Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[PostmodernProph]

It didn't happen, it's never going to happen.

I think we can agree with that.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Over the course of 500 million years with favorable conditions...? Not that far-fetched.

and why is it that it hasn't happened again in say the last 479 million years?.....different conditions, different life....obviously the conditions for life are better now than they ever have been......

Wtf are you talking about? Evolution has been going on continuously.

perhaps if you read the posts you would enjoy the debate more......we aren't talking about evolution here, we are talking about the origin of life.......do you believe that is going on continuously and if you do, provide an example.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

You shouldn't say"it makes no sense" simply because it makes no sense to YOU. It's easy to poke holes in the theory of evolution, but much much harder to prove creation. You cannot prove creation by disproving evolution.

It makes no sense because the odds of molecules randomly forming amino acids and proteins are almost infinity - 1.

The math means evolution is impossible

You should provide a source when you make a claim like that.

is the fact that its never ever happened in any observable experiment count?.....

 

[pinqy]

actually they do....its called abiogenesis......

Nope. That's a straw man version.

???....you have another version?.....

There are many different theories. En.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
None of them involve the spontaneous creation of life.

 

[guno]

The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!

I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.

I answered, "The reason scientific theories change is because we don't know everything, isn't it? We don't have all the evidence."
"Yes, that's right," he said.
I replied, "But, we will never know everything."
"That's true," he answered.
I then stated, "We will always continue to find new evidence."
"Quite correct," he said. I replied, "That means we can't be sure about anything."
"Right," he said.
"That means we can't be sure about evolution."
"Oh, no! Evolution is a fact," he blurted out. He was caught by his own logic. He was demonstrating how his view was determined by his bias.

Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But the beliefs that these models are built on are not.

The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). Evolution is the religion to which they are committed. Christians need to wake up to this. Evolution is a religion; it is not a science!
Evolution is Religion

Now science is a religion? LOL the day is coming soon where all you bible thumpers will be held in mental institutions and made so you cannot further breed and spawn , then America an rightly focus on science and education and raise its IQ Level.

 

[Zmrzlina]

YES!!! MICRO BUT NEVER MACRO!!! NO DOG WILL BECOME A CAT NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME. no pond scum will become a human,not even one human cell, not even a strand of human DNA. DNA=A DESIGNED PLAN=INFORMATION=HUGE AMOUNTS OF INFORMATION AND EVERY BIT MUT BE RIGHT THE FIRST TIME TO HAVE A LIVING CELL.=PLAN,DESIGN,COMPLEXITY DO NOT EVOLVE FROM POND SCUM. OH!! even pond scum is a design,plan,huge complexity!!! TRY TO THINK!

You do realize that macro evolution is made up of micro evolutions? So conceding that you believe in the latter means that you are implicitly conceding the former.

no......not a requirement......I can believe 37k types of beetles evolved without believing the first beetle was a worm......

And another poster reveals their ignorance of evolutionary biology.

 

[THE LIGHT]

The Theory of Evolution makes absolutely no sense. Random molecules bumping into each other created life = LOL

Once you understand how complex a single strand of DNA really is, you have to let go of the current theory of Evolution

You shouldn't say"it makes no sense" simply because it makes no sense to YOU. It's easy to poke holes in the theory of evolution, but much much harder to prove creation. You cannot prove creation by disproving evolution.

Actually, quite the opposite. Creation, intelligence, and adaptation are all observable. Macro evolution has never been proven and never been observed.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Evolution is a scientifically established fact. No scientist is questioning that it is real. The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening. You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.

Actually, there are many "scientists" that question the validity of evolution. They are just dismissed by those who believe in evolution because they do not believe the same way.

I agree about the gravity part. Many people deny God as real because they say they cannot see him. That doesn't mean the he isn't real nor does it mean that his spiritual laws do not function as he says the do. Heaven and hell are real whether or not you believe in them. Therefore, might I persuade you to choose everlasting life by accepting Jesus.

 

[pinqy]

YES!!! MICRO BUT NEVER MACRO!!! NO DOG WILL BECOME A CAT NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME. no pond scum will become a human,not even one human cell, not even a strand of human DNA. DNA=A DESIGNED PLAN=INFORMATION=HUGE AMOUNTS OF INFORMATION AND EVERY BIT MUT BE RIGHT THE FIRST TIME TO HAVE A LIVING CELL.=PLAN,DESIGN,COMPLEXITY DO NOT EVOLVE FROM POND SCUM. OH!! even pond scum is a design,plan,huge complexity!!! TRY TO THINK!

You do realize that macro evolution is made up of micro evolutions? So conceding that you believe in the latter means that you are implicitly conceding the former.

no......not a requirement......I can believe 37k types of beetles evolved without believing the first beetle was a worm......

No one else believes that either.

 

[pinqy]

The Theory of Evolution makes absolutely no sense. Random molecules bumping into each other created life = LOL

Once you understand how complex a single strand of DNA really is, you have to let go of the current theory of Evolution

You shouldn't say"it makes no sense" simply because it makes no sense to YOU. It's easy to poke holes in the theory of evolution, but much much harder to prove creation. You cannot prove creation by disproving evolution.

Actually, quite the opposite. Creation, intelligence, and adaptation are all observable. Macro evolution has never been proven and never been observed.

