It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, i

page: 26
26
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Just wanted to share this video....take what you will from it.





posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


Science has no conscience and doesn't care about whether a theory gets proven or disproven. That's because science follows scientific method...which makes it a prerequisite that theories are falsifiable and that they have to be tested and peer reviewed. Hypothesis are constantly destroyed, it's not something science tries to "prevent". ... $$$


Please don't get me wrong here, I have the utmost respect for the (true) profession but just to back up your statement, here are just few reports on the prevalence of FRAUD in science.

How prevalent is scientific fraud? The following reports below are from two decades ago, what about now? More or less?

Consider:

The world’s largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciencesent surveys on this subject to 1,500 members.

Notice the results of the survey:

It was found that of the 469 scientists who responded, 27 percent “believe they have encountered or witnessed fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized research over the past 10 years,” according to Science magazine.
Only 2 percent believe that fraud is on the decline; 37 percent feel that it is on the rise. Of those who had encountered fraud, 27 percent said they had done nothing about it, and only 2 percent had publicly challenged the data they suspected as phony. As to the causes of all the fraud, the scientists listed many, such as the fierce competition to publish findings first and obtain government grants and public recognition.

Following are just some of the 'incidents' that made headlines:



“Ethics in Science”


“A fight is building in the U.S. House of Representatives over fraud, misconduct, and conflict of interest in science.”—Science, July 7, 1989.

“Do Scientists Cheat?”


“After the initial inquiry by this [congressional] committee into this subject, the committee has had growing reason to believe that we are only seeing the tip of a very unfortunate, dangerous, and important iceberg.”—NOVA broadcast on PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) on October 25, 1988.

“Two New Studies Ask Why Scientists Cheat”


“It was an innocent enough question: how do scientists behave when no one is looking? But it has produced an incendiary answer: not too well, reports a paper this month in the British journal Nature.”—Newsweek, February 2, 1987.

“A Nation of Liars? Scientists Falsify Research”


“A study published last month accused 47 scientists at the Harvard and Emory University medical schools of producing misleading papers.”—U.S.News & World Report, February 23, 1987.

“NIH Sees Plagiarism in Vision Paper”


“Panel says researcher took data from paper he peer-reviewed and used it for his own work; . . . NIH [National Institutes of Health] recommends debarment proceedings.”—Science, July 14, 1989.

“‘Permissive Behaviour’ Breeds Fraud in the Laboratory”


“Biomedical scientists in America are performing sloppy and sometimes fraudulent research in an effort to publish more papers and make more money.”—New Scientist, February 25, 1989.

“Researchers Roll Back the Frontiers of Fraud”


“Scientific fraud and carelessness among researchers could be widespread, warns a study in last week’s issue of Nature.”—New Scientist, January 22, 1987.

“Researcher Accused of Plagiarism Resigns”


“A biochemist accused of plagiarizing a National Academy of Sciences report for a book on nutrition and cancer resigned from his position at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.”—Science, September 4, 1987.

“The Pill: Professor’s Safety Tests Were Faked”


“His deception puts a question mark over safety checks on pills being taken by up to 2 m[illion] women in Britain and 10 m[illion] worldwide.”—The Sunday Times, September 28, 1986.

“Senior Drugs Researcher Resigns in Disgrace”


“He resigned last week after an independent committee of inquiry found him guilty of scientific fraud.”—New Scientist, November 12, 1988.

“NIMH Finds a Case of ‘Serious Misconduct’”


“A surprisingly long-running, flagrant and deliberate case of scientific fraud according to a draft report of an investigation conducted for the National Institute of Mental Health.”—Science, March 27, 1987.

“Research ‘Fraud’ Puts Poison Into the Ivy League”


“A prominent Bostonian psychiatrist resigned as head of a mental hospital affiliated to Harvard University, following charges of plagiarism.”—New Scientist, December 10, 1988.

“The Case of the ‘Misplaced’ Fossils”


“A prominent Australian scientist has examined two decades of work on ancient Himalayan geology and alleges it may be the greatest paleontological fraud of all time.”—Science, April 21, 1989.

“Now It’s the Journals’ Turn on the Firing Line”


“[He was speaking] specifically about how poorly many [science] journals have handled scientific fraud. . . . The same message previously dispatched to other members of the scientific community has now been addressed to the journals: clean up your act or you may find legislators getting into it.”—The AAAS Observer, July 7, 1989.


