I no longer believe in Evolution as currently being used

"Evolution vs. God"


"VERSUS"

Seriously.....

This is another question I asked a creationist recently, "Why on Earth does your religious belief HAVE TO clash with science? What is the relevancy of creationism to a belief in God? Why do you rely on a rather shaky belief of creationism as a foundation of your belief?

Creationists don't realize they are actually limiting themselves by believing into such dogmatic things...worse even when they in-fact CONTRADICT science...and sometimes even "common sense".

Hint: Believing in a god (or creator or "source") does not mean it needs to clash with science.

This is the major, major crux of our culture/time..when a religious belief is "against" science... and IMHO it shows the weakness and problem Christianity in-fact has. It's a belief which does not "fit in" with real life...unlike other religions (Buddhism, Hinduism etc..or spirituality...correct me if I am wrong) which has NO problem whatsoever with "real life", in fact it goes beautiful together, even with science, quantum physics, astronomy etc.. NOTHING contradicts them. Christianity is always endangered by knowledge....ask yourself WHY.

reply to post by Vasa Croe

Please explain how it requires a force exist that defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It deals with isolated systems of which the ONLY true example of is the entire universe itself. There is nothing that defies the 2nd law in evolution as there is nothing that says that a closed system (the universe) can't have order created within on a local level as well, as long as another part of the system is disordered.

Man you are so wrong.

An isolated system is exactly what lead Darwin to his "Eureka!" moment in the Galapagos Islands.

We are in an isolated system on this very planet.
That is why we, as humans, have a life span.
That is why the planet has a life span.
That is why the sun has a life span.

That is why a firebomb made of kerosene doesn't explode and then burn for 30 minutes.
It can't. Once that energy has been transformed it is forever trending toward a state of disorder.

I don't think that you quite understand how to apply to laws of physics to something outside of a setting with a teacher telling you what to think.

NoRulesAllowed
"Evolution vs. God"


"VERSUS"

Seriously.....

This is another question I asked a creationist recently, "Why on Earth does your religious belief HAVE TO clash with science? What is the relevancy of creationism to a belief in God? Why do you rely on a rather shaky belief of creationism as a foundation of your belief?

actually... to burn your straw man to the ground, this can be reversed and it is actually more along the line of the truth of what has happened and what is happening.

the minority (atheists) are the ones in which creationism and morality can not fit into their philosophy. On the other hand, the theist have plenty of Creation Scientists to stand up and be counted.

and atheists to have these values? where are they... point one out please

SisyphusRide

Grimpachi
I wonder if people here can figure out the difference in meaning of faith in these statements.

“I have faith that, because I accept Jesus as my personal savior, I will join my friends and family in Heaven.”
“My faith tells me that the Messiah has not yet come, but will someday.”
“I have strep throat, but I have faith that this penicillin will clear it up.”
“I have faith that when I martyr myself for Allah, I will receive 72 virgins in Paradise.”

Maybe I should make a thread about how people term faith.

I have faith when I believe in unseen evidence of Darwin's theory of Evolution.

I have faith in eugenics stemming from survival of the fittest and preservation of the favored races.

So you are saying you don't understand the difference in terminology. Well that explains your stance then.

Richard Dawkins wrote this about faith maybe it will help you understand.

There is a very, very important difference between feeling strongly, even passionately, about something because we have thought about and examined the evidence for it on the one hand, and feeling strongly about something because it has been internally revealed to us, or internally revealed to somebody else in history and subsequently hallowed by tradition. There's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation.

kyviecaldges
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

Please explain how it requires a force exist that defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It deals with isolated systems of which the ONLY true example of is the entire universe itself. There is nothing that defies the 2nd law in evolution as there is nothing that says that a closed system (the universe) can't have order created within on a local level as well, as long as another part of the system is disordered.

Man you are so wrong.

An isolated system is exactly what lead Darwin to his "Eureka!" moment in the Galapagos Islands.

