Debunk evolution once and for all

reply to post by MrXYZ


To understand what is written let's examine the "Order" of the Text in which it is written.

I do Not follow "Roman Doctrine" or "Catholicism", but I am prepared to analyse the text in the English form and try and see what is being described.

"The First Book of Moses Called Genesis"…
Chapter 1 verse 1.

1. In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.

We should NOT assume that the Heaven refers to the Universe…
Try to be patient and we may discover something we never thought was the case.

2. And the Earth was without form, and void;

It says here that the Earth had no Form in other words no dimension.
And that it was void again meaning no shape or size i.e. non dimensional at this stage.

and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

The “Deep” can’t possibly refer to the Sea, as the earth had No “form” and was “void”..
Void means “Empty”…

And the Spirit moved upon the face of the waters.

a. What is Spirit ???
b. What are these Waters ???

The Earth was said to be without form (No shape or Size at this stage) and Empty.
So the writings can’t possibly refer to the “Waters” as being the Sea.

3. And God said let there be LIGHT: and there was LIGHT.

This Light was NOT of the “Universe” but was in The Heaven.

The writings... in all fairness does NOT say The "Universe" but rather The Heaven.

Over the next couple of verses....
….. Day & Night…. Not of the Earth.... The Earth did Not exist as having "Dimension" at this stage….
And then in Verse 5. Quote;

5. And the Evening and the Morning were the “First Day”…

Hang on a second... think about this for a moment…

The “Day” on Earth is between Morning & Evening.... And NOT between “Evening” and “Morning” as is written in this Text..

Anyway... at this Stage in the text, The Earth had NO “Form” and was “Void or “Empty”.
So the "Period" referred to in this part of the text, can only refer to the Heaven and NOT the “Universe” or “Earth”.

So we must reconsider our thinking regarding this text if we want to really know what it is about….

So what I am suggesting is…

The Writing may be describing something totally different than we all, loosely Assume ???

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


Or maybe early bronze age Hebrews didn't really understand the scientific workings of the universe and were trying to come up with something to answer one of the earliest questions of humanity?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

 

Or maybe early bronze age Hebrews didn't really understand the scientific workings of the universe and were trying to come up with something to answer one of the earliest questions of humanity?

That's what I thought...not everything has a "deeper meaning"

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Yes that is possible too, but let's consider both possibilities ???

Why be pigeon holed into one or the other ???

First we need to understand the writings before we can either reject or accept them….

reply to post by MrXYZ


There is No "deeper understanding" one only needs to understand what is written...

It is simplicity...

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Methuselah

 

Well, Genesis claims god just created man and the animals...as in, we just popped into existence in our current form. We know for a fact that's not what happened. It also claims there was light on earth before the sun was created, that's also not true. Lastly, it claims all the animals just popped into existence in their current form...which also isn't true. Every single bit of evolution contradicts the genesis account in the bible

it does not say that we were poofed out of nowhere. read the text. he made man of out of the dust of the earth, the waters brought forth creatures also. and you dont know for a fact that those events did not take place. you also dont know that light did not exist before the sun... you do not know... were you there? or is that something you believe because of someones campbells soup project?
also i disagree with the statement that the bible says the popped into existence in our current form, im sure animals looked much different back then. probably not too different since you would still be able to tell what KIND of animal it is. but in order for the original KINDs to produce the varieties we have today the gene code had to be to its fullest and pure/clean. The bible says in Genesis that there were Giants in the earth in those days.
and scientists find those all the time but the scientific community hides them because that definitely makes your theory look really stupid. there is evidence of huge humans, horses, insects, turkey, oh and i didnt even mention dinosaurs which used to be called dragons. all of these finds where man and dinosaur co-exist like that park down in glen-rose texas where dinosaur and human tracks are found together indicating man has always been with dinosaurs... i live only a few hours from that park btw.
so right there you are trying to tell me what the bible says when you have only looked at it at a glance. Genesis does not say our current form, nature, health, height, weight, etc is what he created at the beginning. you tell me how a person now days can live to be 900 years old... back then with the original and a few generations down would have a problem with this esp with the preflood biosphere (Canopy Theory). No God made a much better world to begin with... it didnt look the same as it does now thats for sure to include all the living creatures.