Why the Fraud in Science and why it’s on the Increase? Notice this report.


“THE competition is savage. Winners reap monumental rewards; losers face oblivion. It’s an atmosphere in which an illicit shortcut is sometimes irresistible—not least because the Establishment is frequently squeamish about confronting wrongdoing.”
So opened the article “Publish or Perish—or Fake It” in U.S.News & World Report.

So to escape perishing, many scientific researchers are faking it.


“What’s the major product of scientific research these days? Answer: Paper,”

U.S.News & World Report said.

“Hundreds of new journals are being founded each year to handle the flood of research papers cranked out by scientists who know that the road to academic success is a long list of articles to their credit.”


What do you think is the goal?

Quantity, not quality. Imagine forty thousand journals published yearly produce a million articles, and part of this flood...


“is symptomatic of fundamental ills, including a publish-or-perish ethic among researchers that is stronger now than ever and encourages shoddy, repetitive, useless or even fraudulent work.” U.S.News & World Report


last but not least:


“Kickbacks, fraud and misconduct are rife among American medical researchers, according to a scathing critique published by a US Congressional committee this week. The report says that the National Institutes of Health has ‘endangered public health’ by failing to police the scientists it supports.”—New Scientist, September 15, 1990.


Side note:
How some of these frauds are perpetrated:

Some researchers eliminate data that does not support what they want to prove (called cooking); report more tests or trials than were actually run (called trimming); appropriate for their own use data or ideas of other researchers (called plagiarism); and make up experiments or data they never performed or produced (called forging).

I wonder if there's any 'cooking', 'trimming' or other fixing done by evolutionists before they present their fossil findings? I'm sure they are impeccable in their honesty. After all, they don't have any agenda and don't have to answer to any higher authority. Besides evolution is pure science and men who present these findings holds masters degrees and phds. They are the smartest and most logical thinking people in the world. So why doubt them?

Happily scientists who are dedicated to the truth are tirelessly toiling to find the truth and fight for it. Sadly they are religated to the sidelines and treated as 'fakes'.

As for this statement of yours:

[qoute]Science gains nothing from lying...unlike religious based churches, because they'd lose members and therefore $$$

I'll just quote what the apostle Peter said will happen to true Christianity once they are gone.
“However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. Also, with covetousness they will exploit you with counterfeit word as for them, the judgment from of old is not moving slowly, and the destruction of them is not slumbering.”—2 Pet. 2:1-3.

Here's one from the apostle Paul:

“I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among YOU and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among YOU yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.” (Acts 20:26-30)

It will be corrupted from within (but for a period of time).

That is why it's very important to follow what the ancient Beroean's did after Paul preached to them:

Notice:

“Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thes·sa·lo·ni′ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11)

ty,
edmc2



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Yeah, there's some fraud, like in anything where people involved. However, there's no chance that they managed a "cover up" for over 150 years. That would require every biologist, chemist, doctor, paleontologist, and a ton of other professions had to all work together in one giant conspiracy. The mere thought is laughable and should earn you a tinfoil hat



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Yeah, there's some fraud, like in anything where people involved. However, there's no chance that they managed a "cover up" for over 150 years. That would require every biologist, chemist, doctor, paleontologist, and a ton of other professions had to all work together in one giant conspiracy. The mere thought is laughable and should earn you a tinfoil hat



"EVERY" ?

1997: Gallup Poll comparing scientists with the general population:

Belief system * 1Creationist view* 2Theistic evolution *3Naturalistic Evolution*

Everyone **44% **39% ***10%*
Scientists **5% ***40% ***55%*

Group of adults*
1God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.*
2Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.*
3Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.
*


source: www.religioustolerance.org...


Some scientists cast doubt on Darwin
February 20, 2006
More than 500 scientists have signed a statement publicly expressing skepticism about the theory of Darwinian evolution.
The list of 514 signatories includes 154 biologists, 76 chemists and 63 physicists.

Copyright 2006 by United Press International


In fact, the more I researched in to this, the more I was shocked at the sheer volume of Theistic evolutionists. Who knew?








posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


Yep, nobody has actually ever said that evolution and theism are incompatible. Evolution is just as compatible with the existence of a deity as heliocentrism or general relativity.