Spontaneous creation of fully formed animals and plants has been observed? Non-physical supernatural intelligence has been observed?
I'd love to see links to those.

 

[PratchettFan]

The Theory of Evolution makes absolutely no sense. Random molecules bumping into each other created life = LOL

Once you understand how complex a single strand of DNA really is, you have to let go of the current theory of Evolution

You shouldn't say"it makes no sense" simply because it makes no sense to YOU. It's easy to poke holes in the theory of evolution, but much much harder to prove creation. You cannot prove creation by disproving evolution.

It makes no sense because the odds of molecules randomly forming amino acids and proteins are almost infinity - 1.

The math means evolution is impossible

An interesting take, except it begins with an unsupported assumption and ignores reality entirely. But let us take your reasoning:

There are 118 known elements. That is infinity (the potential number of elements) - 118, which is pretty much the same thing as infinity - 1. So the math means that elements are impossible. All we have to do is ignore the fact they exist.

 

[PratchettFan]

Evolution is a scientifically established fact. No scientist is questioning that it is real. The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening. You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.

Actually, there are many "scientists" that question the validity of evolution. They are just dismissed by those who believe in evolution because they do not believe the same way.

I agree about the gravity part. Many people deny God as real because they say they cannot see him. That doesn't mean the he isn't real nor does it mean that his spiritual laws do not function as he says the do. Heaven and hell are real whether or not you believe in them. Therefore, might I persuade you to choose everlasting life by accepting Jesus.

I am glad you put "scientists" in quotes there.

You can certainly try to persuade me. Can I persuade you that Jesus was Bodhisattva, and thus you should concentrate upon understanding his teaching rather than merely accepting him in exchange for what is only illusion?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Nope. That's a straw man version.

???....you have another version?.....

There are many different theories. En.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
None of them involve the spontaneous creation of life.

????.....if you use the commonly understood meanings of the words "spontaneous" and "life" there is no other way to describe it.......you are arguing that life just happened under circumstances which cannot be explained in scientific terms......they ALL involve the spontaneous creation of life.....

 

[alang1216]

It makes no sense because the odds of molecules randomly forming amino acids and proteins are almost infinity - 1.

The math means evolution is impossible

Except it has already been done:

The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler organic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment investigating abiogenesis, it was conducted in 1953[3] by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago and later the University of California, San Diego and published the following year.[4][5][6]
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.[8]

 

[PostmodernProph]

You do realize that macro evolution is made up of micro evolutions? So conceding that you believe in the latter means that you are implicitly conceding the former.

no......not a requirement......I can believe 37k types of beetles evolved without believing the first beetle was a worm......

And another poster reveals their ignorance of evolutionary biology.

sorry....I don't shoot back at drive-bys.......as now, the odds of them actually hitting something are too low......if you would like to stop and give an explanation of why you believe I am ignorant of evolutionary biology I would gladly spend the time to expose you as a fool, however......

 

[PostmodernProph]

You do realize that macro evolution is made up of micro evolutions? So conceding that you believe in the latter means that you are implicitly conceding the former.

no......not a requirement......I can believe 37k types of beetles evolved without believing the first beetle was a worm......

No one else believes that either.

/sigh......why do you folks always deflect instead of debate?.......worm, sludge, single celled organism.....wtf difference does it make.....you believe something which violates the scientific method...deal with it......

 

[PostmodernProph]

It makes no sense because the odds of molecules randomly forming amino acids and proteins are almost infinity - 1.

The math means evolution is impossible

Except it has already been done:

The Miller–Urey experiment

bad news, kid....the Miller-Urey experiment failed.....nothing crawled out of the sludge.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It makes no sense because the odds of molecules randomly forming amino acids and proteins are almost infinity - 1.

The math means evolution is impossible

Except it has already been done:

The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler organic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment investigating abiogenesis, it was conducted in 1953[3] by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago and later the University of California, San Diego and published the following year.[4][5][6]
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.[8]

Do you not know how many amino acids make up a single protein?

You think its by chance that amino acids arrange themselves into a perfectly functioning protein?

And how many proteins make up a single cell

The odds are calculable but so large as to might as well be infinite

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You shouldn't say"it makes no sense" simply because it makes no sense to YOU. It's easy to poke holes in the theory of evolution, but much much harder to prove creation. You cannot prove creation by disproving evolution.

It makes no sense because the odds of molecules randomly forming amino acids and proteins are almost infinity - 1.

The math means evolution is impossible

An interesting take, except it begins with an unsupported assumption and ignores reality entirely. But let us take your reasoning:

There are 118 known elements. That is infinity (the potential number of elements) - 118, which is pretty much the same thing as infinity - 1. So the math means that elements are impossible. All we have to do is ignore the fact they exist.

try this instead:

average number of amino acids that much be perfectly arranged to make a single protein

average number of proteins that must be arranged perfectly to make a functioning cell

like I said, it's a number, but it a number with far more zeros than there are subatomic particles in the known universe

 

[alang1216]

It makes no sense because the odds of molecules randomly forming amino acids and proteins are almost infinity - 1.

The math means evolution is impossible

Except it has already been done:

The Miller–Urey experiment

bad news, kid....the Miller-Urey experiment failed.....nothing crawled out of the sludge.....

You're too impatient old man. I wonder what would have crawled out if he ran the experiment for another few billion years?