I no longer believe in Evolution as currently being used

Deny Ignorance ...and Strengthen Weak Minds

reply to post by Jim Scott

You've made the same claim before in another thread, so I'll reply the same way I did then:

Yes... because all of the preceding species in our lineage had the kind of time between birth and reproductive maturity that you're talking about. Whatever you do, don't tell Dr. Lenski that his bacteria didn't actually go through in excess of 1,000 generations per year during his 20 year experiment.

Prezbo369
So we can assume you know exactly 'how' your God created everything, right?

yes... with the Word

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Ok explain to me HOW God created all the animals on the planet, then created man and woman, then created all the animals on the planet, then created woman.

The two contradictory creation accounts.

Because frankly, what I just typed there makes ZERO sense and I would love to know how that is possible.

Jim Scott
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

Seems like a troll thread, but here goes:
Evolution cannot exist, according to scientific facts.
Fact 1: The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Fact 2: The human genome has 6 billion dipole base pairs. (www.edinformatics.com...)
Fact 3: Life evolved on Earth beginning at .8 billion years after Earth began.

Given these facts, there are roughly 3.7 billion years to evolve a successful human being.
However, you need to evolve 6 billion dipole base pairs. You can easily see that there is not enough time.
Also, genetic mutations are repaired by the cells, defeating the process again. www.accessexcellence.org...

It takes too much imagination to believe in evolution...you just have to want to believe it because you want to, not because it's a reasonable theory. Trouble is, science gets going down a particular path and tends to throw out findings that do not fit the model.

So, now that you see evolution is impossible, what's next?

Very interesting I have seen this presented before, science that disproves evolution because there wasn't enough time. But a savy evolutionist will say "oh that is just Abiogenesis, not evolution".

But those that are intellectually honest will come to the conclusion that Abiogenesis happening and developing on our planet does require a type of scientific faith, much more than evolution.

And if Abiogenesis requires scientific faith, how is that different than a theist that also places their faith in something perhaps viewed as equally unknown?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

But those that are intellectually honest will come to the conclusion that Abiogenesis happening and developing on our planet does require a type of scientific faith, much more than evolution.

And if Abiogenesis requires scientific faith, how is that different than a theist that also places their faith in something perhaps viewed as equally unknown?

Because of why we would be doing that. One side does it to preserve emotional security, the other for lack of data. Which brings me to my second point: one side will continue to gather data and adjust their conclusions accordingly. The other will continue to think in the interest of emotional security.

How many here would take the red pill?

Krazysh0t
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

Ok explain to me HOW God created all the animals on the planet, then created man and woman, then created all the animals on the planet, then created woman.

The two contradictory creation accounts.

Because frankly, what I just typed there makes ZERO sense and I would love to know how that is possible.

it is a follow up... and continues after.

a refresher if you will, they do it in class all the time.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Since this thread is about Evolution and not Abiogenesis, that is a moot point. You cannot say that Evolution requires faith because Abiogenesis isn't fully proven yet, they are two separate theories. Evolution has the premise that life already exists, it just explains how life got to the current point on the planet that we are at. Therefore, it is possible that God seeded the planet with life then let Evolution develop and form it to its current state. Of course if you understand Abiogenesis, then you can also say that Abiogenesis is the tool God uses to seed planets with life. None of these theories have to exist with the absence of God.

SisyphusRide

Krazysh0t
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

Ok explain to me HOW God created all the animals on the planet, then created man and woman, then created all the animals on the planet, then created woman.

The two contradictory creation accounts.

Because frankly, what I just typed there makes ZERO sense and I would love to know how that is possible.

it is a follow up... and continues after.

a refresher if you will, they do it in class all the time.

When they do it in class they repeat the same order events not change them around. So no this isn't the same thing. Please try again.

Prezbo369

Being a technician and all, you wouldn't take anything incredibly vague such as the genesis account as a technicalexplanation would you?

on this particular question, I am not interested in the how. Lucifer is probably still trying to figure that out too?

the Why is satisfying and beautiful enough... I'm grateful

SisyphusRide

Prezbo369

Being a technician and all, you wouldn't take anything incredibly vague such as the genesis account as a technicalexplanation would you?

on this particular question, I am not interested in the how. Lucifer is probably still trying to figure that out too?

the Why is satisfying and beautiful enough... I'm grateful

Didn't you write this sentence on the previous page?

you should know it is part of my lifestyle to figure out the "how" and the "why" things happen on machinery... I am a technician. You posit as science that everything is a machine correct?

Now all of a sudden you aren't interested in the how, not to mention you take the why at face value from a book written centuries ago by men who may or may not have embellished their tales or just flat out lied about them. For someone who wants to Deny Ignorance you are doing a pretty bad job of it.

By the way I saw this as part of your post from the previous page and wanted to show how you are wrong.

science doesn't explain how life began either, or how the universe came into existence... these questions seem to have been addressed before the dawn of writing.