but you are right about evolution and Genesis being polar opposites. and they are.
but the things you claim you (examples that havent been provided) violate laws of physics (in your natural world) when nature encounters supernatural, the creator of everything, His Word can create, light can exist before light sources etc.

and your last statement is the only true statement if seen so far. We have polar opposite beliefs. there is no compromise... same observations (some different, on purpose i believe), just different conclusions.
if you dont think scientists hold their evolutionary faith that close to them, just go watched Ben Steins Expelled video. people almost lose or do lost their jobs just by uttering their disbelief in darwinism... and here is the proof right here that scientists are doubting darwinism
Look for yourself
its a PDF file just in case you are wondering.

Originally posted by Methuselah
and here is the proof right here that scientists are doubting darwinism
Look for yourself

A few things to put this list into perspective:

1. There are just shy of 19 full pages of names on that list, each page having about 40 names, for a total of about 760 names gathered since 2001. The NCSE started Project Steve in 2003 and has gathered the names of over 1100 scientists named Steve who agreed with the following statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate scientific debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism of evolution. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of the public schools.

You can try and turn this into a numbers game or a popularity contest if you really want to, but you're on the losing side of that particular tactic from the start. Moving on from that...

2. Read the statement they're agreeing to again: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” I seem to have missed the part where they're saying "Evolution doesn't happen," or "Evolution only occurs in a way that is consistant with a literal interpretation of Genesis." So how many people on that list are objecting to evolution as a whole or objecting to the universality of natural selection as a mechanism for evolution or were just agreeing that natural selection and random mutation by themselves don't fully account for the complexity of life?

There's more to evolution than just random mutation and natural selection, I don't think there's a proponent of evolution today that wouldn't agree with that. And there should be careful examination of the evidence for any scientific theory. Hell, I could sign that statement and not feel that I was compromising my ethics in the slightest. And you know what? I feel qualified to weigh in on the subject because I have two degrees in chemistry and I've worked in related fields for the better part of the last fifteen years. But...

3. Have you actually read over the credentials of some of the people who have signed that statement? Many of them are from disciplines that are completely irrelevant to the discussion of evolution. I started at the bottom of the list and found a PhD in general relativity, a PhD in electrical engineering, a professor of mechanical engineering, a former assistant professor of industrial engineering, and a PhD in nuclear engineering before I got halfway to the top of the last full page. Sorry, but those people are about as qualified to weigh in on the scientific validity of the theory of evolution as my mom, and she only has a HS diploma and does logistics for a freight company. And I'm not even calling attention the ones that could be considered on the bubble of fields related to evolution. It's like that commercial with the guy prepping to perform surgery in an ER and someone asks him if he's ever done a heart transplant before. His reply? "No, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night..."

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


By responding with such assurance, you are defending. That is what defending is. By claiming I am unknowing, you claim you do know and are more sure....

That's called defending.

Replace the electron with the soul. The argument still holds up. That is how it is related. Please do not play dumb.

If you cannot understand it, how can you understand such complicated matters like the soul? it is pretty simple

Yet another example would be a red polygon. We know it is red and we know it has mass. We know the item. Or do we? What if the shape is the lower resolution of magma? Can we say we know this? We know the item is red. And we know magma is red. We know that if you decrease the resolution of the picture of magma eventually you will get a red pixel.

We can claim we both know and do not know the item.

It is not a contradiction at all. We know the item. We know it is red, we know it is magma, we can gain from that that it is hot, it is liquid, and has certain characteristics. We can claim we know it. And yet, we do not. We do not know where the solid chunks of rock are within that liquid. Because we do not have a high resolution we do not know the temperature variety. We so not know the location of every single molecule. We do not know what it is. And yet we do.