We are in an isolated system on this very planet.
That is why we, as humans, have a life span.
That is why the planet has a life span.
That is why the sun has a life span.

That is why a firebomb made of kerosene doesn't explode and then burn for 30 minutes.
It can't. Once that energy has been transformed it is forever trending toward a state of disorder.

I don't think that you quite understand how to apply to laws of physics to something outside of a setting with a teacher telling you what to think.

Really?

Definition of an isolated system:

In the natural sciences an isolated system is a physical system without any external exchange – neither matter nor energy can enter or exit, but can only move around inside. Truly isolated systems cannot exist in nature, other than allegedly the universe itself, and they are thus hypothetical concepts only.[1][2][3][4] It obeys, in particular, to the first of the conservation laws: its total energy - mass stays constant.

So you are saying nothing can enter our planet from outside our atmosphere? Because in an isolated system neither matter nor energy can enter or exit...so are meteorites a figment of my imagination?

SisyphusRide
engage me in the debate please

the links you posted are of a different video, and one of them is a joke video with the magnetic thingy.

Can I, Can I???

It seems that our 'faith' is to debunk creationist like this every month-two because of this video...

For starter, what do you know about evolution?

Where does your knowledge comes from?

What does evolution teaches?

Is evolution belief?

What does theory means in evolution?

Does evolution covers how life came into existence?

Once you answer those question, we can start with discussion...

reply to post by SisyphusRide

I wasn't trying to be rude.
Just pointing out that word games don't add to the debate. Which is what I think that video shows. I don't remember saying what I believed. As it happens I think it does take an element of faith to believe in evolution. It is still a theory after all. I just don't know why this word is used to try to make the science argument sound ridiculous.

kyviecaldges

That is why we, as humans, have a life span.
That is why the planet has a life span.
That is why the sun has a life span.

it seems Darwin's other scientific skills beyond biology we not so educated and learned?

we age and have a life-span because of "gravity" we are tied to the planets gravity in more whays than Darwin must have realized.

SisyphusRide
the minority (atheists) are the ones in which creationism and morality can not fit into their philosophy. On the other hand, the theist have plenty of Creation Scientists to stand up and be counted.

and atheists to have these values? where are they... point one out please

It sounds scary that you are taking your moral out of bible...

Please tell me that is not true...

Did you ever read bible?


Let me quote Penn Jillette on this:

Take some time and put the Bible on your summer reading list. Try and stick with it cover to cover. Not because it teaches history; we've shown you it doesn't. Read it because you'll see for yourself what the Bible is all about. It sure isn't great literature. If it were published as fiction, no reviewer would give it a passing grade. There are some vivid scenes and some quotable phrases, but there's no plot, no structure, there's a tremendous amount of filler, and the characters are painfully one-dimensional. Whatever you do, don't read the Bible for a moral code: it advocates prejudice, cruelty, superstition, and murder. Read it because: we need more atheists — and nothin' will get you there faster than readin' the damn Bible.

Plant geneticist: ‘Darwinian evolution is impossible’
Don Batten chats with plant geneticist John Sanford

Plant geneticist Dr John Sanford began working as a research scientist at Cornell University in 1980. He co-invented the ‘gene gun’ approach to genetic engineering of plants. This technology has had a major impact on agriculture around the world.
creation.com...

Grimpachi

SisyphusRide

Grimpachi
I wonder if people here can figure out the difference in meaning of faith in these statements.

“I have faith that, because I accept Jesus as my personal savior, I will join my friends and family in Heaven.”
“My faith tells me that the Messiah has not yet come, but will someday.”
“I have strep throat, but I have faith that this penicillin will clear it up.”
“I have faith that when I martyr myself for Allah, I will receive 72 virgins in Paradise.”

Maybe I should make a thread about how people term faith.

I have faith when I believe in unseen evidence of Darwin's theory of Evolution.

