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.

 

Talk Origins, Education or Indoctrination

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
In another thread that I recently authored questioning why so many believe the theory of evolution to be a scientifically proven fact rather than a scientific theory, I was on several occasions referred to the talk origins website for sources. I am not familiar with the site myself as I learned about evolution theory in school and don't often have a need to seek internet sources for information on the subject. After a little digging it became somewhat apparent that many of the false assertions that were presented to me did indeed originate from the talk origins website.

Here is an analysis of the website from someone seemingly more knowledgeable on the subject than myself.

Talk.Origins:
Deception by Omission

Jorge A. Fernandez
© 2002 by Jorge A. Fernandez. All Rights Reserved.
INTRODUCTION
he Talk.Origins (TO) website (www.Talk.Origins.org...) is promoted, among other things, as an educational site, a place for obtaining information on evolution and answers to the numerous criticisms to this theory. Although TO states that it is a “forum for discussion”—presumably unbiased—much evidence testifies to the contrary. I’ve been observing the TO site from the sidelines for quite some time and have until now restrained myself from responding to the materialistic worldview that this organization pushes on the unsuspecting. It is particularly distressing to me to read the feedback letters from young people and watching those impressionable minds being manipulated through TO indoctrination.

To be fair, and to emphasize that this is not a witch-hunt, I must say that some of the volunteers at TO undoubtedly have good intentions and are sincere in their efforts. However, in this particular arena good intentions and sincerity are not enough (I’ll return to this point at the end of the article). The full, unbiased disclosure of truth is what is essential here and TO doesn’t even come close to providing it. In any event, this article is my first, albeit brief, critique of the Talk.Origins site and I herein intend to expose some of what TO doesn’t tell its readers.

I should begin by saying that almost immediately after deciding to write these words I was overcome with a sense of awe at the magnitude of the task—let me explain:

Talk.Origins is very hard to target—a fact that may be so by design. For example, if a person disagrees with TO on the ‘fact of evolution’, these people will employ a definition of evolution [“Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time”] that makes it impossible to disagree and, if one does argue, then that person comes across as being uninformed or irrational or fanatical. This might be acceptable if only it remained right there.

But it doesn’t! That statement about evolution (which happens to be accurate, i.e., genetic characteristics of populations do vary over time) is subsequently modified / extended throughout TO’s many articles and feedback responses so that not only is the person to accept the (empirically corroborated) fact of change, but also that this change is the sole causing agent for the diversity and complexity within an organism (internal organs, cellular structures, etc.) as well as outside of the organism including Earth’s entire flora and fauna. The metaphysical extrapolation of the data that is required to accomplish this feat is somehow missed by TO—either by ignorance or by design. What’s more, if we are to remain exclusively within the natural (material) realm then the term ‘evolution’ must somehow be further extended to include life from non-life, i.e., the emergence of life itself must also be accounted for by the ever-stretching definition of evolution.

There’s more. The origin of the basic materials that make up all objects (living or not) must also somehow be accounted for so yet other forms of evolution enter the scene—chemical, stellar and planetary. In fact, the universe itself must also be accounted for by evolution. Thus, whether they hypothesize a Big Bang, a quantum fluctuation, aliens from another dimension or some other natural explanation, the universe began and has ‘evolved’ to what it is today.

Few would argue with the notion that ‘things change.’ But to take the step from ‘things change’ to ‘and therefore, that’s how it all got here’ is a leap of blind, irrational faith that would send even the most fanatical snake worshipper reeling.

The bottom line to all this is that the fundamental concept of evolution is clearly a manifestation of a metaphysical—not a scientific—worldview and, just as with any other religion, the facts must continually be interpreted and adjusted to fit with this belief.
Essentially then, TO is a propaganda machine for philosophical naturalism using the more acceptable and palatable cover of methodological naturalism. Evolution theory is nothing but the scientific operational model to support this metaphysical position.

TO attempts to cover this point by stating that in their group they also have Christian and other religious evolutionists—people that believe in God, believe in a creation by a deity, but also believe in evolution (i.e., middle-grounders). TO employs this strategy to give its visitors a sense of universal appeal, i.e. that anyone, regardless of their beliefs, may subscribe to evolution. But again, exactly what evolution are they referring to? The one that says “things change” (this is science), or the one that says “that’s how everything came to be” (this transcends science and is philosophical naturalism—a metaphysical position)? TO uses the two interchangeably.

