|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Why I Don’t Believe the Theory of Evolution 2
« Back to club forum
| |||||||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Why I Don’t Believe the Theory of Evolution 2I initially posted this in the Response Thread, but it really should be posted here. Darwin had quite an outsized ego from what I’ve read about him. When the fossil record didn’t support his theory, Darwin didn’t fault his theory; he faulted the fossil record. <<“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.>> www.literature.org This is an interesting article on how the fossil record still doesn’t support Darwin’s theory. And if you take away the fossil record as evidence of molecule-to-man evolution, not much evidence is left. <<While there are arguably various fields of study which provide at least some presumptive evidence for the viability of The Theory of Evolution, the fossil record is not one of them. Contrary to academia and evolutionary popularizers in general, there are many problems regarding the evidence revealed by the fossil record. Problems include: (1) The sudden emergence of complex organisms; (2) Missing intermediate forms; (3) Mass extinctions; (4) Stasis in animals; (5) Out of order fossils; (6) Compressed time lines; (7) The Burgess Shale discovery of more complex organisms at the Cambrian; and (8) Precambrian only offers microscopic organisms and no precursors. These bodies of evidence reveal that the fossil record not only is weak but can be used as evidence against evolution.>> www.evolutionisamyth.com |
||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 01-Mar-23, 20:05 |
<For someone who’s compared me to Satan and a mass-murdering cult leader, you sure are sensitive lol> I just want to point out, especially to readers who have not experienced Vic's numerous earlier aliases in GK (with names like Isaiah, Tower, Fiat Flux, etc), that in his previous shapes he behaved in ways that deserved those epithets. In other words, that naming (which I do regret today) was the result of quite serious provocations. I could list some of them here, but I prefer not to. The point is that accusing me of this now is totally inappropriate because the context is left untold. |
||||||||||||||
|
I’m sure you’ll bring up my comment about your clubbing of seals but that was years earlier. And this thread’s about the theory of evolution so let’s stick to the thread topic. |
||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 01-Mar-23, 20:56 |
I tried to do just that in the previous thread, but you brought up <<For someone who’s compared me to Satan and a mass-murdering cult leader, you sure are sensitive lol> which happened years ago, and long before your final 'joke' with Fiat Flux. I am confident that many members here remember although you clearly don't. <so let’s stick to the thread topic> Just say that a dozen times to yourself so that this continuing thread doesn't fall back on irrelevant matters ike its forerunner. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 01-Mar-23, 21:29 |
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 01-Mar-23, 21:59 |
How many times have our exchanges ended this way? Well, always when you note that you are wrong or mistaken but your pride prevents you from admitting it, and an apology is out of the question. Now, please do respond to this and get the last 'say', because I will not respond here any longer, not least because of the title of the thread. |
||||||||||||||
|
Thank you |
||||||||||||||
|
An evolutionist on here once said “solid” observational and experimental evidence existed for Darwinian evolution. Of course, he never cited any, and evolutionists in this video didn’t do any better. The claim that millions of species of plants and animals, and humans, can be traced back to a single-celled organism floating in the ocean is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Unfortunately (for evolutionists) not only is there not extraordinary evidence, there’s not even ordinary evidence. Could you answer Ray Comfort’s questions any better than these professors and students? youtu.be (Video is 38:39) |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
It is interesting… |
||||||||||||||
|
The Earth only has surface liquid water because it exists in the "Goldilocks Zone"... not too far and not too close to the Sun. (temperature is just right) But, oceans might exist and life may have occurred at the thermal vents in those oceans elsewhere. We will be spending a lot of money in order to find out. It will be very interesting. |
||||||||||||||
|
Surely you’re not asserting this speculation of how life began on earth is a fact… Scientists tried to demonstrate it but failed (didn’t even come close.) <<We will be spending a lot of money in order to find out. It will be very interesting.>> I agree it will be interesting. |
||||||||||||||
|
Evolutionists claim that the earth created it's own water from it's chemical composition once the 'molten ball' cooled. The rest being delivered to earth through millions of 1 cubic mile sized ice asteroids impacting the earth. In Earth’s early days they say was a magma ocean, a sphere of molten rock and nothing else for a couple billion years... suddenly we have hundreds of millions of cubic miles of water in just a hundred million years or so. Grasping at manufactured straws desperately trying to explain away a major embarrassment to their 'theory'. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic If it happened here, it could happen somewhere else. I certainly have no idea about the arguments pro or con on the subject. I just wanted to pass on that info. |