To state it is a contradiction is not true. In as much we can know how to use a vacuum cleaner buy know nothing about vacuum cleaners, we can claim to know our own soul, and yet know nothing about the soul.

Failure to understand that, simply is a failure to be human.

If you need any help in these seemingly contradictory terms, I would advice reading the works of Immanuel Kant.

If we now ask 'What are these objects?', we can see immediately that to reply 'things in themselves' would be contradictory. How could a thing, such as it in itself, be subject to our faculty of knowlege and be governed by it? In principle, this can only happen to objects as they appear, that is to say, to 'phenomena'.

The soul cannot appear other than how you govern your life. You know your soul by how you act and are. But you cannot know the soul based on your faculty of knowledge, for you have not the knowledge that God has. We have eaten of the tree of knowledge, but not of the tree of life. God has the benefits of both trees, and so can only know the soul. We can know it based on our knowledge, but we cannot know it. Not a contradiction, though to the uneducated it may seem.

reply to post by Gorman91


Please give you and me a break...
Don't keep insulting yourself and do something constructive...
Don't be so anxious... it will all come out in the wash in the End....

I don’t want to just chase you round and round in circles..
No doubt you are sincere, you don’t have to convince me of anything..

On another thread…
I even gave you a Star....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Gorman91
A star for you....
You wrote... Quote;

And nobody has a right to force their religion onto another.

The best statement you have made yet...
Peace....

Practice what you preach.... or you shall be called a hypocrite…

Peace...

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


I'm not forcing anything onto you in terms of religion. I am pointing out the fallacies in your belief. I barely even added my own religious beliefs into the mix. I am explaining how you are wrong and if you take it as an insult it is most certainly not intended. This is called debate. I do this with my atheist friends all the time. A conversation like this one between two very long term friends. This is not considered a fight, insult, nor anything. This is considered discussion. If your local culture considers this insulting, then it explains a lot about the world in general.

My examples stand true. They give light to what I mean. You can know something based on action, response, and observation. Even though you know, you do not necessarily know what it is. In as much as I know how to use a computer, but don't have a clue as to how to use the computer if I want to code or, say, build my own.

The Kant quote is quite simply perfect.

When I was young, I would literally detach myself from my doings and let myself go along my daily routine and observe what I did, how I responded, etc etc. This is how I learned what my soul was and what I needed to do to change it. However, it is impossible for me to know the base code of the soul, let alone anybody else's coding. I cannot write in its code, nor can I reprogram it. Only God can. Only the blood of Christ can patch the errors. Perhaps that is saying my own belief. but there is a clear distinction between saying and forcing. You are inventing your own religion. I am merely showing the holes in it. Your gospel of Thomas is a perfect example. You claim you do not count on the bible because it was written by priests. When, in fact, the same type of people that write its books wrote the Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas not getting in is quite literally cutting hairs as to what is valid and what is not. It's like two children being told to make something out of legos. The two children are in separate rooms and do not know about each other. The are told to make a dogie. Each child makes a dogie. The probability of them making a dog is quite high, as only some crazed abstract artist of some kind will make something else, but these are children. The probability they make the same breed of dog is lower. The probability they make the same position, standing or sitting, is lower. The probability that they use the same colors is very low. The probability that each lego for each child is exactly the same an din the same place and rotated the same way is so low that it is highly unlikely it will ever occur. When giving it to the instructor, the child closest to his view of the dog wins. What you are doing is basically saying that because the instructor chose the dog most like his picture, the child that was wrong must be right and the child right is automatically corrupt and was made by the instructor, even though it was not. I'd much prefer the child that was closest to the general idea of what a dogie was as opposed to somebody far off and not accepted. Jesus was different. Trying to change his message from what he stated is dangerous. Saying that the one not picked by a few thousand priests is automatically right is a big leap of faith against logic.