Yet, anyone who knows the score realizes that middle-grounders are at best marginally tolerated by ‘pure-blood’ naturalists—as these say, “the hypothesis of God is unnecessary!” Why, then, do the pure-bloods tolerate these naturalistic ‘misfits’? There are probably many answers to this question but two are worth briefly mentioning: ‘divide and conquer’ and ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ Thus, naturalists welcome whatever sows dissension among creationists and, therefore, anyone disagreeing with the fundamentalist Christian position in any way while accepting any part of the evolutionary doctrine is embraced by them (at least for now).

The focus of this article is on those deceptions invoked by the TO writers, which are mostly achieved by omissions, as is demonstrated in the illustrations below. It is often what the people at TO do not say that makes TO a propaganda/indoctrination site as opposed to an educational site.

The Talk.Origins FAQ page (www.Talk.Origins.org...) gives readers a shortened version of TO’s position. On February 13, 2002 this site had 24 questions, with brief answers and links to “relevant files.” My responses (R) to selected entries (Qs & As) taken verbatim from the TO FAQ page, reveal how the TO writers have selectively omitted essential facts in their efforts in order to lend credibility to the TO perspective:

JUST A THEORY?Q: “I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact?”
A: “Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution—genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc.—is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.”
R: Clearly there would not be a creation-evolution controversy if it were universally agreed and adhered to that evolution meant solely “a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time.” There is a creation-evolution controversy (a major one at that) precisely because evolution means far more than what TO leads its readers to believe here. The controversy exists because evolution—the full-fledged manifestation of evolution (including Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution)—is for many a metaphysical belief that elevates the philosophy of materialistic naturalism (hailing purely natural laws and processes, including time and chance, as our “creators”), and dismissing God (a Creator with purpose) as an irrelevant product of superstition.

After all, why is it that so many people are offended by the theory of evolution to the point of fiercely opposing it? Why is it that emotions run so high and intellectual battles persist? Because of ignorance? Hardly! Although there will always be uninformed people on both sides of any dispute, a great many well-educated people in science, mathematics and other disciplines are among those who disagree adamantly with the precepts of evolution. Evolution is offensive because it is bad science and is as equally bad a metaphysic—in short, on close examination, evolution fails on all counts. There is a controversy precisely because of clashing metaphysics—the same type of conflict that exists when Christian theology comes face-to-face with Islam, Buddhism, or even atheism, to name just a few popular counter-Christian belief systems.

Despite all of this, TO promotes the view that the creation-evolution controversy is a war of ‘religion versus science’—‘emotion versus reason.’ This view is held mostly out of ignorance, but there are undoubtedly those within the TO organization that understand the matter well enough to know better. However, TO does very little to educate its audience on the philosophical foundation of its position. This is deception by omission.

WHO ACCEPTS EVOLUTION?Q: “Don’t you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?”
A: “No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity.”
R: Two points here. First, TO wants to assure its visitors that “Christian and other faiths” are compatible with evolution. I would again say that all beliefs are compatible with evolution as long as evolution is confined to speaking about (observed) biological change. But as we all know (or should know), this is not the way that it is.

Evolution, as a manifestation of methodological naturalism (the operational version of philosophical naturalism), makes countless assertions into metaphysical areas with cosmological and biological origins representing just a few of these. TO makes no attempt to make known this subtle yet all-important aspect of what ‘accepting evolution’ comprehensively means. TO lures ‘people of all faiths’ into their camp with assurances of compatibility. Deception by omission.

The second point concerns the latter half of their answer: “...evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity.” Such a statement suggests the necessity of concessions, compromises, and ‘special’ interpretations of the Bible in order to satisfy the (naturalistic) theory of evolution as the explanation for biodiversity. After all, not doing so entails opposing the formidable and authoritative pronouncements of the “scientific establishment”—and who wants to do that? [Besides, exactly how would the average person go about challenging this “scientific establishment”?]

I ask, whatever happened to the answer that, “Biodiversity is part of God’s creation”? Specifically, if a person believes in God as the Creator of everything then this ‘everything’ includes the biodiversity that we observe. Of course, maybe in this arena ‘everything’ does not mean everything? Nowhere does the Bible even hint that a gelatinous substance was formed and that from this goo there emerged ‘simple life’ that diversified—over eons—into zebras, humans, and the rest of the biological community.