It's just science, religion doesn't have anything to do with it.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


Saying you don't agree with evolution and actually providing a study that supports that claim are two entirely different things. But since you're so sure that all those scientists (btw, we don't know in which fields they worked) proved evolution wrong, I'm eagerly awaiting for you to post a corresponding study. Can't be that hard if "so many" disagree with evolution



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Interesting.

I'm learning so much here. (Besides how not to post things).

For instance, I've learned that evolution does not try to explain how it all began, just how it has all evolved. Here, I always thought evolution tried to explain the actual 'origin' of the species. So I was definitey wrong on that point.

Also, I've learned that some/a lot evolutionsist's actually believe in God too. Again, I thought most, if not all, evolutionists rejected God and believed only in a chemical beginning to life. So I was definitely wrong on this point too.

It reminds me of STEPHEN HAWKING'S UNIVERSE ending message - where he says something like, 'now we know how God created everyting, we just don't know why.' I'm paraphrasing but that was his general idea.
(I know he has since changed his mind and denies God but that's not the point - lol).

Additionally, I've learned that there just might not be as much differentiating a lot of us as I once thought.

I'm not sure why evolution and creationism are so intertwined. I just don't get it. Why does the mention of one almost universally bring up the other?

They are definitely mutually exclusive.

I get the fact that creationism says everything was created in six days and evolution holds to million of years but really, since evolution does not try to explain the 'beginning' , I for one do not see the point of debating it.

Now the big bang is a whole 'nother story...



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Yeah, there's some fraud, like in anything where people involved. However, there's no chance that they managed a "cover up" for over 150 years. That would require every biologist, chemist, doctor, paleontologist, and a ton of other professions had to all work together in one giant conspiracy. The mere thought is laughable and should earn you a tinfoil hat


Huh, reading your post knocked off my tinfoil hat. Let's read that that portion again:

“That would require every biologist, chemist, doctor, paleontologist, and a ton of other professions had to all work together in one giant conspiracy.


You mean that would also include those who are true believers of creation and don't accept evolution? Does this also include those honest hearted scientist whose main goal is to search for the truth whether atheist or not?

Are you sure about your statement “EVERY...”?

Because if you are, then you might as well include Prof. Behe on the list or Sir Isaac Newton, Einstein, etc.

Honestly, if you go back to what I said I was just showing the facts and agreeing with you about the fraud in science. But showed the reason why in response to your statement below that:


Science gains nothing from lying...unlike religious based churches, because they'd lose members and therefore $$$


just to repeat one:


“THE competition is savage. Winners reap monumental rewards; losers face oblivion. It’s an atmosphere in which an illicit shortcut is sometimes irresistible—not least because the Establishment is frequently squeamish about confronting wrongdoing.”
.

Note: fraud is present in both the religious and scientific community. In fact the entire system of things is built on a lie. A lie that man can succesfully govern himself apart from his Creator.

I made a thread about how this came to be and what will happen in the end if you are interested.

Ty,
edmc2

BTW, thanks for the tinfoil hat, I'll add it to my collection – let me know if you need to borrow one.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


Evolution compatible with Creation?


I'm not sure why evolution and creationism are so intertwined. I just don't get it. Why does the mention of one almost universally bring up the other?


Because both sets of belief are mutually opposed to each other. They are like water and oil. Will not mix no matter how one stirs it. Now for those who say that:


Evolution is just as compatible with the existence of a deity as heliocentrism....


I agree with that statement only for those whose faith are weak, corrupted and not founded on the Truth. Watch/consider this simple test: you can tell right away where they stand – that is, those who believe in evolution with theism. Those who say they are compatible. Mention the Bible, the Holy Scriptures, they will start squirming. They will come up with so many excuses to disregard and disparage the Bible. Belittle it and treat it as merely just a book written by “goat herders” and not as it is truly is The Word of God – the Truth.

Why the adverse effect? Because it destroys the very foundation of evolution, it annihilates its ENTIRE belief system.

Consider just this simple analysis:

If God used evolution to make men from beasts or directed bacteria to develop into fish and then to continue developing through reptiles and mammals, so that finally a race of apes (common ancestor) became humans. Then how can they reconcile these Bible verses? They can't!

(The creation of the first humans Adam and Eve)

“And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” – Gen 1:27

Jesus Christ confirmed it by quoting it.

