Evolution debate: requested by others

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by NewGuy, May 6, 2004.

  1. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I would be pleased as can be to see this in a higher profile area, but I realize it belongs here so I have started it in the appropriate place. This was requested by a few members who started a thread under the General USA Chat. It should be known that Zhukov has given me flak unnecessarily in the past and will no doubt try to do the same again. This post is going to start at and add to the stuff from the previous topic "Evolution vs. Creationism".
    ---------------

    The test of a theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Evolution is not a good theory. It is required to be reasonable, right, and scientifically provable.

    Can these following questions then, be scientifically proven? Are the answers reasonable? Are the answers RIGHT?

    -How did matter get so perfectly organized?

    -Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

    -When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

    -When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

    -With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

    -Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

    -Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

    -When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

    -How did thought evolve?

    -Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

    The credibility of Jesus is at stake. He said the creation of Adam was "the beginning" (Matt. 19:4). Evolution and creation represent views that are exact opposites:

    One of them is wrong

    Also at stake are the morals of our children, because if evolution is true, there are no moral absolutes and only the strongest have a right to survive. If evolution is true, abortion, euthanasia, pornography, genocide, homosexuality, adultery, incest, etc., are all permissible.


    The start of the "proof" for evolution goes directly to one thing: fossils. Fossils depend on DATING. The age of the Earth, the age of fossils, rocks and stars all provide data to set the tone for what can be proven "possible", not PROBABLE or PROVEN FACTUAL.

    As such, as stated in the other thread, dating doesn't work http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5077&highlight=dating
    and
    Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?

    Quotes from other scientists:

    "I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."?*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

    "The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

    "It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

    "Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."?*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

    "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."?*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

    "When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."?*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

    "Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."?*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

    "The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research?paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology?has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

    "Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."?*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8

    "I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."?*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

    "Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

    Exodus 20:11 : "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day."

    A physicist at Sandia National Laboratory, Dr. Russell Humphreys set out to solve the Big Bang vs. Bible as he studied what the Bible had to say about the formation of our universe.

    All modern models start with the assumption that the universe has neither a center nor an edge. When these assumptions are put into Einstein's general theory of relativity, the result is an expanding universe which is billions of years old at every location.

    if the Bible was inspired by God, as it claims to be, it should not have to be twisted to be understood. It should have the same straight forward meaning for a "man on the street", a brilliant physicist, or a theologian.

    The Bible clearly indicates three things about God's formation of the universe.

    1. The Earth is the center of God's attention in the universe. By implication, the Earth may also be located near the center - perhaps so man can see the glory of God's creation in every direction.

    2. The universe (both matter and space itself) has been "stretched out".
    Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Jeremiah 10:12, Zechariah 12:1, 2 Sam. 22:10, Psalm 144:5, Ezekiel 1:22, Isaiah 48:13, Job 26:7, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 51:13, Job 37:18, Isaiah 44:24, Jer. 51:15, Psalm 18:9, Isaiah 45:12.

    3. The universe has a boundary, and therefore it must have a center.

    If these three assumptions are placed into the currently accepted formulas of physics, we find that we live in a universe in which clocks tick at different rates depending on your location. The time dilation effect would be magnified immensely as the universe was originally expanding. As the universe expanded, there was a point at which time was moving very rapidly at the outer edge and essentially stopped near the center. At this point in the expansion of the universe, only days were passing near the center, while billions of years were passing in the heavens. This is the inevitable conclusion based on our current knowledge of physics and starting with Biblical assumptions instead of arbitrary ones.

    Einstein rejected the idea that Bible could be literally true. He wrote that, "Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that many of the stories in the Bible could not be true."
    -Joseph Schwartz, Einstein for Beginners, Pantheon Books, New York, p.31.

    The most ridiculed Biblical story (about a recent, literal, six day creation of the universe) is exactly the story which Albert Einstein's work has shown to be entirely possible.