You must not be familiar with these two theories:
The Big Bang Theory
Abiogenesis

Because they prove that entire sentence wrong. Science most definitely has answer to those questions, whether it is correct or not remains to be seen. Luckily science is willing to admit when it is wrong and posit new answers when it needs to, unlike the very static Christian religion.

SisyphusRide


yes... with the Word

Ah yes not vague at all....

Is that your professional 'technical' explanation?

Because it sounds like a child's explanation for their finger-paintings....

Krazysh0t

SisyphusRide

Krazysh0t
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

Ok explain to me HOW God created all the animals on the planet, then created man and woman, then created all the animals on the planet, then created woman.

The two contradictory creation accounts.

Because frankly, what I just typed there makes ZERO sense and I would love to know how that is possible.

it is a follow up... and continues after.

a refresher if you will, they do it in class all the time.

When they do it in class they repeat the same order events not change them around. So no this isn't the same thing. Please try again.

your lack of understanding it doesn't weaken anything... you might want to read more?

it's a precursor then... just like a school teacher does.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Very interesting I have seen this presented before, science that disproves evolution because there wasn't enough time. But a savy evolutionist will say "oh that is just Abiogenesis, not evolution".

No, what Jim Scott is presenting is change in genetics over time, which is evolution. I doubt anyone that could be called "savvy" would suggest that what he's describing is abiogenesis. Though anyone "savvy" enough to recognize the differences between the two would also recognize that his math is incredibly flawed. He's no presenting science, he's presenting a hypothesis that rests on flawed assumptions.

But those that are intellectually honest will come to the conclusion that Abiogenesis happening and developing on our planet does require a type of scientific faith, much more than evolution.

Which is why those who are "savvy" enough to recognize the difference between abiogenesis and evolution would recognize that abiogenesis is still a hypothesis and evolution is a scientific theory.

And if Abiogenesis requires scientific faith, how is that different than a theist that also places their faith in something perhaps viewed as equally unknown?

What research is taking place to verify the accuracy of the Biblical account of how life came to be on this planet?

I'm just waiting for fundamentalists to get to the third stage... we're past the stage where they're simply ridiculing and into the stage where they're crying heresy and how scientific advancements in the area of biology are against the will of God. I think we'll get to the point where they're telling us they always knew that evolution (and maybe even abiogenesis) are true because they're in the Bible.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Since this thread is about Evolution and not Abiogenesis, that is a moot point.

Yup every time, I even called it, in my original post.

I want to ask the OP(SisyphusRide) as a former believer in Evolution do you consider it a moot point, I am curious ?

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Since this thread is about Evolution and not Abiogenesis, that is a moot point.

Actually the thread is about evolution as it is currently being used in academia, which is to promote the abiogenesis hypothesis.

I have already stated this once. I don't know if you didn't read my reply or what exactly. This is quoted directly from the OP.

A year ago I was a person who accepted evolution as it is currently being used in academia, but as an observer of facts, evidence and discussions abroad I have come to the conclusion that it is something which requires faith to believe in and can not be proven.

I have full faith in the mods. If you think that comments on abiogenesis are off topic, then alert them.
They will delete the comments that are off topic.

You don't need to bully people into making this what you want it to be.
This is a collective effort. If you want to talk about God then have at it, but what I don't understand is why YOU are so adamant about shutting people up that talk about abiogenesis. The OP seems cool with it.
Is this your thread?

I have an idea. Why not alert the mods and see if anything happens.
That has always been a great barometer check, IMHO.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


So what? This thread is about EVOLUTION. I'm not going on and on about the Big Bang Theory or Molecular Theory. I am going on about Evolution. Abiogenesis isn't part of the theory of Evolution, so it is useless to compare it to Evolution. It also doesn't matter what the OP thinks on the matter either, because the above remains true. To combine the two is disingenuous. You might as well have said, "well String Theory is unproven, and since we cannot prove that theory, Evolution is therefore unproven." It doesn't belong in the conversation unless a Creationist misrepresenting Evolution makes the dumb statement that Evolution doesn't explain how life can come from nothing. You don't get moral points for predicting my response to your statements, because any intelligent person should be able to see what I am saying is true.

Blue_Jay33
I want to ask the OP(SisyphusRide) as a former believer in Evolution do you consider it a moot point, I am curious ?

edit on 4-12-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

I am not a denier of science, nor of evolution...

"I no longer believe in evolution as it is currently being used"

Abiogenesis is not a moot point, it hits right to the core...

reply to post by SisyphusRide

Abiogenesis it is not a moot point imo is not a moot point, it hits right to the core...

Thank you.

I personally see belief in a higher power and science as mutually exclusive.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


As has been explained to me many, many times by posters at ATS abiogenesis and evolution are two very separate topics. And I will agree scientifically they are, but to the average person developing or holding various belief patterns they are not, they are inextricably linked culturally with belief systems, following closely behind is theism, agnosticism, and atheism based on their perspective of the total package of abiogenesis and evolution together.