Evolution Is Not A Theory..........................

[Toro]

Just to point something out:

Most of the opposition to the Theory of Evolution does not come from the scientific community. Most of the opposition to Evolution comes from the religious community.

The religious community is, generally, not interested in the scientific method. They are not interested in finding The Truth through science. They are interested in discrediting a theory which challenges their belief system and description of the universe, and thus want to offer another theory by default.

FTR I believe in God, and believe Jesus Christ was the son of God. But in trying to reconcile the existence of God with our understanding of the origins of the universe, if God does exist as we understand the universe, God most likely is not the Christian God described in the Bible.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Fire away...for every one you declare I can put three to the contrary

Is that a hobby, falsifying the Bible?

 

[Gadgeteer]

Depends on how you define your boundary. If the boundary includes the Sun, then the system is "closed", and the energy is finite (the Sun will run outta gas).

Yes, but in that case the system conforms to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and represents overall increase of entropy with time.

If the boundary includes the whole Universe, the whole thing is running down; and expansion exceeds the maximum rate necessary for "The Big Crunch".

Evolution by definition is "advancement by random mutation selected by nature".

The selection is what makes the process non-random overall.

"Natural Selection" does not explain a myriad of features that can really only be explained by "thought". And so many of these features do not exhibit a benefit in nature until occurrence in a larger system. IOW, multiple beneficial mutations must occur simultaneously --- "hopeful monster" is the only possible mechanism for evolution, and everyone considers that absurd. The improbabilities in single benefits multiply with additional mutations.

4.5 billions years still isn't long enough to even START evolution.

Incorrect. You are grossly exaggerating the numbers of mutations required, and ignoring once more the effect of natural selection which makes the entire process non-random.

The vast majority of mutations are detrimental. Life is complex.

No. Punctuated equilibrium has nothing to do with the ratio of good to harmful mutations. It is a recognition that the fossil record shows periods in which evolution proceeded faster than at other times.

No, it isn't; it is an attempt to justify sudden appearances of complex forms. The entire structure is connected by "missing links".

No, it represents what I said. The monkey represents mutation, putting random input into the genetic code, and the genie represents natural selection, taking those random inputs out when they don't advance the chance of survival and procreation.

Again, how many mistakes must the monkey make per year, for nature to select 3 billion sequences (times 46 chromosomes)?

That a genie is literally an intelligent being is neither here nor there -- an analogy is not a literal description. (For that matter, a monkey is also an intelligent organism. Nobody has suggested, however, that mutation is the product of intelligence, not even creationists.) Note that the genie is NOT "picking up the blocks and arranging them in the correct order." It is simply removing any letters typed by the monkey that are wrong.

And the monkey is still making single events; many biological systems only function as a system.

"Hopeful monster".

God is not a necessary hypothesis to account for natural selection.

One who has a degree in physics and/or engineering recognizes the complexity of a computer, or fancy watch, or any other designed system.

....any other designed system...

 

[Gadgeteer]

I'm not sure that those who have never been given the opportunity of salvation will go to Hell, but I think we do know that they won't go to heaven...which is why Christians witness and seek converts...we want as many as possible to attain heaven.

After the plate is passed.

It is true that churches cannot function without the "offering collection". It is also true that the majority of those who attend churches, are not what they claim to be.

I was recently cut off in traffic by a guy who couldn't wait to be first in line for a RED LIGHT. I tapped my horn, because I hadn't intended to stop; the timing was that the light would change as I reached the intersection.

He stuck his hand out the window and gave me the finger.

Right there on his bumper was a CHRISTIAN FISH sticker: "I'm a Christian!"

No, you're not.

He was a lousy witness. Sadly, some people see these hypocrites and say,
"If THAT'S what a Christian is like, then just shove it!"

 

[Si modo]

..........................It's a science:

A million life forms have a skelton, mouth at the top or front, a rectum at the bottom or end, a brain, lungs, a heart, a digestive system, genitals within centimeters of the rectum...they are born or hatched, grow to fruition, reproduce and slowly die. Humans are just one species. If one doesn't eat and shit every few days they die.

Only some kind of ignorant human with the IQ of an idiot or someone who has been brainwashed from birth could fail to see that.

Evolution is absolutely a theory.

So is relativity.

So is atomic theory.

So is molecular theory.

So is Bronsted-Lowry acid base theory.

So is perturbation theory.





Bzzzzt. Wrong. Evolution is a theory as are many other ideas and it has yet to be falsified as a functioning theory.

 

[Gadgeteer]

How come in Chapter 1 Genesis God made the animals and fish before man and in Chapter 2 he made Adam before the animals?