"In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female.” – Matthew 19:4

The physician Luke verified it through genealogy: Luke 3: 23-38. Confirmed that Adam was a real person just as Jesus is a real person.

Furthermore, Jesus himself, when he commenced [his work], was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was,
of Joseph,
[son] of He′li,

24 [son] of Mat′that,
[son] of Le′vi,
[son] of Mel′chi,
[son] of Jan′na·i,
[son] of Joseph,

37 [son] of Me·thu′se·lah,
[son] of E′noch,
[son] of Ja′red,
[son] of Ma·ha′la·le·el,
[son] of Ca·i′nan,
38 [son] of E′nosh,
[son] of Seth,
[son] of Adam,
[son] of God.


There are many more verses but the ones quoted about should be more than enough to prove my point.

From the time they (Adam and Eve) of thier creation, they were created in a wonderful and beautiful way with a very impressive stature and thinking ability, possessing the attributes (image) of their creator such as love, wisdom, power and justice. In other words they were completely perfect in every way.

Not a brute and ugly creature as depicted by evolution.

So based on just this one simple analysis, just an ounce of common sense will tell you that evolution is truly incompatible with Biblical Creation (not creationism or ID).

Only someone with a corrupted and unBiblical faith will fall victim to it.

Note:

Scientific achievement is not at issue here. Every informed person is aware of the amazing accomplishments of scientists in many fields. Scientific study has dramatically increased our knowledge of the universe and of the earth and of living things. Studies of the human body have opened up improved ways of treating illnesses and injuries. Rapid advances in electronics brought us the computer age, which is altering our lives. Scientists have performed astounding feats, even sending men to the moon and back. It is only right to respect the skills that have added so greatly to our knowledge of the world around us, from micro to macro to infinity.

The issue is the theory of evolution in the name of science or as science.

Now watch the response.

Ty,
edmc2




edit on 21-11-2010 by edmc^2 because: reword

edit on 21-11-2010 by edmc^2 because: added note



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Saying you don't agree with evolution, and actually coming up with a study that scientifically falsifies the theory aren't the same. Those scientists who claim evolutionary theory is wrong could make a study falsifying it at any time, no one is stopping them. To my knowledge, none has taken up the challenge so far and published such a study...you're invited to prove me wrong though


Scientists are only human (I know, hard to believe), and it's only normal that there's a small minority that swims against the stream without any logic or rationality behind it...

Also...yeah, let's believe a 2000 year old book (not really, it's been edited over a few hundred years) written by MEN who didn't have 1% of the knowledge we have today over modern science with all its evidence, peer reviews, and modern technology. Makes total sense...like asking a goat herder from 20AC about how to build a rocket to fly to the moon. For crying out loud, we live in the 21st century people!!
edit on 21-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


In your opinion, does evolution try to explain 'the beginning'?

If not, why couldn't have God created it all, and then He directed the adaptation, (what they call evolution)?

Is that idea out of the equation for you?


p.s. I just re-read your enitre post. Please don't start with me too. I'm on your side. And you don't have to quote the Bible to me since I read it nightly to my kids and have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior decades ago. BTW - you and I both know this a spiritual arguement. So if we can get 'them' to acknowledge God, isn't that a good thing? - considering where 'they' are starting from. Are we suppose to plant seeds or try to ram a tree down their throat?

edit on 21-11-2010 by mrvdreamknight because: update



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Huh, reading your post knocked off my tinfoil hat. Let's read that that portion again:

“That would require every biologist, chemist, doctor, paleontologist, and a ton of other professions had to all work together in one giant conspiracy.


You mean that would also include those who are true believers of creation and don't accept evolution? Does this also include those honest hearted scientist whose main goal is to search for the truth whether atheist or not?


...there are more scientists who accept evolution named Steve (or some variation on the name) than there are scientists that accept creationism.



Are you sure about your statement “EVERY...”?


I'm quite sure he is.



Because if you are, then you might as well include Prof. Behe on the list or Sir Isaac Newton, Einstein, etc.


Behe isn't really a legit scientist, Newton died before Darwin was born and had no understanding that life could diversify naturally because he wasn't studying that sort of thing, and Einstein was an atheist who accepted evolution.

And again, more scientists named Steve than creationist scientists.



Honestly, if you go back to what I said I was just showing the facts and agreeing with you about the fraud in science.