Quite to the contrary, concerning man’s origin, the Bible very clearly states that ‘from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female’ (Genesis 1:27; Mark 10:6). It bears pointing out that this foundational event in the biblical record defies any kind of evolutionary ‘interpretation’ that doesn’t compromise either evolutionary dogma, the credibility of the biblical record, or both. The Bible contains numerous other assertions that cannot be reasonably answered under the paradigm of evolution unless the Bible receives ‘special’ interpretation—the kind that denigrates the historical validity of the biblical record in order to accommodate popular contemporary beliefs. This then is the bottom line: the Bible has to be distorted in order to accommodate the edicts of evolution. TO never mentions any of this, preferring instead to shamelessly assert that evolution and Christianity are somehow ‘compatible.’

Besides, “...evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity” is nothing more than a tautology in the sense that it is the “scientific community” that dictates what is admissible and what is not. Is it any surprise that this same community embraces philosophical/methodological naturalism and frowns heavily upon anything that even remotely suggests anything other than material causes?

I can think of no better illustration of this than the case of intelligent design theory (ID). Leaving out numerous details, ID is having a difficult time being accepted into the scientific establishment as a bona fide scientific theory simply because it has metaphysical—in fact theistic—implications. After all, if the logical conclusion is that specified and complex design is present, then a designer is the only available option and the big ‘G’ immediately enters the realm of possibilities. Naturalists were quick to pick up on this rather obvious and, to them, highly unpalatable conclusion and as a result ID is being treated by many as if it were advocating the practice of human sacrifices.

The fact of the matter is that ID is as robust a scientific theory as one should reasonably expect, having all of the components—foundation, logical/mathematical formulation, explanatory/predictive power, etc.—that other widely accepted scientific theories have. For more details on this I recommend two sources: The Design Inference, Cambridge University Press, 1998 by William Dembski and Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, InterVarsity Press, 1999 also by William Dembski.

To summarize this point, ID is not being scorned because it is bad science or illogical, but because it crosses the line that separates one metaphysical worldview from another. The “people in charge”, i.e., the naturalistic scientific establishment, are unwilling to allow that to happen—naturalism must be protected at all costs, from their point of view. Why doesn’t TO mention or elaborate on any of this to its readers? Deception by omission.

AN UNFALSIFIABLE TAUTOLOGY?Q: “Isn’t evolution just an unfalsifiable tautology?”
A: “No. Evolutionary theory is in exactly the same condition as any other valid scientific theory, and many criticisms of it that rely on philosophy are misguided.”
R: Evolution is largely an operational manifestation of a philosophically naturalistic foundation—to deny this is to be either uninformed or deceiving. There simply cannot be an area of scientific inquiry without some philosophical foundation for the obvious fact that science is conducted exclusively by humans (no aliens, please!) and all humans—whether they acknowledge it or not—subscribe to some philosophy regarding their internal being (consciousness) and their external world (the universe). For TO to state that philosophical criticisms are misguided is an act of willful ignorance at best and unmitigated deceit at worst.

As far as the ability to ‘falsify’ evolution consider the following:
Nobel laureate Dr. Francis Crick promotes ‘directed panspermia’ (i.e., ‘DNA originated somewhere ‘out in space’ and somehow made its way to Earth’), apparently having recognized the odds against a natural earthly cause for DNA.[1]
Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton, New York, 1986) assumes the number (1020 by his accounting) of theoretically possible planets that may exist in the universe in order to provide sufficient opportunities for the highly improbable event of life to occur naturally (i.e., without intelligent direction).
Barrow and Tipler (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford University Press, 1986) go far beyond Dawkins in that they invoke entire universes (theoretical, of course) as the potential arenas for (natural) life to emerge.
Kauffman (The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution, Oxford, 1993) takes a different route than Dawkins, Barrow and Tipler. Kauffman brings into the panorama a hypothetical set of laws by which life may emerge here on Earth solely through (only) natural process.

Now, some may choose to argue that these distinguished gentlemen are simply doing ‘science’—proposing theories to explain observations, among other things. However...

The term to remember here was ‘falsifiable’—and, to take just one example, we might ask ourselves how one goes about falsifying an infinite number of universes.

Here’s the point to all of this:
If we are allowed to propose essentially anything (aliens, parallel universes, 1020 planets, extra dimensions, time travel, etc., etc.) in order to uphold our theory then how will it ever be possible for that theory to be truly falsifiable? As clever and imaginative as we humans are, wouldn’t we be able to—don’t we—contrive just about anything that would allow us to retain the position or theory that we cherish?