reply to post by iterationzero


its not a numbers game, but there are a lot of intelligent names on that list... they cant just straight up say its wrong... they would lose their jobs (if still employed) there are many examples of that in history where professors and teachers get fired for exposing faults in the evolution theory. if you want examples i can probably dig those up and transpose them to this thread. or if you want to trust Ben Stein (which you probably dont) or the people he interviewed, just go watch his video. there are a few cases in there that tell about scientists either losing or almost losing their position due to their questioning darwin.
So why they say "careful examination" is to water down the bold statement "you shouldnt believe in it because its stupid"... that of course is my opinion but it wouldnt surprise me if thats what they are trying to imply.
its not a numbers game or a popularity contest... because i can see from history that majority opinion has been wrong. there was lots of things that have been claimed to be correct when it was in fact wrong. examples in the bible and history class.

and yes the credentials of all of these scientists are relevant to the argument.
electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, nuclear etc... are all relevant... does the earth not have a magnetic field... actually doesnt some of the moons out there have a magnetic field? there are lots of planets/stars out there with magnetic a magnetic field.
does that require knowledge in the field of perhaps electrical engineering? or maybe even part of mechanical engineering (to know how the mechanics of it works)? i can think of how it would relate to biology and chemistry... and plenty of other things... there are many more fields that needs to cross reference each other in order to fully comprehend the other because they are related. you ought to know this.

your holiday inn joke is comparing apples to carrots. totally off the wall and unrelated/irrelevant

oh wow and here at this link (yes its on drdino site) but either way its on video and its someone who teaches evolution confessing that its very hard to support. actually its pretty much impossible as stated by this professor at this university Dr Ben Waggoner University of Arkansas... this is during his introduction (about first 5 minutes) so please watch as an evolutionist get converted by someone i know many people claim to be a fraud... this guy admits that the arguments brought to the table are valid (very valid)

Originally posted by Methuselah
reply to post by iterationzero

 

its not a numbers game, but there are a lot of intelligent names on that list... they cant just straight up say its wrong... they would lose their jobs (if still employed) there are many examples of that in history where professors and teachers get fired for exposing faults in the evolution theory.

Right. So instead these upstanding and intelligent members of the scientific community sign an intellectually dishonest statement, fully knowing that it was for the Discovery Institute and what it would be used for? How would that not still make them targets, assuming that the scientific establishment is as insidious as you claim?

if you want examples i can probably dig those up and transpose them to this thread. or if you want to trust Ben Stein (which you probably dont) or the people he interviewed, just go watch his video. there are a few cases in there that tell about scientists either losing or almost losing their position due to their questioning darwin.

By all means, please do. How many of the names you're going to list are the same as the names that appear on the DI list that you posted? Because I'd think that if scientists were regularly losing their jobs for questioning evolution, that a significant portion of those 800 or so people would have lost theirs.

So why they say "careful examination" is to water down the bold statement "you shouldnt believe in it because its stupid"... that of course is my opinion but it wouldnt surprise me if thats what they are trying to imply. its not a numbers game or a popularity contest... because i can see from history that majority opinion has been wrong. there was lots of things that have been claimed to be correct when it was in fact wrong. examples in the bible and history class.

Exactly! I'm glad you agree that taking the Bible literally and as a basis for science is wrong. Discussion closed!

and yes the credentials of all of these scientists are relevant to the argument.
electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, nuclear etc... are all relevant... does the earth not have a magnetic field... actually doesnt some of the moons out there have a magnetic field? there are lots of planets/stars out there with magnetic a magnetic field.

Please explain how the presence of a magnetic field relates directly to evolution? Or anything else you just mentioned for that matter?

does that require knowledge in the field of perhaps electrical engineering? or maybe even part of mechanical engineering (to know how the mechanics of it works)?

