I no longer believe in Evolution as currently being used

kyviecaldges

Darwin's theory of the evolution of our species from a single cell to the unimaginably complex, multi-cellular top of the food chain predator that we are today most certainly requires belief.
It requires belief that a force exists that defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics, thus creating expanding complexity, which is inherently contradictory to this law of physics.

That requires faith, because experiments cannot replicate it.

NO.

Evolution requires no faith. It happens regardless of whether you believe in it or not.

Saying otherwise is like arguing that Gravity only works if you believe in it.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


The subject I asked you about was about your understanding of the terminology of faith used in those examples so Dawkins not being a scientist has no bearing on the matter. However his quote does. The question to you wasn't in the realm of science it was in the realm of literacy which Dawkins is qualified.

The question was if you understood the difference in these faith 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.”

Since you didn’t answer my question it is reasonable to assume you were not capable of comprehending the difference and the quote from Dawkins should have cleared that up for you. Here try reading the message without dismissing it because he isn’t a scientist.

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.

SisyphusRide
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...

This is where we can start debate. You made claim that Evolution is what you learned in school. Oddly enough, I learned evolution in school as well, but it DOES make difference in what kind of school and where. (I am originally from EU)

Why so suspicious, I am really not looking for weakness in your character, just trying to understand what made you change you mind, if that even happened. Somehow after other posts, I doubt that you telling us the truth.

Simply answering those questions will save us time, as that is how this discussion will go. First we have to determine what theory means. In science its fact, something already proven and able to be proven as true. Like theory of gravity.

Evolution has been observed in labs around the world, in closed environments and there is huge amount of data supporting it. Even Vatican acknowledges evolution as fact.

And this is not boxing, this is not a shot, just simple try to help you figure out that ignoring huge scientific work over fishy video is not really smart way to go. Beliefs are one thing, but facts are completely different and they don't leave room for beliefs.

SisyphusRidehollow 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.

First of all, thank you for bringing very nice video. I can just wish to sit between Tyson and Dawkins as Sam Harris did. But speaking of Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, do you know what is his stance about those who invoke ID or creation in science and lab?



Speaking of Dawkins, just couple of nights ago he did another debate with Deepak Chopra on show dangerous ideas. At the end, Deepak announced that this was once in lifetime meeting, to surprise of everyone he said that he and Dawkins have no intention in meeting again. This was after he made a fool of himself claiming that every atom, cell, bacteria, non-living things have a consciousness.

rickymouse
I believe in Evolution but not as it is taught. I believe something is steering it just like we have steered bacteria and other microbes to evolve faster. Something evolved humans, it wasn't random evolution. Something steered us down the path we are going.

So then, I think that the two theories, evolution and creationism need to be combined.

Why? Do you think you are special? Does the cheetah think it is special because it is fast? You know the cheetah must have been steered...hmmm isn't that natural selection?

Xtrozero

rickymouse
I believe in Evolution but not as it is taught. I believe something is steering it just like we have steered bacteria and other microbes to evolve faster. Something evolved humans, it wasn't random evolution. Something steered us down the path we are going.

So then, I think that the two theories, evolution and creationism need to be combined.

Why? Do you think you are special? Does the cheetah think it is special because it is fast? You know the cheetah must have been steered...hmmm isn't that natural selection?

Natural selection does not really allow for compassion or friendship. These are very important to all animals. I see that the does in my yard do not allow the young fawns to eat the food we give them. My wife would get mad because she said the mother was greedy. I would observe them all the time. The does were teaching the fawn to survive, eating stuff in the wild. Once it learned all it's survival skills the does would leave the young start eating the foods we were giving. When I told the wife, she looked at me a little crazy.....She told me a month later I was right after many observations of her own. To believe in natural selection means you have to believe these animals are just dumb animals. These dear have compassion and feel sorrow and remorse. Sure, the young bucks full of testosterone are like human teenagers, teens can't think well because of a rapid change in hormone levels. That is not just a human trait.

If you do not look for these traits in animals you will not see them. They appear to be dumb animals around people who treat them as meat. They have feelings just like all of us do.

Now, I know I need to eat meat so I buy my half a cow from a farmer who treats his cows well, they are grassfed cows with plenty of food. They are not mistreated while they are alive. They live to about two years old, but at least it was a decent two years. When I eat my roast I think about the cow that gave her/his life so I may live.

These feelings do not fit into natural selection at all. A fireman who rushes into a burning building to save someone....definitely not natural selection. How about the story of Moby dick the whale, study the true story on that.

If you want to believe in natural selection go ahead, that is your right. I see flaws that make the theory of evolution nothing but a deception equal to the theory of creation.

I haven't read all the comment, but the ones I did read were people bashing the guy who created the video. Ok, well lets leave him out of it, and you all answer the one question he asked for eleven and a half minutes. Show me one piece of evidence of Macro-evolution that requires absolutely no faith.