Well, not always. All human cleverness and imagination could not save the phlogiston theory, the notion of blood humors, the geocentric model, and many other now defunct ideas. There is, however, one major difference where evolution is concerned—a difference that makes evolution impervious to that which toppled these aforementioned and now extinct ideas. That difference is the intimate and critical connection between evolution and philosophical naturalism—a metaphysical (i.e., religious) connection.

As the universally recognized and accepted authority on what is admissible as ‘scientifically valid’, the scientific establishment (anchored in naturalism) has constructed the rules so that evolution is the de facto answer. This matter may be expanded in many directions so I’ll end on this note: eliminate evolution and what are the remaining options? Naturalists know well that to eliminate evolution is to eliminate the single possibility for a natural explanation of the origin of life and of biodiversity. Therefore, evolution must be sustained even if this requires hypothesizing the preposterous or the unfalsifiable. The only other alternative, the supernatural, is simply not admissible.

One further example of this, not listed above, of how the establishment is committed to defending its position at all costs is the case regarding transitional fossils. The transitional fossil evidence is highly suspect and a great deal of controversy exists within and outside of scientific circles—certainly not what the evolution advocates (particularly Darwin himself) ever expected.

So what do the evolution advocates do? Is the validity of the theory even questioned? Never! Instead, ingenious mechanisms such as Goldschmidt’s ‘hopeful monsters’, the ‘emication’ idea of the Swedish botanist and geneticist Nils Heribert-Nilsson and the more palatable ‘punctuated equilibria’ of Gould and Eldredge were proposed—whatever it takes to lend credibility to a theory weakened by the empirical data. There is a fine line between scientific ‘ingenious mechanisms’ and metaphysical ‘sorcerer concoctions’ and it is a historical fact that even reputable men of science have crossed this line many times in order to support a paradigm. So once again I must point out that if naturalists essentially have a carte blanche in what they may propose to uphold their pet theory, in this case evolution, then it will be extremely difficult if not impossible for someone to falsify their position. Why doesn’t TO expound on this fact? Deception by omission.

HOW DO YOU KNOW IT’S TRUE?Q: “No one has ever directly observed evolution happening, so how do you know it’s true?”
A: “Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. It is true.”
R: Need I repeat it? Yes, if evolution is confined to saying that, “biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time” then TO’s conclusion of “it is true” is an accurate statement. However, it’s what TO doesn’t say that makes their answer deceiving, and this continuous deception makes TO an indoctrination site for advancing philosophical naturalism—buyers beware!

For the record, every informed creationist that I know of accepts changes, mutations, adaptations and even speciation—there is no dispute here. The real dispute is in the naturalists’ extrapolation from (observable) genetic ‘change’ to (unobservable) Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution to (unobservable) ‘cause for being’. Such an extension is no longer science, it is a metaphysical transfiguration. TO does not inform its readers of this, since to do so weakens the case for their apparent true objective: Deception by omission.

NEW SPECIES—THE REAL ISSUEQ: “Then why has no one ever seen a new species occur?”
A: “Speciation has been observed, both in the laboratory and in nature.”
R: This is absolutely true [speciation as science defines it has been observed] but, as I have stated already, there is no dispute here. However, TO does not get to the core of the matter and leads its readers to the notion that the origins controversy is one of science versus religion—that creationists deny the fact of speciation and are thus “ignorant”. Why don’t they mention the critical point, namely that creationists do accept speciation—but the dispute is about the causing agent of speciation, biodiversity and, ultimately, biological origins? Why do they make false accusations against creationists, instead of facing the empirical roadblock to the arbitrary extrapolation of Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution from the variations observed in speciation? Deception by omission.

2nd LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS—THE REAL ISSUEQ: “Doesn’t evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics? After all, order cannot come from disorder.”
A: “Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and embryos develop, etc.”
R: TO is here propagating one of the most odious of all myths in the creation-evolution controversy, this being that the creationist argument involving the second law of thermodynamics is either invalid or has been amply refuted. This is simply not true.

