evolution: The greatest conspiracy

reply to post by sisgood

---

lol, have to laugh if this upsets you just try taking an astronomy class in college. i cannot count the times i have heard: not sure, speculation, we think, lol the list goes on and on. right with you on this one
the funny thing like you said was they preach it as law. it was pretty obvious in my 1st year of college that the human race doesnt have a dam clue what is truly going on

reply to post by sisgood

---

It's good that you keep questioning science in general. Have you ever thought of becoming a scientist yourself? maybe you could fix some of the apparent problems that a few of theories have.

reply to post by sisgood

---

So the guide told you that. Did you ask where he got that data from, or did you presume he knew what he was talking about?


Based on what a guide told you many years ago...


This strikes me a pretty poor reasoning to distrust scientists.

reply to post by Welfhard

---

Oh, trust me, it's only been reinforced through the years.

lol Actually when I was younger I wanted to be an astronomer! Unfortunately, in an attempt to keep me away from the horrible public school I was zoned for, my parents sent me to a very small neighborhood school. It was actually a one roomed school! I was fine kendi - second grade. I had great teachers, made the A honor roll, and was reading at a fourth grade level by the end of my second grade year.

Then third grade... I was the only third grader. To be cheap, my school ordered me first and second grade books. They had also changed to an experimental education system that year, that called it the A.C.E. system. Students were to teach themselves. So there was no spelling or writing lessons for me that year.

If I had known what they did to me, I would have sued! Unfortunately, by the time I realized, the statute of limitations was up. Ever since then, (having to catch up going to a very good private school with wonderful accridations) I have had a mental block when it comes to math. I can't understand a lot of the higher math at all!

Soooo bye bye dream...

reply to post by John Matrix

---

Thanks for that John. This propaganda site is not one I've seen before, however it has the same old flaws.


Creation.com: "About us"

What this means is that they have already decided that creationism is true and evolution is false. They reach this conclusion based on faith, and not the scientific evidence. They aren't willing to make new conclusions regardless of what they see and that is why their approach is unscientific and deeply flawed.

It actually parrots word-for-word AiG as well:

Creation.com: "About us"


They do not allow for the possibility that they may be wrong (as they accuse everyone else of being) and if they are, they will never be able to be corrected simply because they refuse.

Science doesn't work like that, it doesn't work on dogma and rejects faith. The predictions of hypotheses are rigorously tested for accuracy and science is always looking for new evidence to improve standing theories and make them more complete. Science is an ever improving and self correcting process of knowledge building.

Science is a study of reality and if indeed there is a divine creator, his creation will be revealed not in a bronze age book of myths but in the awe inspiring science.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by sisgood

---

Do tell.

reply to post by sisgood

---

My opinion: evolution is EXTREMELY impossible to believe. Good for you on your post.

One of my biggest doubts (among zillions of others) of evolution? The incredibly complex human brain. Yeah, we supposedly evolved this thing, our brain, ourselves, to get to this point in our intellectual capacity, yet no one can explain *precisely* how all of it works (doesn't that bother anyone else? we're supposed to have evolved yet don't know all the details of how we did evolve? shouldn't it be common intuitive knowledge now to every living thing, billions of years later, imbedded somehow in our total being, in every thread of our existence????)

Macro evolution NO, micro evolution yes (variation amongst species does occur, and misleads many to think this is actual macro evolution).

I really want to post more, but don't have time, doing homework, but please check at Dr. Behe's info (read his book, Darwin's Black Box about the irreducible complexity of biochemical systems), he's a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University:
Dr. Michael J. Behe

reply to post by sisgood

---

don't give up on that. you questioning science only shows you have a certain interest on the subject. It is never too late to accomplish the goal.
Mental blocks are mental constructs- your mind will be "blocked" if you think it will be blocked. If you think you won't have your mind "blocked" and try to learn math from the very basics- even go over the things you already know- then you will get rid of this supposed mental block.

edit to add: I know this sounds like circular reasoning. but what I'm trying to say is that your mind will affect how much you learn. If you don't approach a subject positively, then you won't get anywhere. If you have an attitude saying "i am capable of learning this" then you won't have a mental block.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by newworld]

reply to post by newworld

---

Thanks for the encouragement. There's also some... traumatic stuff related with me trying to catch up in math and spelling. I'm trying to get through all that now.