I have faith in eugenics stemming from survival of the fittest and preservation of the favored races.

So you are saying you don't understand the difference in terminology. Well that explains your stance then.

Richard Dawkins wrote this about faith maybe it will help you understand.

There is a very, very important difference between feeling strongly, even passionately, about something because we have thought about and examined the evidence for it on the one hand, and feeling strongly about something because it has been internally revealed to us, or internally revealed to somebody else in history and subsequently hallowed by tradition. There's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation.

hollow meaningless empty words... I do not consider Dawkins as a scientific mind or take him seriously, he is a militant atheist and a vengeful bully.

reply to post by Stormdancer777



Biased blogs for the win?

1. It is based on a simplistic computer model with no empirical evidence to support it. In science, you get the evidence then you make the model. He made the model without any evidence, he made it instead assuming all mutations are bad and of course it shows that evolution is not possible.

2. Sanford's definition of fitness is flawed. He seems to think that "full fitness" equals 1. He's assuming that there is a such thing as ideal fitness and that's completely wrong. Some genotypes are favorable in some environments, others are favorable in other environments. For example, dark skin is favorable in areas near the equator (prevents melanoma/skin cancers) but unfavorable away from the equator (leads to other cancers and rickets). Light skin is the opposite, near the equator whites will get melonoma, but away from the equator they'll have lower incidences of other cancers and rickets. The same is true for every single attribute in every organism. Besides null mutations (those destroying the reproductive system or killing the animal), there are no mutations that cannot be beneficial in some circumstances.

There are other problems. He doesn't factor in environmental influence in his model because he considers it noise. What? Does he know what natural selection is? He also does not factor in things like hybridization and genetic drift--all of which are instrumental in speciation.

He claims his model, called Mendel's Accountant is the most complex and comprehensive computer simulation for genetic evolution ever created. Fine, but it's still too simplistic in comparison to the real world. He makes assumptions like the beneficial mutation rate and the selection rate--both of which are arbitrarily drawn up by him.

I did get to ask a question though I'm quite sure the audience did not know the significance of it. Dr. Sanford claims outside of complete neutral mutations, 99.9999999999% of all mutations are somewhere between -1 (lethal) and 0 (neutral). True beneficial mutations are so rare you can basically ignore them. I said,"You don't know all the factors interacting with this mutation, so to say something is slightly negative is an assumption. I guess what I'm getting at, is do you have an example of a slightly deleterious mutation?"

He replied "There have been many experiments done where we expose--for example plants to radiation and most of them die and you get all sorts of weird stuff. But these things usually die or can't reproduce. You don't want mutations in your genome because it's bad--give me a show of hands how many people want mutations in their genomes?"

See how simplistic his argument is? How simple minded you have to be to accept anything he says? Of course no one wants mutations in their genomes, but we're not talking about mutations in living animals, we're talking about mutations in germ lines. You can't get evolution from mutations in a living organism.

I wanted to then say, "but those aren't acted upon by natural selection and they aren't examples of slightly deleterious mutations" but I was cut off by a person telling Dr. Sanford it was over. It's really a shame, because his entire model breaks down when you realize there is no example of a mutation that is passed on, but slightly deleterious.

Overall it was underwhelming. He started with saying he'd come to the revelation through evidence that evolution was wrong and the Bible was right, but all he presented was a computer program. Don't get too excited about having this lunatic on your side, creationists. His argument won't convince anyone but the most feeble minded.

forums.randi.org...

Looks like ATS isn't the only place to take a stab at this one. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to discover an ATS lookalike.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Denial of the existence of God due to whatever someone believes to be the absence of evidence of God is contrary to the scientific method.
The only method known to modern science that can actually DISPROVE any idea as false is the use of the null hypothesis.

A null hypothesis would be used to prove that God does not exist by proving that something exists that makes it absolutely impossible for God to exist.
That is the only established means, by modern science, to disprove anything.