The essential information that TO is either ignorant of (or is concealing from its readers) is that when snowflakes form they do so according to thermodynamic principles that produce patterns (i.e., symmetric crystalline structures) that are far from the asymmetric, far more complex structures required for life. What’s more, symmetric structures occur naturally because thermodynamic equilibrium is a natural state. On the other hand, life—any life—is actually a departure from thermodynamic equilibrium; a significant departure that requires large amounts of directed energy to be sustained, according to requirements defined in advance by every organism’s genetic code.

Similarly, the example of “trees grow and embryos develop” is again an oversimplification based on either ignorance on the part of TO, or a willful concealing of the whole truth from their readers. The point is not that organisms grow but how they are able to grow. The typical, shortsighted response is that “they are receiving energy from the sun—it is an open system and this energy provides the fuel for growth”. Recently, Harvard’s own Ernst Mayr served up precisely this “open system” explanation in his latest book, What Evolution Is [Basic Books, 2001, page 8]. True, energy is being supplied but the main point is being missed (intentionally?).

Let’s take a blow torch to a tree or an embryo, thereby supplying it with plenty of energy, and then let’s stand back and watch them grow. Of course, what’ll happen is they will be incinerated! Energy is not the key; energy reception, utilization and storage is the key. In other words, there must be a highly sophisticated and fully functional energy management system—a system that enables input, conversion, storage and output—if a tree is to grow or an embryo is to develop. This is the crux of the creationist argument involving the second law of thermodynamics and not some easily discarded strawman. Why doesn’t TO present the real issue and respond to it? Deception by omission.

THE NON-EXISTENT ‘PRIMITIVE’Q: “The odds against a simple cell coming into being without divine intervention are staggering.”
A: “And irrelevant. Scientists don’t claim that cells came into being through random processes. They are thought to have evolved from primitive precursors.”
R: Let’s just focus on the ending words of their answer, “...from primitive precursors”. Evolution advocates have always believed that it was possible for nature to begin with “simple, primitive life” and evolve over eons towards ever-increasing complexity. This is, after all, a major postulate of evolution. There’s just one problem with this hypothesis and it’s a whopper of a problem!

As science and technology advance, what we are finding is that the notion of “simple, primitive life” is receding at an ever-quickening pace. It is now clear that the idea of a ‘simple gelatinous goo’ actually necessitates a level of complexity that cannot be explained naturally even letting the imagination run rampant. Likewise, the ‘simple’ cell has been found to be anything but ‘simple’. In fact, the cell is now understood to be of a complexity that eludes all scientific attempts to quantify it and the more we study it the more complexities are being unveiled.

These are just a few of the reasons why those that want to uphold evolution while retaining naturalism (their metaphysical position) have come up with aliens or with hypothetical natural mechanisms of self-organization or with other contrivances—it’s the only way to explain these vast directed complexities while keeping the big ‘G’ out!

Thus, when TO uses the words “...from primitive precursors,” why don’t they mention to their readers the fact that the concept of a primitive organism is a philosophical ideal for which there is not a single shred of empirical scientific evidence? Why don’t they mention that current scientific evidence leads to but one reasonable conclusion, namely, that the simplest conceivable organism must be anything but simple or primitive if it is to be capable of carrying out any of life’s functions. Is TO ignorant of these facts? I don’t believe they are. Deception by omission.

SIGNIFICANCE & RESPONSIBILITY

At the beginning of this article I had stated that “the full, unbiased disclosure of truth is what is essential here and TO is not even close to providing this”. Aside from the obvious fact that complete, unbiased information is always better than partial or distorted information, it is infinitely more so in this arena than in any other. Why?

Well, it’s because of the stakes. Clearly the majority of TO supporters belong to the atheist/agnostic/naturalist camp. Hence, to them there is no afterlife (certainly not one in the Christian sense) nor is there a personal God; a judgment by Jesus Christ; accountability to a Creator; heaven or hell. This belief is their choice and no one is denying their right to this choice. However...

To those that visit the TO site in search of answers—people that may be undecided and seeking unbiased information—to these people TO owes the courtesy of behaving in an informative capacity and not as an indoctrination site.

But it goes far beyond being just courteous or professional. It is morally irresponsible to misguide people through omission into any position that has eternal consequences—yes, eternal consequences. That last statement may sound religiously biased but is actually a logical result since, regardless of who is right or wrong in this matter, the ultimate end is of eternal consequences (whether an eternity in the grave, or an eternity in heaven or hell).