||||||||||||||
|
Thumper For the Earth to make water, that would require bonding hydrogen AND oxygen. (H2O) But another theory is that there was no oxygen early on. It took life to create the oxygen. Life apparently did not happen until after we had water because (theoretically) it originated in shallow, warm ponds. |
||||||||||||||
|
Softie |
||||||||||||||
|
@softaire I thought you were saying life originated in thermal vents, which I realize is a hypothesis but a hypothesis that is, imo, several country miles away from being more than a fantasy. In fact, my understanding is the odds of life arising by chance, giving the complexity of cells, is astronomical. And while I realize evolutionists say abiogenesis is not part of Darwin’s theory, abiogenesis is still one of many 800-pound gorillas in the room when it comes to his theory, imho. |
||||||||||||||
|
Faith vs Mental Gymnastics Evolution Meets the Church For most of its history, the church has believed that God created everything that exists ex nihilo (out of nothing). The church affirmed this doctrine based primarily on the opening verse of Scripture: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). God, who eternally exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, purposed to and did create a universe distinct from Himself. Other passages add to the foundation of this belief. For example, the psalmist attributes creation to the word and breath of God: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host. . . . For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm" (Psalm 33:6, 9). According to a traditional understanding of this passage, God the Father spoke the universe into existence through the Word (God the Son) and by his Breath (God the Holy Spirit). Creation was a mighty act of the triune God. Furthermore, Scripture itself denies that God used preexisting materials when he created: "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible" (Hebrews 11:3). For example, God did not take two preexisting hydrogen (H) atoms and one oxygen (O) atom and fuse them into water (H2O). Rather, he created both hydrogen and oxygen atoms as well as the water. Divine creation was out of nothing! In accordance with the rest of the creation account in Genesis 1, the church also has believed that God created every kind of thing that exists: light, water, air, soil, vegetation, the sun and the moon and the stars, sea creatures, winged birds, earth creatures, and, ultimately, human beings in the divine image. Importantly, the church never countenanced the idea that all nonliving and living things came into existence and developed according to processes like natural selection, speciation, and random mutations. Indeed, the early church soundly denounced the "atomic" theory that everything that exists started out by the accidental collision of small elements (“atoms”) and then fortuitously developed by chance. Rather than embrace randomness, the church praised the Creator, as Origen did: "We Christians, however, who are devoted to the worship of the only God, who created these things, feel grateful for them to him who made them" (Against Celsus, 4.75). It wasn't until the nineteenth century that the church, faced with many attacks against the authority and truthfulness of Scripture, began to waver on its doctrine of creation. With the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species (1859), a new and all-encompassing worldview arose that denied creation ex nihilo, divine design and development of the many kinds of nonliving and living things, and the special creation of human beings in the divine image. This evolutionary worldview now dominates most sectors of our contemporary Western society. TRAGICALLY, IT PRESENTS ONE OF THE FIERCEST CHALLENGES TO BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY TODAY (Emphasis mine) www.desiringgod.org |
||||||||||||||
|
A guy on here claimed that “solid” observational and experimental evidence exists for Darwinian evolution. Of course he never produced any because none exists. No one has seen (observed) one species evolving into another species (and I’m using a definition of species that doesn’t permit 5,000 species of fruit flies and 17,500 species of butterflies.) So no “solid” observational evidence (or any observational evidence at all) exists for Darwinian evolution. As far as experimental evidence, that doesn’t exist either, despite decades-long attempts at creating speciation among bacteria and fruit flies, which have very short generational spans. Oh and the fossil record… Leaving aside that the unknown number of alleged transitional fossils are disputed and require a great deal of fantasizing and artistic imagination, evolutionists tell us 99+ percent of all species that ever existed are extinct. And that 85+ percent of all animal species currently on earth have yet to be discovered. But somehow, none of those hundreds of millions of extinct species or tens of millions of currently existing but undiscovered species shared features of existing and known species today! |
||||||||||||||
|