So then tell me... How do you prove that something exists that makes it impossible for God to exist?

Should you not then begin by defining God in the first place?

Do you see the conundrum?

This is why the true default position is agnostic and not atheist
An agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves.

That is exactly what I call myself.

Stormdancer777
Plant geneticist: ‘Darwinian evolution is impossible’
Don Batten chats with plant geneticist John Sanford

Plant geneticist Dr John Sanford began working as a research scientist at Cornell University in 1980. He co-invented the ‘gene gun’ approach to genetic engineering of plants. This technology has had a major impact on agriculture around the world.
creation.com...

Ha....the guy who says the Earth is only 100,000 years old. Nice reference. So do you believe the Earth is only 100,000 years old?

SuperFrog

SisyphusRide
engage me in the debate please

the links you posted are of a different video, and one of them is a joke video with the magnetic thingy.

Can I, Can I???

It seems that our 'faith' is to debunk creationist like this every month-two because of this video...

For starter, what do you know about evolution?

Where does your knowledge comes from?

What does evolution teaches?

Is evolution belief?

What does theory means in evolution?

Does evolution covers how life came into existence?

Once you answer those question, we can start with discussion...

this is not a debate... these are questions.

there is no need for you to attempt to find weakness of my character for you to use as an advantage or a mounting post for your upcoming construction of a straw man.

please be more engaging and respectful that other possibly just may be on your very level of current understanding of science.

Give it a shot, don't be bashful...

reply to post by kyviecaldges


I don't get the agnostic vibe from you. I get the impression you are looking for a reason to be theist.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Hey whats up?

reply to post by Vasa Croe


Let's reinterpret this definition for a second.

In the natural sciences an isolated system is a physical system without any external exchange – neither matter nor energy can enter or exit, but can only move around inside.

If this process is a universal constant, this theory of evolution, then that would mean that life exists on other planets. Where is it?

An isolated system. Neither matter nor energy can enter or exit, but can only move around inside.

Where is this life then that is either entering or exiting our atmosphere.

LIFE. Not the building blocks of life, but LIFE. Where is it?

Truly isolated systems cannot exist in nature, other than allegedly the universe itself, and they are thus hypothetical concepts only. It obeys, in particular, to the first of the conservation laws: its total energy - mass stays constant.

Okay then, let's take the universe. If mass and energy stay constant then how can you explain increasing complexity on the cellular level?
And if so then how come we don't see it anywhere in the universe.

That is the EXACT same argument that people like you use to disprove the existence of God. Where is he?
Show me the money?

If we are not isolated then show me life exiting and entering the atmosphere of our planet that contains the very life form that evolved in freaking isolation, according to your own theory. It had to come from somewhere if we are not a closed system. LIFE. NOT THE BUILDING BLOCKS.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that on one hand we do not live in an isolated system, but yet on the other hand the reason that we supposedly evolved was due to us being contained within an isolated system.
And to further quote your definition, again-

Truly isolated systems cannot exist in nature, other than allegedly the universe itself, and they are thus hypothetical concepts only.

But yet still the 2nd law of Thermodynamics works like clockwork in every single experiment ever done inside of our atmosphere.
Why do you think that is?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

I don't get the agnostic vibe from you. I get the impression you are looking for a reason to be theist.

heck Agnostic's (notice how I give them the capital letter A) are alot more engaging and scientific than atheists any day of the week.

I've said it myself before and I'll say it again... my philosophy is that of a Christian moral philosophy, but Agnostic individuals are just cooler people than atheists.

atheists are close minded... Agnostics seemingly wait for proof, and that's a start and a talking point and ground to stand on.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

I don't get the agnostic vibe from you. I get the impression you are looking for a reason to be theist.

edit on 15-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

If I was to guess the reason for your perception, it would be due to the fact that you are either a believer or a disbeliever.
My perspective is a conundrum to both.