AliceBleachWhite

kyviecaldges

Darwin's theory of the evolution of our species from a single cell to the unimaginably complex, multi-cellular top of the food chain predator that we are today most certainly requires belief.
It requires belief that a force exists that defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics, thus creating expanding complexity, which is inherently contradictory to this law of physics.

That requires faith, because experiments cannot replicate it.

NO.

Evolution requires no faith. It happens regardless of whether you believe in it or not.

Saying otherwise is like arguing that Gravity only works if you believe in it.

Just because you want macro-evolution to be true doesn't make it so

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

Lot of research prove it to be true, so there is no reason for belief.

Also lots of research proves that world is a bit older then what is suggested by Bible.

Your wishful thinking does not make it true... something you should learn in school...

SuperFrog
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Lot of research prove it to be true, so there is no reason for belief.

Also lots of research proves that world is a bit older then what is suggested by Bible.

Your wishful thinking does not make it true... something you should learn in school...

If there is so much of it then give me just one example of a change in kinds....The Bible doesn't say the earth is 6000-10000 years old, and I don't believe it is so do just assume things your wishful thinking doesn't make it true

ServantOfTheLamb

Just because you want macro-evolution to be true doesn't make it so

"Want", "Faith", "Like", or "Dislike" have nothing to do with it.

Evolution is well documented, supported, and confirmed through a wide variety of sources above and beyond comparative anatomy.

Please provide evidence otherwise without resorting to Argument from Incredulity, or any other fallacies.

As an example, creationists incessantly use some difficult-to-explain facet of biology as "proof" of a creator. The problem is that, though there is no non-design explanation for how precisely a certain organ could have evolved at the moment, one may be discovered in the future. Contrary to the instincts of many creationists, lack of an explanation does not justify confecting whatever explanation one would prefer. The inexplicable is just that, and does not justify speculation as proof.
Sometimes creationists compute the astronomical odds against a molecule having a certain structure from the simple probability of n atoms arranging themselves so. They gloss over the fact that chemical laws trim most of the extraneous possibilities away. For instance, there are many ways to theoretically arrange hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in a molecule, but in reality, most of what forms is H2O. Note that the creationist's fundamental error is not his ignorance of this fact, but his assumption that there is nothing more to know.

ServantOfTheLamb
If there is so much of it then give me just one example of a change in kinds....The Bible doesn't say the earth is 6000-10000 years old, and I don't believe it is so do just assume things your wishful thinking doesn't make it true

Sure, look at our family tree....

Human Family Tree

Our kind changed over time. All those 99.9 of life that existed and we can find in fossil records proves 2 things - evolution being force of nature and bible being very WRONG.

You can look at fossil evidence, if you like: humanorigins.si.edu...

Just small question for you - how come we have so many different kind of fossils for humanoids? Does bible say anything about creation misses?

Question is - do you even know what you believe...

AliceBleachWhite

ServantOfTheLamb

Just because you want macro-evolution to be true doesn't make it so

"Want", "Faith", "Like", or "Dislike" have nothing to do with it.

Evolution is well documented, supported, and confirmed through a wide variety of sources above and beyond comparative anatomy.

Please provide evidence otherwise without resorting to Argument from Incredulity, or any other fallacies.

As an example, creationists incessantly use some difficult-to-explain facet of biology as "proof" of a creator. The problem is that, though there is no non-design explanation for how precisely a certain organ could have evolved at the moment, one may be discovered in the future. Contrary to the instincts of many creationists, lack of an explanation does not justify confecting whatever explanation one would prefer. The inexplicable is just that, and does not justify speculation as proof.
Sometimes creationists compute the astronomical odds against a molecule having a certain structure from the simple probability of n atoms arranging themselves so. They gloss over the fact that chemical laws trim most of the extraneous possibilities away. For instance, there are many ways to theoretically arrange hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in a molecule, but in reality, most of what forms is H2O. Note that the creationist's fundamental error is not his ignorance of this fact, but his assumption that there is nothing more to know.

edit on 11/15/2013 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)

Creationism is not the subject here, but evolution. I asked for one piece of evidence not to be referred to another post. If there is so much proof for macro-evolution please show me one piece of evidence that requires no faith.

ServantOfTheLamb

Creationism is not the subject here, but evolution. I asked for one piece of evidence not to be referred to another post. If there is so much proof for macro-evolution please show me one piece of evidence that requires no faith.

... and I asked for NO Argument from Incredulity.

*sigh*

Asking for evidence to dispute your position aligns with an appeal or argument from incredulity.


Anyone, of course, is more than welcome to invest "faith", "belief", "like", "dislike" and other emotional investments into their FEELINGS about evolution.
Evolution, however, as stated before, just like Gravity, does not require any such.

Anyone actually interested, actually truly interested as opposed to just attempting to 'win' some online conspiracy theory forum debate might be interested in investing some time soaking up some relevant University level material:
750+ FREE Online Courses from Top Universities.

Please come back when the 5 major extinction events can be described with their causations, what effects they had regarding speciation, diversity, and adaptations, what the common ancestor of mammals, birds, amphibians and lizards is from the P-Tr event, as well as a thorough explanation in understanding as to why we're eating chickens instead of 'chickens' eating us.