Um, no! It doesn't! This just shows that you have no idea what EEs and MechEs learn and do.

i can think of how it would relate to biology and chemistry... and plenty of other things... there are many more fields that needs to cross reference each other in order to fully comprehend the other because they are related. you ought to know this.
And you'll note that I didn't name a single chemist or biologist when referring to scientists whose credentials have nothing to do with evolution in anything remotely resembling a direct manner. I think in your quest to prove that Genesis is a scientifically accurate accounting of the origins of life and evolution, you're grasping at any thread of legitimacy you can find, no matter how tenuous.

your holiday inn joke is comparing apples to carrots. totally off the wall and unrelated/irrelevant

No, it's not. Just because someone is a professor or has a PhD after their name doesn't automatically qualify them to have a valid scientific opinion on the facts of evolution. Doing one thing intelligently doesn't make you an expert, or even well-versed, on subjects outside your field of expertise. It's called "argument from authority" - if you want to use it as some kind of evidence that evolution is wrong, vet the entire list for how their credentials and experience relate to discussion of evolution and what they felt was the meaning of the statement they signed.

The short of it is this: you have yet to adequately respond to any of the evidence presented in this thread (and others) regarding evolution. You've side-stepped, you've changed definitions on a whim, and some of your own answers are internally inconsistant with other things you've said. So now you've presented this list as some kind of evidence, which is nothing but a glorified argument from authority - a logical fallacy. You need to do better than this.

Anyone who quotes Ben Stein should realize he's not a scientist. Seriously, his whole argument is based around "we don't know...so I'm gonna claim god did it". That's NOT science, it's pure belief!! Plus, he has no clue what hes' talking about. Just watch the video bellow, he still claims we come from monkeys, that's NOT what evolution claims! He also claims he doesn't believe life could form when lightning struck base elements...yet scientists were just able to replicate just this last year.



Science in school should be based around facts and not the "god of the gaps" theory he proposes! If you wanna teach that, you have religious classes for that, but trying to sell it as a scientific theory is total hogwash.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Anyone who quotes Ben Stein should realize he's not a scientist. Seriously, his whole argument is based around "we don't know...so I'm gonna claim god did it". That's NOT science, it's pure belief!! Plus, he has no clue what hes' talking about. Just watch the video bellow, he still claims we come from monkeys, that's NOT what evolution claims! He also claims he doesn't believe life could form when lightning struck base elements...yet scientists were just able to replicate just this last year.

Science in school should be based around facts and not the "god of the gaps" theory he proposes! If you wanna teach that, you have religious classes for that, but trying to sell it as a scientific theory is total hogwash.

edit on 9-9-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

uhm coming from monkey and coming from an Ape-like ancestor are pretty much the same thing. (according to text books)
if thats your logic for not wanting to believe Ben Stein than you shouldnt believe in darwin either... because he was a preacher/theology degree, nothing else. and scientists werent able to replicate anything. they were able to, in a controlled environment, establish vesicles that would grow and split and supposedly develop random sequences, but that whole experiment was based on many assumptions (faith) and lots of human intervention.

same goes for you evolution theory, it should be put in a totally separate class because its faith based.
Evolution and Abiogenesis all the way up to Macro/Micro Evolution (speciation) or just plain variations within the different kinds of animals. its obvious what has been observed and what has not been observed.

oh and you dont have to be a scientists to observe that scientists are targeted for their doubts or notions that it needs more supporting evidence or that it may be false.

science in school should be based on facts, all evidence i have seen presented in schools has been proven wrong or fraud... so yes bring science, leave your evolutionary religion at the door and bring it back in when you finally find some sort of legit evidence that sustains it.

Originally posted by iterationzero
Please explain how the presence of a magnetic field relates directly to evolution? Or anything else you just mentioned for that matter?

well since studies have been able to track the the earths magnetic field is getting weaker over the centuries it limits the age of the earth or at least life on earth to well less than 30k which puts lots of pressure on your whole theory of darwinian evolution because now you dont have enough time to make your theory work.

and i havent side stepped a thing. i have provided responses to just about everything you have thrown at me. you on the other hand have yet to provide evidence of evolutionary change that contradicts what the bible predicts.