Yes, fraud exists in science...and we find out about it because the other scientists uncover it. Fraud exists in everything with people, but science is a field that doesn't tolerate fraudulent activities and actively shuns fraud.





But showed the reason why in response to your statement below that:


Science gains nothing from lying...unlike religious based churches, because they'd lose members and therefore $$$


just to repeat one:


“THE competition is savage. Winners reap monumental rewards; losers face oblivion. It’s an atmosphere in which an illicit shortcut is sometimes irresistible—not least because the Establishment is frequently squeamish about confronting wrongdoing.”
.


...yes, because scientists are never kicked out for fraud...oh wait, they are. You can't take a few examples of fraud and apply them to 150 years of science.



Note: fraud is present in both the religious and scientific community. In fact the entire system of things is built on a lie. A lie that man can succesfully govern himself apart from his Creator.

I made a thread about how this came to be and what will happen in the end if you are interested.


Um...I'll skip a thread endorsing theocracy kthx



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
"Every" was used. Not "most" or "more".

Obviously, the original member did not mean to use 'every scientist believes in evolution', and it's a small point but it is in fact what he wrote.

We all write things we wish wouldn't have, we're human, we make mistakes. So no biggy.

But trying to defend the remark by saying project steve (which is the name) has 'more' scientists does not validate his point. It actually proves that not 'every' sceintist believes in evolution - i.e. because 'more' is not 'every' by definition.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
"Every" was used. Not "most" or "more".

Obviously, the original member did not mean to use 'every scientist believes in evolution', and it's a small point but it is in fact what he wrote.

We all write things we wish wouldn't have, we're human, we make mistakes. So no biggy.

But trying to defend the remark by saying project steve (which is the name) has 'more' scientists does not validate his point. It actually proves that not 'every' sceintist believes in evolution - i.e. because 'more' is not 'every' by definition.


According to Gallup, the % was 5% in 1991. Since then, we made many new discoveries further supporting evolution and that figure has likely gone down...just like general belief in creationism has gone down in the general population.

What's more, it doesn't state what fields those scientists who disagreed study. For example, there's fields that make them 100% unqualified to make a statement regarding evolution based solely on their field.


edit on 21-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Yes. There are several studies that do show the exact sciences. I forget the exact numbers related to which group. But a quick search will fill you in with those numbers.

But to be 100% honest - this discussion about 'every' has nothing to do with this topic.

Obviously, "every" was wrong. No need to beat a dead horse.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
reply to post by edmc^2
 


In your opinion, does evolution try to explain 'the beginning'?

If not, why couldn't have God created it all, and then He directed the adaptation, (what they call evolution)?

Is that idea out of the equation for you?


p.s. I just re-read your enitre post. Please don't start with me too. I'm on your side. And you don't have to quote the Bible to me since I read it nightly to my kids and have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior decades ago. BTW - you and I both know this a spiritual arguement. So if we can get 'them' to acknowledge God, isn't that a good thing? - considering where 'they' are starting from. Are we suppose to plant seeds or try to ram a tree down their throat?

edit on 21-11-2010 by mrvdreamknight because: update


First of all my apologies if it came out like I'm getting on your case. Was not my intention, I was actually using you as sounding board to prove a point (if you don't mind).

In actuallity, I'm glad of your faith to the Lord Jesus but this evolution teaching is insidious and can currupt ones thinking and faith if you give in to doubt even a "small leaven". I've seen it happened even to the ones at one time they say had strong faith. So I'm always aware of this, thus the reaction.

As for planting instead of ramming - I see your point. I'll try to tone it down then but will not compromise for the sake of the good news and God.

As for your Q:

"In your opinion, does evolution try to explain 'the beginning'?


It used to be that way per Darwin but they saw its inadequacy so they came up with onther way of explaining it. As can you see from their reply, if you say that evolution deals with the biginning of life, you get shot down right away. They will make sure of this. Sad part is there are so many differing views in the evolution community with their own interpretations. Bring up these differing views and those well recognized evolutionist are relageted to the sidelines.

In my opinion - based on what I know, learned and read it tried to but failed miserably. In fact latest textbooks don't even say that. They refer to obiogenesis and other theories.

From a Christian's standpoint - can't be reconciled for it makes a mockery of the sacrifice made by the Lord Jesus Christ. That is giving his life for our sins. Evolution does not even recognized Jesus let alone our sins.