SuperFrog

ServantOfTheLamb
If there is so much of it then give me just one example of a change in kinds....The Bible doesn't say the earth is 6000-10000 years old, and I don't believe it is so do just assume things your wishful thinking doesn't make it true

Sure, look at our family tree....

Human Family Tree

Our kind changed over time. All those 99.9 of life that existed and we can find in fossil records proves 2 things - evolution being force of nature and bible being very WRONG.

You can look at fossil evidence, if you like: humanorigins.si.edu...

Just small question for you - how come we have so many different kind of fossils for humanoids? Does bible say anything about creation misses?

Question is - do you even know what you believe...

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

First off, None of this constitutes as evidence, and everyone is aware of gaps within the fossil record by now. None of this is a testable and observable proof of a change in kinds.

No creation misses, but there was a fall of man.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

Asking for evidence to dispute your position aligns with an appeal or argument from incredulity.

If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. Moreover, if no one has yet managed to imagine how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that no one will ever be able t

You are assuming I cannot imagine that macro-evolution is true, and that is false. However, am I wrong to assume you cannot imagine what the world would look like if the God of the Bible existed?

This is really a cop out for you...you cannot provide evidence to back up the claim that macro-evolution(a change of kinds) is scientific fact, and are looking for a way out of it, but whatever. Now, I will prove to you I can imagine a world in which this occurs. If macro-evolution occurs then we would live in a world were new creatures occasionally crawl out of the sea, where bacteria occasionally changes to no longer be bacteria, and species on Earth would be in a transitional form between two kinds(NOT TWO SPECIES). So you say this world exist. I am asking you to show me evidence of this, and instead you dodging the question why not answer it.

You don't believe you come from a monkey??? LOL





hmmmm.... so would that mean you're on your spiritual evolution?? ha ha.

no I don't think evolution has any basis. It's even darwin would be rolling in his frackin grave!

AliceBleachWhite

kyviecaldges

Darwin's theory of the evolution of our species from a single cell to the unimaginably complex, multi-cellular top of the food chain predator that we are today most certainly requires belief.
It requires belief that a force exists that defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics, thus creating expanding complexity, which is inherently contradictory to this law of physics.

That requires faith, because experiments cannot replicate it.

NO.

Evolution requires no faith. It happens regardless of whether you believe in it or not.

Saying otherwise is like arguing that Gravity only works if you believe in it.

Evolution and Darwin's theory of the evolution of our species are separate entities.
Gregor Mendel proved evolution, and as I have stated already, several times, his work is undeniable.

Evolution is simply the movement of the universe. Darwin then went as far as to use this to describe the origin of humanity. If you believe that claptrap of lies, then you are believing it on faith.
My problem is with Darwin's application of evolution and his work On the Origin of Species.
This books full title is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
The "preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life".
That is nothing but elitist bull dookie.
We don't know the origin of our species and the only favored race is anyone of any color with a whole boat load of money.

We know that a movement that resembles evolution is happening.
That is undeniable, but to equate Darwinian evolution to gravity is a fallacy of false analogy.

There seems to be this pervasive attitude amongst academia that we have a firm grasp on this concept that we call evolution, but in reality we are all along for the ride and know little of its mechanics.

At best, we can only see the results this thing, evolution, after the fact.

And the more control that we try to exert over how our species evolves the more damage we will do.
I do not deny that we evolve.

What I question is the common ancestor theory.
There is no credible evidence to back this up.

I question the evolution from a single cell to multicellular predatory sometimes obese sleepwalking zombies.
I don't buy into this.
It is too easy of an out. There are too many contradictions and too many holes.

Evolution happens, but homo sapiens evolved from a single cell....
Not buying that crap.

ServantOfTheLamb

SuperFrog
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Lot of research prove it to be true, so there is no reason for belief.

Also lots of research proves that world is a bit older then what is suggested by Bible.

Your wishful thinking does not make it true... something you should learn in school...

If there is so much of it then give me just one example of a change in kinds....The Bible doesn't say the earth is 6000-10000 years old, and I don't believe it is so do just assume things your wishful thinking doesn't make it true

How about this?:

www.talkorigins.org...

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite



The day you can show me persons or animals that are in the various stages of such ongoing evolution, i will surely Accept it as a proof that the theory is thrustworthy.

The persons i have confronted With this argument before, always answers With the claims that evolution takes Place so increadable slowly that there are no such visable (and various) transition stages in those life forms being subject to it.

If this is right and if i were to travel back in time a million years or so to look for beings that were in such various transition stages (caused by evolution), i would never find such thing there either. Even if i went further back in time, i wont find any evidence of evolution.

If i were to ask a person (from this million years back in time) if such People exist. he would say no, because evolution takes Place so increadable slowly. So when will i eventually find a being in the middle of such transition stage? The answer is never.

Thats the genious With this theory. Nobody will ever be able to prove it nor disaprove it.