This, then, is my strongest criticism of TO. If TO is going to educate, then educate they should! To educate means to present all sides in truth and completeness and accuracy. Education is the antithesis of indoctrination. In this article I have presented but a small sample of the many cases where TO is guilty of being nowhere near complete, accurate or truthful. In some cases this may have been through their ignorance, and in other cases through deliberate intent—I’ll not pretend to know which of the two is the case.

One thing is clear, if intellectual integrity and ethics mean anything to the TO staff, then after this article I would expect to see one of two things—ideally it would be both:
A clearly stated disclaimer at their website indicating that their goal is about promoting the theory of evolution—to the point of demanding ‘special’ interpretations of the Bible—and, more generally, about promoting a naturalistic, materialistic view of the universe (a la Carl Sagan).
A truthful, accurate and complete presentation of views other than evolution or naturalism (e.g., intelligent design theory) alongside their own preferred views. If they are unclear as to what these other views are, then they should conduct a serious, scholarly inquiry and not simply post some incomplete or distorted version of what they believe the other side has to say on the matter.

I cannot see how Talk.Origins will be able to acquire a status of objectivity and truthfulness without adding at least one of these attributes to their site. As it stands, Talk.Origins is an affront to the ideal of intellectual integrity, scholarly pursuit and moral responsibility.
Jorge Fernandez
March, 2002


Reference

[1] Crick, Francis, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981) 192 pp.

pp. 51-52:
“If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an event would this be?
“This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20200 and is approximately equal to 10260, that is, a one followed by 260 zeros.
“Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of rather modest length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been even more immense. The great majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time.” [emphasis added]

p. 88:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. ...The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth’s surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against.” [emphasis added]




posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Yeah, right.. " to present all sides in truth and completeness and accuracy" - as soon as the church starts showing charts about how the theory of evolution could represent another side, I will advocate for showing religious texts on scientific-based web sites.

In other words: NEVER.

It is always only the church demanding to have science to show "both sides in truth blablabla".

Thank you for reading this biased text.
Evolution eats religion, for ever.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   
The major issue is not with evolution, they are meeting their burden of proof for
the claims that they make, creationism or if you prefer intelligent design has
made many claims, yet every single one that is answerable has shown that
there is indeed no evidence at all for this claim, there is nothing to test for
99% of their claims and the 1% we can test actually shows them to be wrong.

we cannot teach something like intelligent design in a science class because
it is not only theology but it is simply flat out not science you see....... these
claims are just really getting to me these days, i get so sick of having to explain
to people that to make a claim you better darn well be able to actually back it up
and not get angry when the truth does not fit with said claim.......

It really reminds me of miracles, miracles are claimed constantly again and
again to be proof that god does exist, but in the same way that intelligent design
is good at making claims and ignoring the burden of proof miracles have always
been shown to be a false claim, when we look into them the claim falls apart and
it turns out to be either a flat out lie or a misunderstanding of what actually happened.

if religion cared at all for the truth they would admit that all religions, the hundreds that
are practiced throughout the world are just ideas, not facts, not truths, not a way
to navigate the world, not a science, just an idea.........



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


Ok, I was hoping for some kind of intellectual examination of the claims but I suppose rantings can be helpful too.

edit on 19-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by bloodreviara
 


There in lies the problem I have. Science can be proven by experimentation. ToE cannot. The topic though is, is talk origins being honest or are they spreading a doctrine?

I am hoping for direct rebuttals of the claims made by the author, not opinions about what the evidence supports.


edit on 19-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
This is not about the church, I know at the end the guy starts bringing his religion into it but can we just focus on the claims he is making.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Actually yes the ToE can be proven via experiments, we cannot tell you where the very
first life evolved but we can very well measure and understand ongoing evolution, hence
why i pointed out that the problem with your argument is that you are asking a valid
scientific field of study to compete with a non scientific field of study, the ongoing experiments
in evolutionary biology are in fact the very thing you seem to be saying cannot be done.......

You claim lacks a few important things, please show me where evolutionary theory
has failed its burden of proof, if it had it would not be the THEORY of evolution it would
be the hypothesis of evolution instead.......... also it lacks the evidence to show that
ID has any merit whatsoever at all, evolution may lack some information in its current
form but it stands up to the rigors of scientific testing again and again......

Not only that but genetics which were predicted to exist by evolution were indeed there,
what this says is that one HUGE part of our existence was predicted by the hypothesis
before we even knew, that's a pretty specific guess if that's all it was..... and religion has
not ever made a claim such as that one and been correct.......