I’d just say this to those responses: 1) The mechanism for the theory of evolution is essentially the same today as it was when Darwin proposed it. Darwin proposed random variation and natural selection. Today, the mechanism is considered random mutation and natural selection. 2) While the theory of evolution is not incompatible with being a Christian (based on John 3:16, Romans 10:9, Acts 16:30-31, John 11:25, John 6:40, John 8:24, etc.,) it is incompatible with the Bible - and not just the opening chapters of Genesis. Much “downstream” from the opening chapters of Genesis is incompatible with the theory of evolution. 3) IMO, it’s simply false to say observational evidence and experimental evidence exists for Darwin’s theory. No one has observed Darwin’s claim that new species arise through random variation and natural selection, nor has an experiment demonstrated that. And no, I don’t agree that species can be defined in such a way that 5,000 species of fruit flies exist and 17,500 species of butterflies exist. I’m using a more common-sense definition which is more akin to “family” (or “kind” in Biblical terminology.) |
||||||||||||||
|
Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution: Hype or Good Science? (Science Uprising Bonus Interview) From the video description: <<In this bonus interview released as part of the Science Uprising series, geologist Casey Luskin discusses fact and fiction when it comes to fossils that are said to support the evolution of humans from ape-like ancestors. What is media hype, and what is good science? What about specific fossils like Ardi, Lucy, and Homo naledi?>> youtu.be Video is 12:36 |
||||||||||||||
|
Human Evolution: The Monkey Bias (Science Uprising, EP8) From the video description: <<Are we “modified monkeys”? Or does nature suggest we are something truly unique? How solid is the fossil evidence for human evolution? Explore this explosive topic in Episode 8 of the Science Uprising series with featured guests biologist Jonathan Wells and geologist Casey Luskin. Wells holds PhDs from Yale and the University of California, Berkeley and is author of the books Icons of Evolution, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, The Myth of Junk DNA, and Zombie Science. Luskin holds a PhD in geology from the University of Johannesburg and is co-author of the book Science and Human Origins and co-editor of The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith. Catch up with season 1 of Science Uprising, plus bonus video interviews with experts from each episode at scienceuprising.com; youtu.be Video is 7:48 |
||||||||||||||
|
Great quote from the video: “I was taught over and over that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.” - Lynn Margulis Biologist and Member of the National Academy of Sciences Title of video: Michael Behe Exposes How Mutations Fail To Invent (Science Uprising EP6) From the video description: <<Are chance mutations really “the key to our evolution” like they claim in the X-Men films? Or are there strict limits to what mutations can accomplish, limits that point to the need for an overarching designer and the failure of Darwinian evolution to create fundamentally new things? Be sure to visit scienceuprising.com to find more videos and explore related articles and books. In this episode of Science Uprising, we'll take a look at the real evidence for the supposed powerhouse of evolution. The featured expert is biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, author of the books Darwin's Black Box, The Edge of Evolution, and Darwin Devolves. Well-known scientists have been preaching a materialistic worldview rather than presenting the public with all the evidence. We are here to change that. The objective scientific evidence does not prove our universe is blind and purposeless. It does not show we are simply meat machines. It does not prove that evolutionary mechanisms can completely account for the diversity of life on earth. This is what THEY want you to think. Think for yourself and make an informed decision. Are you ready? The uprising has begun. In a lecture, Phillip Johnson cited physicist Richard Feynman on a scientist’s obligation to be honest — not only with himself or in other scientific contexts but, not one bit less, when speaking to the lay public. “You should not fool the laymen when you’re talking as a scientist.” That such a thing would need to be said is itself revealing. What’s more, Feynman insisted, you should “bend over backwards to show how you may be wrong.” The comments are taken from a Commencement address by Feynman in 1974 at Caltech. Johnson, a founding father of modern intelligent design, was so moved by this that he said “I wish it could be set to music.” As far as I know it hasn’t been set to music. But the idea is a major theme in the new Science Uprising series. Scientists fool themselves and they fool non-scientists, not about dry technical details with no special significance, but about matters that bear on huge, life-altering world picture issues. One example is the role of mutations in evolution. That is the topic of Episode 6 of Science Uprising, “Mutations: Failure to Invent.” It’s out now; see it here: The Alternative Perspective The idea that random genetic mutations lead to wondrous, creative innovations is so influential that it forms the premise of a movie franchise, X-Men, that has grossed $6 billion worldwide over the past couple of decades. That’s a lot of “fooling the laymen”! The alternative perspective would be open to the possibility of creative evolution requiring intelligence guidance. The producers of the X-Men movies aren’t scientists. However, the science media have done their best to mislead about the work of real scientists, including National