    A comprehensive explanation of Dr. Humphreys work, can be found in his book. -Starlight and Time, Master Books, 1994.
     
  2. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    No merit.
     
  3. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    :cof:

    :clap1:

    :laugh:

    :thup:
     
  4. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Yuck it up, chuckles! I too resort to idiotic giggling when beaten severely, I think. It's never happened, however, so I'm not sure.
     
  5. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    You reply with "No merit" and call that a severe beating?? Sounds like you need to come up with some merits of your own, there, NewAgeAvenger.
     
  6. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    personally, i'm not convinced of either theory and to be honest newguy, you haven't really disproved the theory of evolution.

    You bring up great instances of how carbon dating is flawed but your entire theory of creation as truth relies solely on someones faith and belief in the readings of the bible.

    Scientists and theologists have many different methods for discouting theories they don't subscribe to but doesn't do much to factually disprove those theories.

    Take, for example, the carbon dating and reasons cited for disproving its scientific authenticity. While many examples are given to prove its unreliability there are no facts provided with it to prove that the very same fossil or skeletal remains are only 20 or 30 k years old. If the theory that claims a catastrophic event 65 million years ago is what wiped out the dinosaurs is wrong because the earth is only 30,000 years old, then where is the record of carbon dating these skeletal finds, or any other method of dating, to show a consistent age?



    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    How did matter get so perfectly organized?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    some matter is perfect, others are not. A diamonds molecular structure is near perfect in shape while a ruby is less so. Further down the line is granite which is a very shoddy molecular structure. In living beings its even worse.


    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    energy can come from a variety of sources so its not the energy that we need to look at, its the ways in which these processes come together to form that energy. chemical reactions can have a wide variety of results based solely on its particle makeup. Water is commonly known as H2O. Two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen. H2 O2, or hydrogen peroxide, has one extra oxygen element and therefore is changed so much that its not water. Do we assume that a higher power is responsible for this 'organizing', and if so, what proof do we have other than faith?


    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    That's something that scientists try to find out everyday. All this talk about carbon based forms with amino acid reactions sparking mutations of cells into RNA, then DNA, and so on is beyond my knowledge but it stands a good theory and offers slightly more factual evidence than someone proselytizing creation.


    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    This is what living cells, whether singular or complex, do. Life forms propogate, maybe its so simple that its beyond our understanding.


    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    reproduction does not have to include sexual activity. There are lifeforms that can reproduce within themselves. The ebola virus that I talked about earlier, as well as other virus's that reproduce themselves, use cell splitting to reproduce. It only requires an acting agent to intervene to provide that ability to split.


    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    any species with a basic thought process can learn and then adapt. That adaptation is passed to the next generation through training and eventually becomes instinct. Everytime we learn something new, our brain pattern changes for we have introduced new information to form our lives, our habits, our 'instinct' so to speak.


    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    This works on a daily basis in the animal kingdom, thats why we label it 'only the strong survive'. Its natures way of keeping a species strong. The pride of lions care for its young so that it can spread its particular gene pool and continue the line of strength. If food is scarce and they can't find enough food to feed the cubs, the cubs will die or find a way to survive on their own. Thats instinct.


    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    all animals express these same emotions on a limited basis. example, Two dogs who have lived together as siblings the whole of their lives. After 12 years or so, one of them dies. Watch the other dog go through a period of sadness or depression because he/she no longer has the sibling its known its whole life. Is it because it was a sibling? probably not but we may never know since we don't speak dog and they don't speak english. It's more likely that the dog has become so accustomed to having that particular 'friend' in its life and the change is hard to accept. It 'misses' its buddy. Your statement of feelings not evolving in evolution really doesn't apply except that we, as humans with higher thought patterns, have been able to explore, identify, and define those things we've become accustomed to as love, hate, mercy, guilt, etc.