I do not frequent talk origins but something to remember about that site is unless the
authors are indeed evolutionary biologists then their claims could very well be inaccurate,
but really what your asking is for science to present a false claim to be equal to a claim
that has a huge amount of evidence to it, your asking science to do exactly what your
claiming that they do, to present something false and claim it is equal to truth...........

This claim really does come down to the fact that ID is just religions way to force science
to preach their rhetoric in schools, this was actually admitted by one of the fellows who
led the court case for ID being forced into college. it was thrown out by the way for lack
of evidence, thank goodness there was an honest judge there that day.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   


I should begin by saying that almost immediately after deciding to write these words I was overcome with a sense of awe at the magnitude of the task
Yes, I can imagine trying to disprove evolution is quite an undertaking, and an exercise in futility....



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by bloodreviara
 


OK, the first origin of life is part of ToE is it not?

You cannot perform an experiment demonstrating a life form becoming or evolving into another more complex life form.

This however is not the subject. I fear no one is even taking the time to read the claims. The subject is, is talk origins giving an accurate depiction of the situation?

As it appears that this will not be viewed objectively and I am not willing to prove the speculative side of it again. I suppose I am just wasting my time.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


You are correct as it really is not disprovable nor provable which is one reason why it is not good science.

Keep in mind however that the author is not attempting to disprove evolution but rather attempting to expose dishonesty in the way it is presented.
edit on 19-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by bloodreviara
 


Next time an evolutionist wants to debate evolution vs creationism just bring up Phi 1.618 and new discoveries that have been made on the quantum lvl concerning particle physics. Known as the Fibonacci sequence or Golden ratio. Its in everything even the very laws of physics itself. The mathematics that make up our universe down to our DNA and the even resonance of phi found in the quantized scalar field cannot be discounted as coincidence or chance evolution. If that isn't enough to shut down the debate then here are a few more tips for you.

Louis Pasteur quote "Can matter organize itself? No! Today there is no circumstance known under which one could affirm that microscopic beings have come into the world without parents resembling themselves"

Put simply the chances of Nucleotides and Peptides forming amino acids not to mention the proteins needed for 1 cell to form is 10 to the factorial of 7 or 10 to the 74th power and that's just for the amino acid. Doug Axe a molecular Biologist at Cal Tech who also taught at Cambridge University for 14 years has shown that just to get the Peptides to bond with a protein is in the area of 10 to the 154th and that's just for 1 protein. Now add in to this the fact that the proteins that make up a cell have to be there when the cell forms or the cell dies instantly and you begin to realize that evolution is impossible. Now to give you an idea on the chance of all your Nucleotides, Peptides, amino acids and proteins all forming in a soup at exactly the same time just to form 1 cell would be the same as winning more then 100 trillion different lotteries on the same day. EVOLUTION NEVER HAPPENED BY CHANCE! Anyone that tells you otherwise doesn't have the facts and needs to put down Origins of a Species.

Every missing link that evolutionist try to use from Australopithecus Afarensis or "Lucy" has been confirmed to be an extinct ape species. Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Sapiens Archaic have been proven to belong to different human races and are not missing links at all. Neanderthal man dismissed in 1960, Piltdown man dismissed 1953, Zinjantrophus dismissed 1960, Ramapithecus dismissed 1979 and the list goes on. Evolution IS NOT even close to being science and dont even get me started on DNA.

The next time someone wants to argue evolution vs creationism show them this post and tell them when they can scientifically show you how proteins formed to make the first cell then we can talk about it, until then everything else they bring to the table is junk. The creator's fingerprint is in everything even the very laws of physics, tell them to remember that the next time they look at a flower and see Phi or when they listen to music.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


Ok, I was hoping for some kind of intellectual examination of the claims but I suppose rantings can be helpful too.

edit on 19-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



It is a ranting, because usually anti-scientists are immune against logic, so I quit trying to insert logic into these discussions.

Usually, too, the definitions of "theory" and "prove" are completely different between sciencists and religiousists, so we can't even speak about "this is proven and that is believe", as there is no common definition between us.

Therefore, yes, it is a ranting. Any applied theory in the fields of biology, physics or any other real-world-science is under the constant burden to be refutable if enough counterproves were found. There is no way to find a irrefutable prove FOR a theory. Which can be proven, ironically..