Chapter 2 is a "repetitive narrative"; a twice-told-tale. There are lots of 'em.

And what about the story where Adam AND Eve were forbidden to eat the apple yet Genesis ONLY forbids Adam from eating the apple.
God got off to a bad start creating.

No one knows if it was an apple. I haven't read that for a long time; but both of them were forbidden.

What REALLY happened in the Garden of Eden, was Adam talked to God:
"God?"
"Yes, my son?"
"Why did you make Eve so breathtakingly beautiful?"
"I wanted you to like her."
"Oh, I do! Thank you! But, God?"
"Yes?"
"Couldn't you have made her ...a little ...smarter?"
God said, "Well, I wanted HER to like YOU..."

 

[Gadgeteer]

Just to point something out:

Most of the opposition to the Theory of Evolution does not come from the scientific community. Most of the opposition to Evolution comes from the religious community.

Define "scientific community"! There is a large number of scientists who reject Evolution; but they're smart enough to keep their mouths shut, else their careers end!

Please see the movie, "Expelled, no intelligence allowed". Evolutionists have taken over most universities and quote-unquote scientific institutes. The bias is incredible.

The religious community is, generally, not interested in the scientific method.

Nonsense! You are impugning the intelligence of anyone who recognizes the probability of a Creator.

Conversely, most all of the "religious community" consider evolutionists to be so devoted to perversions and self-gratification that they ignore, falsify, and lie about the facts. I made a post on some of the historical falsifications; a few h still being printed in modern textbooks.

They are not interested in finding The Truth through science. They are interested in discrediting a theory which challenges their belief system and description of the universe,

Pot? Kettle? Black???

and thus want to offer another theory by default.

So we don't have brains, huh? Is there a food we could eat to increase our brainpower???

FTR I believe in God, and believe Jesus Christ was the son of God. But in trying to reconcile the existence of God with our understanding of the origins of the universe, if God does exist as we understand the universe, God most likely is not the Christian God described in the Bible.

Let me throw something hard-line at you --- there is enough credibility in the record of Jesus, to accept it as accurate.

Jesus made some absolute statements about the Universe, and how we relate to it. Jesus:

1. Was right.
2. Was wrong, KNEW He was wrong, and was a flagrant liar and hypocrite.
3. Was wrong, did NOT know He was wrong, and was a raving mad lunatic.

In #2 and #3, they then pulled off the greatest con of all times, convincing THOUSANDS that He came back to life.

The "Lord/Liar/Lunatic" I think was first asserted by C.S.Lewis. The only defense is to claim "the Bible is full of mistakes and mistranslations, it is NOT an accurate record". Legally, in a court of law, it is.

 

[Toro]

Define "scientific community"! There is a large number of scientists who reject Evolution; but they're smart enough to keep their mouths shut, else their careers end!

Please see the movie, "Expelled, no intelligence allowed". Evolutionists have taken over most universities and quote-unquote scientific institutes. The bias is incredible.

I'm sure there are a "large" number of scientists who do not believe in Evolution. But the vast majority of scientists do not believe in the Christian explanation of the origins of the earth as described in Genesis.

The religious community is, generally, not interested in the scientific method.

Nonsense! You are impugning the intelligence of anyone who recognizes the probability of a Creator.

Conversely, most all of the "religious community" consider evolutionists to be so devoted to perversions and self-gratification that they ignore, falsify, and lie about the facts. I made a post on some of the historical falsifications; a few h still being printed in modern textbooks. Pot? Kettle? Black???

There is no evidence of a Creator in science.

That does not mean a Creator does not exist. However, when using the scientific methodology, there is no evidence of a Creator as described by the Christian bible. Any belief of God according to the Christian bible is based on a belief system, one not supported by tangible evidence.

Again, that does not mean a Creator does not exist. It may be that our methodologies are insufficient to prove the existence of God. However, as of this time, there is no scientific evidence of God. The existence of a Christian (or Muslim or Jewish) God is predicated on a belief system.

and thus want to offer another theory by default.

So we don't have brains, huh? Is there a food we could eat to increase our brainpower???

No. There are a lot of very intelligent people who are religious.

But the opposition to Evolution primarily comes from religious people, not from the scientific community. Religious people usually do not offer other scientific theories of The Origins of Man. Instead, they default to some Creator, one that cannot be proven.

It is important to understand that the theory of the origins of mankind are rooted in Evolution. In the scientific method, it is the best theory we have. However, science advances by either testing and proving a hypothesis or testing and disproving a hypothesis while offering an alternative hypothesis based on evidence. Thus far, there is no evidence of a Creator. It is merely a story. Thus, it is rejected by science.

