If he chooses Christianity, what brand of it does he select? If he becomes a Methodist, how does he deal with the possibility that Catholicism may be the true religion? To meet the requirements of Pascal's wager, one would have to simultaneously become a believer in all religions in the world, and this would be utterly impossible, since many religions forbid beliefs in others.
Bibliolaters are apparently willing to risk their lives and happiness on the probability that they have made all the correct choices. They think they have made the right decisions in choosing theism over atheism, Christianity over all other religions, their particular brand of Christianity over all the options available to them, and finally the correct variations in doctrines that exist within the churches selected. But what are the odds that any given Christian has made all the right decisions in his journey through the religious maze that led him to where he is now? This is a question that deserves far more thought than most Christians give it.

So, all things considered, I have a 50/50 chance of being right-god vs no god. You, on the other hand have a ...somebody help me out here..how many religions/gods are there? Well, ok, lets say a thousand, that’s a nice round number. So you have 999 chances of being wrong. So, I’ll keep my 50/50 and raise ya two small gods.

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

Well said Blue Jay.

I put it a bit differently...as follows:

If I am wrong, at the end of my life I will suffer the loss of a delusion....Big Harry Deal.

If I am right, the atheist/evolutionist suffers eternal death.

I'm not stupid enough to take that gamble and join the ranks of the

evolutionists.

I starred your post....I'm surprised it sat there without getting starred as

long as it did.

I dont like the idea of believing in god just to be sure, because you are afraid that it might be true and then you will go to hell. Thats just wrong...
This is basicaly lying to god that you believe in him, so in case it is true you can go to heaven.
Either you believe in him by heart, or you have doubts or dont believe, but you cannot logically choose one side because it is better.

Also, I think that it is not important to god if someone is an evolutionist or creationist, but what matters is if he is a good person.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Maslo]

reply to post by KilluminatisRex

maybe you have not seen or read any information on Giants. Or Men which was 7-12 ft tall average. Countless skeletons have been uncovered and collected by many different people, and some sent to historical associations. But when questioned about the skeletons, all knowledge of these bones are denied. REASON: This is a huge enemy to the evolutionist disinformation powerhouse that dominates most of government and major media controlled Education, history books, and Major Media. These giants are also referred in the bible. Another good reason for the antichristians to cover it up.

Could you please provide some links to the alleged giant skeleton findings? If there are countless and all over the world, like you said, it would be almost impossible to cover it up.

But I think you probably meant something like this:
www.rationalistinternational.net...
All giant skeletons I heard of are proven to be hoaxes...

reply to post by GambitVII

Why? Because it's species won't live long enough to survive many thousands or even millions of years of incompatible environment.

The environment doesnt have to be incompatible to induce gradual change. It just have to favor one strain of species (one mutation) over another, if only a bit.
Ofcourse if the environment suddenly becomes incompatible and the species wont have enough time (generations) to adapt, it will die off. Thats not in conflict with the theory.

If a species ever had a need to transform into another, it MUST mean that it's environment has DRASTICALLY changed from what it original was.

No, it just requires normal little selective environment AND a reproduction barrier.

And changing into another species must mean it went through some form of mutation. But to have a species undergo Identical mass mutation among a large populous while maintaining their capability to reproduce with it's own 'kind' is very unlikely

Why do you think it have to went through identical mass mutation? If the mutation is beneficial, it is enough for it to happen just once, then it spreads in a population because it gets passed on more often in next generations.

If a mutation inhibites the reproductive capability with the rest of the species, then, its obvious its not beneficial, and ofcourse gets eliminated (by definition).
But as I said, changing into another species REQUIRES reproduction barrier (a river, mountain range...). Then, ofcourse, the isolated populations wont maintain the capability to reproduce as they slowly diverge, and thats what speciation is.

More Math. evidence of Intelligent design:

reply to post by Pauligirl


Actually "Pascal's wager" does take it to the next level, which I fully understand, because he is correct.

Once a person accepts that a divine creator exists, then what. Let say you were raised by atheist's with no religious predisposition, and you believe that for the first 25 years of your life. Then something triggers a fundamental change in belief structure to that of a divine creator. What religion from the thousands of variations would you choose? A very valid question. But I think I will let the bible answer it, Jesus Christ to be exact.

Matthew 7: 13-14

13Enter through the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and spacious and broad is the way that leads away to destruction, and many are those who are entering through it.
14But the gate is narrow (contracted by pressure) and the way is straitened and compressed that leads away to life, and few are those who find it.

Yes you must search for it and explore for it within Judea-christian values as laid out in the bible, only then may you hope to be among the few Jesus talked about.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Pauligirl

 

Actually "Pascal's wager" does take it to the next level, which I fully understand, because he is correct.

Once a person accepts that a divine creator exists, then what. Let say you were raised by atheist's with no religious predisposition, and you believe that for the first 25 years of your life. Then something triggers a fundamental change in belief structure to that of a divine creator. What religion from the thousands of variations would you choose? A very valid question. But I think I will let the bible answer it, Jesus Christ to be exact.

Matthew 7: 13-14

13Enter through the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and spacious and broad is the way that leads away to destruction, and many are those who are entering through it.
14But the gate is narrow (contracted by pressure) and the way is straitened and compressed that leads away to life, and few are those who find it.

Yes you must search for it and explore for it within Judea-christian values as laid out in the bible, only then may you hope to be among the few Jesus talked about.

Of course you'll let the bible answer it cause that's what you believe. And that's fine. Doesn't make it true though and doesn't make you right. It's just what you decided to believe.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Pauligirl

 

Actually "Pascal's wager" does take it to the next level, which I fully understand, because he is correct.

Once a person accepts that a divine creator exists, then what. Let say you were raised by atheist's with no religious predisposition, and you believe that for the first 25 years of your life. Then something triggers a fundamental change in belief structure to that of a divine creator. What religion from the thousands of variations would you choose? A very valid question. But I think I will let the bible answer it, Jesus Christ to be exact.

Matthew 7: 13-14

13Enter through the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and spacious and broad is the way that leads away to destruction, and many are those who are entering through it.
14But the gate is narrow (contracted by pressure) and the way is straitened and compressed that leads away to life, and few are those who find it.

Yes you must search for it and explore for it within Judea-christian values as laid out in the bible, only then may you hope to be among the few Jesus talked about.

Umm, most of them say that you know. Read the apocalypse of peter, which doesn't sit well by most christians because it says that god told him that he will find pity on those that don't find their way during life, and send them to heaven anyway. And god told him to leave this out of the bible, otherwise people might do whatever the hell they want.

But you'll discount that because the bible is perfect in every way right? It's impossible that it was actually altered by churches seeking power.

reply to post by newworld


You are really stuck on the age of the Earth thing. Are you going to insist it is only 6,000 years old?

Now what if they find that the earth is much older then previously thought?