Theories in real-live are just the best found way to describe events which seem to be in a context, until a better fitting theory will be found.

Therefore, no one can "prove" the theory of evolution, but it is still the best-fitting explanation. An explanation which is fit enough to explain more than enough details, without depending on "gods will" at some point, when it is cornered and without further explanations left... Which happens to "intelligent design" and other ways of inserting some unexplained creator with unexplained motives really quick in the details when questioned.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


I just explained why evolution isn't possible. Until Science can explain how just ONE protein can form by chance they're theory is bogus. If you can take it a step further and look at how DNA is formed. Just earlier this year they found out that the 98% of what they thought was junk DNA is actually chemical switches and there are over 3.2 billion switches. Any serious evolutionist out there today will not even discuss what I've just brought up because they know that it proves without a shadow of a doubt that evolution without intelligent design is impossible.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Killuminati2
 


You do know that there is still no artificial created form of living cell? Therefore, there is no theory about the evolution of peptides et. al., yet. There might be one tomorrow or in the next century. This doesn't matter.

Why doesn't this matter to you, me or us?

Because every theory has its holes, but that doesn't neglict its use and overall correctness.


Take gravity.
You know gravity, everyone knows and everyone experiences it. Therefore, a theory, which is proven by countless experiments starting maybe with Galileo, can be constructed, stating that two bodies are attracted to each other by a connecting force.
This is not true. At least not in the finer details.
Nevertheless, the theory works good enough to explain the movements of planets in simulations over hundreds of thousands of years into the future. But please, don't try that simulation with stars or even worse galaxies. You might get a solution which seems right, but it wont.

Yet, the apple falls from the tree and hits you perfectly on the head.

This, and I have tried to explain it in real-world-words, not scientific mumbo-jumbo, is the cause why a huge, overwhelming number of scientists are certain, that the theory of evolution works and fits at least a sigma-6 of world's samples.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Killuminati2
 


You could have trillions of parallel universes with trillions of stars in each one and you STILL wouldnt be able to get a protein to form by chance exactly the way a cell needed in order to survive instantly AND THATS JUST ONE PROTEIN!



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Killuminati2
 


To give you an idea on the amount of possible protein combinations you would have to have in your primordial soup pool and this has been proven mathematically, you could fill the entire earth with nothing but proteins and you still would be short.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Killuminati2
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


I just explained why evolution isn't possible. Until Science can explain how just ONE protein can form by chance they're theory is bogus. If you can take it a step further and look at how DNA is formed. Just earlier this year they found out that the 98% of what they thought was junk DNA is actually chemical switches and there are over 3.2 billion switches. Any serious evolutionist out there today will not even discuss what I've just brought up because they know that it proves without a shadow of a doubt that evolution without intelligent design is impossible.


Why is it impossible? Because you threw huge numbers at it? How about the simultanous appearance of SWITCH and TO BE SWITCHED EVENT? So in this way we wouldn't have to rely on concurrence.

I won't go deep into biology, as it is not my area of expertise, but I may ask a relative, a doctor of microbiology, if you insist.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


Let me put it this way mathematically its not eternity but I'm pretty sure if you could see it from the end of the number of possibilities. If you tried to use your scientific calculator to look at the number im talking about you would get error. If you tried to write the number out on a piece of paper it would take you days and more paper then you probably have in your whole house.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Killuminati2
 


If you had a 1 in a trillion chance of winning the lottery and you took every human being on the face the planet all 7 billion and put them each on their own planet with their lottery it would be the same as everyone willing the lottery on the same day and that isn't even scratching the surface. EVOLUTION NEVER HAPPENED, im srry it just didnt there is no mathematical way possible, this is why evolutionists wont talk about what ive just presented in the scientific community because they would be laughed out of the building.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Killuminati2
 


Not to mention the process's just to get RNA molecules to transfer into proteins. Like I said take a good long look at molecular biology and the math involved in all the processes needed to form just 1 protein and you will understand that evolution is impossible. The chances of all your RNA sequences matching up with all your proteins that are composed of trillions of different variations and possibilities that have to be perfect or the cell dies instantly is almost infinite. Then add into that equation the fact that all these elements have to be in place and active at the same exact time in order for the cell to live. If just one protein in the cell is wrong or mutated in the beta globin you get sickle cell anemia and die. EVOLUTION NEVER HAPPENED and any serious scientist who is honest when talking to a molecular biologist knows that what im saying true.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join