 

[Si modo]

Just to point something out:

Most of the opposition to the Theory of Evolution does not come from the scientific community. Most of the opposition to Evolution comes from the religious community.

Define "scientific community"! There is a large number of scientists who reject Evolution; but they're smart enough to keep their mouths shut, else their careers end!

Please see the movie, "Expelled, no intelligence allowed". Evolutionists have taken over most universities and quote-unquote scientific institutes. The bias is incredible.

The religious community is, generally, not interested in the scientific method.

Nonsense! You are impugning the intelligence of anyone who recognizes the probability of a Creator.

Conversely, most all of the "religious community" consider evolutionists to be so devoted to perversions and self-gratification that they ignore, falsify, and lie about the facts. I made a post on some of the historical falsifications; a few h still being printed in modern textbooks. Pot? Kettle? Black???

and thus want to offer another theory by default.

So we don't have brains, huh? Is there a food we could eat to increase our brainpower???

FTR I believe in God, and believe Jesus Christ was the son of God. But in trying to reconcile the existence of God with our understanding of the origins of the universe, if God does exist as we understand the universe, God most likely is not the Christian God described in the Bible.

Let me throw something hard-line at you --- there is enough credibility in the record of Jesus, to accept it as accurate.

Jesus made some absolute statements about the Universe, and how we relate to it. Jesus:

1. Was right.
2. Was wrong, KNEW He was wrong, and was a flagrant liar and hypocrite.
3. Was wrong, did NOT know He was wrong, and was a raving mad lunatic.

In #2 and #3, they then pulled off the greatest con of all times, convincing THOUSANDS that He came back to life.

The "Lord/Liar/Lunatic" I think was first asserted by C.S.Lewis. The only defense is to claim "the Bible is full of mistakes and mistranslations, it is NOT an accurate record". Legally, in a court of law, it is.

I just want to comment on this in your post: "You are impugning the intelligence of anyone who recognizes the probability of a Creator."

Consider this: Let's assume ALL scientists recognize the probability of a Creator.

OK. Everything has been answered. There is no need for any more science.

Done.

THAT is why there will never be any ID (the God-did-it-all theory) in science. It can never be wrong.

 

[Woyzeck]

Evolution by definition is "advancement by random mutation selected by nature". The vast majority of mutations are detrimental, because of the complexity and machine-like nature of life. The sheer number of mutations required to have created all of life, could not have happened in the mere blink of only 4.5 billion years; and conversely we'd be seeing gobs of mutative events today.

Let's assume that 1 in a thousand mutations is beneficial. And recall that Human DNA (nucleic) has three billion sequences of A, C, T, and G, for each of the 46 chromosomes.

How many mutations per year would have to be happening in nature, to achieve DNA as we now know it?

(Doesn't take a math wiz to grasp the absurdity...)

I'm not sure how this proves evolution absurd. You cite an extremely low 'beneficial' mutation rate (I'm not even sure where you've pulling such a low rate, I've never seen one as low as that), throw out some numbers about human DNA, and then ask how many mutations would have to in nature to "achieve DNA as we know it." Could you elaborate more on this? Because to even get the 'absurdity' you want, you seem to actually be leaving out anything that would actually be useful to your point. I'm also really not sure why 4.5 billion years isn't sufficient enough for evolution, or why if it did happen in that time we should be seeing "gobs of mutative events today."

 

[FactFinder]

Evolution Is Not A Theory

Uhhhh...yeah it is. It sure ain't settled science. Like much is.

 

[Photonic]

Fire away...for every one you declare I can put three to the contrary

Is that a hobby, falsifying the Bible?

Hardly needs to be a hobby, most of it is pretty blaring.

 

[KissMy]

**Breaking News** New York Times - Saturday 19 November 2011: Einstein's laws questioned as speed of light is broken again

Einstein's laws questioned as speed of light is broken again in a second experiment

Settled Science My Ass!!!!

So Much For All You Wacko's Claiming Science Is Settled & The Debate Is Over!

 

[Photonic]

**Breaking News** New York Times - Saturday 19 November 2011: Einstein's laws questioned as speed of light is broken again

Einstein's laws questioned as speed of light is broken again in a second experiment

Settled Science My Ass!!!!

So Much For All You Wacko's Claiming Science Is Settled & The Debate Is Over!

You know, the funny thing is science can be wrong, and it doesn't matter.


The problem you see is because if your bible was wrong, your world would be shattered. Science doesn't work like that.

We learned more from this.

If it turns out to be true this could be an incredible scientific breakthrough.

 

[KissMy]

**Breaking News** New York Times - Saturday 19 November 2011: Einstein's laws questioned as speed of light is broken again

Einstein's laws questioned as speed of light is broken again in a second experiment

Settled Science My Ass!!!!