For a career that advanced, I'm afraid it is too late. I'm married now and looking desperately for a job to help my husband support us. Then I'm looking forward to having children. I'll keep learning but I think the idea of a doctorate is behind me.

Maybe when I retire...

The existence of gaps or shortcomings in a theory do not show that the theory itself is wrong. True - you can't use the fossil record to *prove* the Theory of Evolution. However, nothing will ever prove the Theory of Evolution (or any other scientific theory).

You don't prove theories in science. You can either *disprove* them, or fail to disprove them. There is no way to ever prove them.

Darwin painstakingly took many hundreds of thousands of examples of animals and plants, examined their structures, similarities, and differences, and constructed a theory to account for these facts. He imagined evolution to be a slow, gradual series of minute changes that, over billions of years, resulted in life as we now know it. His original theory has now been shown to be somewhat incorrect.

The changes are not gradual. Currently the theory is that evolution progresses along a course of "punctuated equilibrium", meaning living things remain essentially static for long periods of time, until there is some sort of massive change to the environment. At that time, many species die out, and others arise. The changes are not gradual, but sudden.

There are many reasons why the fossil record may not show some intermediate states in evolution. One possible reason, as the OP points out, is that evolution simply doesn't take place. Although the record does, in fact, show many intermediate changes in species, it also fails to show some important ones.

Another reason could simply be that, compared to the static periods, the periods of change are brief. You've got millions of years of little change, with perhaps only centuries, even decades, of sudden, massive upheavals. You just aren't going to see many fossils from a period of only a few hundred years, no matter what they might be doing during that time. To put it into perspective, if a certain million-year era produced 10 feet of rock (I think that's an extreme), a thousand years would give you only about an eigth of an inch of fossils. Most of the action is taking place in that fraction of an inch, though. Mostly what you get is the "before" and "after" pictures, without much of the "during".

I don't see any conspiracy with evolution. I see a fossil record that seems to support - or at least, not refute - a theory that species can change. In fact, I see more recent work that shows that species *do* change. Just as natural selection can drive evolution, so can "unnatural selection", humans breeding animals for various traits. Look at dogs. They descend from the wolf, yet you've got the chihuahua (the existence of the chihuahua is proof that there is no God, but I digress).

Maybe the Theory of Evolution is wrong. Some new discoveries - or reinterpretations of older discoveries - may result in science abandoning this theory. But so far it fits more of the facts than anything else around. It's not perfect, and it might not even be right, but it's the best we've got for now.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm very familiar with the process of the AMS.

What my statement is referring to is: the original assumption by Willard F. Libby that the radiocarbon levels in the atmosphere have remained constant...an assumption proven wrong in the 1960's.

C-14 equilibrium has not yet been reached. The formation rate of C-14 is thirty percent greater than the decay rate. The amount of C-14 in the atmosphere is increasing.

This obviously causes problems with getting accurate measurements. Steps have been taken to try to curb these issues, of course, but they're not infallible.

Nice, you made a better job of explaining how the theory works than i do. star for that. However, the main reason I am replying to you is that I found your above statement interesting. How does the existence of the chihuahua serve as proof that there is no god?
I never heard that one before.