What do you think though if Jesus was asked that?

opps - ran out of time be back later with the rest of you Qs.



ty,
edmc2


edit on 21-11-2010 by edmc^2 because: Q and A added



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
You can use me any way you want.

As long we're serving the Lord, I'm all for it.


You make many valid points, and I'm sure Jesus would respond much the way you do.

Although His thinking was so way above everyone's His answers were amazing. The whole give unto Caser line...was too funny - I still laugh when I read that one.

By pointing out the evolutionists inconsistencies we are indeed proving to them that what they believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning.

I was taught that evolution did try to explain the origins of life. I find it hilarious they have since retreated from that stance.

You should look at the other thread I'm on talking about the fact that evolution is based on heredity and heredity must have a first generation and came from somewhere. Otherwise evolution can't stand in the first place.

Let me know your thoughts on that line of reasoning.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight

I was taught that evolution did try to explain the origins of life. I find it hilarious they have since retreated from that stance.

You should look at the other thread I'm on talking about the fact that evolution is based on heredity and heredity must have a first generation and came from somewhere. Otherwise evolution can't stand in the first place.

Let me know your thoughts on that line of reasoning.





Basically, that line of reasoning is hogwash.

First of all, I don't know when you went to school or how good your teachers were, but evolution hasn't claimed to concern itself with the origins of life for decades. So you either had a very bad teacher, simply refused to accept facts, or are at least 80 years old.

Evolution is based on hard evidence, if it weren't, it couldn't be called a scientific theory.

Either way, so far you've posted nothing that would disprove evolution...which isn't surprising given that in over 150yrs no one managed to do so. Evolution starts with the first life forms, and every single subsequent perfectly fits the theory. The hilarious part is, your main reasoning against evolution is based on your BELIEF in an invisible super being for which we have no evidence at all...quite bizarre actually. It's as if education stopped for you and some others somewhere in the early 19th century.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
So by your own admission, evolution did in fact at one time have to do with the origins of life.

Further, you admit they changed the theory so that it no longer addresses this point.

Therefore, you admit the original theory was wrong. And has changed.

Correct?

Good. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't putting words in your mouth.

Now, I contend that the original theory changed not because it was correct but because it was incorrect.

Incorrect in the fact that it tried to explain the origin of species and could not.

Yes. I know I am repeating myself. It's to make sure we're on the same page.

By the current definition of evolution: Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the "inherited" traits of a population of organisms through successive generations-wiki

Evolution is attempting to side step the question of the origin of life because it was wrong and use the term "INHERITED".

But that term, inhereited, has a meaning.

It means: Heredity is the passing of traits to offspring (from its parent or ancestors). -wiki

So I ask you where did the first parent come from? Where?

If evolution is based on this premise the theory must address it.

By your own admission, it tried to address this point in the past and failed miserably. So if it couldn't answer it then, can it now?

Can it?

(and don't give me abiogenesis - it's a completely different theory and besides - it has zero answers).

Let me help you out.

No. It can not.

So until it does the entire theory is based on a faulty premise.

Please - without attcking me - or my education - show me where my logic is wrong.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
So I ask you where did the first parent come from? Where?

If evolution is based on this premise the theory must address it.



Like I've said before, we don't know...and it's not important where it came from. All evolution cares about is that every life form we know about perfectly fits the theory. Over millions of generations, species passed down traits (your inherited traits) from one generation to the next. That's what the definition says.

The fact that it had to start somewhere is interesting, but is of no consequence for the theory of evolution. All it means is that there was something like a frist life form(s). It's also quite possible that it wasn't a single life form that came first, but multiple ones all over the globe. We DON'T KNOW what started the first life form, all we know is that with every generation we pass on traits that eventually lead to speciation...which is what evolution concerns itself with.

The fact that there was such a first life form(s) is not significant apart from the fact that it passed down traits. We know it did because we have hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence (fossils, DNA analysis, etc.).

Also note that Darwin never said anything about how life started...his entire theory didn't include that section. Before the term abiogenesis was coined, some scientists tried to include it into evolution. But over the decades they realized that what started life is 100% inconsequential for the validity of the theory of evolution.

So one last time: evolution has NOTHING to do with how life started in the first place and doesn't require that knowledge to be a valid theory. We know evolution works because we apply it in modern medicine and science. Without it, you wouldn't have antibiotics for example, not a single antibiotic in fact.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join