So Much For All You Wacko's Claiming Science Is Settled & The Debate Is Over!

You know, the funny thing is science can be wrong, and it doesn't matter.


The problem you see is because if your bible was wrong, your world would be shattered. Science doesn't work like that.

We learned more from this.

If it turns out to be true this could be an incredible scientific breakthrough.

I never said I could prove the bible was correct. My world is not shattered. What keeps on getting shattered is the faith in "Scientific Facts" & "Settled Science" such as the OP starting this thread. Can he explain Ardipithecus & what it means to the "settled science" of the so called "Evolutionary Tree"?

 

[Photonic]

**Breaking News** New York Times - Saturday 19 November 2011: Einstein's laws questioned as speed of light is broken again

Einstein's laws questioned as speed of light is broken again in a second experiment

Settled Science My Ass!!!!

So Much For All You Wacko's Claiming Science Is Settled & The Debate Is Over!

You know, the funny thing is science can be wrong, and it doesn't matter.


The problem you see is because if your bible was wrong, your world would be shattered. Science doesn't work like that.

We learned more from this.

If it turns out to be true this could be an incredible scientific breakthrough.

I never said I could prove the bible was correct. My world is not shattered. What keeps on getting shattered is the faith in "Scientific Facts" & "Settled Science" such as the OP starting this thread. Can he explain Ardipithecus & what it means to the "settled science" of the so called "Evolutionary Tree"?

He may be wrong in his stance on "settled science." <--There is no such thing.

Complete, possibly not, wrong? There is simply far too much to say it is wrong. It is far more likely that we haven't finished explaining it.

This is coming from a scientist, just for you though.

If settled science existed, it would cease to be science.

 

[Cammmpbell]

I'm not sure that those who have never been given the opportunity of salvation will go to Hell, but I think we do know that they won't go to heaven...which is why Christians witness and seek converts...we want as many as possible to attain heaven.

After the plate is passed.

A freakin' men

 

[koshergrl]

**Breaking News** New York Times - Saturday 19 November 2011: Einstein's laws questioned as speed of light is broken again

Einstein's laws questioned as speed of light is broken again in a second experiment

Settled Science My Ass!!!!

So Much For All You Wacko's Claiming Science Is Settled & The Debate Is Over!

You know, the funny thing is science can be wrong, and it doesn't matter.


The problem you see is because if your bible was wrong, your world would be shattered. Science doesn't work like that.

We learned more from this.

If it turns out to be true this could be an incredible scientific breakthrough.

I've never seen the bible be proven wrong.

I have, however, seen scientific theories come and go.

 

[rightwinger]

**Breaking News** New York Times - Saturday 19 November 2011: Einstein's laws questioned as speed of light is broken again

Einstein's laws questioned as speed of light is broken again in a second experiment

Settled Science My Ass!!!!

So Much For All You Wacko's Claiming Science Is Settled & The Debate Is Over!

You know, the funny thing is science can be wrong, and it doesn't matter.


The problem you see is because if your bible was wrong, your world would be shattered. Science doesn't work like that.

We learned more from this.

If it turns out to be true this could be an incredible scientific breakthrough.

I've never seen the bible be proven wrong.

I have, however, seen scientific theories come and go.

How did that arc stuff work out for you?

 

[Cammmpbell]

**Breaking News** New York Times - Saturday 19 November 2011: Einstein's laws questioned as speed of light is broken again

Einstein's laws questioned as speed of light is broken again in a second experiment

Settled Science My Ass!!!!

So Much For All You Wacko's Claiming Science Is Settled & The Debate Is Over!

You know, the funny thing is science can be wrong, and it doesn't matter.


The problem you see is because if your bible was wrong, your world would be shattered. Science doesn't work like that.

We learned more from this.

If it turns out to be true this could be an incredible scientific breakthrough.

I've never seen the bible be proven wrong.
I have, however, seen scientific theories come and go.

So you are one of those who actually accepts this stuff

Mankind and dinosaurs on a boat till nearly four mile deep waters receded/evaporated?

Big fish puking up live men?

Folks enduring a 1200 degree furnace?

Seas opening long enough for the white hats to pass then closing on the bad guys?

Stone walls falling on command?

Evil people being turned into salt?

The sun blacked out by a god?

5,000 hungry pilgrims plus women and children being fed with two fish and five loaves then twelve baskets of leftovers collected?

Virgin Birth?

Healing by touching?

Walking on water?

Water into wine?

Raising from the dead?

Hanging a man on a tree and bleeding him to death only to see him rise again?