HA HA HA! Scientists never arrested and burned people. Religious people burned scientists or anyone else that dared to threaten religious dogma. Only someone who is utterly ignorant of human history would say such a ridiculous thing. If you respond to someone's argument by murdering them, you've shown your hand as the loser. Case closed.

reply to post by andrewh7

---

I'm pretty sure that was the point of his post.

carbon dating sucketh.


according to their own data, all geological strata have already been pre-dated and named. when a dig takes place, the strata are identified and the appropriate dates assumed. as a result, no new dates are collected with carbon-dating unless the artifact or fossil is important enough to do so. if the item visually does not appear to belong to the already pre-dated layer, it is tossed out as contamination. the reason given is because they can't afford to date each item retrieved in a dig, and there's no reason to date something that obviously is out of place in the pre-dated strata. it is clearly then contamination and is removed from consideration.


with that process, how can you ever arrive at any answer other than the one you want?

convenient!

reply to post by chiron613

---

I starred you. Very thoughtful. I like very much that you said that evolution was only a possibility. I admit that there is some very interesting fossil records out there that seem to point to the possibility.

The main problems I have with the theory is that they try so hard to force the fossil record to fit their assumptions. I spent many happy hours as a child giggling at the silly scientist as their latest "missing link" was debunked.

I also hate how *certain* people flare up when I question them. I know some Christians are the same way and *that* is why *we* are hated!

I also can't stand the consantly shifting "evidence" if I had been educated to believe in evolution I would be very confused right now!
A lot of scientist are even speculating if the "Big Bang theory" is correct. (I don't care one way or the other with that one.)

A good example is what scientist tell us about our bodies. 200 Years ago, "Lard" was an important part of the diet. 50 years ago we began to discover it was "bad". "Salt" is another example. Then there are fruits and veggies. One study says (for instance) squash can help prevent cancer. Another study says that squash causes breast cancer in women and does nothing to prevent cancer in the populace.
And so on, and so forth.
I know alllll about these studies. I helped edit a grant request for a nutrition department in a local (well known) college.

But that's getting more into my "beef" with some sciences...

reply to post by andrewh7

---

Correction: CATHOLICS burned and murdered anyone that questioned "dogma" before the Great Awakening.
I am protestant. My people were PART of the Great Awakening... Thanks.

reply to post by andrewh7

---

well i think we can extrapolate that it has its own mass murderers to wield around and smash people over the head with, such as those who developed the idea that since we are all animals, our lives are not nearly as valuable as we think they are, and what we really need is to evolve our own kind via science. therefore we are subject to social engineering schemes such as euthanasia and recombinant dna scenarios. in human terms, survival of the fittest becomes the greediest, cruelest, most blood thirsty and vile individuals on the planet. just for that reason alone, i shun the entire idea

Small dogs exist as a result of domestication and selective breeding of dogs at the direction of humans. Before people, nature selected the best traits because those who lived to reproduce had their genes passed onto the next generation. The existence of a small dog that came as a result of selective breeding doesn't mean that nature could not have produced something similar on its own. Many small mammals have thrived both in the past and today. A smaller animal needs to eat much less and can hide from predators much easier. Also, larger predators probably wouldn't even bother going after something so small.

God doesn't exist because there is no evidence that he exists - period. Religion is a group of people with a preconceived notion who spend their lives building evidence to support that conclusion. Science is about spending your life observing and experimenting and only then SUGGESTING a conclusion and inviting others to disprove it. That is the difference.

Science is why we have longer lives, how we feed billions everyday, how we communicate across the world, explore space, but it has also brought about devastating weapons of war. Science is a neutral tool - it is man that defines its nature as good or evil because good and evil are human inventions.

A man chooses to do good or evil based on his own values and his own will. A Bible isn't necessary to inform man that killing, raping, and stealing is wrong. If the idea of God was a sufficient motivator or enforcer, we would not need government, police, laws, courts, or prisons. These 'earthly' institutions only exist because people DONT believe in eternal justice in heaven and hell. They know that human suffering on this planet, here and now matters! They know that justice here and now in this world matters.

When evil men wish to do evil things, they use religion as a justification because they are going against inherent human morality. All of us are not good people but I know that most of us are. A good man doesn't need God to tell him he's good and reward him for being good. A good man acts on his own because he knows what's right.

Religion is just another label to divide and separate us, to inspire fear and hatred of your fellow man. You don't need it to have a purpose in life. Define your own purpose.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by andrewh7]