Academy of Sciences member Richard Lenski. We’re all victims of that hype, including Hollywood moviemakers. Dismantling the hype about Lenski occupies biochemist Michael Behe for a significant part of his recent book, Darwin Devolves. Super-Challenges Not Super-Powers As Professor Behe explains in Science Uprising, the Long-Term Evolution Experiment conducted by Lenski has demonstrated not the creative power of unguided evolution but the occasional benefits of devolution, of breaking or disabling genes. That’s the opposite lesson from the one drawn by media such as the New York Times in reporting on Lenski’s efforts. “Think about it,” says the masked narrator of Science Uprising, against the backdrop of poignant images of people suffering from genetic illnesses, “significant mutations don’t create superpowers. They create super-challenges. Sometimes those mutations are even life-threatening.”>> youtu.be Video is 7:51 |
||||||||||||||
|
youtu.be Video is 9:33 Video title: Fossils: Mysterious Origins (Science Uprising, EP9) Video description: <<It's often claimed that fossils provide convincing evidence for Darwinian evolution in the history of life. But is that really the case? In this newest episode of Science Uprising, join paleontologist Günter Bechly, geologist Casey Luskin, and evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg as they explore the state of the debate over the fossil record and the evidence for Darwinian evolution. Plus, philosopher of science Stephen Meyer, author of the New York Times bestseller Darwin's Doubt weighs in as well. Catch up with other episodes of Science Uprising, plus bonus video interviews with experts from each episode at scienceuprising.com. About the scientists and experts featured in this episode: Günter Bechly is a German paleo-entomologist who specializes in the fossil history and systematics of insects (esp. dragonflies), the most diverse group of animals. He served as curator for amber and fossil insects in the department of paleontology at the State Museum of Natural History (SMNS) in Stuttgart, Germany. He is also a Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. Dr. Bechly earned his Ph.D. in geosciences from Eberhard-Karls-University in Tübingen, Germany. Casey Luskin holds a PhD in Geology from the University of Johannesburg where he specialized in paleomagnetism and the early plate tectonic history of South Africa. His B.S. and M.S. degrees in Earth Sciences are from the University of California, San Diego, where he studied evolution extensively at the graduate and undergraduate levels, and conducted geological research at Scripps Institution for Oceanography. Luskin is Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. Richard Sternberg is an evolutionary biologist with interests in the relation between genes and morphological homologies, and the nature of genomic “information.” He holds two Ph.D.'s: one in Biology (Molecular Evolution) from Florida International University and another in Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) from Binghamton University. From 2001-2007, he served as a staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, and from 2001-2007 was a Research Associate at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. Dr. Sternberg is presently a research scientist at Discovery Institute. Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle. He has authored the New York Times best seller Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2013), Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2009), which was named a Book of the Year by the Times (of London) Literary Supplement in 2009, and now, Return of the God Hypothesis (HarperOne, 2021).>> |
||||||||||||||
|
Huh? The theory of evolution has nothing to do with salvation or whether one is a Christian. I personally didn’t believe the theory of evolution long before I read the Bible and became a Christian. You think everyone who doesn’t believe the theory of evolution is a believer? People don’t believe the theory of evolution because of the lack of evidence for it - and all the evidence against it. <<It takes an enormous chunk of courage for someone from that background to look at facts dispassionately.>> Hate to break it to you, but it’s evolutionists who are detached from facts and who instead are engaged in storytelling, fabrication and misrepresentation - all to support their materialistic and atheistic worldview. The theory of evolution really is the biggest scientific con of the 19th- and 20th-centuries, and more and more people are realizing it. |
||||||||||||||
|
Evolutionists will say the theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. But they still believe - all evidence to the contrary - that incredibly complex cells developed by blind chance. So ridiculous. youtu.be Video is 7:14 |
||||||||||||||
|
My belief is that there is some entity(s) outside this universe that have created, designed, and implemented the physical laws of nature such that nature can create life (somehow). Then they caused the Big Bang which set this universe into motion. |
||||||||||||||
|
One thing holding me back from that idea (that humans are the result of an evolutionary process) is the enormous gulf between the most advanced animal and humans. I mean humans have built skyscrapers, walked on the moon, invented airplanes, composed symphonies, created beautiful paintings, and on and on. What animal is anywhere near that? |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
