Evolution - Page 4

beachbum · #31 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

Facts do tend to get in the way of the faulty logic and false *theory* used by todays evolutionists. Like the fact that Darwin believed in a Creator, capitol "C". If you would have read the origin of species, you would know this. Even he would disagree with your brand of evolution.

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator......... There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." (Darwin Origin of species)

Even thought both Hitler and Stalin were heavily motivated by the theory of evolution...

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

...this is not the argument made to discredit evolution. If this is what you really believe, with all due respect, you are unqualified to comment in this matter.

Actually, the Bible says that the world is round. Science caught up with the Bible about when, oh, the middle ages (wink).

BTW,the theory of evolution can stand or fall on it's own. Your not passing over this inconvenient simple truth would be the intellectually honesty thing to do. Agreed?

Now, since it is fact that we are dealing with, lets start with this.

The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. Nor is it "scientific" in any true sense of the word. Science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. The origin of life can be neither observed nor reproduces in any laboratory. By definition, then, true science can give us no knowledge whatsoever about about where we came from or how we got here. Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. And dogmatic belief in any naturalistic theory is no more "scientific" than any other kind of religious faith." (Macarthur)

What say you?

One must make a distinction between macro evolution.

Microevolution- this is when organisms adapt to the changing conditions of the environment. It improves existing genes. It does not create new genes. An example that illustrates this is the classic peppered moth argument. Basically, when the trees are white, there are more white moths, conversely when the trees were turned black by pollution at the turn of the century, more black moths survived simply from being harder to see, not changing into a different moth. The moths are still moths, not a new creature.

Macroevolution-the changes within species that results in a new and separate species. An example of this would be a fish evolving into a bird. This has never been proven or observed in nature.

Micro is witnessed in nature every day. Nobody denies it. Macro has no proof, and has relied on muddying the waters between the two, and a propaganda campaign to hide the truth from the general public.

There has never been observed even a single example of a mutation that has actually improved the genetic code by adding new meaningful information. But because examples such as the wingless beetles and the peppered moths show physical changes in living creatures, they are still repeatedly used by evolutionists to promote the idea that primitive bacteria have changed so much in the distant past that today they have become people.

Read more about this from the links below.

What say you?

Debunking Evolution: problems, errors, and lies exposed, in plain language for non-scientists
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32

Problems for the Theory of Evolution
http://www.christiancourier.com/arti...y_of_evolution

The Scientific Case Against Evolution
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html

Why Evolution Is Wrong --Problems For Evolution
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/fiftyreasons.htm

Science against Evolution
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/

http://www.geocities.com/reasonstobe...000/index.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/crea...u-fossils.html

Absolutely no evidence of proof evolution has been proven to be impossible.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/mutations.html

How did the theory of evolution last so long without any proof? Here's one example of how they keep the truth from you.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081801680.html

BTW, Ben Stein's new movie "expelled" will show more on this.

That should be enough for now.

Dave

great post! you forgot to add in the reason Darwin thought evolution made more sense than creationism which was "God wouldnt have done it like that". im not completely sure but i think thats why he started thinking about evolution as an alternative.

Dave · #32 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Do we really know the origin of what we call natural laws? In Darwins days basically everyone still believed in a creator.

What does this have to do with..."It is precisely the other way around, empty emotional propaganda and false claims appear to be the only weapons the other side has to counter the logic and reason of Darwin's theory."

It seems you have highjacked Darwins name to promote a theory which was not even his, using the man's name with "empty emotional propaganda and false claims". That was my point.

Quote:

Excerpt please.

Isaiah 40:22

http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/n...s/0606lead.asp

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1348.htm

Quote:

The word "science" originated from the Latin word for knowledge "scientia", basically spoken science is everything that produces knowledge and understanding and therefore the theory of evolution is a science in the true sense of the word because it leads to knowledge and understanding. Many areas of physics, psychology, history, philosophy, and many other areas of science in many cases are no more provable than the theory of evolution because they often deal with things beyond our current reach. It's for example impossible to reproduce or prove the existence of mental illnesses in any scientific way and it is equally impossible to prove or disprove the existence of black holes and many other theories modern physics deals with.

We use the word "propaganda" when the theories of science overlook the hard facts of science that contradict those theories, or better, in fact, prove them wrong.

Quote:

Human races and diseases? Light skin and hair for example, traits based on mutations, increse the attractiveness for the opposite sex and thus create better chances of reproduction. And many diseases evolve constantly to adapt to medication and the attacks by the immune system. Are those not example of improved genetic code by adding new information through a process of mutation?

No. Human races are still human races (same species). Macro evolution has never been proven.

Quote:

I'm pretty sure that given some thousand years of isolation the current human races would probably have developed into different species no longer able to produce healthy offspring by crossbreeding.

I'm pretty sure the Browns will win the Super Bowl this year. Science?

Quote:

I read some of your links and I'm not convinced. A lot of pseudo science and to many Jewish sounding names involved to take it seriously. The world really does not need more Jewish a priori junk science. Darwinism may not be fully probable yet but at least it is a theory based on philosophy conform to the laws of reason and logic

After all we talked about, you continue to both attack and defend the same position. We have, though, established that you don't like or trust Jews.

Quote:

creationism on the other hand is based on dogmas and biblical nonsense. Exchanging reason for dogmas is leading backwards. The theory of the flying pasta monster, no less unreasonable than creationism, is at least funny.

Do you honestly believe that there is a big daddy in heaven and whenever he gets bored he creates some new species to see how they fit into the world he created? That when he became bored of the dinosaurs he removed them and tried something new?