Originally posted by iterationzero
Exactly! I'm glad you agree that taking the Bible literally and as a basis for science is wrong. Discussion closed!

uhm, thats not what i was saying. i was trying to present the point that there are many examples IN the bible where the majority has been wrong... first example i can think of is where Moses goes to get the 10 commandments and the Israelites decide to build their golden calf. in that case the majority was wrong. thats the point i was trying to make not stating that the bible is wrong like you put it.


and i really dont get the point of the video you posted. i can see that I.D is a world view and it shouldnt be shutdown like it has been. if anything (and this is stretching it) there is equal evidence for opposite sides of how life began and how we have "evolved" since then.

and your holiday inn joke is still irrelevant... all sections of science can link to each other and they do. some more than others, but they do. if they didnt, you wouldnt get Digital code from DNA... because those two fields of science are waaaay different. Computer science and Genetics... two totally separate sciences.... we wouldnt know what digital was without computer science, and we wouldnt know what the code meant without Genetics...
clear example.

reply to post by Methuselah


Look, if you still think evolution is faith based, there's no point discussing...tons of people in this thread have posted you links explaining the proces, and in over 150 years, no one was able to debunk the theory. We have witnessed it in nature and in the lab.

I know a lot of creationists love the "evolution is just faith, just like believing in god" statement...but that statement is total hogwash.

And your "first life on earth at most 30k years old" is total hogwash too given that we've found dinosaur fossils, and they're WAAAAAAAAY older than that. I'm actually curious where you got that number from, because it's so obviously wrong, I'm baffled.

Watch the following documentary!

The 13 Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism (By AronRa)

(A Logical Argument)

reply to post by Gorman91

I'm not forcing anything onto you in terms of religion. I am pointing out the fallacies in your belief.

Incorrect; You are being a "False Witness".... Based on your religious beliefs, which you have made quite clear to everyone...

Its not me you are trying to convince...
It is only yourself you are trying to convince....

reply to post by Gorman91


"Self appraisal" is no recommendation...

You have provided absolutely NO proof at all....

reply to post by MrXYZ


ok well how do you know that those things you found are older? please dont even tell me by some sort of radio active decay method because charles lyell didnt have that when he invented the geologic column.
maybe if you date something and find that it cant be that old based on something else you find... then maybe your dating method is messed up as it has been proven to be.

i will watch these videos later on, im at work right now and dont think i can watch all of these and be productive at the same time.

the only evolution you have shown me is the kind that i already agree with.
yes there is a process that takes place. natural selection takes place and we see what it does.
but what is happening here is you are saying that this process along with random mutations and such causes things that we have not observed, tested or demonstrated.

if those examples are in these videos, then i guess ill have to see them when i get around to watching them.

reply to post by Methuselah


We know they're older because of carbon dating and a ton of other scientific ways to assess age. The only possible way for them not being as old is if there's some diving being who makes them seem older on purpose...and that would be pretty retarded.

Watch the videos, it'll debunk a lot of the false interpretations of science you have

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


What proof? You have supplied none at all. When it comes to God and religion, there is zero proof for or against the existence of God. That is why God needs faith, and as you have said, actions to prove that faith is true.

These subjects can only be discussed in logical terms, not proof-wise terms. For there is no proof for or against it. By discussing it, we are assuming God is real, for which no proof exists to prove this nor prove it wrong. In order for either of us to demand proof, we would need to first proof without a doubt that God exists or does not exits to which is impossible.

Ergo, we must use logical deduction of faith. And logically speaking, my points stand. To which you did not reply. You merely said I have no proof. So again, please see my previous post and answer it.


it is not true I do this for myself. For I don't care about religion or faith. If it was up to me we would all shut up, live our faith, and God would bring us all in anyway. But that defeats the purpose of religion all together. And in doing so, God is no longer needed at all. To state I do this to glamorize myself is simply untrue. Much more closer to the truth is that I do this because this is what I do. If I was not doing this, I would instead be reading. We are on an internet forum. Glamor and popularity are worthless commodities.