    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -How did thought evolve?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    answered above as well. everytime a being learns something new, its imprinted on the brain. Its taught to the future generations. Sometimes that 'evolution' of thought hits a stumbling block and doesn't advance for awhile, but it still evolves.


    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    how can you expect to predict evolution accurately? there are too many variables to predict evolution with any degree of accuracy.

    just my .02 cents anyway.
     
  7. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Actually, you are correct. You cannot disprove a theory.

    All I have done is prove that it ISN'T FACT. If something is to be proven, it is no longer just theory and has to move toward being proven through a sequence of logical proving steps.

    What I HAVE done, is prove the steps claimed are NOT fact and in fact are theory. -And BAD theory at that.

    Again, this DOES disprove evolution, which was the topic.

    The second part was that the Bible claims information in its verses, quite literally, that IS proven by our science. In this case, your statement of it relying solely upon FAITH would be entirely incorrect.

    Belief is a different issue. I can believe my dog to be 100 years old as well. That doesn't make it fact.

    To claim a theory true because there is no alternative answer is a flasehood. Just because there is a hole left in the understanding of how something works, there does not have to be a proof that something else is true. We may not have an alternative answer for something like this dating becasue of 3 reasons:

    1. We haven't developed an accurate way of reading the age of fossils.

    2. Reading the fossil date is impossible based upon the sediments and weather from the time of the Great Flood.

    3. We ignore the Bible.

    In context, the issue was the perfect organization of matter in order to support the necessary perfect complex changes evolution supposedly requires. I should have made that more clear. Sorry.


    First, the idea is that an energy had to arrainge all of the matter to be perfect for the previous question to be an evolutionary foothold.

    Second, you are correct in how energy may be produced AFTER the energy already exists in other forms.....in other words, there HAD to be a start. -Which is what the creation of the universe, by scientific standards, still doesn't explain. -The Bible does.

    Third, you ask for proof other than faith. Faith would standardly be defined as blind belief. I don't accept that. It is firmly proven in Biblical verses and verified by scientists that the Biblical explaination of astrophysics (where adressed) are correct. People just choose not to go the route of believing what is contained therein because it causes them to:

    1. Believe that the Bible has to then be devine in origin

    2. Believe God is who/what He claims.

    Given the ego of man, that is a bitter pill to take.

    Again, you are ignoring the data in favor of a group collective who ignore literal verses backed by science in favor of a completely religious belief in their man-made theories in order to deny a higher authority.

    That is what they want you to believe so you cannot then accept the Bible as fact. Again, it proves its self.

    The question is not what can happen after man's intevention, but how did we get here?

    These are two totally seperate issues.

    Again, this is a mechanism. This proves only the fact that this function does happen. It does not prove higher orders of evolutionary theory.

    The point, though, is that these emotions came from somewhere. Because they are here does not mean they were a function of evolution.

    Was your computer rolled off the assembly line with Windows installed on the HD platters when the platters were created? Of course not. The operating system had to BE INSTALLED. No amount of time or molecular changes would have EVER cause the operating system to install its self spontaneously so the computer could live.

    We haven't proven that to be the case. We have only proven SOME thought processes can be passed down. Again, it started from somewhere.....Where?

    Hence the impossibility of it occuring.

    :)

    -Yet the Bible has direct provable statements backed by science in other realms proving it devine and accurate. To discard the statement of creation is requiring more faith than believing it.
     
  8. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
    LAUGH MY FUCKING ASS OFF! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

    Jeff you are brilliant! I owe you a Full Sail my friend;)

    New Age Avenger is the new official nic for this guy.
     
  9. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    We'll just continue to call you Betsy!

    LMFAO

    :nine: -- sniff my vapor!
     
  10. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
    You see the funny thing is your nic is right on target with your ridiculous thread you started yesterday, most people will say its accurate. Mine on the other hand most people will just blow you off.

    Dude that was the most monumental fuck up in debating by you i've ever seen. lol
     

Share This Page