As I said before, the theory of evolution can stand or fall on it's own. To ignore this simple inconvenient truth would not be the intellectually honest thing to do. I know that's important to you.

"Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered" (Darwin, Op. cit., p. 124).

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archive...1/TM021275.htm

Thanks for your reply. Especially to the points made in the links that I provided.

Dave

TheBasicsAbout · #33 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 01:04 PM

Think About This ....

Quote:

the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life, and fowl that may fly above the earth

Seriously - where does THAT statement come from?

I want to know what scientifically or Biblically educated person knows this simple question!

Does that imply that evolution in this editors eyes would be probable?

beachbum · #34 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBasicsAbout

Think About This ....

Seriously - where does THAT statement come from?

I want to know what scientifically or Biblically educated person knows this simple question!

Does that imply that evolution in this editors eyes would be probable?

no.. the idea of evolution wasnt a part of their knowledge.

TheBasicsAbout · #35 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachbum

no.. the idea of evolution wasnt a part of their knowledge.

who's knowledge?

do you know where that line came from?

beachbum · #36 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBasicsAbout

who's knowledge?

do you know where that line came from?

the editors.

TheBasicsAbout · #37 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachbum

the editors.

did you know that is a line out of the first book of the Bible?

I want to know why there is such a fuss over evolution

especially since neither side can prove nor disprove evolution.

There is NO EVIDENCE conclusively upholding either side

People are getting seriously hostile behind this - yet no total proof has ever be presented ...

There it is ...

The BEST PROOF of evolution is a handful of words from the Bible ...

Science has failed to produce the missing link - so their argument is a rather moot point!

Questerr · #38 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

Facts do tend to get in the way of the faulty logic and false *theory* used by todays evolutionists. Like the fact that Darwin believed in a Creator, capitol "C". If you would have read the origin of species, you would know this. Even he would disagree with your brand of evolution.

Meaningless. Science doesn't base itself on what a single person says (unlike Christianity). It is based on repeated, falsifiable experimentations that have the support of the evidence and the consensus of science. Besides, science and the Theory of Evolution have had 150 years to evolve in Darwin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

Even thought both Hitler and Stalin were heavily motivated by the theory of evolution...

The very page you quote after this disproves this statement! If Stalin and Hitler where so motivated by evolution, then why do you think its teaching was banned in both Nazi Germany and the USSR?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

Actually, the Bible says that the world is round. Science caught up with the Bible about when, oh, the middle ages (wink).

No, the exact quote is the Circle of the Earth. In Hebrew, it uses the word for "Circle", even though Hebrew has a word for Sphere or Ball. Why would God say Circle if he really meant Sphere? The Bible supports the early mesopotamian cosmology that the Earth is flat and covered by some kind of tent like "Firmament" and that the star and sun hang from it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

What say you?

I say "Link?". If this is quote from Darwin, I'd like to remind you that science has had 150 years to advance since he wrote Origin of the Species. People didn't even know about the structure of the atom or radioactivity in his time. Our ability to observe things has greatly expanded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

[i]One must make a distinction between macro evolution.

No one must not. the Theory of Evolution does NOT contain two different types or levels of evolution. Evolution is evolution is evolution. The Mirco/Macro divide was invented by fundamentalists not scientists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

Micro is witnessed in nature every day. Nobody denies it. Macro has no proof, and has relied on muddying the waters between the two, and a propaganda campaign to hide the truth from the general public.

So, let me ask you a question: What is the magical barrier stopping minor "micro" changes from leading up to larger "marco" changes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

There has never been observed even a single example of a mutation that has actually improved the genetic code by adding new meaningful information. But because examples such as the wingless beetles and the peppered moths show physical changes in living creatures, they are still repeatedly used by evolutionists to promote the idea that primitive bacteria have changed so much in the distant past that today they have become people.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB100
Covers all the claims you made here and debunks them. Note its the same site you cited earlier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

What say you?

I say you should probably read more on Talkorigins rather than quoting PRATT websites.

Dave · #39 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 04:40 PM

Questerr

The first quote that you replied to in your post avoids the substance of the points that I made in reply to the other poster. In fact, it would be better for you to go back and read-consider the points that he made which I was replying to. That way you won't be arguing against your own imagination. As for the rest of your post, in reply to you, I will simply refer you back to post #28 in this thread and my last post where you will find your answers if you would read it more carefully and thoughtfully.

If you are incapable of honest dialog, then we are both waisting our time.

Dave

beachbum · #40 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBasicsAbout

did you know that is a line out of the first book of the Bible?

I want to know why there is such a fuss over evolution

especially since neither side can prove nor disprove evolution.

There is NO EVIDENCE conclusively upholding either side

People are getting seriously hostile behind this - yet no total proof has ever be presented ...

There it is ...

The BEST PROOF of evolution is a handful of words from the Bible ...

Science has failed to produce the missing link - so their argument is a rather moot point!

its being taught as proof, if you dont believe in it youre looked upon as if youre an unintelligent religious radical, the science comunity is embracing it while theres no proof yet they shun intelligent design like its an impossibility, schools show only one point of view and children are taught that intelligent design is false. is that not enough to anger someone?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Creationism Vs Evolution	viper910	Opinion POLLS	259	06-18-2008 06:37 AM
Do you believe in Evolution?	I-LOVE-USA	Political Opinions & Beliefs	127	04-10-2008 01:32 PM
Evolution	Ender108	Political Opinions & Beliefs	10	01-11-2008 12:01 PM
Evolution	Revolutionary	Opinion POLLS	65	12-28-2007 08:35 AM
The evolution of religion	raytri	Religion	4	03-09-2007 09:10 AM